Category: Opinion

  • As bandits overrun the North

    As bandits overrun the North

    By Idris Mohammed

    SIR: My condolences to the families and relatives of the 43 slaughtered farmers in Zabarmari village in Jere Local Government of Borno State by the deadly Boko Haram terrorists on Saturday November 28. It goes without saying that this government has failed to discharge its primary responsibility of securing the lives and property of the citizens.

    This month alone, bandits not only ransacked a whole village in Gudu in Sokoto, over 40 worshippers were abducted in their mosques. In fact, northern Nigeria is fast becoming another Somalia. Recall that the Sultan of Sokoto, Ahaji Saadu Abubakar III described the region as the worst place to live. His warning is not only timely, it aptly captures the state of the mindless bloodletting due to insecurity in the region. Farmers are not able to go near to their farms, let alone cultivate their field. Villagers are made to pay levy and taxes to the bandits before they can access their farms just as people are forced to save money just in case kidnappers strike and abduct their loved ones.

    The region is sliding to anarchy with all hope being lost. The ungoverned spaces in the region are major contributing factors to terrorism and armed criminal activities.

    It’s disheartening to note that the people who have invested their time and resources expecting better life under this administration are being gruesome killed by armed bandits, kidnappers and Boko Haram. How long can we can we keep on suffering and smiling?

    There is nothing wrong in the president changing his underperforming service chiefs all of whom have overstayed their tenure. The president should quickly inject new blood into the security system management and task them to come up with fresh ideas. Despite massive expenditure by Nigerian government over the last one decade, these security chiefs have not recorded any significant achievement in the war against insurgency and other insecurity in the country.

    For the government to win this war, it must investigate the funds budgeted for security, change the service chiefs and also nip in the bud the inter-agency rivalry that continue to hamper efforts to crush the insurgency.

    Insurgency requires tact, diplomacy and combativeness. Banditry requires a studied approach not only to understand the force fuelling it but the appropriate tactical methods to confront the monster.

    Cooperating with border localities especially Lake Chad Basin areas will help curb the activities of the terror groups. Finally, the government should address the issue of explosive population growth, unemployment and climate change. These issues are exacerbating the crisis and fomenting lawlessness especially in the communities in northern Nigeria that border with Niger Republic and Chad.     

    • Idris Mohammed, Funtua, Katsina State.
  • Re-imagining Africa after Trump

    Re-imagining Africa after Trump

    President Donald Trump is in love with controversy. Africa has fallen victim of his sharp tongue. As the world awaits his exit on January 20, American-Nigerian journalist Williams Ekanem, in his latest book, ‘What Africans Stand to Lose’, offers a fresh vision of Africa against the context of negative stereotypes about the continent, writes CHINAKA OKORO.

    These stereotypes about Africa are trumpeted by many in the developed world, including the 45th President of the United States, Donald J. Trump. In 2018, Trump described the continent as a ‘shit hole’ and sparked a mini-diplomatic outrage from African leaders. The offensive comment has given birth to a book ‘What Africans Stand to Lose’. It is written by American-Nigerian journalist Williams Ekanem.

    After centuries of the Trans-Atlantic slave trade and colonialism by western powers, many African countries, especially south of the Sahara, have struggled to establish thriving, modern states with all the trappings of development. But Africa’s story is not a single one, as many in the developed world are wont to believe. Like in other parts of the world, amid the poverty is prosperity, amid the news of insecurity are peaceful, well-run regions; and the nature of stereotypes perpetuated by the like of Trump does not the full story; in truth, these stereotypes are diabolical tools that aim to stunt the continent’s economic growth by driving off foreign investment and much-needed income from viable sectors like tourism. This is Ekanem’s central argument in ‘What Africans Stand to Lose’.

    Ekanem begins, in chapter one, by detailing America’s gradual introversion which, although accelerated by the Trump presidency, has been decades in the making. He traces Trump’s distaste of Africa to a speech the U.S. President made at the sidelines of the United Nations General Assembly in 2017. “I have so many friends going to your countries, trying to get rich,” Trump said at the meeting, which was attended by African leaders from Cote D’Ivoire, Ethiopia, Ghana, Namibia, Nigeria, Senegal, South Africa and Uganda. “I congratulate you, they’re spending a lot of money. It’s become a place they have to go, that they want to go.” Since Trump had cast Africa as a ‘wealthy place’, Ekanem reasons, the U.S. President would be less inclined to offer more developmental assistance. This, the author argues, is an advantage for Africa to rely more on Africans. “As it is now, Trump has pulled the rug from under their feet as the largesse would not be coming in as usual,” Ekanem writes. “It is therefore a time for African leaders to be more discerning to their environment.”

    In chapter two, the author takes a deep dive into Trump’s shit-hole comments and meticulously documents the media backlash and ripostes that followed. African leaders responded with strong words of their own; US diplomats on the continent were summoned to offer clarifications, and Trump himself was forced to apologise via a letter. “In the letter,” Ekanem notes, “Trump offered his deepest compliments to African leaders, noting that US soldiers were fighting side by side their African counterparts against extremism on the continent and that the US was working to increase free, fair and reciprocal trade with African countries and partnering to safeguard legal infrastructure.” The apology was followed by a commitment to do better by the continent as the then US Secretary of State, Rex Tillerson announced an African tour; he would be the first senior Trump administration official to visit the continent.

    The third chapter details Tillerson’s ill-fated trip to Africa which was cut short after the former oil and gas executive was fired on Twitter by Trump. Ekanem writes that during the trip, which started in Ethiopia, Tillerson did a “good job in de-escalating the damage caused by President Trump’s indiscretion” but his sack ensured the gains disappeared, like dust. “It was, indeed, a lost opportunity because diplomatic observers were so hopeful that the Tillerson trip would be the pedestal from which a meaningful dialogue for an acceptable US-Africa policy would be developed for the administration.”

