Category: Thursday

  • Nigeria’s scapegoats

    The journalistic cult of poverty has a supreme theme; the morally-deficient journalist. This theme is pitifully projected by journalism’s highly celebrated ambassadors in the corridors of power and the public space. Rather than evolve as heroic shiners of light and provenders of truth, speaking to keep all savagery in straits, in the true tradition of modern, high-cultivated men of letters, they choose to manifest  like an accident to society.

    Picture a severely skewed news story bearing the newspaper Daily Editor’s byline and the curious tag: “With political intelligence unit reports.” Picture how ridiculous it must be to witness the metamorphosis of presumed intellect into dimwittedness. At first glance, his touted investigation rankles an ominous note, at closer read, his heartfelt truths wander in logic and polemic like an untamed gypsy, burnishing a world in which he ought to serve as a bastion of love with hate, urging it into bitterness and everlasting darkness. Severely compromised by greed and lack of pride, he served former President Goodluck Jonathan’s propaganda train like a junkyard dog with neither tact nor freewill. His brief was to impugn the name of Muhammadu Buhari now President Muhammadu Buhari. Today, that desperate editor is shamelessly courting camp Buhari, in frantic bid to reclaim his slavish role to the ruling class.

    As you read many more newspaper editors and their reporters are manifesting at the ruling class’ bidding and your bidding, into the stamen that lets down the azalea, the comforters that bring grief, the emissaries of needless orchestrated in the interest of the ruling class.

    Today, tyranny attains ultimate refinement in the news columns; this brings to mind that memorable jest by Norman Mailer that “Once a newspaper touches a story, the facts are lost forever, even to the protagonists.” Journalists are still the butt of the most demeaning jokes and premeditated put-downs in the social arena. Nobody thinks much of a journalist; in the eyes of big business and the ruling class, the journalist whatever his designation or job title, is the manipulable pawn and necessary evil that has to be courted and tolerated. The descent and humiliation of the journalist still persists in the hands of his employer; salaries still range from N15, 000 per month at entry level to N70, 000 per month at managerial level in most media houses. Just three media houses endeavour to pay fairly and this has led to the metamorphosis of the journalist into an aberration of the watchdog he ought to be to society.

    This resonates badly for the Nigerian mob; the nation’s critical mob to be precise. Mob culture requires that he who would adorn the cloak of defender of the masses’ rights should be upright and flawless in character, work and personal ethics. Such admirable traits are rarely attributable to the Nigerian journalist manager and the press in general.

    The Nigerian mob, like every other rabble, seeks fulfillment of tyrant fantasies; such fantasies often vary between the destruction of an unpopular government, despot or worn-out civilization. Reality however, affirms the impotence of the Nigerian mob. The latter is continually tamed and kept on a leash by a ruling class that capitalizes on its obvious handicaps: its impulsiveness, insensibility to reason and judgment and overt sentimentality.

    Despites it handicaps, the Nigerian mob conveniently picks on a scapegoat for its infinite timidity and cluelessness: the press. The journalist is expected to serve as the conscience and moral compass of the society, challenging the government and checking the excesses of the ruling class, uncompromisingly and selflessly.

    As utopian fantasies go, these are noble expectations of the journalist but the Nigerian mob ignores the cultural shift of the society from conventional morality to unbridled hedonism. It assumes, hypocritically, that the press will continually give it honest and developmental news even as every segment of the society strive to unmoor the journalist from his role as a crucial appendage of the nation’s critical mob. The public, comprising big business, the government, and civil societies among other mob segments, vilify any journalist or news medium that seeks to educate and engage rather than entertain and perpetuate their biased definitions of reality.

    Contemporary Nigeria embraces the emotional pageant that has turned news into paid publicity and mindless entertainment and the journalist in response kowtows to lusts and vanities of modern society. Beneath the mindless glamour and cultural decline however, an insidious reality festers in the death of hope and incandescence of tragedy. Prevalent socioeconomic tragedies necessitate the emergence and elevation among the citizenry of the bungling and sadistic, and the beginning of a differentiation cum tyranny of social grades.

    At the centre of the turmoil is the journalist whose fate is so critically bound with the country’s but he obviously does not know that hence the cluelessness, treachery and brazen recklessness that characterizes his work. Consequently, the Nigerian journalist manifests as an accident to society. He perpetually loses his grasp of the issues at stake; fundamentally hollow and benumbed to valor, he shamelessly resigns to the powers that be, blaming the tyranny of the ruling class and the proverbial ‘system’ for his inability to fulfill his professional and moral obligations to the society.

    Rather than pose a challenge to the system that domesticates and enslaves him, he chooses the easiest way out and plays junkyard dog to tyrant cabals and the predatory bunch constituting the nation’s ruling class. He assumes the role of a poseur and pretends to fight for the interest of the public. This sad charade is continually perpetuated across esteemed leader-writers’ polemics in foremost newspapers’ columns.

    The contemporary journalist trades in all manners of truths, deploying sophistry and shades of impressive fallacies in the interest of whatever social divide fulfills his lust for relevance and economic survival. I am a journalist and I shamefully acknowledge that my clan and I hardly epitomize hope to our world. Not yet. Rarely do we signify hope, self-sacrifice or a promise of future honesty and gallantry in the interest of all. We can blame the society and advance all forms of isms and ostentatious arguments to justify our descent the steep slope of amorality and socioeconomic expediency; it wouldn’t excuse our treachery to our calling and the Nigerian citizenry.

    If Nigeria chooses to exist as a land of savages, it’s our responsibility to nudge her back on to the path of humanity and progress – for only in such clime can we positively evolve and prosper. Our failure as journalists indicates severance from a progressive and moral culture while we institutionalize bigotry, lies, depravity, base sentimentality and pitiful fantasies.

    The traditional, conscientious journalist is going extinct today along with true, dependable news culture because Nigeria obsesses and migrates to the pseudo-reality of the internet and reality shows. It is no doubt ironical that the masses would turn around to blame the press for not fulfilling its roles to the society.

    It’s about time we stopped narrowing the debates and spotlight to the shenanigans and petty differences of the ruling class and instead aspire to serve as a true voice to the voiceless. There is no magical antidote to our decline and death as a crucial part of the nation’s critical mob.

    Real progress will manifest in the country when we start demanding that the ruling class march in virtual lockstep with promises they make. Whatever the tone and dialect of intellectualization that characterizes our news culture, posterity will judge us by how truthfully we fulfill our roles as conscience and watchdog of the society.

  • Where did rain start beating APC?

    BEFORE it came to power, the All Progressives Congress (APC) always put the right foot forward. It knew what to do, how to do it and when to do it. It also knew what to say, how to say it and when to say it. It was a thorn in the flesh of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), which was in power for 16 years, between May 29, 1999 and May 29, 2015. APC was a dynamite in opposition; ask PDP, the party will tell you what it went through in APC’s hand.

