The Nation Newspaper

Category: Comments

  • Obasanjo: Irony of political zenithism

    Events in Nigeria’s political landscape have never ceased to lose a bite of drama. And while we have sorely missed the ones in the comedy category, we have endured the tragic ones prevalent, and still counting. However, feel free to name the category of the new series starred by the renowned statesman and former president, Olusegun Obasanjo.

    In the open letter “The Way Out: A Clarion Call for Coalition for Nigeria Movement”, the former president summed up some of the intriguing challenges of the Buhari-led administration, outlining clearly the areas deserving of a small round of applause, and those filling the holes of disappointment. The headline however, is that Obasanjo, explicitly and implicitly, drew the curtain for Buhari against seeking re-election in 2019. But, having the smidgen of knowledge about the former president, one needs to be careful with his ‘wise’ words, either side of winding down the glasses to peep at the untold, muted, disguised and out of the surface disposition credited to the outspoken man. He really is that much of a complex character. Let us x-ray this new thriller.

    For a start, Buhari has failed to live up to expectations in some areas since the infamous 2015 general elections. That’s understandably true and it would only be idiotic to claim otherwise. Yet, the man has overachieved in some areas equally of importance and such must not be jettisoned to the cesspit. But, by admonishing Buhari to call it a day, Obasanjo has simply scored an expensive own-goal by throwing the towel. As someone with his wealth of experience about governance, it is criminal to write an administrator off in such short, hazy, and impatient manner. It is worthy to state that in the event that OBJ happens to be PMB at this point in time, in same circumstances, he, OBJ wouldn’t have done any better. It took the man eight good years, yet, he left knowing that much needs to be done, and, is in fact, yet to be done. Isn’t it why he arguably sought for third term? No leadership thrives with short tenure stamped by inexperience. A little stroll down the history lane would expose the fact that PMB did overachieved, in comparison to his second coming, during his short tenure as the head of state. So many uncountable projects could be traced to him, at a time and age you and I know that many would fail and be shielded in the court of dexterity. Democracy has changed the man, the system, the growth, and the development. PMB could have done more if it were still military regime. What did OBJ achieve in his first tenure as head of state?

    Put it simply, to write Buhari off following three years of assuming the hot seat is sentimental, unjust, selfish, cruel and least expected from a respectable leader and statesman. It sums up his faith, which are yards away from the pulpit of optimism. His convictions, which is begging to get license for a bigger picture; his words, a living statue of discrepancies and inconsistencies. And above all, his wisdom, taking the whips of logic. One would expect clarity of premises to strengthen the towel throwing, rather than an act of shooting self on the foot! Take a look at this verse in the letter:

    “If things were good, President Buhari would not need to come in, He was voted to fix things that were bad and not engage in the blame game.”

    Take away the last two words, it’s something we have chided the administration on, and urge them to jettison it by actions. Look at the honest angle of the situation as at 2015 and tell me why something is not wrong in the logical puzzle of the statesman. You simply can’t take him off the picture for failing to jet off at a time when expectations are beyond mortal apprehension. Even some machines function better as they grow in usage talk more of a complex being expected to be the messiah that even the critic, despite spending huge number of years in the number one office couldn’t be.

    Also, the idea of a statesman is begging for more theoretical underpinnings by the activities of some of our statesmen. I know a statesman is supposed to be like a bridge to the incumbents, making subtle suggestions, proffering wealth of experiences and urging for the need to act in line with antecedents of similar events. I for one don’t really understand why being a statesman means compounding problems. The timing of this letter itself is suicidal. It shifts focus to a debate that takes resources away from being assembled where they are needed. It creates psychological chaos, heat the polity and even make situation worse by renewing boring debates.

    “…this is no time for trading blames or embarking on futile argument and neither should we accept untenable excuses for non-performance.”

    Isn’t this boring to hear? Is it a new premise in the debate?

    More importantly, someone appears to be playing “god” here. That portrayal of omniscience in leadership that has made the man carve out some niche for himself, like someone who had attained the zenith while in office, is synonymous of a perfectionist in the field where it is vague. If OBJ is close to the title he awards himself, no disrespect, Nigeria would have been among the comity of nations, barging shoulders with the superpowers and bragging about the development ratio. Don’t go far; look at South Africa for instance. Can Nigeria stand with temerity in the same box, with her counterpart, in the debate about development despite having a “god” as President for eight years? The feeling at some quarters is that the “endorsement” of this “god” is the guarantee for the top spot, a spiritual blessing that is a “can’t do without”. Little wonder why they insisted that the former principal failed in 2015 for simply missing the “oil” of anointing by the “god”.

    As for the ruling party APC, testing times are unavoidable. Just like Buhari, shutting the party out this early, giving its first taste of power after so many years in the opposition seat is massively the height of impatience that can lead to rounds of continuous trials and error. Revolution, reformation and true change take time in every clime where it has been experimented. The below statement by OBJ is undermining really.

