The Nation Newspaper

Category: Comments

  • Buhari’s leadership as Head of State: My verdict

    Buhari’s leadership as Head of State: My verdict

    By Ray Ekpu

    This assessment of the life and leadership of Muhammadu Buhari who died on July 13 will be in two parts. This first one will dwell on the roles he played in the nation before he became Nigeria’s elected president in 2015. Buhari who joined the Nigerian Army in 1961 had his military training in Nigeria, Britain, India and the United States. He was a six-footer, ramrod straight like a flag pole, and could easily have made an excellent basketballer if he chose to go along that route. He had a sexy tooth gap which gave pleasure to onlookers when he smiled or laughed.

    Buhari as a soldier commanded several army divisions as the General Officer, fought in the Nigerian Civil War that lasted from 1967 to 1970. He was also the military governor of the North Eastern State (now Borno, Bauchi, Yobe, Adamawa and Taraba.) He was also appointed Federal Commissioner of Petroleum Resources by the military government headed by Olusegun Obasanjo. All of these experiences must have made his military colleagues to consider him for the leadership of Nigeria when they deposed the civilian president, Shehu Shagari in the coup of December 31, 1983. He took charge of the country with a firm hand, attempting to instil discipline in Nigerians by introducing what he called War against Indiscipline (WAI). He acted savagely as a true military dictator and enacted the State Security (Detention of Persons) Decree 2 of 1984 with powers to detain persons considered to be security risks to the state without any charge or trial for up to three months. With this decree in force, he filled the detention centres with detainees who were not allowed to have their day in court because the jurisdiction of the courts on such matters had been ousted. Nigerians who bothered to go to court on such matters were told by the judges that their hands had been tied behind their backs.

    Another important element of his leadership was the enactment of laws with retroactive effect. Many people may have accepted that a military government was capable of enacting draconian laws but they did not anticipate that such laws would be backdated to punish people under laws that did not exist when the alleged offences were committed. One such example was that three young men who were accused of drug smuggling were condemned to death by a decree that was hastily enacted and backdated by the Buhari government. They were executed for an offence that did not carry a death penalty when the offence was committed. There was a national outcry against that decree and after the execution of the three men, no person was again executed under that decree. It died a natural death and that was a sad commentary on the cruelty of the Buhari government.

    When Yakubu Mohammed, Dele Giwa and I interviewed Buhari, the new Head of State in February 1984 for the Concord newspaper, he told us that he would tamper with the press. He said so repeatedly. We all got scared. He kept his promise by enacting an obnoxious decree called The Public Officers (Protection against false accusation) Decree 4 of 1984. Under that decree, two journalists of The Guardian newspaper, Tunde Thompson and Nduka Irabor were jailed for one year for publishing a story that was factual and true but which the Buhari government thought would adversely affect the government or its officials. Journalists and other Nigerians were aghast that they now had a government that was an enemy of the truth and was ready, willing and able to punish truth-telling. It was clear to journalists that their profession was at grave risk and they, the practitioners, were at grave danger too.

    There were protests on the jailing of the two journalists and when the time for them to be freed from prison was near, journalists planned to go to the prison premises and give them a rousing reception. A few days to their release date, the government smartly released them to avoid the huge reception that the journalists had planned for them. That action by the government had indicated that it was remorseful and no journalist was tried for any crimes under Decree 4 until Buhari was toppled.

     His government thought that the Shagari government was corrupt, was negligent of the economy and that was why they had to do a coup to remove that government but they soon found out that the governance of a huge country like Nigeria was not the equivalent of manning an army battalion. The government packed a number of people into detention for alleged corruption and economic crimes and introduced severe austerity measures that failed to deliver the immediate and refreshing results that Nigeria expected. So corruption was not resolved; the economy did not recover and Nigerians were wondering what Buhari had achieved.

    Read Also: Nigeria, others rally for united global action on food security at UN Summit

    And Buhari thought that a change of currency could do the trick. He asked that the Customs officials must scrupulously check all luggage brought into the country from abroad but one incident showed that Buhari was not as saintly as he had pretended to be. One traditional ruler related to one of his aides came into the country with 53 boxes and the Customs officials were not allowed to examine the contents of the boxes. Buhari did nothing about it. He simply looked the other way. That was evidence that the fierce looking dictator had a soft and partisan part in his body. The case of the 53 suitcases became a minus for a government that had posed as a disciplined and impartial administration. That incident also showed that the greater the power, the greater the abuse. He was not able to live down that incident.

    But it is obvious that a tyrant does not mind being hated so long as he is feared. Buhari continued to carry on as if the world started and stopped with him but he did not know that the only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for the good to do nothing. His colleagues in the Army were obviously embarrassed by his rigidity, inflexibility and his holier-than-thou attitude which tended to give the military government a bad name. They then decided to topple his government in August 1985 and gave the baton of leadership to General Ibrahim Babangida. They arrested and detained him for a few years. As soon as Babangida took over, he sought to appease the angry public by releasing many of the people who had been detained indefinitely without trial on the basis of Decree 2. The government also made some pleasant overtures to the press and wooed them while Buhari was cooling his feet in a detention centre somewhere.

    His overthrow was a damning commentary on his character and competence as assessed by his colleagues and affirmed by Nigerians because at his overthrow, there was singing, drumming and dancing all over the country. And when he contested the presidential election in 2003, Nigerians said No to him. He tried again in 2007 they repeated the rejection. And did so for the third time in 2011. And when he got repackaged in 2015 as a born again democrat, Nigerians apparently thought that he had turned a new leaf and decided to give him a Yes answer over an incumbent, Goodluck Jonathan. That success was either a vote for tenacity or an act of forgiveness.

  • Yoruba obaship and the challenge of modernity

    Yoruba obaship and the challenge of modernity

    By Tosin Osasona

    The recent transitioning of the revered Oba Sikiru Kayode Adetona, and his immediate public Islamic interment in accordance with the 2021 Ogun State Obas and Chiefs Law has elicited great controversy across Yorubaland. Rightly so, conversations on the place of royalty and culture in our modern world routinely elicit hotly different reactions, be it the questions of the relevance of monarchies in English and Spanish democracies or the vexed issue of gender-equal succession in Sweden, Belgium, and the Netherlands. You can throw in the mix Thailand monarchy’s strict lèse-majesté laws and the issue of freedom of expression and the recent calls for colonial reckoning for European royals. Therefore, Yoruba peoples, proud inheritors of a civilization that has thrived for over a thousand years, should not and cannot avoid these discussions.

    The burial procedure selected by the last Awujale raises three key questions, and how well we answer them will shape the future. What should be the ideal frame of Yoruba culture and spirituality in 2024? What is the place of Yoruba royalty in our people’s lives now? Who are the custodians of our traditional stools today?

    Cultural purists often invoke the phrase ‘this is our culture’ with conviction. Yet, as Raymond Williams reminds us, ‘culture is one of the two or three most complicated words in the English language’ and a notion fraught with complexity and ambiguity. In light of this conceptual fluidity, what and whose culture is actually being asserted when appeals are made to culture as a foundation of authority?