    But being in opposition is a different ball game from being in power. In the few days it has so far spent in power, APC will no doubt be in a position to talk authoritatively on that now. The APC entered a different world when it took over the reins of government on May 29. Occupying the Executive Office for the party was not a problem as we already knew the President and Vice President before they were sworn in last month. The litmus test for the party was choosing the leadership of the National Assembly.

    Should the positions of Senate President, Deputy Senate President, House Speaker and Deputy Speaker be zoned or not? The party resolved not to zone the offices, thereby making it an all-comer event.

    For instance, its choices for Senate President and House Speaker were Ahmed Lawan and Femi Gbajabiamila. They were to pair with George Akume and Mohammed Monguno. Though President Muhammadu Buhari said he had no preferred candidates, those that should know say he covertly endorsed Lawan and Gbajabiamila for the plum jobs. It then became the party leadership’s lot to ensure the emergence of Lawan and Gbajabiamila as Senate President and House Speaker in the face of stiff challenge by Bukola Saraki and Yakubu Dogara.

    Lawan and Gbajabiamila emerged the party’s candidates at  a straw poll at the expense of Saraki and Dogara, who did not hide their displeasure over the issue. The party could not get them to change their minds before the June 9 inauguration of the National Assembly.

    What the party did not want to happen,  eventually happened – Saraki and Dogara became Senate President and House Speaker. To emerge Senate President, Saraki allied with the opposition PDP. That unholy alliance produced PDP’s Ike Ekweremadu as his deputy.

    As bad as things were with PDP while in power, it never sold its right to hold the majority position in the National Assembly for the 16 years that it ruled. So, why is APC throwing away its birthright? What can APC do to reclaim its rightful position without overheating the polity?

    Last week, Odigie-Oyegun said the party was still considering the matter, but added that since Saraki was duly elected by his colleagues that is ‘’end of story”. Has the story really ended? No, the story may just be beginning because the issue is deeper than what  those of us who are  not insiders think. Senator Rabiu Kwankwaso, who with Saraki and others defected to APC from PDP last year, is against the alliance, which gave the former Kwara State governor the Senate Presidency.

    Blaming their party for the development, Kwankwaso said he saw danger in the Saraki-PDP romance for Buhari becuause it showed that members are not loyal to the party.

    On Tuesday, the Gen Abdulsalami Abubakar-led Peace Committee condemned Saraki’s emergence as Senate President. It wondered why ‘’a routine process turned into an ugly, selfish dogfight. This is unacceptable to Nigerians. It neither dignifies the Senate nor does it honour what Nigerians voted for’’, the eminent body said. What spoilt the Saraki deal is the accommodation of PDP in the Senate leadership. A member of the minority party as a presiding officer!

    Saraki may have had his way in emerging Senate President, but the chink in his armour is the Deputy Senate President’s seat, which is being occupied by the minority PDP.  As Kwankwaso noted in Abuja on Monday : ‘’It (Deputy Senate President) does not belong to them…they took it shamelessly and I am sure our party will look at it and take what belongs to our party back’’. Yes, APC should now concentrate on how to get back the Deputy Senate President’s seat. It is not going to be easy but it must be ready to fight for it. It cannot afford to keep quiet and watch PDP deprive it of its right, no matter the pact it may have with Saraki.

    Is it electoral victory that made APC lose its bite? It is unlike the party to go to sleep during a fight. This is not the APC Nigerians have come to know. The APC, we know, does not suffer fools gladly. It attacks its opponents even before they are ready for a fight. But what happened in this instance? Was it the hang over of the euphoria of success? This is why PDP is crowing today over what it calls APC’s ‘’naivety, inexperience and unpreparedness for governance’’. APC was prepared for governance; what it apparently was not prepared for was being outwitted by its own members.

  • Oodua Foundation speaks for the Yoruba

    The strange happenings in the new National Assembly in Abuja, especially the weird manoeuvrings accompanying the election of the President of Senate, have left many Yoruba people wondering. Yoruba people voted massively for the Buhari promise of change. Do these crooked deeds in the Nigerian Senate signify the end of the change? Yesterday, Oodua Foundation spoke out on these fears. They are my people and they have asked me to feature their statement in my column today. Here it goes.

    We Oodua Foundation, a Yoruba think-tank organization with members in countries across the globe, and with headquarters in the United States, have been closely observing and analyzing the developments in the Nigerian Federal Government since the swearing in of President Muhammadu Buhari. Our conclusions compel us now to speak up clearly for the Yoruba nation of the Nigerian Southwest.

    We do not speak for any political party; we do not belong to, support or oppose any. We respect the voices of all Yoruba groups and individuals. Our organization exists only to promote and protect the interests of the Yoruba nation.

    We the Yoruba people of the Southwest, by political tradition and culture, cherish truth, liberty, equity, justice and fair-play as fundamental basis of governance. These are the age-long cardinal principles that have defined our Yoruba nation’s political tradition for centuries, and we Yoruba people remain committed to them as pillars of order, peace and stability in society.

    As one of the largest nationalities in Nigeria, we have dutifully demonstrated our commitment to these principles, and to Nigeria’s success and prosperity, in all our contributions to the making of Nigeria. In that light, we have consistently and persistently proposed since the late 1940s that, because Nigeria is a country of many different nationalities, the only way to structure Nigeria for stability and success is to show careful respect to Nigeria’s various nationalities large and small and, therefore, to structure Nigeria as a proper federation in which each of the constituent units shall enjoy the right level of autonomy to manage its own unique concerns, competently promote its own development, and strongly make its own kind of contribution to the progress and prosperity of Nigeria.

    Since the culture of elective representative government was begun in Nigeria, we the people of the South-west and our leaders have sought partnership with the leaderships of other ethnic nationalities based on mutual respect, justice and the greatest good of Nigeria and Nigerians. In that light, many eminent political leaders of ours patriotically served in the leadership of political parties led by leaders of other nationalities. We also demonstrated this commitment to Nigeria’s success with open-mindedness when, in the final preparations for Nigerian independence in 1959-60, our foremost political leader, Chief Obafemi Awolowo, offered the position of Prime Minster in the Nigerian Federal Government to another leader from another nationality, while he himself was willing to accept for himself a lower position of Minister of Economic Development in the Federal Government. It was also in the same spirit of preserving and advancing Nigeria that our leaders worked with other nationalities to create the All Progressives Grand Alliance (UPGA) in the midst of the great crisis rocking Nigeria during the first years after independence.