    Without a solid plan for Africa in the first two years of his Presidency, how was the Trump administration faring in its treatment of the continent, compared to other past U.S. administrations? To answer that question, the book’s fourth chapter turns to history to examine how former U.S. Presidents, from John F. Kennedy to Barack Obama, engaged with Africa. Worthy of note is George W. Bush’s assessment, which was lauded for its deep contributions in the continent’s healthcare, democracy and human rights. Quoting Bob Geldof in Time magazine, Ekanem notes that Africa is the “triumph of American foreign policy and is the Bush administration’s greatest achievement.” Barack Obama, too, was noted to have made four trips to Africa – the most by any United States president – but “the substance of Obama’s presidency may not have been what many Africans had hoped for.”

    Briefly, in chapter five, Ekanem touches on the subject of foreign aid, a system of benevolence which has been criticised, by some, of feeding corruption in developing countries and perpetuating a culture of dependence. With well-marshalled arguments for and against foreign aid, the author notes that the consensus is that “foreign aid should be less about giving out money, but more about the collegial engagement of donors and recipients of aid to achieve the desired objectives.”

    Very few books on international relations published today can avoid the China subject. In chapter six, Ekanem looks at the prospects of China in Africa. With the US having shaped its foreign policy in Africa as a response to Chinese engagement on the continent, the subject takes even more outsized importance. Ekanem draws on an abundant scholarship to argue that China’s position on the continent is largely desirable. The world’s second-largest economy has, in the past two decades, ramped up foreign aid and investment on the continent; it also offers cheap loans to many African countries to build much-needed public infrastructures such as rail-lines, roads, airports, bridges and power stations. The author, however, doesn’t shy away from the problems – unfair labour practises, predatory lending – usually associated with China’s play in Africa. But, compared to the US’ African policy, which has been described for its “lack of substance”, the Chinese seem to be doing quite well.

    The seventh chapter, named after the book’s title, brings to fore what Africans stand to lose from Trump’s inaccurate portrayal of the continent. Well, the Trump administration has proposed foreign aid cuts to the continent and has imposed visa restrictions, making it harder for people of African origin to immigrate to the US. In 2018, the administration unveiled a new Africa Strategy, part of which included Prosper Africa, an initiative that seeks to boost trade and investment between the US and African countries. But, Ekanem, in his rich analysis of the situation, notes that the new strategy has “generated more criticisms than commendations.” One, the strategy was announced by the office of the National Security Adviser, not the US State Department, which is responsible for such diplomatic interventions. Two, the rhetoric from the US government called for African countries to either choose the US or China, a throw-back to the days of the cold war; simply put, a degression of the international relations theory of multilateralism.

    In the eighth chapter, Ekanem examines the origins of Trump’s stereotypes which, like Conrad’s Heart of Darkness, emerges from the vision of Africa as a vast, uncultivated forest inhabited by sub-humans who require western civilisation to be considered full homo-sapiens. Africa’s problems of corruption, violence, crime, war, poverty are not unique to it. “Another reason for the unending stereotype is the fact that most people in the western world do not travel outside their countries of origin,” Ekanem writes.

    The last chapter focuses on Africa’s growth potential, with ample statistics to show that the continent’s trajectory points upward. The figures are backed up the number of young people and avalanche of natural resources available across Africa. The book ends carrying a torch of hope, offering a new way to look at the continent beyond Trump’s myopia and the consequent retrogression of America’s foreign policy, a country once vaunted as leader of the free world.

    Ekanem’s triumph with ‘What Africa Stands To Lose’ lies in his almost dispassionate handling of the material before him and a sticky penchant for balance, putting two contrasting ideas in a box and allowing them to fester till the truth – or something close to it – escapes. These qualities are, no doubt, influenced by his journalism roots. (He worked for many years as a Business/Financial Editor in Nigeria and has reported from the White House, the US Capitol and the World Bank in Washington D.C.). Still, his faith in Africa is bare on the page, from start to finish. Ekanem understands – perhaps unwittingly – those good arguments are woven around reason but have their roots in solid faith.

    A bit of more storytelling would have softened Ekanem’s stolid narration of Africa’s fate under the Trump presidency. For stretches, occasionally, the writing is too muscular, even repetitive, threatening to undermine the exciting underbelly associated with most analyses of a ‘Trumpian’ universe. Ekanem does tell a personal story, at the start of chapter eight, but it’s not enough.

    ‘What Africans Stand To Lose’ comes at a perfect time, even as the Trump administration faces a reckoning in the November US presidential election. But the book is beyond Trump and speaks to Africans’ visualisation of their place in the world; it doesn’t shy away from the continent’s stark realities, but it works to provide an alternative view of the future, one that places the continent’s hereafter in the hands of its peoples.

  • Killing of farmers in Borno: Nigeria sitting on keg of gunpowder

    Killing of farmers in Borno: Nigeria sitting on keg of gunpowder

    By Kazeem Olalekan Israel

    SIR: A fact that should not be denied by every responsive and responsible government is that we have been thrown into full-blown, unmitigated crisis throughout the length and breadth of the country most especially in the northern part of the country b they Boko Haram. Unfortunately, we have a government that has chosen to dwell in dangerous delusion that everything is okay with us as a people which is having a dangerous effect on governance.

    A typical example of the nonchalant attitude of the government is the unprovoked murder that took place in Borno at the weekend during which over 40 rice farmers were murdered in cold blood on their farmland by members of the dreaded Boko Haram sect.