    Unmistakably, however, Yoruba kingship institutions originated within a religious worldview centred on the Òrìsà and their cosmological order. The Oba was historically seen not only as a political head but also as a spiritual intermediary between his people and the gods. The process of enthronement involved elaborate rituals conducted by traditional religious prelates, indicating that kingship was embedded in Yoruba metaphysics. However, how do we frame our spirituality in light of our complex religious experiences of the last 500 years?

    The Yoruba traditional religion is polytheistic, recognizing hundreds of Òrìsà, each representing specific natural forces, moral principles, professions, and social institutions. Built on this ancestral foundation is our beautiful cultural worldview that presents a rich tapestry of multiplicity, syncretism, and accommodation, which together underpin the remarkable liberality and resilience of the Yoruba worldview. No wonder our families are an impressive blend of shades of religions and a kinship tie that supersedes competing theologies. Perhaps it’s time to accommodate ‘foreign gods’ in our pantheon, after all, the door is never truly shut.

    Read Also: PDP, not APC, mortgaged Nigeria’s future — Okechukwu

    The answer to what is authentic Yoruba religion in the 21st century is to look at the history of Islam and the Christian faith across our communities. Islam has had recognizable presence in Yoruba cities for at least 500 years and the Christian faith for at least 200 years. Essentially, Islam has been practiced in some form in Yorubaland even before Ede, Osogbo, Akure, Ibadan, Abeokuta, Eko and some other Yoruba cities were founded as cities—and ditto for Christianity and some other cities. Can we then say that these religions are totally alien in our lands at this point, after their centuries-long influences?

    How do we separate their linguistic and social influences from our lives? I think the most reasonable answer lies in the understanding that cultural and religious identities are rarely static; they are shaped, reshaped, and often hybridized by encounters with the external world. In fact, in Yorubaland it is not awkward to organize thanksgiving services for the successful completion of an Ogun festival in a Christian church, or have an Oba launch an Ogun statue in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, or an Oba insisting on having his wives join him at the front row at Eid al-Adha prayers.

    Based on historical evidence, there is no authority in our cultural system that rigidly fixes the religion of our kings. Over the last 150 years, both Muslim and Christian kings have ascended the throne across various Yoruba kingdoms. Oba Ali Atewogboye of Ado-Ekiti, a devout Muslim, was crowned in 1836, becoming the first Muslim ruler in Yorubaland. Similarly, Oba Momodu Lamuye of Iwo, enthroned in 1853, was a devout Muslim. Other notable Muslim monarchs of that era include Oba Timi Abibu Lagunju of Ede (1855) and Oba Adeyemi I Alowolodu (1876). Conversely, Oba Frederick Kumokun Haastrup, the Owá Obokún Ajimoko I of Ijeshaland, became the first Christian king in 1896, and Oba Isaac Akinyele was crowned Olubadan of Ibadan in 1955 as a committed Christian and served as the inaugural president of the Christ Apostolic Church. These precedents unequivocally point to a conclusion: royal succession is by bloodline; religious affiliation does not disqualify a prince from royal succession. What is culturally prohibited is the use of royal authority for overt religious proselytism.

    While traditionalists have unquestionable primordial spiritual claims to the ownership of the traditional leadership system in Yorubaland, the current religious demography of Yorubaland indicates domination by the two Abrahamic faiths, a fact that has created the current simmering conflict. Undeniably, the continued existence, relevance, and legitimacy of the institution in Yorubaland depend on its wide acceptance across all Yoruba communities of faith. Calcifying kingship rites is guaranteed to result in its death in time per the current religious demography, and unregulated opening up to modernity will destroy its essence and relevance—a complex reality that calls for calm heads and wise solutions. The contemporary throne in Yorubaland is the joint heritage of all Yoruba people; it must therefore reflect the diverse religious realities of its people.

    The current contest around Obaship rites invites deeper reflection on their true purpose. These are symbolically unique rites designed for cultural heritage, social well-being, and the acknowledgment of ancestral lineage. While traditional religion provides the framework for these rites, the intent behind them—continuity, prosperity, justice—can be appreciated and upheld by Obas of any faith. The consistent nomination of non-traditionalists as Obas over the last century and a half speaks to our living tradition, one that evolves, accommodates, and honours diversity within unity.

    No well-meaning scion of Yorubaland will accommodate the seeming irresponsibility of some traditional leaders cloaked in modernity and/or religious fervour who desecrate sacred tradition. Our shared duty, regardless of faith, is to delineate the permissible bounds of responsible cultural and social leadership. Keeping a delicate balance between the fixed and amenable is the primary key to sustaining the institution. Our traditional leaders should and must accept our people’s religious plurality and only a syncretic royal who identify with all faiths embody the legitimacy and moral authority of the throne. Our thrones are not seats for fanatics of any hue!

    As a prince of Oke-Ako Ekiti, albeit permanently with no royal aspiration, and a public policy scholar, I will suggest three pathways forward based on my global reading of royal systems and processes. First, traditional rites must be respected; however, we must create opportunities for modifications for monotheistic candidates, as these rites are the historical foundation of kingship. Secondly, religious accommodation is a principal qualification for royalty in Yorubaland. Obas, irrespective of their faiths, must acknowledge the indigenous customs that validate their throne. And lastly, we must review our current legal and customary frameworks, including the current Ogun State’s Obas and Chiefs Law, to accommodate reasonable concerns, prevent chaotic disputes, and ensure intergenerational continuity.

    The sad optics of the struggle for the possession of the mortal bodies of the late Aláàfin and Awujale does more damage to the Obaship system in Yorubaland than the burial procedures themselves and are a reminder of the need to create an inclusive and dignifying protocol that reflects cultural maturity and safeguards collective dignity. Moreover, the subservience of royalty to crass political ends and the politicization of the royal selection process should be of more concern to us than who conducts royal burials.

    May Oba Adetona find rest in the illustrious company of our departed ancestors; he surely left Ijebuland better than he met it, and that is all that matters!

    •Osasona is a criminal justice policy researcher and security sector reform specialist

  • As CDS stands poised to lead decisive military action

    As CDS stands poised to lead decisive military action

    By Kennedy Elaigwu Awodi

    Resident Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s steadfast and unambiguous support for the Nigerian military marks a pivotal moment in the nation’s struggle against pervasive insecurity. This is not just political posturing; it is a fundamental shift, an unprecedented catalyst empowering the armed forces, under the leadership of Chief of Defence Staff (CDS) General Christopher Gwabin Musa, to undertake decisive action. This robust and clearly articulated political backing from the highest office unequivocally empowers the military to confront Nigeria’s entrenched security challenges with renewed confidence, strategic clarity, and an uncompromising resolve.

    For too long, the narrative surrounding Nigeria’s protracted struggles against terrorism, rampant banditry, and secessionist movements have been marred by concerns over insufficient resources, perceived political ambivalence, and even whispers of internal impediments. President Tinubu’s public declaration, reiterating his “full authorization” and the nation’s absolute trust, directly confronts and dispels these debilitating anxieties. It signals a definitive pivot from cautious, often reactive engagements to an era where the military is not just expected, but mandated, to be relentlessly offensive and uncompromising in its operations.