    In terms of socio-economic development, we Yoruba of the Nigerian South-west have always loyally demonstrated great ambition for Nigeria’s progress, prosperity and power in the world. We have always regarded our well known ambition for socio-economic progress as our kind of service to Nigeria, our kind of contribution to the progress and greatness of Nigeria. We never desire or attempt to exclude other Nigerian nationals from our successes. Since we instituted Free Primary Education in our region, countless thousands of children from other parts of Nigeria have come to benefit from our free schools. Our tradition of hospitality towards non- Yoruba nationals, our culture of religious tolerance and freedom, and the economic and business opportunities liberally provided by our many urban centres, all have made our South-west the destination for millions of Nigerians migrating from their own homelands.

    However, for all our nation’s contributions to Nigeria, what we the people of the South-west have relentlessly been rewarded with is hostility, resulting in betrayal, as well as efforts to pull us down. Soon after independence, the powers of the Federal Government were maliciously employed to disrupt our South-west, generate conflict in our region, and eventually imprison our topmost political leader on totally trumped-up charges of treasonable felony. Even our other leader, Chief Ladoke Akintola, who took the step of forming an alliance with the group controlling the Federal Government, never enjoyed the full loyalty or respectful confidence of his apparent allies; and eventually, he ended up being violently killed.

    Still, in spite of this sordid record of Yoruba experiences in Nigeria, when civilian elective politics was revived in Nigeria again by 1979, Chief Awolowo embarked on a massive effort again for Nigeria’s progress and prosperity. He worked with forward-looking Nigerians from all parts of Nigeria, and created a political party with an enormously ambitious agenda for Nigeria’s greatness. And when, as presidential candidate, he needed to choose a running mate, he persuaded his party to let him choose a promising professional from among the Igbo nationality which had been the most viciously hurt nationality in Nigeria – his reasoning being that such a step was necessary for healing a major part of the wound which the Igbo nation and Nigeria had suffered. But what did Chief Awolowo and all who worked with him get for their great ambition for Nigeria and their titanic efforts? By employing a patently crooked formula, the Federal Government of the day robbed his party of victory.

    About 15 years later, in 1990-2, Chief M.K.O Abiola invested his resources mightily in yet another effort to bring Nigeria together and heal the scars of yesteryears, scars that had been wantonly inflicted on the citizens and peoples of Nigeria through years of military repression. His reward for his great efforts and sacrifices was that his body was brought back home from Abuja.

    Still, years later, when it seemed as if a citizen from the minority Ijaw nation, Dr. Goodluck Jonathan, was on the verge of being robbed of his constitutionally legitimate right of succeeding to his late President, the people of the South-west and their leaders supported him powerfully through street demonstrations and global campaigns. Unfortunately, throughout President Jonathan’s six-year presidency, the people of the South-west were treated with hate and spite.

    We in Oodua Foundation, and informed people all over the world, have watched in the past three years as a section of the Yoruba political leadership has worked and sacrificed to knit together the current alliance with the core North, again out of the Yoruba ambition for a stable, strong and  just Nigerian society. Those efforts have now produced a solid possibility of a Nigerian Federal Government dedicated to the welfare of all Nigerians, dependably set against the cultures of corruption, ethnic chauvinism, and process manipulations, a Federal Government capable of leading Nigerians out of poverty into a new era of prosperity and national dignity and greatness.

    We Oodua Foundation and the entire Yoruba nation therefore hopefully expect positive outcomes this time around – even in spite of some disturbing happenings in the new government in the past two weeks. And we urge both sides in this alliance to stay fully loyal to their dedication to change, especially to obviously needed change in the structure of the Nigerian federation.

  • Custodians of ‘Change’

    Last week, June 9 like June 12, 1993 and May 29, 1999, was another date Nigerians who fought for change were shortchanged in Abuja by those who see everything including fuel subsidy scam, abuse of import waivers, importation of fake drugs and substandard goods that kill our people and our industries, sharing of our common patrimony among privileged groups and outright stealing of government funds which by their definition is not corruption, just as business.

    It was a day morality took flight at the sight of political expediency. Driven by his ambition and sense of self-worth within APC, Bukola Saraki developed an indispensability complex. He was contemptuous of his party chairman, vice president and president. While 51 of his colleagues were  honouring the President’s invitation, Saraki who had  already struck a deal with the opposition was adopted Senate President by eight APC and 49 PDP senators who for their pains, got the senate deputy president position which by convention is an exclusive preserve of the ruling party. Elated, PDP has since described grabbing power immorally as ‘victory for democracy’.  For Senator Ita Giwa, the sordid act of electing Ike Ekweremadu by their block vote of 32 (total votes was 54), the South-south and South-east that never voted for “change’ will ensure Buhari runs ‘an inclusive government’. Well, reaping where you did not sow is not uncommon among Nigeria’s fraudsters and miracle seekers. But Itse Sagay, a refined legal mind and a respected intellectual did not see such bizarre act by shameless politicians as a ‘victory for democracy but as a victory for impunity, a victory for fraud and a victory for political desperation and indiscipline’.

    But first who is Bukola Saraki.  He is a scion of the illustrious Oloye Olusola Saraki. Alhaji AbdulGaniyu Folorunsho Abdulrazak, a former Nigerian Ambassador to Cote d’Ivoire, who claims to know his antecedents, insists he was sired by Alhaji Muttahiru Saraki an Egba man from Abeokuta. What is not in dispute however is that the elder  Saraki was a very resourceful trader who rode on the back of the Fulani and the Yoruba  to build his political and financial empire starting with securing the juicy retainership of Nigerian Ports Authority and the military establishment under the then Ministry of Defence, barely after qualifying as a medical doctor, as a defeated candidate for House of Representatives in 1964; a senator and senate leader 1984, the owner of defunct Societe General Bank and other businesses which thrived in Lagos.

    Bukola, merely continued what his father did in Kwara for half a century. He effortlessly imposed his own candidate as governor of Kwara. Like his father, his strength is in cutting deals by playing the Fulani, Yoruba ethnic and religious cards. For him, all is fair in business, politics as in war. And that was exactly what played out in Abuja last week which threw APC and Nigerians that had laboured tireless for change into a national mourning.

    But to be fair to Bukola, he has never pretended to be a democrat or a progressive. It was the PDP politics of ‘dog eat dog’ which is often over sharing of the stolen resources that drove him to the embrace of APC. Acting as the whistle-blower for what finally became the fuel subsidy scandal, he had during his motion of September 13, 2011, said ‘This chamber owes it to Nigerians to unravel and explain how in one accounting year, we are expending N1.2 trillion on petroleum subsidy, which is 14 times the value of capital budget for the power sector in 2011’. He told his colleagues: ‘The motion is not targeted at an individual but about the level of wastage, corruption, and lack of transparency’. Infuriated PDP stalwarts and their siblings later implicated in the theft of about N1.7 trillion by the fuel subsidy probe, immediately resolved to prove Bukola is not holier than other PDP members. They first accused him of running down his father’s bank through mismanagement of depositor’s funds even when Bukola’s father had not solicited for their help. They then linked him with unserviceable N21b bank loan from the defunct Intercontinental Bank. Then on April 26, 2012, the then Inspector General of Police, Mohammed Abubakar approached a Federal High Court in Abuja to press charges against him for conspiracy, forgery and stealing following a petition by Joy Petroleum, over the use of fronts to withdraw N6b in the company account domiciled then in Intercontinental Bank. Saraki later got some relief when the then Attorney General advised against taking any action against Saraki and his aides over the bank issue, since from the records available to his office, Bukola Saraki had not committed any offence to warrant such trial.