    It is most insulting that the usual response of the government to the killings is commiseration with the families of the deceased. There has been no serious strategic and tactical plan that are rigorously time-bound in overcoming terrorism which has become a bane on development by a government that rode into power on the promise of eradicating Boko Haram.

    The security of the citizens is what defines a state. Government exists for the state and not the state for the government and this is well-captured in the provision of Section 14 sub-section 2 (b) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended) which states that “the security and welfare of the people shall be the primary purpose of government”.

    Today, the situation we have found ourselves as a people is one in which none of us is safe and that anything can happen to anybody at any material time as this government has failed to fulfil the most basic essence of its existence.

    The state of insecurity in the country questions the essence of social contract between the citizenry and government which is predicated on the centrality of security to human flourishing and felicity. In social contract, citizens willingly abdicate their rights of self-protection to government, thereby, authorizing it to enjoy monopoly of force. Social contract also envisages that government will evolve veritable mechanisms to prevent, abate, and resolve violent external or internal conflicts perpetuated by state or non-state actors.

    To our utter dismay, this government just like its predecessors, has failed to fulfil the social contract it willingly signed with the people. As a people, we have been battling with multifarious threats to peace. Unfortunately, many are victims of criminal violence. Incessant violent crimes have dimmed the prospects of attaining national cohesion, socio-economic prosperity, and democratic consolidation in the country. Terrorism and the sprouting up of ethnic militias and kidnappers across the six geopolitical zones have also quashed all hopes that every Nigerian can experience freedom from fear of violent attacks with nothing critical being done by the government to salvage the situation.

    Violent attacks which is a product of insecurity as was witnessed in Borno at the weekend has multilayered and multi-generational implications that do not lend themselves to easy computation and the government itself has done nothing to put an end to this not to talk of compensating and reuniting affected families. Not until government succeeds in its primary purpose as clearly stated in Chapter 2 of the Constitution, it cannot succeed in its secondary purposes. In other words, the efforts of the government to diversify the economy by reviving the agro-allied sector cannot amount to anything without widespread peace, stability, and security which the country obviously lacks with many families sundered by criminal violence perpetuated by Boko Haram, herdsmen, kidnappers and ethnic militias. Undoubtedly, the killings, the kidnappings, the destruction of farmlands and the clashes will definitely sabotage the quest and effort of the government to attain food security.

    It is important that the government take urgent measures to guarantee maximum security and safety for all Nigerians. Our lawmakers must as a matter of necessity and urgency, wakeup to check the excesses of the Buhari led-government which has proven to be class-sensitive and prone to ethno-religious bias. Our lawmakers must not allow political correctness or naive rationalisation to delude them into playing the ostrich.

    The country is sitting on a keg of gunpowder!

    • Kazeem Olalekan Israel, Ibadan.
  • Why revolution can’t happen here

    Why revolution can’t happen here

    By Tony Ogunlowo

    SIR: We saw how the revolution led by the late Jerry Rawlings in the early eighties cleaned up Ghana and made it the promising nation it is today. We all saw how the Arab Spring of 2010 brought sweeping changes to the Middle Eastern countries and people are wondering when there will be a revolution in Nigeria to change things for the better.

    The stark – and sad – truth is that there will never be a revolution in Nigeria.

    The reason? Lack of unity in the face of adversity or a lack of a uniformed voice.

    The recent #ENDSARS protests have shown that while others were out on the streets, protesting, a great many sat down at home, unconcerned, while the rich and elite just doubled the guards on their private estates or flew abroad on holiday. As a result, the ruling government knew that after shouting and protesting for a few days, without the movement gaining any momentum, the people will quietly go back to their homes and usual lives – especially after the army/police might have shot a few people! In France, for instance, when the French go on to the streets to protest, nobody goes home until the government bows to their demands and this can take weeks or even months,

    The stumbling block to any kind of revolutionary change in Nigeria is simply – MONEY! Wealthy Nigerian elite, who are like a cabal, and stand to lose everything they have if there’s a revolution, have the financial clout to suppress any kind of uprising, with the police, military and security services in their pockets. On top of that, they are most likely going to pay off any would-be revolution leader. How many would -be-revolutionaries, in recent times, have suddenly gone ‘quiet’ because they have been ‘settled’ with bags and bags of ‘Ghana-Must-Go’ filled with money?

    Even our great political fore fathers who put their lives on the lines so that Nigeria could exist would think twice if they had to do it today: would they fight so that a two-bit thief can become a governor and loot his state dry?

    The sad truth about Nigeria is that nobody really wants change. What is really annoying everybody is that the MONEY is not filtering down to the grassroots and only the ‘Ogas at the top’ are chopping: let the money filter down and nobody would care if a dictator worse than Abacha ruled the country!

    For a change to happen, everybody’s mind-set needs to change. Our mind-set needs to change from thinking about how much money we can make out of the system, legally or illegally, to how much we can save or put back. Fight corruption first and there will be enough money in the system to pay for the basics in life – proper education, decent healthcare and affordable food and fuel. Do this and the people will be happy.

    The eradication of corruption first will lead to a more governable Nigeria without the need for a revolution.

    • Tony Ogunlowo, Lagos.
  • Why is Buhari still keeping the service chiefs?

    Why is Buhari still keeping the service chiefs?

    By Fredrick Nwabufo

    SIR: The farm is a place of sowing and reaping, and the unlikeliest haunt of the grim reaper. But at least 43 citizens who went harvesting on their farm in Borno on Saturday had their souls harvested by the emissaries of hell – Boko Haram.

    How many more will have to die before President Muhammadu Buhari is stirred to do the most expedient thing regarding the failed service chiefs?