    General Musa, a highly decorated and experienced officer whose impactful tenure as Theatre Commander of Operation Hadin Kai demonstrated his acumen in counter-insurgency, now stands at the helm with an unambiguous mandate. His leadership concept of fostering a “professional Armed Forces of Nigeria that is people centric, capable of meeting its constitutional responsibilities in a joint and corroborative environment” is not merely aspirational; it’s fundamentally aligned with this renewed focus on both overwhelming kinetic force and essential non-kinetic approaches to achieving lasting security.

    The president’s unyielding backing translates into several critical and tangible advantages for CDS Musa and his command:

    Knowing that the Commander-in-Chief genuinely and publicly “has their back” provides an immeasurable psychological uplift for the troops on the ground. This instils a profound sense of purpose, emboldens their operations, and significantly mitigates the crippling fear of political repercussions for robust and effective engagements against adversaries. This revitalized confidence is absolutely crucial for sustaining and accelerating offensive momentum.

    Read Also: BAT Nigeria mulls export reforms, showcases sustainability milestones at CEO Forum

    President Tinubu’s explicit commitment to “invest in modern equipment, in intelligence, and in the human capital” is not a mere promise; it’s a pledge of the necessary financial muscle and logistical fortitude. This commitment is vital for acquiring advanced technologies, enhancing real-time intelligence gathering, improving surveillance capabilities, and crucially, ensuring optimal welfare for personnel. The recent, swift induction of new attack helicopters stands as a potent, initial testament to this tangible commitment, signalling that resources will flow where they are needed most.

    The decisive “without fear” directive grants military commanders, operating under the CDS, significantly greater operational autonomy. This means a sharp reduction in political micromanagement, enabling more agile, responsive, and immediate decision-making in dynamic and often volatile combat environments. The military can now act decisively when opportunities arise, rather than being bogged down by bureaucratic delays.

    The CDS has consistently championed joint operations and robust collaboration across all security agencies, extending to critical engagement with local communities. Presidential backing will not only facilitate but demand these efforts, dismantling operational silos and forging a truly unified, intelligence-driven approach to planning and execution.

    However, the journey towards a decisive and lasting victory is undeniably complex. The threats posed by insurgents, bandits, and separatists are hydra-headed, often deeply embedded in socio-economic grievances and leveraging intricate local terrains. The military, under CDS Musa, must therefore continue its relentless focus on:

    Precision intelligence-driven operations

    The absolute necessity of accurate targeting and the imperative to minimize civilian casualties are paramount. This is not merely an ethical consideration but a strategic imperative to isolate criminal elements and maintain the indispensable trust of the populace.

    Deepening civil-military relations

     As CDS Musa himself has frequently stressed, the trust and cooperation of civilian populations are the most invaluable sources of actionable intelligence. Winning the hearts and minds of local communities remains an indispensable cornerstone of any successful counter-insurgency and anti-banditry campaign.

    Sustained internal accountability

     While the president’s commitment addresses resource challenges, continuous vigilance against corruption and ensuring the equitable distribution of welfare benefits are vital to maintaining troop morale, operational integrity, and the very fighting spirit of the forces.

    With President Tinubu’s unambiguous and unwavering support, General Musa and the Nigerian Armed Forces are not merely poised; they are strategically positioned and empowered to lead decisive military action. This represents a critical inflection point for Nigeria’s security landscape. The potent synergy of unflinching political will and exceptionally capable military leadership offers a formidable formula for decisively rolling back the tide of insecurity and, ultimately, restoring enduring peace, stability, and prosperity across the entire nation.

     The nation’s expectations are profoundly high, and all eyes are on the military for a swift, conclusive, and lasting resolution to these protracted conflicts.

    •Awodi wrote from North Carolina, USA. Email: awodiken@outlook.com

  • Badenoch complex

    Badenoch complex

     Leader of United Kingdom’s Conservative Party with Nigerian roots, Kemi Badenoch, has a fixation with denigrating the country of her ancestry in the manner of that ancient saying about using the left hand contemptuously to point out one’s father’s house. It is a tack she apparently relishes to prove the genuineness of her nativity transplant to her adopted country, the UK. As the first Black woman to lead a major political party in that country, she built her political career on pro-Western advocacy and hardline anti-immigration rhetoric, and running Nigeria down comes handy for her to show the premium she places on her Britishness.

    Badenoch was at it again early last week with the claim that Nigeria is so strict with citizenship right that she could not transmit the citizenship she inherited from her own parents to her children because of her gender. This, in her narrative, is unlike the UK where access to the right of citizenship by immigrants is far too liberalised, leaving that country exposed to threats and exploitation. She spoke in an interview with CNN anchor, Fareed Zakaria.

    Asked by Zakaria if she would permit a Nigerian immigrant to create a “mini-Nigeria” in the UK for cultural integration, Badenoch’s response was a swift “No.” She said: “We are allowing our tolerance to be exploited. That is not right. Nigerians would not tolerate that. That’s not something that many countries would accept. There are many people who come to our country, to the UK, who do things that would not be acceptable in their countries.” The opposition leader, who represents the far right of the right-of-the-centre Tory party, cited her children’s alleged inability to become Nigerians in pressing her point. “It’s  virtually impossible, for example, to get Nigerian citizenship. I have that citizenship by virtue of my parents, but I can’t give it to my children because I’m a woman,” she argued, adding: “Yet, loads of Nigerians come to the UK and stay for a relatively free period of time, acquire British citizenship. We need to stop being naive.”

    Born Olukemi Adegoke in the UK in 1980 to elite Yoruba (Nigerian) parents, Badenoch had her childhood and early education in Nigeria before returning to the UK at age 16. It was in 2012 she married a Scottish banker, Hamish Badenoch, whose surname she adopted and with whom she has three children. These are the children she claimed can’t have Nigerian citizenship. In her interview with Zakaria, she said she would ensure it gets “a lot harder” for immigrants to acquire British citizenship if she becomes prime minister.

    But Badenoch was dead wrong about Nigerian citizenship. Contrary to her claim, Chapter 3, Section 25(1)(c) of Nigerian 1999 Constitution (as Amended) provides that a person born outside this country is a citizen if either of their parents is Nigerian. This means that having just one Nigerian parent, regardless of gender, is sufficient for citizenship by birth; and that citizenship is automatically acquired, not needing any application for consideration or naturalisation. Not a few Nigerians, including officials of government, responded to Badenoch by pointing that fact out. Presidential spokesman Bayo Onanuga, in a post on his X handle, said: “Britain should send our lost daughter, Kemi Badenoch, home for proper re-education. Section 25 of our Constitution defines who has the right to Nigerian citizenship. Kemi Badenoch lied. She owes her fatherland some apology.”