    As an astute politician and trader like his father, Bukola  had a formidable team of PDP dealers and wheelers representing the Nigeria ethnic and religious  spectrum for his last week epic battle. There were Fulani, Igbo, Yoruba, Tiv, Edo and Ijaw at his service. There were Muslims and Christians. Leading the pack was the former Governor of Zamfara state, Senator Ahmed Rufai Sani Yarima, of ‘political sharia’. He nominated him. There was also the former governor of Akwa Ibom State, now a senator. He will be remembered as the leader of the 16 ‘PDP governors without character’ that claimed 16 were greater than 19 in order to steal the victory of Amaechi after a Governors’ Forum election. There was also ‘water has no enemy’ Segun Mimiko of Ondo State who was also ex-President Jonathan’s point man for stomach infrastructure in the South-west. Also, there to be counted was an embarrassment called Ayo Fayose of Ekiti. The duo were in Abuja to cut their nose in order to spite their face by playing ‘Afonja’ through  anti-Tinubu sentiments to prevent the emergence of those regarded as Tinubu and by extension Yoruba candidates as National Assembly officers. It was also said that these two characters also warned their former PDP members now in APC that voting for Tinubu candidates would pose a threat to the president. Tony Anenih aka Mr. ‘Fixer’ was also on hand to advice on the straw voting is taken by PDP senators on the eve of the inauguration to ensure cohesion of the party. Of course the plan to continue business as usual in spite of verdict of Nigerians on March 28 was planned, supervised and executed right inside David Mark’s house, the man who presided over the most expensive National Assembly in the world for eight years during which virtually everything including our values collapsed under the weight of massive corruption and impunity.

    Buhari is owned by APC party oligarchy, Nigerian voters who have faith in him and of course a segment of the media often maliciously described as those on “Tinubu’s pay roll’ or ‘sell out to Fulani oligarchy’. By interpreting government actions to the voters, they de-legitimised Jonathan and PDP dealers and wheelers to whom President Buhari has now out of indiscretion of “I can work with any leader chosen by the National Assembly’ rendered ineffective the clear majority given to his party.

    Thirty-one years ago, Buhari rejected the IMF loan. We produced our own grains.  We refined our own fuel; he was at the verge of stabilizing our economy. Then out of indiscretion, he thought he could manage society by just being righteous without playing politics. That led to the institutionalization of corruption during Babangida and Abacha 13 years of rule by their ‘army of anything is possible’ and 16 years of PDP nightmare.  Buhari cannot rely on those who have no faith in him.

     

  • Buhari’s homily

    PRESIDENT Muhammadu Buhari has been busy in the past few weeks, attending to urgent business outside the country. Few days after returning from the G7 Summit in Germany, he left for the African Union Summit in South Africa. As he concluded his visit to South Africa on Tuesday, the President spoke again on his determination to turn things round back home. He vowed to kill corruption because ‘’some articulate writers have said if we do not kill corruption, corruption will kill Nigeria. This APC administration intends to kill corruption in Nigeria. We will do our best, I assure you’’. He spoke from the heart. He touched on the touchy allegation of jailing people arbitrarily when he was military Head of State between 1983 and 1985. He had shied away from speaking on the issue during his campaign. In South Africa, he dumped politics to address the matter frontally.

    ‘’As Head of State, I went straight to detention for three-and-a-half years; so those who accused me of locking them up, I too have been locked up, so what?’’ Knowing that governance is serious business, Buhari said: ‘’How I wished I became Head of State when I was a governor, just a few years as a young man. Now at 72, there is a limit to what I can do. But what brought me… I think mainly is because I love this country…’’ How I wish the President will speak more from the heart. It is by so doing that the real Buhari that we know will remain true to himself and the country.

  • Terrorism: A historical perspective – 2

    The anarchists did not intend to build states neither did they establish political parties to espouse their plans but they rather engaged in blind campaigns of terror, killing innocent people and destroying institutions. They can be said to be the first terrorists in modern times. This blind fury of undirected violence seemed to have gone to sleep for several decades after the Second World War but suddenly resurfaced in Europe, South America and in Asia in modern times.

    In Columbia, as a result of disillusionment with political liberal reforms, a guerrilla army known as FARC (Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia) founded around 1948 by Pedro Antonio Marino took on the army of Columbia and has been fighting since that time. Its modus operandi is kidnapping for ransom and shooting down military and sometimes civilian planes flying across the vast territories it controls in the Columbian jungle. It is a large terrorist organisation constituting a threat not only to Columbia but to the whole world because of its export of cocaine to raise needed funds for its activities.

    It is involved in a protracted negotiation with the legitimate government of Columbia and there seems to be no end to the protracted negotiation whiles its terrorist campaign continues. In the same vein and sharing the same ideology is the Sindero Luminoso (Shining Path) which was the original communist party of Peru founded around 1980 by Abimael Guzman Renoso. Its emphasis was the instigation of a peasant revolt and when it did not succeed, it embarked on kidnapping and other acts of terrorism in the state between 1980 and 1992.

    But earlier on in Germany, the so-called Baader Meinhof group or Red Army faction led by Andreas Baader, Gudrun Ensslin, Horst Mahler and Ulrike Meinhof  had embarked on the campaign of terror in Western Germany between 1970 and 1998 leading to tens of deaths and 296 bomb attacks and arsons. It was not until the German unification in 1994 that many of them were caught and before an end was put to their murderous terrorist campaign.

    The oldest terrorist group in Europe, although it has now ceased fire, in their fight with Great Britain was the Irish Republican Army (IRA). It evolved from the Irish volunteers of 1913 and those involved in the 1916 Easter rising against British domination and for Irish independence. In spite of the concession through the Anglo-Irish treaty of 1921 which created the Irish-free state, while Ulster that is Northern Ireland, remained part of the United Kingdom.

    Their dissatisfaction with this treaty led to their continued existence and years of terrorism against the British in Northern Ireland and on the British mainland culminating in the attempt to kill by bombing, the British Prime minister, Mrs Margaret Thatcher, while succeeding in killing Lord Mountbatten, a member of the British royal family. Happily, the Irish Republican Army is now involved in decommissioning of its weapons while the political arm of the organisation is now part of the Northern Irish administration.