    In December 2018, Boko Haram insurgents pulled a blitzkrieg on military formations in Baga, Borno State, sacking the headquarters of the Multinational Joint Task Force and taking over the place (briefly). The group steadied its onslaughts on military formations, killing many soldiers, weeks after.

    At least, 18 soldiers were killed in an ambush on Maiduguri road on December 26, 2018, in one of Boko Haram’s mortal offensives. The group also persisted in inflicting attritive damages on the civilian population in the Northeast. The killings and destruction never let up; in fact, they had taken an upward trajectory since the current service chiefs were appointed.

    But what did Buhari say and do in the heat of the killing of soldiers, civilians and attack on military barracks and equipment?

    This is what he said in an interview on Arise TV in January, 2019 – a few days after the attacks: “The head [him] has to be very careful on removal of the service chiefs because you don’t know [the] ambition of the ones coming up. I didn’t know them on [a] personal basis, I followed records and thought I picked the best then, of course, their performance may be disappointing but I accept responsibility for not changing them. My reason is based on my own experience.”

    Now, compare Buhari’s remarks to the action of President Issoufou Mahamadou of Niger Republic, who sacked his security chiefs after 89 soldiers were killed by terrorists in January.

    On January 21, Lawan Andimi, chairman of the Christian Association of Nigeria (CAN) in Michika Local Government Area in Adamawa, was tragically dispatched by Boko Haram. Also, Daciya Dalep, a student of the University of Maiduguri, was killed in the most infernal manner.

    But how did Nigeria’s army chief respond to these tragedies? He described the attacks as the ”last kick of a dying horse”. But I wonder why this horse is not yet dead – even as the military claims the insurgents have been technically defeated.

    Really, Boko Haram appears vitalised by every daring attack. On January 7, a driver attached to Olusegun Adeniyi, commander of operation Lafiya Dole (the war campaign), was killed in a derring-do attack by Boko Haram insurgents on the commander’s convoy.

    The insurgents attacked Adeniyi, a major-general, who was on his way back to Maiduguri after a visit to Jakana in Borno state, where they had struck earlier.

    What is derisory is that two of the service chiefs and the national security adviser are from the north-east – the theatre of the war. But rather than extirpate the menaces to the peace in the zone, two of the security chiefs are fixated on establishing military universities in their hometowns.

    To me, it is clear the security chiefs have failed in the one task for which they were appointed. And I think, it is time they take a bow. In Old Japan, generals who fail in war take themselves out by hara-kiri. Not that our own generals should, but the president must prioritise the security of Nigerians over himself and let these men go.

    • Fredrick Nwabufo, fredricknwabufo@yahoo.com
  • Nigeria: from pandemic to depression

    Nigeria: from pandemic to depression

    By Abiodun Komolafe

    Recession is simply defined as ‘a difficult time for the economy of a country, when there is less trade and industrial activity than usual and more people are unemployed.’ To put it succinctly, recession is a vehicular expression of what is wrong with a domestic economy. Any economy will slide into recession when the government is fiscally undisciplined, when the citizens are laden with insatiable compulsive appetite for exotic foreign products, and consumes mostly other items not locally made, or sourced, while the attitudinal disposition of the civil-society is ‘sidon look’. This economic malaise is never sudden or accidental; and, like confusion, it doesn’t come singly. It begins gradually until it morphs into an economic albatross that it really is: full blown manifest of economic go-slow or retardation.

    The vibrant seed of recession first berthed at the shore of Nigeria when the national treasury had more money than the leadership could manage. No vision, no viable or feasible development plan; therefore, ‘nothing ventured, nothing gained’. The leadership at the time made a costly remark: ‘the problem of Nigeria is not money but how to spend it.’ Thoughtful people and brilliant economies turned their attention to Nigeria, a naïve nation with stupendous wealth. Afterwards, the real trouble started when Nigeria began to take every conceivable loan at the international finance market. Unfortunately, those loans were never used to execute development projects for which they were originally intended; and, where projects were done at all, they were haphazardly executed, and with additional costs to boot. It dawned on the elites that the ‘miliki’ era of overflowing surplus has come, and the new song and dance in town was ‘maa j’aye oni o, mi o m’eyin ola o, maa j’aye oni o, mi o m’eyin ola o’ (I will enjoy myself today, I do not know about tomorrow). In a word, recession in Nigeria is a plague that has its origin in our current and historical irresponsible management of our national economy. The indiscipline mentioned earlier represents the floodgate of corruption and perpetual underdevelopment.

    We are told by the government that the worst recession in 33 years afflicted Nigeria for the second time in 5 years, courtesy of COVID-19 pandemic and #EndSARS. Well, what government of the day has not told Nigerians is that recession also has to do with appointments, bloated government, official profligacy and politics of entitlement. But, COVID-19, #EndSARS, even oil glut as its causative agents aside, what efforts have we made to prepare for the raining day? Where is the money the country made prior to the pandemic? In specific terms, what happened to the last budget? What has happened and where are the results of government’s initiatives, especially, in agriculture? If Nigeria’s borders were shut to encourage local production of rice, isn’t it time we reviewed a policy that has made more Nigerians embrace suicide as an option, even as satisfying basic needs has become a distant dream?