    Frontline human rights lawyer Femi Falana, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), described Badenoch’s claim as “a display of utter ignorance” and accused her of misinforming the British public just to score political points. “In her desperate attempt to impress the British electorate, Kemi Badenoch keeps running Nigeria down. Contrary to her misleading claim, her children are Nigerians because she is a Nigerian. Her assertion that she cannot give Nigerian citizenship to her children because she is a woman is not in consonance with Section 25(b) and (c) of the Nigerian Constitution, which provides that every person born in Nigeria after independence, either of whose parents or grandparents is a citizen of Nigeria, or any person born outside Nigeria to a Nigerian parent, is a citizen,” the lawyer stated.

    Falana also cited Section 42(2) that prohibits discrimination based on birth circumstances, gender or social status. “No citizen of Nigeria shall be subjected to any disability or deprivation merely by reason of the circumstances of his birth, gender, political opinion or class,” he stated. According to him, Badenoch’s children are dual citizens of Nigeria and the UK. “It is up to the children to renounce their Nigerian citizenship upon attainment of full age in accordance with Section 29 of the Nigerian Constitution,” he added. On Badenoch’s claim that Nigerian citizenship is “virtually impossible” to obtain, Falana cited Sections 26 and 27 of the Constitution, which outline pathways to citizenship through registration and naturalisation. He acknowledged, though, that the law harbour gender bias in regard of foreign spouses. “A woman who is married to a Nigerian man is qualified for registration as a citizen. But the same right is not accorded to a man who is married to a Nigerian woman because of the patriarchal nature of the society,” he noted.

    Many netizens also rebutted Badenoch’s claim. Among them, former Kaduna Central Senator Shehu Sani slammed her for bothering about citizenship for her children “from a country she rebuked and rejected.” Others accused her of deliberately misrepresenting Nigerian law and attempting to malign her ancestral country, just so to cultivate political appeal among British voters by appearing more British than King Charles III. A few were charitable and granted Badenoch the right to deploy every available tack in pursuing her leadership ambition in the British society. But  they echoed a long standing perception of the anti-racism community that she’s made herself a  tool in the hands of racist Britain to gaslight racism concerns by conveying racism without having to deal with the baggage of being labelled racist, since she’s a Black person to whom the rhetoric has been outsourced.

    Badenoch complex is the mindset that makes Kemi see a liability she’s itchy to dump in her Nigerian roots, in contrast to her immediate predecessor as Tory leader, Rishi Sunak, who flaunted his Indian ancestry. Remember that when Sunak became prime minister in October 2022, making history as one of the youngest at age 42 and the first person of colour on the seat, a video trended showing him performing Hindu rites allegedly before entering 10 Downing Street. Fact-checking showed, however, that the video was not taken after he became prime minister but in November 2020 when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer. The candles he was lighting up were in front of No. 11 Downing Street – not No. 10 – in celebration of Diwali, an Indian festival that typically falls between mid-October and mid-November. The Diwali in 2020 was at a time Covid-19 raged, forcing most countries including Britain into a lockdown. Speaking in the video, Sunak said the lockdown had compelled him to celebrate the Diwali at Downing street instead of in India with his family, noting that it was a necessary precaution for safety.

    Read Also: Shettima departs for Addis Ababa to represent Nigeria at UN food systems summit

    And it isn’t that Badenoch’s political career is getting a boost from her fixation with denouncing her Nigerian ancestry. Neither bookmakers, the British public nor Tory members foresee her at the helm of the Conservative Party by the next general election because she has led Tories to their worst electoral rating in her eight-month-old stint as party leader. In local elections that held across England on 1st May, the party sank to fourth place against the emergence of Reform UK as the new dominant opposition. A triumphant Nigel Farage, Reform UK leader, pronounced Tory party “finished” after it suffered a rout in which Reform captured a slew of Conservative strongholds in the local election. Consequently, deep dissatisfaction with Badenoch’s captaincy is brewing, with bookies projecting the probability of her leading the party into the next general election at less than 13 percent. Prime Minister Keir Starmer of Labour Party has been all too happy to lean into the narrative that Tories are in trouble, claiming at a recent session in parliament that they were “sliding into oblivion.” He added: “They are a dead party walking.”

    As for whether Badenoch looks like a prime minister in-waiting, recent opinion polling found that only 10 percent of Britons said she looked prime ministerial. Even among Conservatives, the group most favourable to her, 45 percent said Badenoch did not look fit for 10 Downing, outnumbering the 31 percent who felt she did.

    If knocking Nigeria is a coping mechanism Badenoch employs in her political woes, she is likely to get more strident going forward. Sad that shoulders she could have cried on in her frustrations would not be there because of her willful self-alienation.

    •Please join me on kayodeidowu.blogspot.be for conversation

  • Nigeria Constitution: National Assembly and Patriots working at cross purposes

    Nigeria Constitution: National Assembly and Patriots working at cross purposes

    • By Nnaji Jekwu Onovo

    In February 2024, the National Assembly inaugurated committee for the review of the 1999 Constitution with a view to amending some areas of the constitution. The 1999 Constitution of Nigeria as every other constitution across the world is no perfect document and therefore subject to amendments at any given time. So, the 10th National Assembly, just like the assemblies before it, is taking steps to amend the constitution. In Nigeria, successive efforts have been made by the 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th and 8th Assembly to alter different sections of the Constitution. However, the National Assembly is working at cross purposes with a group of eminent Nigerians under the aegis of PATRIOTS canvassing for an entirely new constitution. The Patriots and their likes advocating for an entirely new constitution premise their arguments on the fact that the 1999 Constitution was made by the military through a decree and not by the people of Nigeria.

    The first question that comes to mind is: Who are the members of our military, Nigerians or foreigners? If they are Nigerians, are they barred from making any input in the constitution making? Finally, did other people and interest groups in Nigeria made any input in the making of the 1999 Constitution?

    General Abdussalami Abubakar led Military administration set up a Constitution Debate Coordinating Committee (CDCC) under Niki Tobi on 11 November 1998 to recommend a new constitution for the country. Abubakar provided brief of this committee was to “pilot the debate, coordinate and collect views and recommendations canvassed by individuals and groups” within the country concerning the form which a new constitution should take. The committee on presenting its report on 31st December 1998 pointed out that based on their public consultations, most Nigerians preferred adopting the 1979 constitution with “relevant amendments”. By the Tobi’s admission, the 1999 constitution is just a replica of 1979 constitution with some amendments.

    Decree no. 24 of 1999 enacted the constitution into law on 5th May 1999 with effect from 29th May 1999 which successfully ushered in the Fourth Republic on the 29th of May, 1999. The 1999 constitution is the second constitution drafted by a military junta. Before his death in 1975, Murtala Mohammed laid down the basis for the writing of the future constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria that ushered in multiparty presidential democracy. Murtala Mohammed commissioned Rotimi Williams who brought in Ben Nwabueze to draft the new constitution. Murtala’s deputy, Obasanjo who took over the reign of government set up a 49 member committee that completed the work in 1976. The draft was reviewed by 230 members of constituent assembly from 1977 to 1978 led by justice Udo Udoma. Finally, the Supreme Military Council effected the final amendments and promulgated the constitution on 1st February 1979.