    It is not only the West that is confronted by terrorism, Russia faces its own unique kind of terrorism especially in Russia’s soft under belly in the Caucasus where Chechen and other Islamic groups had been waging hit and run campaign against Russia and Russian interest since 2009. This group is led by a certain Doku Khamatovich Umarov.

    Terrorism in modern times is a worldwide phenomenon and the Japanese have had their own experience when a doomsday cult called Aum Shirinko founded by Shoko Asahara in 1984 killed hundreds of people in Tokyo subway by releasing sarin gas on them in 2006. The Chinese too have witnessed terrorist eruptions in Xinjiang province by Muslim Uyghur, a largely Muslim ethnic groups protesting against Han Chinese settlers. These have been going on with repeated occurrence since the 1980s till now. These Uyghurs appear to be mounting a secessionist movement which Beijing will hardly be expected to tolerate.

    It will become clear that most of the modern day terrorists are Muslim groups who because of the domination and occupation of their land by more powerful groups have had to resort to some form of Islamic fundamentalism as a useful strategy of resistance. Perhaps the reason why Islamic groups are disproportionately represented in global terrorism is because Islam makes no distinction between secular and spiritual authority.

    Consequently, many of the so-called Islamic movement are political groups hiding under the mask of religion.  Even a small island like Sri-Lanka has suffered serious acts of terrorism.  For years between 1976 and 2009 the Tamil Tigers of Sri-Lanka were involved in a campaign of secession and terrorism against the majority Sinhalese Government of Sri-Lanka leading to the loss of millions over the years and the retaliatory killings of Tamil civilians by the Army.

    It is to be noted that there was a religious/ ethnic dimension to the problem. The Sinhalese were largely Buddhist while the Tamils were Hindus.  The impression must not be given that terrorism is unique to the Islamic world; there are extremists also in Christendom. For example, the Lord’s Resistance Army led by Joseph Kony started fighting the Ugandan Government in 1987. This group in Ugandan and Southern Sudan was originally known as the United Holy Salvation Army or Ugandan Christian Army.

    Its war aim was the ruling of Uganda according to the Ten Commandments. It has engaged in terrorism across the Ugandan borders to South Sudan, some parts of Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) and the Central African Republic (CAR). There is an international hunt and prize on his head and he is yet to be caught. Kony is not the only Christian to be involved in terrorism. Sometimes in the 1970s and 1980s, a group of Catholic priests in South America preached what they called Liberation Theology and led their peasant followers with the Bible in the left hand and the Kalashnikov Rifle in their right hand.

    There seems to be a link between terrorism and the inequality in western industrial societies leading to frustration and determination to change things by force.

    Sometimes young people take to violence without counting the cost properly. I personally witnessed between 1968 and 1969, Europe wide students’ socialist activism against constituted authorities in Germany and France in particular. Most of the grievances of these students were against American involvement in Vietnam. They were echoing the revolt of young Americans particularly students against the Vietnamese war. Students’ rebellion in Europe first against the shortcomings of their universities and later against constituted authorities was a movement without borders.

    That was why a German student, Daniel Marc Cohn-Bendit was not only a leader of the revolt in Paris eventually leading to the fall of General Charles De Gaulle; he also led the students’ movement fighting against the government in Germany as well. They were not called terrorists but the security police regarded them as such. They were young people looking for some adventure away from their boring and prosperous lives. This was a foretaste of what was to come in the future when affluent young people in the Middle-east would take to acts of terror.

  • Reducing cost of governance in Nigeria

    Reducing cost of governance in Nigeria

    The cost of running Nigeria’s vast and bloated bureaucracy has become too high and unsustainable. It presents President Muhammadu Buhari with one of his most pressing and gravest challenges. The success of his government will be determined by his success in bringing public expenditure down and under greater control.

    In his commissioned report a few years ago, Professor Anya O. Anya warned the Federal Government that the country was spending over 70 per cent of its total revenue on public administration. Of the balance of 30 per cent, which should go to capital projects, at least 15 per cent is lost through policy slippages and widespread public corruption. Large bureaucracies tend to provide more opportunity for graft and public corruption. They constrain growth. It can, in the circumstances, be seen why vital infrastructure projects, such as roads and electricity supply cannot be executed in the country.

    Nigeria runs 37 separate governments, consisting of the federal and state governments, one of the largest in the world. At the federal level, the president is constitutionally obliged to appoint a minister from each of the 36 states, plus Abuja. In effect, he has to appoint 37 ministers. This constitutional provision should be reviewed. At the state level, the situation is pretty much the same. The governors are constitutionally obliged to appoint not fewer than 12 commissioners. But in actual fact, at both levels, the president and governors find a way of circumventing even these large constitutional limits by adding a coterie of special advisers and other numerous idle aides. In addition, the country has to run over 700 local governments with the same overstaffing as the federal and state governments. When you factor in the vast expenditure on the National Assembly, it is a prescription for economic and financial disaster at all levels of government.

    The United States, the most powerful and richest country in the world, has a comparatively slimmer and more cost effective bureaucracy than Nigeria. It has less than 20 federal ministries and secretaries of state (equivalent to our own ministers). The British cabinet is smaller than that of Nigeria. And spending on the public service in Britain is undergoing savage cuts currently to reduce the cost of running the country. I can only think of two or three countries that, because of their huge size, have larger bureaucracies than Nigeria. But despite the huge size of its bureaucracy, top heavy with an inverted pyramid structure, Nigeria really does not have an effective public administration. This accounts for its poor budget implementation. Its bureaucracy remains weak, incompetent, and ineffective. A slimmer bureaucracy is likely to be more effective in implementing the government’s economic programmes and easier to control.

    Now, virtually all Nigerian political leaders acknowledge the fact that something really drastic has to be done to reduce the size of the Nigerian bureaucracy. When he was in office, President Olusegun Obasanjo really made a serious effort to tackle the problem by reducing federal staff and the cost of running the vast federal bureaucracy. The perks of civil servants were either monetised or reduced to bring down the cost of running the country. The privatisation strategy was more vigorously pursued through the hiving off of more public enterprises to the private sector. Some success was achieved in this regard, but his two successors did very little to sustain the programme. The result has been that, instead of cutting both the number of staff and the cost of running the bureaucracy, the federal bureaucracy has continued to grow inexorably. In fact, in the last few years, all efforts to tackle this problem have been more or less abandoned by both the federal and state governments.

    Now, as is well known, the situation today is that the Federal Government has had to borrow over N400 billion recently to meet its wage obligations, as a result of the loss of some 50 per cent of the total national oil revenue. Of the 37 states, over 20 owe their workers several months of salaries because of the fall in the financial allocations to the states. For instance, Osun State owes its workers over seven months of unpaid salaries.