    Once upon a time in Nigeria, we had oil boom and we had oil reserves. Ibrahim Babangida came only to squander the resources that were enough to transform Nigeria into the Eldorado. Not only did the ‘evil genius’ institutionalize corruption, he also demonstrated how subversive generosity could work wonders in a country overwhelmed by an intimidating percentage of poor people. Unfortunately, no Nigerian leader has been able to deal with that till date. As fate would have it, Olusegun Obasanjo also came and it was as if he was destined to ignore wise counsels. Against all entreaties to the contrary, even the interjection of the British monarch, ‘Balogun Owu’ entered Nigeria into the Guinness Book of Records when he paid $12billion to liquidate Nigeria’s debt! What if he had used the proceeds from the boom arising from the Gulf War to give Nigerians uninterrupted power supply?

    If we may ask, who oversees the Nigerian economy and what are the viable alternative options or counter-measures against this recession? Or, are we asking too many questions? The gist is: not many cabinet ministers are square pegs in square holes! After all, when President Muhammadu Buhari’s appointee gets to the senate, it’s no longer a question of whether the guy is competent or not. Instead, it is where he comes from and those who have actually done the underground work for him. On its part, the senate, in its wisdom, will just ask the nominee to simply ‘take a bow and go.’ So, when trouble comes, what will the appointee do?

    If British economy stumbles today, we are told that there are about four or five other economic paradigms, waiting to be applied. Britain will stop the operating-but-ineffective paradigm and introduce a new one to ensure that her people do not suffer unjustly. In other words, there are experts whose job it is to monitor the economy with a view to ascertaining whether or not the existing paradigm is still suitable. But it is always a different ballgame in Nigeria. Whoever is the Minister of Finance only has to go to his or her village and, with deadly seriousness, dance ‘shaku shaku’ with his or her kinsmen so that they can know that he or she is now the Finance Minister. But, is that what we need? Now that we have a recession, what are the Minister of Finance’s plans to get us out of this avoidable pass?

    Let’s face it, until we have fiscal discipline, accountability and restructuring, which will reflect true federalism, Nigeria will remain a drunken spendthrift. With the current structure, even, if Osun State wants to generate electricity with its natural waterfall, the Federal Government will stop at nothing to generate impediments against it. Osun has gold, but, as things stand, the state must obtain permission from the centre to do anything meaningful with the natural resource. Laughable and ridiculous as it may sound, a warning has gone to the South-South not to joy in being called an oil producing region, because oil now belongs to the North. It is that bad.

    Altogether, the shocking-but-true situation is that the last #EndSARS protest in Nigeria was undertaken by a few aggrieved youths. The majority did not participate in it. Thus, government was able to rise above it. A full mob action may throw up a different outcome. It is, therefore, in the interest of the rich, the political elites, and the critical mass, to protect this country; for, if government does not come up with palliatives that will pacify the anger, frustrations and misery of Nigerians, the next #EndSARS protest may be heading the country towards unprecedented ‘internally-induced’ social anomie. Until we have all the economic leaks patched, recession will always be knocking at our door. Until corruption is sanctioned and thievery punished, fraudsters will not be afraid to serve in government.

    May the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world, grant us peace in Nigeria.

     

  • Remembering Fidel Castro and Emeka Ojukwu

    Remembering Fidel Castro and Emeka Ojukwu

    Igboeli Arinze

     

    If there was a universal cult for bearded leaders, both could have being members, they were as well as  controversial as they were colourful men, who brought panache into their styles of leadership. Both indeed were passionate about the causes they chose, both sacrificed much and even to the point of death, both were vehement in their beliefs.

    Fidel Castro, was the Cuban leader who shot the small island nation, formerly known only for its cigars and exotic drinks to world limelight, taking the global stage on several occasions to the chagrin of major world powers and the cheers or the smaller ones. Ojukwu, on the other hand also shot the Nigerian nation into limelight by becoming the second leader to forcefully break away from the original borders assigned to African nations by their colonial masters, the first being Moise Tshombe of Katanga.

    Both were children of circumstances, with fate and events playing tricks on what choices or options were offered to them; none intentionally set out on the paths

    history was to reckon them with. For example, Castro was never Communist in any terms nor was he a believer in the use of revolutionary force to attain change. Likewise Ojukwu, secession was never on his cards, when he joined the military and rose to the ranks of Colonel and the office of Military Governor of the Eastern Region. Even with the many cavalier like provocations by the Yakubu Gowon junta, secession was not considered a full option until the Aburi fiasco.

    Both stood up to world powers, Castro played the Soviet Union against the United States risking a nuclear World War between both super powers in 1962 as well as fighting proxy wars on behalf of the Soviet Union in Honduras, Zaire ( Now known as the Democratic Republic of Congo) Angola, Nicaragua and Honduras. Poor Ojukwu and his heroic Biafrans had to contend with the United Kingdom and the Soviet Union, while the United States stood aloof, it is to Ojukwu’s credit that Biafra did not collapse earlier than the 32 months it stood out as nation on its own.

    Both men, be it in life or death have continued to inspire generations of their own people. Offering a much frenzied account of leadership, the likes of Castro and Ojukwu were able to work out miracles in their own time. Castro turned Cuba from a poverty stricken, illiteracy populated nation to one with one of the highest per capita income, a high literacy rate as well as a model for the provision of qualitative healthcare. Ojukwu’s Biafra did far better, producing arms such as rockets and tanks, one’s imagination hums much rendition on what Biafra or Nigeria may have become had the seccessionist republic broken away or had Nigeria injected such wonders into her numerous challenges.

    Both were intellectuals in their own right, who in their thinking proffered jaw breaking thoughts to the problems each faced in his own part of the hemisphere. Castro’s books such as ” How Far We Slaves Have Come”, “Fidel and Religion” and ” Che” are best sellers anytime any day. Ojukwu’s three books, ” Because I am Involved” , “Biafra” and “Ahiara” make good reads, sadly Ojukwu I think dissapointed a number of us when he failed to bequeath to our generation his own account of events that led to the war and its prosecution, that said, he was a note worthy writer whose thoughts will continue to shape my generation’s thinking.