    Read Also: National Assembly mourns, suspends plenary till July 22

    The 1979 constitution of the second republic was quite different from the one of first republic. It essentially opted for presidential rather than parliamentary system of government. From the foregoing, the 1999 Constitution and its precursor, 1979 Constitution were made with inputs from various people and groups of Nigeria including the military. So, both constitutions were made by the people of Nigeria. The degree of peoples’ participation during the post-independence varies according to the criteria of the representation used; the people consultation in 1999 surpassed that of 1979 while their partaking in the 1979 exceeded that of 1963 and the 1963 representation outdid that of 1960.

    It is plain that the act of constitution making in Nigeria has been either under the colonialists or the military rulers; except the 1963 Constitution made under the Civilian regime of the 1st Republic.

    On the popular participation, the Lagos conference of 1963 was induced by the elites, as the Prime Minister and the regional premiers played the most significant roles. The latter two constitutions known as military constitutions exercised indirect form of participation. The military constitution of 1979 increased the participation through the review of 230 members of constituent assembly after the 49 elites have done the draft also exhibited more role by the elite than by the peoples’ representatives. The consultation by Tobi committee of 1999 was nationwide, yet most of the contributions came from the elite. So, our constitutions could also be described as Nigerian elite constitutions.

     Again the Patriots are elites and self-appointed spokespersons for the hundreds of millions of Nigerians. In reality, the regular citizens have had no opportunity to sit together to debate the conditions under which they want to live together, resolve their grievances and allay their fears and have thus been denied a say in determining the management of their political destiny. Going by the principle of social contract, the teaming population of Nigeria speak through our elected representatives. The elites vis-à-vis the spirited defenders of the common people should not be fixated with crafting of new constitution but canvas for citizens to adhere strictly to the laws of the land; supporting constitutional amendments when necessary.

    The 1999 Constitution is that document that, even though given out by the military, was enriched by civilian contributions. Thus, the present inadequacies found in the Constitution could therefore be as a result of the dynamic nature of Nigerians’ conduct and behavior and the fact that there is no complete perfection in whatever is done by human beings.

    In Nigeria, the authority to amend the Constitution is derived from section 9 of the 1999 Nigerian Constitution, which provides that an amendment may be proposed with a two-thirds majority vote in both the Senate and the House of Representatives respectively and subsequently approved by a resolution of the Houses of Assembly of not less than two-thirds of all the States. The general public/interest groups play a pivotal role in Constitutional review through engagement with the process. By and large, the Legislature (the elected representatives of the people) has embarked on zonal hearings on Constitution review in the six geo-political zones to ensure public enlightenment and receive input on proposals.

    Constitution amendment is a necessity in democracies worldwide to enable the society responds to changing social, political and economic needs and realities. It is also important for addressing gaps and inadequacies, promoting rights and protecting minority or special interest groups. However, it is important the process is a rigorous, transparent and inclusive one so as to prevent and protect the society from politically motivated or selfish interests and even unnecessary changes with no long term purpose.

  • The bully in the White House: Trump’s disdain for African leadership!

    The bully in the White House: Trump’s disdain for African leadership!

    • By Sunday de John

    IN my personal inquisitiveness for international affairs, I have observed the undiplomatic chats between President Donald J. Trump and African leaders. His unstructured conversations have not once impressed me. His posture reflects that of a bully, his body language is dismissive, his words are loaded with unconcealed arrogance, and the disrespect they portray is deliberately meant to cause damage.

    With his incessant disrespect, I do not see Trump as a statesman; I see him as a man intoxicated by power, blind to dignity and deaf to the principles of mutual respect and understanding that ought to define international relations.

    During his first tenure, although random, he expressed moderate opinions on matters of diplomacy. Now in his second term as President of the United States, he has intensified his pattern of insults and intimidation focused on African leaders. His current approach to foreign policy, if it can even be described that way, is the actualization of his inherent narcissistic traits. We are now seeing a man who is not exemplary in any way, but one who has taken the lead in showcasing his loud and unfiltered disdain for a continent that has historically been a friend of the United States of America.

    On May 21, 2025, while in a contentious meeting at the Oval Office, President Trump ignited an outrageous conversation, accusing South African President Cyril Ramaphosa and his government of “killing white farmers.” The accusation was unsubstantiated, and the evidence Trump tried to present as proof of “White Genocide” was screenshot photos of videos from the Democratic Republic of Congo. To Africans, and particularly South Africans, Trump’s arguments echoed a widely discredited far-right conspiracy theory.

    South Africans also view these racially charged and irresponsible remarks as disdainful, utterly expressed by Trump to insult South Africa’s post-apartheid progress in an attempt to show complete disregard for their country’s sovereignty.

    Read Also: Trump’s humiliation of some African presidents

    With our minds still fresh from the disrespect President Ramaphosa received, and with Trump defiantly persisting without retracting or clarifying his statement, he doubled down by setting the stage for what transpired at a subsequent high-level roundtable meeting with African heads of state.

    The meeting, which was attended by Liberian President Joseph Boakai, Gabon’s President Brice Clotaire Oligui Nguema, Guinea-Bissau’s President Umaro Cissoko Embaló, Mauritania’s President Mohamed Ould Ghazouani, and Senegal’s President Bassirou Diomaye Faye, did not pass uneventfully. During the three days of discussion, Trump continued his practice of condescension by turning to President Boakai and mockingly asking, “You speak good English. Where did you learn it?” Trump’s statement was a blatant manifestation of ignorance regarding Liberia’s establishment by freed American slaves and its English linguistic heritage. His question was not a show of curiosity. He was deliberately acting to belittle President Boakai.

    Another of Trump’s victims is Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, who found himself in Trump’s ambush at the White House, where he endured Trump’s unrestrained emotional outbursts during a bilateral session. Many people around the world watched their televisions in shock, witnessing President Trump and the vice president reducing a wartime ally to an object of humiliation. This behavior occurred while Trump was simultaneously uttering praise for autocrats.

    President Trump’s contempt is not limited to words. His administration deported criminals to South Sudan without any coordination or bilateral agreement just a week or two ago. He did not care whether he was putting South Sudan’s national security at risk; his prime desire was to humiliate an already vulnerable state. There are credible reports now that similar deportation plans are in the works for Nigeria and Liberia. This is another affront to African sovereignty.

    We have also learned from the news that Elon Musk, the South African-born tech mogul and one of the most innovative entrepreneurs in the world today, is facing deportation threats from Trump. We have seen their spats on X (formerly Twitter), with President Trump hurling insults at and mocking Musk in public.

  • Religion as a tool for national development (1)

    Religion as a tool for national development (1)

    The primary focus of every known religion is to lead carnal-minded people to become spiritually minded. It is to enable mortals to rise from their lowest ebb to a transformative stage, where they can connect with the divine.

    This spiritual growth gives rise to morality and essential values, which in turn fosters economic and national development. On the other hand, a more critical examination reveals that religion has also been used as a tool for colonialism and systematic enslavement, stressing the complexities of its role in society.