    While it is easy for the Federal Government to have recourse to deficit financing through the CBN to meet its wage obligations, the states do not enjoy that fiscal privilege. So, it is difficult to know how the states intend to solve their difficult financial predicament. The banks are already over exposed in their lending to the state governments and are unlikely to offer them additional loans, or issue bonds on their behalf. This places the states on the horns of a financial dilemma. A recent meeting of the Governors’ Forum described the situation as a national emergency and disaster. The only way out for the states appears to be to increase their internally generated revenue. But this is a long term solution to an immediate and urgent problem.

    It is said that a country is poor because it is poor, meaning that it lacks the capacity to grow because of its poor strategy for growth. One of the major sources of the economic drains on a poor country is the diversion of vital economic and financial resources to a bloated bureaucracy that is largely unproductive and contributes little or nothing to economic growth in the country. Economic growth is made more difficult when a country, such as Nigeria, spends 70 per cent of its entire budget on public administration, including the building of vast secretariats all over the country.

    When the British were here, they ran the entire country from the modest old secretariat on the Marina in Lagos. Later, an equally modest federal secretariat was built at Broad Street. As independence approached, a new secretariat was again built at Tafawa Balewa Square in Lagos. Later, the military developed the vast secretariat complex at Ikoyi. When the capital was transferred to Abuja, a vast and impressive secretariat complex was again developed to house the vast bureaucracy that had developed over the years. But all this expansion in office accommodation has made little or no difference to the poor quality of public administration in Nigeria.

    Many people may not remember now that when Sir Abubakar Tafawa Balewa was federal Prime Minster, he ran the entire country from his modest official residence at Onikan with only nine federal ministers, three from each of the old regions. The country was better and more effectively governed then. When I joined the diplomatic service in 1964 on graduating from the then University College, Ibadan, the entire Foreign Ministry was housed in only two floors in the General Post Office building on the Marina. Later it moved to two new complexes on the Marina. But each time it moved its offices to new and larger buildings, they proved inadequate because of the rapid expansion of its staff. Now the Foreign Ministry has a huge office building in Abuja, one of the largest Foreign Offices in the world. But it is already overcrowded because of its large and unwieldy staff.

    President Buhari’s objective of economic transformation in our country will be made a lot easier if he can find a way of reducing the huge economic and financial burden of running this country. This may be politically difficult, particularly at a time of mass unemployment. But there has to be a freeze on fresh recruitments in the federal bureaucracy. He should also consider offering civil servants financial inducements that will make them consider early retirement. This strategy will be costly in the short run, but will lead later to vast savings in the cost of running the country. It is not only the large size of the bureaucracy that accounts for the huge cost of running the country. The huge pay and financial perks of all public officials should also be reviewed downwards. Governor El-Rufai of Kaduna State has shown the way by cutting his own pay and those of his commissioners. The same measures should also be considered by the states.

  • Union Bank vs Citizen Tejumade Adeyemi (1)

    Banks destroy and scarcely create; beyond the industry and gated walls of high society. Ask Tejumade Adeyemi; the hapless trader now understands that the Nigerian bank is a pitiful pickpocket, her bank to be precise. Until her ugly experience, Adeyemi reposed high hopes in her personal bank, Union Bank. She believed in the bank’s mantra of dependability that touts it as: “Big, Strong, Reliable.”

    If only she knew that like several other banks, Union Bank is mired in arrogance, behind a wall of capitalist disdain for lower level customers like her. For all its touted efficiency, elegance and professionalism; Union Bank had its self-acclaimed glories sullied by devious plots inflicted on one of its loyal customers, Adeyemi.

    Adeyemi recently accused the bank of complicity in the alleged illegal withdrawal of the sum of N251, 447 from her account with the Oba Akran, Ikeja branch of the bank. Adeyemi is threatening to take legal action against the bank, if her money is not refunded. According to her, she received SMS alerts from the bank on May 4, 2015, notifying her of unauthorised withdrawal of the sum of N30,000 from her account through ATM.

    Worriedly, she rushed to the Iju branch of the bank to report the matter and was advised by officials of the branch to report the incident at the Oba Akran, Ikeja branch where her account was domiciled.

    On her visit to the Oba Akran branch on May 5, Adeyemi said she was shocked to discover that the illegal withdrawals actually started on May 2 and May 3 and that she was not notified by the bank to date. She explained that even after she instructed the bank to suspend further transactions on her account, she was utterly shocked to receive more text messages indicating that the remaining balance in the account had been withdrawn by unknown persons.

    She said: “On May 4, 2015, I received an alert indicating that the sum of N30,000 had been withdrawn by unknown persons from my account. I quickly went to the nearest branch of Union Bank at Iju Road, Ifako-Ijaiye, from where I was advised to visit the branch where I opened the account on Oba Akran Road, Ikeja, after I explained to the officials of the bank that my ATM card was with me and that its details were not in any way compromised by me. The next day, May 5, I visited the Oba Akran branch and I asked that further transactions be suspended on the account until further notice. When I asked for the details of the transactions, I was shocked to discover that the illegal withdrawals started between May 2 and May 3, wherein about N45,747.35 had been taken from my account and no alert or notification was sent to me till date. I also discovered that there were other illegal withdrawals totaling N180, 000 made on May 4, yet the bank did not notify me.”

    According to Adeyemi, she was assured by both the Manager of the bank and the Head of Customer Service that further transactions on her account will be suspended including ATM withdrawals. “By then, I was having about N25,190 as balance in my account. The money was still in my account as at May 14, when a statement of account was given to me but I was surprised to receive further notification of illegal withdrawal of the remaining balance a few days later. Immediately, I called the secretary to the manager of the branch on his mobile phone and I was assured of prompt remedy that has not been fulfilled to date. In all, N251, 447 was illegally withdrawn from my account and I strongly suspect an insider in the bank is behind the illegal withdrawals from my account. The bank has refused to take blame for its complicity in this fraudulent withdrawal of my money and I am going to consider a legal option if the bank refuses to refund my money,” she said.

    When The Nation’s Chief Correspondent that handled the story, contacted the Head of Media and Special Projects of Union Bank Plc, Francis Barde, via an email, he initially said: “Thanks, for your patience and understanding on this issue. I will thoroughly investigate and revert to you.” Barde, however, did not make categorical comments in his official response via another email he sent to the correspondent afterwards.

    He said:”Kindly note that Union Bank values the relationship of every customer and it is our goal to handle all customer relationships with utmost integrity. Therefore, Union Bank does not divulge details of customer relationships and transactions to third parties for privacy issues. The bank has a clear and documented process for investigating and resolving claims of fraud on customers’ accounts and will work to ensure that all claims are addressed and resolved in an expedient manner.”

    As at press time, Adeyemi complained that Union Bank had been maintaining discomforting silence over the issue. The poor lady’s case is particularly pitiful given that, she struggles to make ends meet by her small scale enterprise.