    How can one forget their oratory, both men could arouse stones with their words, one was rabid and reeled out his speeches with revolutionary fervour, the other being Ojukwu was more calm, calculative and at ease with his words, one writer, John de Saint Jorre in his book, “The Brothers War” (The Nigerian Civil War was its UK title) much described Ojukwu’s style of speaking as Othello’s Orsone Welles playing Orsone Welles. Nevertheless, both charmed crowds and spurred men into action, even to death.

    Finally, despite the loftiness with which men like us would seek to paint these men with, we must still acknowledge the fact that both men were also human and not infallible. Both for sure made countless mistakes as any human would, both perhaps regret a couple of actions they believe they rashly or wrongly took; for Castro, perhaps the executions, detentions and abuse of human rights. For Ojukwu, perhaps his stubbornness to end the war and a couple of other mistakes. However, let us ask, what options were before them?

    If we must fault Castro for his few mistakes then we must praise him for his numerous achievements, most notable of them are the liberation struggles which saw Cuban soldiers help roll back Colonialism and Apartheid rule in Southern Africa, likewise Ojukwu, whose efforts to give the Easterners then sanctuary from the senseless massacres that continued to reoccur. I so submit.

  • Prince Abiodun Ogunleye at 80

    Prince Abiodun Ogunleye at 80

    Emmanuel Oladesu

     

     

     

    At 80, Prince Abiodun Ogunleye, eminent politician and former deputy governor of Lagos, has mixed feelings.  Personally, he is fulfilled. An accomplished technocrat, he had risen to the top of his accounting profession as a Fellow of the Institute of Chartered Accountant of Nigeria(ICAN). He had worked hard from the onset of adulthood and made money through honest labour. As a family man, he is blessed with good children who are making progress in their careers.

    Elder statesman Ogunleye is a household name in his home town of Ikorodu, where he is a prince. In community service, he is not found wanting. As a politician, he has also made his mark, serving as chairman of a ruling party and number two citizen.

    However, his aspirations for his beloved country have not been fulfilled. There is a huge gap between expectation and reality.

    When he was growing up, Nigeria and the Asian Tigers of today were at the same level of growth, full of hope for a brighter future. While Malaysia, Hong Kong, Singapore, Taiwan, South Korea and other countries realised their dream for greatness, Nigeria is still struggling. Its snail-like speed in the march of progress is confounding.

    Sixty years after flag independence, the Nigerian federation has become a compelling and comprehensive failure; the nation-state appears to be ebbing away, tottering on in infrastructural decay, battling with a permanently ailing economy, antagonistic diverse tribes, disunity, insecurity and bad leadership.

    The awful picture is discouraging to the political leader who joined the Octogenarian Club on November 1. He could not also roll out the drums. Due to the ravaging Covid-19 pandemic, the climate has  remained cloudy. The atmosphere was not germane to an elaborate celebration. Thus, children, other relations and political associates had to postpone the birthday party.

    Ogunleye is a man of many parts. But, he is more popular now as a politician. It should be pointed out that he is not a politician without a second address. To him, politics is a vocation and not a career. It is an avenue for productive service to the beleaguered nation. Perhaps, that criterion of service, in contrast with the quest for primitive accumulation, demarcated the two blocs of the old order and new breed.

    Ogunleye is part of the residual class of ideologues, who subscribed to the code of Awoism. Awo was an inspiration; a great leader who sought to transform his society, but without achieving his cardinal goal. But, his ardent disciple, Alhaji Lateef Jakande, was Ogunleye’s leader in Lagos State Unity Party of Nigeria (UPN). Queueing behind LKJ, Ogunleye observed Awo at a close range, learning from his intellect, principles, vision, strengths and weaknesses.

    In those days, parties raised devotees, actors and loyalists from the grassroots. Thus, Ogunleye was a party officer at the countryside.  He needed to be relevant at home before becoming relevant at the state level.

    Unfortunately, the curtains were drawn on the Second Republic by the soldiers, who toppled legitimate authorities and disrupted orderly political evolution.

    The politicians of Second Republic were also tossed around by the military interlopers when they later aspired to participate in the elongated and dubious transition programme midwifed by the Evil Genuis,  Military President Ibrahim Babangida. The so-called new breed andcmoney bags were inadvertently incited against the more experienced, but politically harassed and pauperised old brigade.

    The move altered the trend of leadership recruitment based on experience and hierarchy, and distorted the pattern of followership enlistment. The new breed started embracing political participation from the top without paying their dues.

    Ogunleye and other progressives from AG/UPN days cohabited with the impatient new faces in the defunct Social Democratic Party(SDP), led by Chairman Muniru Baruwa who was backed by Jakande, leader of the ‘Ase Group.’ Before then, he was involved in the vanity of forming the Peoples Solidarity Party, temporarily serving as state treasurer.

    The selection of a governorship candidate created stress and strains for the party in Lagos. The ambition of Prof. Femi Agbalajobi and Chief Dapo Sarunmi led to a split. It was “Ase” versus “Primose.” Due to lack of truce, both groups fell into the military trap. Agbalajobi and Sarunmi were banned from the governorship race.

    The camp of Jakande later nominated Ogunleye as candidate. Primose nominated Yomi Edu after Dr. Tola Kasali, who was prompted by Sarunmi, refused to join the race. Edu defeated Ogunleye. But, at the governorship poll, the candidate of the defunct National Republican Convention (NRC), Sir Michael Otedola, beat Edu. There was no post-primary reconciliation in SDP. While Primose was more financially buoyant and more aggressive in delegate targeting at the governorship primary, Ase maintained its hold on the grassroots and swayed the votes to the rival NRC at the governorship election.