    Basically, Nigeria today is confused about how to define religion and whether it should be a tool in the process of conquering poverty and attaining sustainable development. This confusion may be rooted in a deeper historical issue, as Nigeria has always had a disadvantage, as people like India’s post-Independence-era Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru pointed out by neglecting its indigenous religions.

    For people like Nehru, this is a disadvantage. It is a point worth considering when we look at how the core beliefs, norms and traditions of Buddhism, Taoism, Hinduism and others have been used to propel the process of development. This historical context is particularly relevant when considering the current state of religion in Nigeria. It is a point worth considering and it shouldn’t be just an academic exercise. 

    Currently, religion in Nigeria no longer appears to be a driving force for sustainable development, unlike in the past. Starting with the establishment, well over a century, or perhaps over one hundred and a half years ago, the establishment of CMS Grammar School (in 1859) Methodist Grammar School (in 1878), religion was actually a very important factor.

    It can be argued that no pre- or post-amalgamation government has matched the pioneering efforts of Christian missionaries and their Muslim counterparts, such as Ahmadiyya and Ansar-Ud-Deen, in human capital development or healthcare infrastructure. Those who take a revisionist stance, which led to the dismantling of these efforts, may forever be remembered for the consequences of their actions. The negative effects of this destruction are now notoriously evident!

    Read Also: Customs issues 21-day ultimatum to tap defaulters over N379.6bn bond breach

    Today, religion is no longer at the forefront of development efforts. Instead, a new phenomenon has emerged where religion has become a commercialized venture in a country with limited economic opportunities. This is evident in the proliferation of ‘prophecies’ that serve as a means to curry favour and ingratiate oneself with those in power. Unlike in the past, religion has lost its prophetic voice. It has failed to hold power accountable.

    These days, adherents of various faiths, including Christians and Muslims, are heavily burdened, yet many struggle to make ends meet, going home and to bed hungry. Moreover, despite their contributions to the establishment of schools through religious institutions, many poor worshippers can’t afford to send their children to those schools due to high tuition fees. While there are notable exceptions, religion has largely lost its moral authority as a counterbalance to government failures and corruption. This is unfortunate, because it wasn’t always like this!

    Once upon a time, religion was a moral force and has changed societies. For those who doubt this, R.H. Tawney’s seminal work, ‘Religion and the Rise of Capitalism’ is a compelling read. Despite being a Marxist, Tawney’s book was paradoxically banned in the Soviet Union, most likely due to its nuanced portrayal of Christianity.

    Few religious leaders, including the General Overseers and Popes, have elevated the core teachings of Christianity to the same level of prominence as Tawney’s work. A good honourable exception is, of course, the Liberation Theologians who bravely challenged military rule in Latin America and revitalized the transformative ethos of Christianity.

    In an earlier period, the fight for social progress has often been linked to the role of religious activists.  As I have argued elsewhere, the British Labour Party was originally formed by the efforts of Christians, largely Methodist clerics. The influential Beveridge Report, which paved the way for the creation of a welfare state that has been widely emulated globally, was the work of Christian socialists, including William Beveridge himself and Clement Attlee, who later became Prime Minister, as well as many other Christian activists.

    •To be concluded.

  • Oyebamiji: Purpose over politics?

    Oyebamiji: Purpose over politics?

    The pursuit of power and purpose often intersect in politics. This raises fundamental questions about leadership, governance, and the role of individuals in shaping their societies. In Nigeria’s context, marked by fluid alliances and shifting loyalties, a technocrat’s dilemma is particularly pronounced.

    While the intersection of purpose and politics is a matter for another time, Bola Oyebamiji’s decision to run for the Osun State governorship election in 2026, under the All Progressives Congress (APC) platform is a case in point. With his extensive experience in both public and private sectors, Oyebamiji’s candidacy promises a potentially new wave of development and accountability in the state.

    In the midst of economic turmoil, the technocrat’s promise of pragmatic solutions can be a potent catalyst for change. Bill Clinton’s 1992 presidential campaign symbolizes this phenomenon, where the phrase “It’s the economy, stupid” resonated with voters and transcended partisan divides. By positioning himself as a competent economic manager, Clinton defied expectations and secured the presidency. This strategic emphasis on economic competence can be a decisive factor in times of crisis. It can allow a candidate to rise above partisan politics and tap into the electorate’s desire for pragmatic solutions.

    In the present field of wannabes, if AMBO, as Oyebamiji is fondly called, positions himself as the competent technocrat, who manifests the mantra, “Cometh the hour, cometh the man” – someone who rises to meet the moment’s challenges, he will be very difficult to stop. As Clinton showed at a similar time of economic dysfunction, the candidate who projects himself as a doer, who can put food on the table and elevate living standards, has a very clear advantage. Given his track record, I think AMBO has the savvy to do so!

    With over-28 years of expertise in the banking sector, and as the current Managing Director/CEO of the National Inland Waterways Authority (NIWA), Oyebamiji’s leadership approach is characterized by a commitment to communal development, grassroots mobilization, and inclusive governance.

    But the conversation shouldn’t end there! With existential threats looming, Nigerians are seeking a proven leader who can manage resources effectively and outline a programme similar to the Unity Party of Nigeria’s iconic Four Cardinal Programme of 1979. If AMBO showcases his ability to deliver, he may be seen as a modern-day equivalent of the late Lateef Jakande and Bola Ige. Both leaders were elected based on their reputation as capable administrators, rather than partisan affiliations.

    Read Also: Education under Renewed Hope Agenda undergoing transformation – Shettima

    It’d be in Oyebamiji’s interest to build a data-driven ‘coalition of the grassroots’ to achieve his purpose. He should leverage his proven economic credentials as Osun State Commissioner for Finance (2017-2018; 2019-2022) to make a strong case. Specifically, he could highlight his achievements in fiscal balance during his tenure and explain how these successes can be built upon and fine-tuned in today’s conditions.

    Further still, AMBO should revisit the annals of history and examine the trends that have shaped voters’ perceptions of managerial competence. Defections alone don’t win elections, as the 2022 Osun State governorship election has shown. Similarly, endorsements alone don’t guarantee success, as the 2015 presidential election has revealed. Much more needs to be done to win voters’ trust!

    Currently, across Osun State’s senatorial districts, the electorate is palpably receptive to a leader who epitomizes these qualities. The state is currently in a state of flux, with no single political party dominating the electorate’s imagination. The question therefore remains: can Oyebamiji forge the necessary alliances to capitalize on this sentiment and turn it to his advantage?

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

  • Of Awujale Adetona’s religious beliefs and monarchical heresy

    Of Awujale Adetona’s religious beliefs and monarchical heresy

    • By Mobolaji Sanusi

    The recently demised Awujale of Ijebuland, Oba Sikiru Kayode Adetona Ogbagba II is assumably resting in the bosom of his creator, far from the hustle and bustle of telluric vanities. While alive, he lived life to the hilt. Was crowned an Oba as a young man in his twenties who was brought back from England where he was studying after the death of his predecessor in 1959.