    Besides Union Bank’s apparent disregard for the misery it has inflicted on its hapless customer, the bank predictably persists in its gross misdemeanour riding on a wave of invincibility and disdain characteristic of Nigerian banks’ relations with customers that fall outside their classification of deep-pocket clients.

    Though the monstrosity of local banks’ insouciance to customers of the lower income bracket is undeniably obvious, the facts have always been suppressed or completely stifled in the media, at the behest of the banks. To prevent a newspaper from exposing such scandalous crime and infliction of hurt on a client, a defaulting bank would spiritedly place a coloured page advertisement in the newspaper, banking on the condescending notion that as long as a newspaper enjoys advertisement patronage and bribe to the journalist in charge of the story, the bank will suffer no bad press.

    Acting along this premise, several banks have succeeded in ‘killing’ or stopping publication of major stories that would have revealed their infliction of pain on a customer and pilferage of the latter’s account without any hope of reparation.

    In several other instances that the journalist insists on publishing the story, banks persuade the journalist or the editor in charge to remove their names from the story although The Nation never shies from naming the culprit. Hence you get to read: “Mr. XYZ suffered a raw deal in the hands of his bank (name withheld), a popular first generation bank,” to mention a few. How does this do justice to the report? How does it enable the journalist and newspaper fulfill their ethical responsibility of objectivity, honesty and fairness in news reportage?

    As you read, Adeyemi wonders why it is that Union Bank, her preferred banker, and an institution that continually touts itself as “Big Strong, Reliable” have to subject her to such indescribable pain and penury. Her misery would have been mitigated had the bank deemed it fit to employ a humane and responsible approach in addressing her plight. Sadly, Union Bank could only muster contempt and brittle witticism, courtesy Barde’s correspondence with The Nation correspondent, in response to her plight. It’s painful. It’s demoralizing, and fraught with disdain towards loyal customers like Adeyemi, who still keeps faith with the bank through crucibles of grief and unmerited pilferage visited upon her.

    • To be continued…
  • Of change and strange  agents

    Of change and strange agents

    LET’S begin from the beginning. The foxy game of wits that has just ended somewhat at the National Assembly started as a small family dispute. It dragged on for days and weeks. After several attempts by elders and leaders to arrest it failed, it became an open brawl and the world was asking: where in the world is the President?

    President Muhammadu Buhari was determined not to interfere in how the National Assembly chose its leaders, but the matter was like the fabled wasp on a sensitive part of the body; it had to be dispatched with tact. Wisdom.

    By the time Buhari decided to intervene, the various actors in what has now become a major crisis shaking the faith of the ordinary man in the political class had already gone too far to return. The President called a 9a.m. meeting of All Progressives Congress (APC) lawmakers-elect and leaders to resolve the matter at the Conference Centre in Abuja. All was set, but he did not show up.

    A few minutes away at the National Assembly, 57 senators-elect were already seated to get on with the business of formally opening the Eighth Senate. In less than 30 minutes they were done. Senator Bukola Saraki had been returned unopposed as Senate president.

    He was nominated by Sani Ahmed Yerima (remember him?), the former Zamfara Governor who fought a vicious battle to keep his newest wife, the one who child rights advocates insisted was under aged and should, ipso facto, not be dragged into conjugal responsibility. Grinning through it all was, among many others, Godswill Akpabio – he is also a senator now – the immediate past governor of Akwa Ibom after whom the state’s multi-billion naira stadium has just  been renamed by a grateful successor, among other prizes for his sacrifice of serving the state for eight long years.

    Dino Melaye, the exuberant  and excitable activist from Kogi State whose election is being hotly contested by Senator Smart Adeyemi, seconded the motion, picking his nose and smiling like a kindergarten undergraduate who has just got a pack of chocolates.

    Now, let’s get it right from the outset. This is no attempt to pee in the  champagne of all those toasting the emergence of Dr Saraki as Senate president and Yakubu Dogara as House of Representatives Speaker. No. Dr Saraki is qualified to be Senate president. No doubt about this. The process, many have observed, is the problem.

    A lot of questions came up after the session. Why convene the Senate when over 50 senators-elect were waiting for the President?  Was there a deliberate plot to disenfranchise these lawmakers-elect and shut them out of that critical decision? Any conspiracy from the top? If so, was – I shudder to think of this – President Buhari, who had earlier said he would not intervene in the matter – part of it? Why rush in with a cup of water when the roof was already on fire? Isn’t that taking the I-won’t- interfere-stance too far? Is this the true meaning of “I belong to nobody…”?

    The answers, I am sure, lie in the belly of time.

    There is also the argument that the Senate’s reliance on the number of those at the session to form a quorum was dubious. Why talk about a quorum when the Senate had not been formally opened for business? Couldn’t the officials have ensured that those 51 senators-elect attend the session by waiting a few minutes? Was the timing cast in iron?

    The APC was furious, like a man who lost control of his home. In fact, the popular thinking is that the party has been overwhelmed by its internal contradictions. Seems so.  It saw it all as an act of “indiscipline” and “ treachery”, vowing to punish all those involved.

    The party was said to have met to pick its candidates for Senate President and Speaker of the House. Its decision was shredded  by some members who connived with the PDP to bring about the present scenario. Talk about “the falcon no longer hearing the falconer”.

    In some political circles, the scene at the Senate is being viewed as a prelude to the rebuilding of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), a party that has been in disarray since it lost the general elections after running–and ruining–the country like a disorganised motor park, hurting the treasury in a manner beyond comprehension and sending many into poverty and darkness. Now, a PDP chief, Ike Ekweremadu, is the Deputy Senate President. Will he also be part of the change agenda? Strange, indeed, are the ingredients of change and its agents.

    President Buhari issued a tepid statement, saying although he would have preferred that the election – selection, if you like – followed the party’s recommendation, he was pleased that a “somewhat democratic” process had occurred. Sophistry? Somehow. Somewhat.

    But Itse Sagay, the respected Law professor, has disagreed with those toasting the Senate election. He said yesterday on TVC: “There are two ways of looking at it, that is from the moral point of view and legal or constitutional point of view.

    “If you look at the moral point of view, the purported election was fraudulent. When you purport to hold an election deliberately in the absence of your opponent, knowing that he is absent and intending to win at any cost unopposed by ensuring that absence, that constitutes fraud and not only that, I think it is an act of gross indiscipline, not just against the party but against the whole country because we are all stakeholders in the electoral process in who becomes President of Senate. We all felt cheated because there was no proper election.

    “Again it is also an act of gross impunity  because in a setting he was saying, ‘I know my opponent is keenly interested in contesting; I know my opponent is not  here yet and, therefore, I will rush an election in his absence in order to be certain of victory at any cost. So, it is absolutely unacceptable in a decent democracy.”

    Sagay’s verdict is not just a commentary on the Senate matter, it is a biting indictment of our political class – rude and crude. I agree with the  eminent scholar.