    The Third Republic was also shortlived. But, the succeeding military rulers could not do away with the political class as the June 12 controversy was raging. Therefore, in Lagos, Military Administrator Olagunsoye Oyinlola, was mandated to appoint commissioners from the rank of the SDP and NRC “top notchers.”

    Although the governor wanted to appoint Abisogun Noah as Health Commissioner, Jakande recommended Ogunleye for the position. When the military governor objected, saying that an accountant cannot manage the Ministry of Health effectively, Jakande disagreed. The former civilian governor pointed out that his Health commissioner was a lawyer, adding that he performed excellently. Jakande reminded Oyinlola that he had served as governor before him, a vague reference to the certainty of experience and validity superiority.

    Ogunleye served as Health commissioner. He was also Finance commisioner. While in government, he never soiled his hands. His contemporaries at the State Executve Council were Agbalajobi, Prince Tajudeen Olusi and Prof. Simpson.

    In 1998/99, the Ikorodu prince joined the Alliance for Democracy (AD). The party was enmeshed in the Ige/Falae crisis at the national level and Tinubu/Dawodu conflict in Lagos chapter. The pioneer state chairman, Alhaji Ganiyu Dawodu, had opposed Asiwaju Bola Tinubu at the primary. He was rooting for Funsho Williams.

    Reconciliation was difficult. The camps of Dawodu, Tinubu and M.A Taiwo held parallel party congresses. Dawodu re-emerged from his factional congress as chairman. Taiwo was made chairman by his camp. Ogunleye, who became the candidate of the Afenifere Justice Forum, following the death of the initial candidate, Senator Ajayi Adeyiga, became the chairman of Lagos AD.

    As party chairman, Ogunleye was devoted to the doctrines of party supremacy and discipline, reminiscent of how ideological parties of the Southwest were run by men of principle and vision. He was a team player. He was blessed with crisis resolution skills. Soft-spoken, his utterances were a soothing balm capable of calming down nerves.

    Ogunleye promoted inclusion, managed inevitable conflicts in the fold with tact and fostered a synergy between the party machinery and the Tinubu government, which the party midwifed. He never betrayed the confidence reposed in him. He enjoyed the trust of party elders, including Alhaji Olatunji Hamzat, Prince Tajudeen Olusi, Alhaji Busura Alebiosu, Pa Odunsi, Senator Sikiru Shitta-Bey, Alhaji Mumuni Badmus, Chief Taiwo, Chief Rabiu Oluwa, Prince  Murphy Adetoro and Alhaji Akanni Seriki Bamu. The chairman had two efficient party secretaries-Lanre Ogunyemi and the late Lateef Raji who also learned at his feet.

    Five important challenges confronted the party under his leadership. The first was the uncompromising posturing of the Dawodu camp, particularly members of the House of Assembly, who posed as internal opposition leaders.

    The second was the discord between Governor Tinubu and his deputy, Senator Kofoworola Akerele-Bucknor. The crisis consumed the carer of the deputy governor.

    The third was the gale of defections that hit the Lagos AD as from 2002. Two senators-Adeseye Ogunlewe and Musiliu Obanikoro-left for the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), where they continued to fire salvos at the AD government.

    The fourth was the seizure of federal allocations to Lagos, following the creation of additional councils by the Tinubu administration.

    The fifth was the controversial 60:40 formula for the distribution of appointive and elective positions between Tinubu and Dawodu camps. It was proposed by a Reconciliation Committee chaired by Sir Olaniwun Ajayi. When Afenifere, pan-Yoruba socio-political group, led by Pa Abraham Adesanya, intimated the former governor about the recommendation, he tactically thanked the elders and obtained permission to table it before his group. It was the end of the matter. Tinubu had nurtured a big political structure in AD that accounted for the majority in the crisis-ridden party. The formula was rejected without voicing it.

    While five AD governors supported by Afenifere failed to secure second term, Tinubu became the only man standing. Under the chairmanship of Ogunleye, the platform survived the threat posed by the federal might in 2003. Since then, Tinubu camp has waxed stronger.

    Yet, Tinubu and Ogunleye parted ways  for one week in 2007, as it were. The chairman was among 14 aspirants itching to succeed the former governor. Ogunleye had approached Tinubu to inform him about his aspiration like others- Olufemi Pedro, Ganiyu Solomon, Remi Adikwu-Bakare, Rahman Owokoniran, Tokunbo Afikuyomi, Kasali, Leke Pitan, Erikitola, Hakeem Gbajabiamila and Kunle Lawal. But, Tinubu was rooting for his Chief of Staff, Babatunde Fashola, who he described then as the SAN with a sound mind.

    But, as Pedro was shoved aside, Ogunleye succeeded him as deputy governor at the dying minute. Remarkably,  Senator Afikuyomi, the ring leader, who first opted for the APP, later retraced his steps, serving as the Action Congres (AC) Agent at the electoral commission’s office when the votes were being counted.

    Since 2007, Ogunleye has been out of power. But, he has not been out of privilege and relevance. He is a party stalwart held in esteem by the leadership and party faithful. Within the party, he is a party elder and a communicator of values. His life of integrity and honour has a modelling and moderating influence on the young Turks who are always in a hurry and desperate for power and money.

    At the state level, Ogunleye is a member of the Governance Advisory Council (GAC). At the divisional level, he is the undisputed APC leader in Ikorodu. It is interesting that the collegiate leadership in the division revolves around Ogunleye and Chief Olorunfunmi Basorun and there is no friction. In Lagos East, he is one of the APC apex leaders.