    Ostensibly, he was as at death, the longest reigning traditional ruler of his time having reigned for sixty-five years, dying at age 91.

    In all ramifications, Awujale Adetona achieved a lot, earning the respect of high and mighty including the hoi polloi amongst his people. But for his later years anti-culture/tradition activism, he did well for himself.

    At death, he was one of the most respected monarchs in the political entity called Nigeria, hailing from the Yoruba ethnic group. He was a traditional ruler with socio-political influence; largely known for being courageous, principled and with perceived integrity as attested to by the applause heaped on him by notable people, including incumbent President Bola Ahmed Tinubu, GCFR.

    Doubtful if the people of Ijebu Ode will be blessed with such an influential monarch as successor to the man within the nearest future. Time shall tell.

    Whatever accolades Adetona might have garnered, such were diminished by his failure to protect, to his last days on earth, his primary responsibility of being the repository of his people and communities’ customs and traditional heritage.

    He lived a kingship life but was unfortunately unroyally buried. Adetona was a jolly good fellow king who in the late seventies was too steep in dangerous political maneuvering akin to traditional rulers of that era. This nearly cost him his throne during the second republic. But for the Buhari/Idiagbon coup of December 31st, 1983, he would have said goodbye to the throne over forty years ago.

    Read Also: Customs issues 21-day ultimatum to tap defaulters over N379.6bn bond breach

    The twilight of Awujale Adetona’s life as traditional ruler was marred with culture-traditional chaos—akin to being wise after the fact. His mind became colonially colonised. He lost touch with socio-cultural and traditional realities.

    Otherwise, how can one describe his vehement insistence before death that his burial rites must be devoid of long entrenched royally cultural/traditional rites by the Odis of Ijebu-Ode in tandem with ancient Ijebuland and Yoruba kingship history.

    Being a Muslim from birth that embraced Yoruba Kingship tradition early in life, he dithered by jettisoning culture/tradition that he was meant to protect leading to his being buried not royally but in line with Islamic rites.

    And being an Oba while alive, this has set a bad precedent for trado-cultural kingship reverence in Yoruba land. Yes, Adetona as an individual had the preferential legal rights on how he should be buried at death but as an Oba with customary obligations, he had abdicated such wishful rights that ran contrary to established customary traditional rites. If he had wished any contrary to the latter like he had done, he should have long relinquished the throne of his forefathers he occupied in trust before his death.

    Like it is said in law, Awujale met the condition precedent of his Yoruba traditional contractual obligations for becoming an Oba in 1960 but jettisoned the condition subsequent at death in 2025 by insisting his dead body’s insulation from traditional processes. Even in contemporary times, most Christian Obas including their Muslim counterparts, are relegating traditional rites because of their religious beliefs. The question is: Why take up traditional rulership mantle with modus/rites that contradicts their supposed foreign religious beliefs?

    More posers: Can religious beliefs override traditional engagements/duties of traditional rulers freely entered into? Is it right for traditional rulers to be more catholic than the Pope on issues of religious beliefs that are against traditional teachings? As traditional rulers, are they not supposed to be worshippers of, and custodians of all their existing ethnic ancient religions? These rhetorical questions become necessary because even in England where Christianity is well entrenched, the world has witnessed traditional rites unknown to Christian doctrines routinely performed before and after the coronation of their king/queen and even at their death.

    The entire world saw the Britons bring an ancient ‘stone’ and sacrificial ‘goat’ into the church while performing royal rites for outgoing and incoming queen/king respectively.

    To the foreign religion hypnotised black traditional rulers of Nigeria and Africa, that British culture/tradition symbolises satanism. But to the Britons that symbolises Christianity, that is their own culture/tradition to be showcased to global audience with glee, irrespective of their religious beliefs.

    The religious hypocrisy of kings like late Awujale Adetona and other living cohorts against Yoruba culture/tradition lack principled historical antecedents. Awujale Adetona should have abdicated his throne at the point he considered Islam to be more important than the culture and tradition of his people. An historical precedent on the honourable path to toe when as an King there is a clash between personal convictions and culture/tradition was laid at the epochal December 1936 moment when King Edward VIII abdicated the throne of England in preservation of the age-long Anglicanism view on divorce; particularly as it affects remarriage by incumbent English monarch that also doubles as the customary head of the Church of England.

    Background check by yours sincerely shows that King Edward VIII of England had fallen in love with one Wallis Simpson, a two-time America divorcee. The widespread unwillingness to accept Wallis Simpson as the King’s consort and the King’s insistence on marrying her led to his honourable consequential decision to abdicate the throne to go with the love of his life, and preserve the age-long culture/tradition integrity/reverence of the throne of his forefathers.

    This kind of principled honourable decision is what Awujale Adetona shied away from while alive. The current Oluwo of Iwo and needlessly controversial king, Oba AbdulRasheed Adewale Akanbi, who relishes being more Islamic than the Arabs is denigrating the culture/tradition of his forefathers and Yoruba land when he should have honourably abdicated the throne to pursue the tenets of his beloved faith.

    Even more recently, during the funeral obsequies of demised Pope Francis in Rome, we all watched masquerade-like figures inside the Vatican church conducting their rites devoid of any hullabaloo. To the original Catholics in the Vatican, that is their culture and tradition that no external influence can take away from them. But to the Catholic black man, that to them is erroneously satanic.

    However, it is curious and laughable to see some of our Obas including late Awujale Adetona trying to hypocritically annihilate our traditional rulership culture and traditions simply because of their foreign religions that promised them ‘heaven’ through scriptural teachings. Yours sincerely believes that only good conscience manifesting in fair and humane dealings with fellow humans are the surest bet to sliding through the gate(s) of heaven. Praying five times a day or sleeping in churches are obviously no sure guarantees of making heaven.

    What late Adetona and other living Obas with this culturally destructive mindsets have forgotten is that cultural values and traditions are the core principles and ideals upon which an entire community exists. Without these cultures and traditions, they can’t, in the first place, be an Oba and still enjoy the reverence/courtesies being extended to them. Put differently, kingship is a creation of tradition. Jettisoning tradition for foreign religions by monarchs invalidates the basis for the throne on which they sit.

    Collectively, it is undeniable that these localised values have shaped our behavior, identity and worldview, passed through generations and playing crucial role in maintaining societal cohesion and stability, including sustenance of the kingship institutions.

    To all culturally abhorrent traditional rulers under the guise of affirming any imported religions, let it be known that our culture and traditions should forever live in our hearts, souls and conduct. It is somewhat regrettable that this traditional rulership infiltrations by foreign minded religious Obas is gradually killing the traditional values upon which our Yoruba ethnic group is predicated today.

    To all foreign religions’ influenced Obas in Ijebu-Ode extending to Iwo, Ogbomoso and other parts of Yoruba land that are misbehaving as if preserving our traditional cultures and traditions is satanic and antithetical to showing respect for their adopted religions, time to have a rethink or abdicate their traditional thrones is now.