    Elsewhere in the land, the change era has been manifesting in many ways. In Rivers State, where scores of people have just died after consuming a local gin, Ogogoro, the one also called akpeteshi or “push-me-I-push you” and “Sapele water”, Governor Nyesom Wike has been sulking about the state of affairs. He says his predecessor Rotimi Chibuike Amaechi looted the Government House of furniture, including television sets, chairs and cutlery sets. He took people round the facility and released some photographs to the media. Amaechi disagreed. He also released pictures of the state of the facility before he left. Everything was glittering. Who should we believe? Will  His Excellency consider setting up a panel to find out the immediate and remote causes of this disagreement in order to prevent a recurrence?

    How times change. Former Niger Governor Mu’azu Babangida Aliyu must have recovered now from the shock he got at the Bako Kotangora Stadium in Minna where his successor, Alhaji Abubakar Sani Bello, was taking the oath of office. He was booed and pelted with all manner of objects, including water sachets. Soldiers and other security agents formed a ring around him, fired teargas  canisters to scare away the mob and ferried him and his wife out of danger.

    Not to be left out in this season of change is the Federal Ministry of the Environment, which is set to suspend the N9.2b clean cook stoves contract. The contractor has collected N1.3b, but the ministry says it has failed to meet the deadline. Should the contract be just suspended? I think it should be terminated – if the spirit of change must endure – because it symbolises the profligacy and misplaced priority of the past.

    So much for change and its strange agents.

     

  • Terrorism: A historical perspective – 1

    Terrorism is popularly defined as the unofficial or unauthorised use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims. The other more comprehensive definition of terrorism by the US Code of Federal Regulations is the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property, to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.

    For me, it is very difficult to define what constitutes terrorism. However, I define terrorism as violence directed at innocent people or institutions without any rational reason and for no cause or purpose other than those known to the terrorists and even if there is cause for such violence there should be respect for laws of military engagement protecting children, women, the infirm and old people as contained in the Geneva Convention. Terrorism is not a new thing.

    There are many incidents in human history that struck terror in the minds of the victims. The pogroms against the Jews in Russia, the Turkish massacre of the Armenians, the killings of Igbo in the North, the genocide against the Tutsi in Rwanda, the various inter- tribal attacks and killings in many parts of Africa and Asia, the ethnic cleansing of Muslims in Bosnia-Herzegovina by the Serbs in recent times all constitute acts of terrorism but are better treated under the rubric of genocidal acts and crimes against humanity rather than as terrorism as we have come to understand the term.

    What can be described as terrorism stretches back in history. It may even be difficult to arrive at what to call terrorism because one man’s terrorist may be another man’s nationalist fighter. It will surprise many that until 1994 the revered Nelson Mandela was on the official United States list of terrorists. Condoleezza Rice, the then National Security Adviser to President George Bush and General Colin Powell the then Secretary of State claimed to have been totally embarrassed and had to do something quickly to get his name out of the list.

    Between 1095 and 1297 or even earlier than that, Christian crusaders fought unsuccessfully to liberate the Holy Christian sites in the Middle- East from the Muslims and in this crusade they fought with considerable ferocity and violence to terrorise the Muslim community. Western knights killed and were killed in the defence of their faiths. The Muslim Saracens obviously thought the Christian knights were terrorists and the thought was equally reciprocated.

    Although we can say that the Christian crusaders had a purpose in their courageous fight against the Muslims whose religion they neither understood nor appreciated. Even in biblical history before the birth of Christ, the conquest of what is now Palestine by the people of Israel was not without violence. I do not want to go into what historians have called ‘just and unjust wars’. The point that I am making is that what today is terrorism did not just happen. Man’s long history has witnessed different types of terrorism in the past. However, the terrorism of modern times is quite different from the old form of terrorism which was either politically or religiously inspired.

    The conquest of the North American continent by white American settlers in order to realise what they call the American manifest destiny as well as the conquest of Southern America by the Spanish and the Portuguese conquistadores was done with tremendous ferocity and violence against the native peoples who must have considered them terrorists. The conquest and carving out of colonial empires by the West was done with much violence; Africans and Asians did not stand a chance against the maxim guns of Western imperialism.

    To come nearer home, when Sir Frederick Lugard was sent to Nigeria for its conquest and pacification, his mandate was to subdue all opposition by military force. As Sir Frederick Lugard while reporting home about his successes always claimed that he had to inflict maximum mortal casualties on Nigerians because according to him, black people value lives less than white people. Since western historiography is written from the perspectives of the victors rather than the vanquished, the violent aspect of colonial rule is hardly mentioned.

    Western historians will of course defend this violence as being necessary in order to save the Africans and Asians from the barbarism and superstition of traditional bondage. They would say, ‘we cannot make omelette without breaking eggs’ and that the end of western colonial rule must be judged in the globalisation of the world following westernisation and modernisation of the so-called primitive and underdeveloped areas of the world. The dark continent of Africa was lit by the light of western imperialism, they would argue. I am not one of those who would put all the blames of the underdeveloped world as being due to western colonialism. In any case, my late teacher, Professor J.F Ade-Ajayi dismissed the colonial phase as a mere episode in our long history.

    Wars have been part of human history since the beginning of time. Kingdoms have risen and fallen as a result of victory or defeat by one group or the other. The various empires of the world whether in Asia, Africa or Europe were established as a result of imperialistic desires of man and the ability to fight for whatever they believed. The wars of conquest can therefore not be seen STRICTLY in terms of terrorism no matter the millions of casualties suffered by people as a result of them.

    At least there were war aims that were sometimes carefully articulated by the leaders for which the ordinary people were mobilised to fight for. At least by our definition of terrorism, the First World War in which the whole world was involved and the more gruesome Second World War in which six million Jews were industrially murdered and close to 25 million Germans, Russians, English, Americans, Canadians, Japanese, Australians and New Zealanders, Africans, Indians, Chinese, to mention just a few, were killed, belong to different category of violence.

    Obviously, the Jews who suffered in the hands of murderous German SS officers would have seen their tormentors as terrorists. But their tormentors felt that they were removing the Jews who constituted a troublesome presence in Europe. So however weird, wicked, and unacceptable their reasons might have been, the National socialists of Adolph Hitler had their reasons for the so-called final solution of Jewish problem.

    In modern times in Europe, terrorism can be said to have become first a problem in mid 19th century when an anarchist ideology propounded by Mikhail Bakunin, a Russian ideologue advocated that the destruction of the then existing states and building new ones on their ashes was the way forward for Europe out of its problems. His ideas were quite complex and were to influence communist ideology and syndicalist movement in Spain without their acknowledging him. Many acts of terror were committed in his name all over Europe and governments then found it extremely difficult to understand what it was all about. But when his ideas are studied very well, they constitute important basis for the communist ideology.