    His concern is that his party should continue to maintain dominance in Lagos politics. But, Ogunleye also have ideas about the making of a great and virile Federal state.

    To him, Nigeria is still wobbling because it is dodging the solutions to its problems. Federalism, or true federalism, is still elusive.  Ogunleye advised the leaders to go back to Awo’s Path to Nigeria’s Fredom, written in 1947.

    In his view, restructuring is the answer, and there is no alternative other than disaster.

    The prince also wants Nigeria to reorder its economy so that it can be productive. He believes that, if there is electricity, it will aid industrialisation and there will be jobs.

    Ogunleye also urges those in authority to shun corruption and become leaders who lead with the fear of God.

    Then, he spares some thoughts for Lagos. The state, he maintains, needs a special status.

  • #EndSARS and future of our democracy

    #EndSARS and future of our democracy

    By Elle Adedoyin

    SIR: The aftermath of the #EndSARS protests sparked by emboldened Nigerian youths who dared to hold their leaders accountable has proved retributive for the protesters. The EndSARS movement started as a means to liberate Nigerian youths from police brutality and the excesses of SARS officials who extort money from hard-working youths or whoever they suspect to be a “yahoo” boy under the guise of questioning such persons.

    It is noteworthy that the government deflected from addressing every demands made by the entire populace ranging from good governance to putting an end to police brutality, disbandment of SARS and that justice is meted out to the victims of the atrocities committed by SARS officials. These demands were blatantly disregarded and in the wake of disbanding SARS, SWAT emerged.

    It is obvious to all, except the government, that this democracy is in a decline because youths haven’t only been denied access to opportunities, every attempt to exercise fundamental human rights including freedom of expression and movement has been stifled. With unjust arrests and remand of protesters and virile youths fleeing to seek greener pastures abroad, it’s dawning on Nigerians that the country is at the mercy of an imperious government.

    It reeks of distaste when the government of a democratic society prioritises the future of repentant Boko Haram insurgents over that of hardworking youths who labour for their daily bread. Yet, this is the sad reality in Nigeria and unrest has plagued the heart of individuals as to the future of the nation.

    Amnesty deals are offered to terrorists while citizens face the trigger should they dare to ask for accountability. It would seem the government is oblivious to the fact that such efforts are counterproductive to the fight against terrorism.

    In view of the consequences of the demonstrations, it is evident that the government took a proactive stance against subsequent requests for good governance and sustainable development.

    Yet, as uncertainty lurks in the present, hope beckons from the future in form of the 2023 elections when it is expected that democracy will resurrect and the power to choose will be relegated to the people as is the norm, but the questions arise: Should citizens wait till 2023 to take a stance? Is the change of candidates what counts or an entire overhaul of components that could contribute to the emergence of yet another dictatorial regime in 2023?

    • Elle Adedoyin, Lagos.
  • Balarabe Musa: Of a man and legacy

    Balarabe Musa: Of a man and legacy

    By Adewale Kupoluyi

    Sir: The Balarabe Musa model of politics is worth examining in defining the essence of politics and leadership within the Nigerian context. The elder statesman was indeed a great man of honour who consistently championed the cause of the masses and stood firm on the side of equity, fairness, and justice. Balarabe Musa’s left-leaning political ideology started out with the Northern Elements Progressive Union (NEPU), founded by Mallam Aminu Kano. He was also of the Peoples’ Redemption Party (PRP) on whose platform he was elected governor of Kaduna State in 1979.

    Musa was not only passionate but outspoken when it had to do with issues affecting the Talakawas (common people) in the North. He stood against any form of injustice, corruption, and oppression. This he projected through a revolutionary orientation that focused on the liberation of the poor and the redemption of the Talakawas, a class that has today constituted social and security menace in the North. Unlike what we have now where politicians mount security barricades and throw money around, Musa lived a frugal life. He rejected the paraphernalia of the office of the governor and rather chose to live in a private three-bedroom apartment without the typical hordes of security details, as people freely interacted with him without any restrictions.

    Albeit, when he attempted to run for president in 2003 under the PRP, he was said to have confessed to not having money to print his campaign posters!

    Despite the short period spent in the office, Musa was impactful; and unlike many self-seeking politicians, his administration recorded tremendous achievements in areas of massive educational reforms. He established 100 schools within one year in office while teachers’ salaries and allowances were paid regularly.

    Musa never failed to speak truth to authority. The late elder statesman not only condemned corruption, waste of public resources, he fought the Ibrahim Babangida regime’s electoral shenanigans that culminated in the annulment of the 1993 presidential election. He was a leading antagonist of the dictatorial rule of Sani Abacha and his planned self-succession efforts. The fearless Musa, while speaking on the 60th independence anniversary of the nation, said: ”We need a revolution in Nigeria to have a positive change in the political system … The economic and political models we are currently operating only empower a few … Governments must be structured to impact positively on the masses”.

    He never relented in his dreams of bequeathing a better country by leading the Conference of Nigerian Political Parties (CNPP), as a formidable coalition of opposition parties.

    The Balarabe Musa legacy will thrive when there are free, fair, and credible elections; when politicians are ready to render selfless service and speak to power; when political office-seekers do not need to become rich before being elected; when politicians become conscious that they do not need to spend several years in office before making an impact; when there are mutual respect and independence among the various tiers/arms of government; when leaders pursue people-oriented programmes; when politicians begin to live a simple life and interface/mingle freely with their people; when our weak democratic institutions become strong; when there is virile opposition; and more importantly, when politics is played with purpose, dignity, principle and strong ideology.

    • Adewale Kupoluyi, Federal University of Agriculture, Abeokuta.