    Now globally proven that local cultures, traditions and religions of a people have nothing against their mental and scientific abilities and development. Unequivocal examples against our colonised kings’ minds are Japan, Korea, Singapore, Israel, China and others with local religions, cultures and traditions that have propelled them to technological advancement and economic prosperity. Despite Christianity and Islam addictions by our Obas, most criminalities and pilfering of nation’s natural resource endowments happen in their backyards while they look the other way. Our Obas can maintain religious diversity without compromising our own cultural identity and value chains.

    All culturally aberrant traditional rulers must also know that from time immemorial, our cultures and traditions, when effectively practiced, have prevented our societies from sliding into anomie. They have helped in preserving discipline among the Yoruba households.

    Our foreign religions indoctrinated Obas should realise that cultural values, passed down through generations, are known to play a crucial role in maintaining social cohesion and stability. Awujale betrayed the cultural trust reposed in him by Ijebu people and by extension Yoruba people-at-large.

    Henceforth, any prince from ruling households in Yoruba land that feels that foreign religions are superior to our culture and traditions should not be considered for traditional stools and those Obas with such contradictory beliefs should honourably abdicate the thrones of their ancestors or be deposed without hesitation if they fail to do so.

    •Sanusi, former MD/CEO of LASAA is managing partner of Lagos State based AMS RELIABLE SOLICITORS

  • Okpebholo, Obi and irregular VIP behaviour

    Okpebholo, Obi and irregular VIP behaviour

    By Iboro Otongaran

    Commentaries on Governor Monday Okpebholo’s remarks over Peter Obi’s visit to Edo State are dropping thick and fast, but much of the reactions traffic in insult at the governor. And a good deal of the pro-Obi commentaries is actually thuggery. I think the insults and name-calling amount to gross disrespect to the people of Edo State whom Okpebholo lawfully represents. None of those hauling the bricks has a right to dictate to the people of Edo State who their leader should be.

    Consumed by emotions and blinded by partisan affiliation, the pro-Obi commentators have largely stepped over the issues at play which the governor clearly addressed in his initial comment on the matter. The real issues implicated in the face-off between Okpebholo and Obi are important and deserve to be isolated and looked at in their merit, devoid of political colouration.

    Okpebholo had called out Peter Obi, the presidential candidate of the Labour Party in the 2023 election, and former governor of Anambra State, for visiting Edo State, obviously for a political act, without informing the governor of the state.

    The reaction of Okpebholo was that the action of the former governor of Anambra State was irregular and in fragrant breach of security protocols and courtesies that ought to attend a visit by such a high-profile political figure. The governor’s extended position on the matter was that next time Obi wants to visit Edo State, he should inform the state governor, and if he doesn’t, he should not visit the state.

    It’s plain common sense and consistent with established global practices that a former presidential candidate of a major political party, or any political bigwig for that matter, will do well not only by informing the governor of a state he’s visiting, in fact, by paying a courtesy call on the governor on the way to the purpose of his visit. That’s the way to show respect to constituted authority. That’s the way to show humility which Obi wants people to see as his second skin.

    While such a former presidential candidate sneaks into any state for a visit of any kind, his safety is the responsibility of the sitting governor. Should anything untoward happen to him, who takes the rap? The sitting governor, of course!

    Do we now see why Okpebholo should take umbrage at such irregular VIP behaviour? Whoever is interested in what is right will say without hesitation that Senator Okpebholo said the right thing about Peter Obi’s disdainful behaviour. The former presidential candidate of the Labour Party should not sneak into any state given his profile. He should show he is ready to be president through proper comportment.

    Those leading the frenzied criticism of the Edo State governor seem to suffer from selective amnesia. They want to give the impression that they have forgotten so soon what Obi did when Nasir el Rufai went to Anambra State at the time Obi was governor. Did Obi himself not bare his fangs at el Rufai during that visit in 2013, citing security concerns for restricting el Rufai’s movement while he was in the state?

    To buttress the verity of Okpebholo’s position on VIP visit, Nyesom Wike, FCT minister and former governor of Rivers State, recalled at a recent public event in Edo State that when he was governor of Rivers State, Peter Obi informed him as the state governor, of his (Obi’s) plan to visit the state and the Rivers State government made available to him the necessary logistics and security support during the visit. Wike explained that such notification and concomitant support was necessary to ensure the safety and comfort of the visiting VIP, to make sure that nothing went amiss during such a visit for which anyone could blame the governor of the state.

    What Obi did in Edo State smacks of gross disrespect to the person and office of the governor of Edo State. My belief is that Obi should respect sitting governors the way he was respected when he was governor by conducting himself within the norms of our socio-political culture and the imperatives of security. Security protocols should not be treated with levity, because things could go disastrously wrong within a moment of thoughtlessness or levity with the safety of a ranking politician such as a former presidential candidate.

    This matter is as much about security as it is about protocol. Someone once said there would have been no government if there was no protocol. So the right protocol is important to avoid creating a faux pas for a VIP in the public space.

    Read Also: 2027: Nigeria needs competent leader, not southern or northern president – Gbenga Hashim

    I know some people would say that these issues of security protocols and VIP courtesies are not important because they want to keep on caressing the plastic image of Obi as a simple and humble politician, though this simple politician flew in a chopper to the burial of his sister-in-law and was in love of traveling by private jets when he was governor.

    The truth is that Obi’s canned humility is a mask for a standoffish disposition that has leaked through the façade from time to time. His apparent disdain for Okpebholo may be the latest of such Freudian slips, but there have been many instances of such seepage in the past. For another instance, the story is abroad that Obi did not bother to inform major stakeholders and political heavyweights within Ndigbo of his plan to run for president in 2023. Obi is a story of make-believe simplicity masking a snobbish streak that has lamentably led so many, particularly Nigerian youths, into mistaking the tawdry for the real!

    The mix-up of the tawdry and the real, spawned by the grotesquely cultivated public persona of Peter Obi, is ever noticed in his actions and speeches wherever he goes. He is either seen serving meals at events, wheeling his luggage through airports, or talking of how he will fly commercial planes in his coming and going if he becomes president. Yet none of his fawning followers appears to have told him that this type of talk and conduct is gnawing away at his credibility. Governance is not even a humility contest.

    A leader can be humble and yet ineffective. Obi should preen himself less on humility and simplicity, and tell us what he had done remarkably differently in governance at the subnational stage that he wants to replicate at the national level.

    That Anambra State is in such a sorry security state today does not suggest that Peter Obi came away with a sterling scorecard on that state. Bad governance and insecurity are like Siamese twins.

    No one should be misled by Nigeria’s social media infatuation with the Obi bubble to mistake bad form for standard behaviour. Peter Obi was wrong to sneak into Edo State. He is bound by the demands of security and protocol—generally by social expectations—to inform the sitting governor of the state he is visiting. Governor Monday Okpebholo was right and within his obligation as the chief security officer of Edo State to hold Obi’s feet to fire for an inappropriate behaviour. Obi appears to be as unmindful of diplomacy as he is notoriously careless with facts.

    •Otongaran, a communication artist, writes from Abuja