    “…they have given as best as they have and as best as they can give…to ask them to give more will be unrealistic and will only sentence Nigeria to a prison term of four years if not destroy it beyond the possibility of an early recovery and substantial growth.”

    Does the above mean that nothing positive can come out in the second tenure of PMB? Where is the faith here? Where is the belief he once had in this man? Where is the optimism expected by a statesman?

    The Nigerian project is one that must undergo turbulent periods to be successful. It is in the spirit of rising each time we fall that Nigeria shall be great “again”, if I may employ the word. In the meantime, what is before us is the “lesser evil conundrum”. Nigerians will have to assess their best option in the absence of many. While it is too early to start the lesser evil debate, it is too early to talk about 2019. It is far too early for a vote of no confidence by the respectable statesman. After all, Paris was not built in a day!

  • Can Buhari get his groove back?

    Prior to his 2015 electoral victory, President Muhammadu Buhari had contested for the presidency thrice (2003, 2007 and 2011) and lost on all three occasions. But by 2015 when he made the fourth attempt that eventually enthroned him as the nation’s latest horse rider (apology to  Chief Olusegun Obasanjo aka ‘Ebora Owu’), his popularity had soared to an all-time high. The chant across the country was simply: ‘Sai Baba’.  Except, perhaps, for the Late Chief MKO Abiola in the annulled 1993 presidential election, no presidential candidate in the country’s political history had garnered so much extensive approval.

    A couple of factors were responsible for the change in Buhari’s political fortune. First, his predecessor, the Lucky One, had squandered all the goodwill that offered him the presidency. Second, Nigerians saw in Buhari a man of spotless integrity who could be entrusted with the nation’s treasury. Third, Nigerians believed he could decisively tackle the nation’s mounting security problem. Fourth, the coalition of political parties that formed the APC gave Buhari a better platform than he previously had. Fifth, Nigerians were simply fed up with then ruling political party and were willing to give Buhari a chance.

    So, Buhari rode on the back of all these aforementioned dynamics to become, perhaps, the most widely elected president in the nation’s political annals.  But then, in a funny twist of events, the once famous Buhari, who can never do any wrong, has suddenly become a villain. Suddenly, the man Nigerians love to hail with the chant of ‘Sai Baba’ is literarily being slain on a daily basis, curiously by his erstwhile fanatical promoters.

    Just recently, fiery Lagos Pastor and a top notch Buhari’s advocate, Tunde Bakare, held a State of the Nation parley at the headquarters of his church in Lagos. The verdict? Buhari has failed the country. In quick sequence came Buhari battering from across the country. Various organisations and individuals that were once avowed Buhari’s backers have suddenly become his strong critics. Indeed, a famous priest who once predicted Buhari ascendancy to the presidency recently warned him not to take Nigerians for granted.

    At the home front, the president isn’t equally finding things easy as the First Lady was once alleged to have said that she wouldn’t campaign for the President’s re-election except he puts his political house in order. The latest in the catalogue of anti Buhari sentiment, currently pervading the country, came from no other source than the self-acclaimed ‘Conscience of the Nation’, Chief Olusegun Obasanjo.

    Now, the question is: How did the president fritter away the goodwill he so much enjoyed at such a critical moment as this? Why is Nigerians’ patience suddenly running out with the president?  Well, like every such intricate socio-political issue, the answer to the questions is multifaceted.  For one, the president is perceived by many to be too slow in his handling of salient national matters. It took him about six months to put in place a cabinet while appointing members into the various boards of national parastatals took him much more. This is just to mention a few instances.

    Also, the president has been broadly accused of engaging in unconcealed nepotism. It has been alleged that the sacred cows in his government are his kinsmen who are largely untouchable. The president has also been accused of favouring those from his part of the country in terms of appointments. In this case, appointments into top national security posts have particularly been alleged to be lopsided.

    Additionally, the president’s handling of the tricky killer herdsmen’s question hasn’t been too convincing. While speaking on this particular subject, Pastor Tunde Bakare accused the president of gross bias. He cited the example of how the military were swiftly deployed to fish out Nnamdi Kanu and his IPOB gang. He wondered why same speed was not employed in the case of the Benue genocide where hapless people were gruesomely murdered. All over the country, herdsmen are becoming a nuisance and great security threats, but there seems not to be an all-out onslaught against them. The insinuation in many quarters, therefore, is that the president is not willing to tackle the knotty issue because ‘his’ people are involved.

    Now, in-spite of recent decline in the president’s approval rating, if he wishes he could still warm himself back into the hearts of his disgruntled compatriots, especially the masses who so much believed in him. For one, the president needs to become swifter in his handling of urgent national matters. His recent assertion that he needs to take his time in taking certain decisions doesn’t really suffice.  A man whose house is on fire does not have the luxury of time.  Swift decisions and actions must be taken on critical national matters to move the country forward. What we need at this critical time in the country is strong leadership. Shrinking from taking the right decisions and actions at the appropriate won’t do the country much good.

    Also, the president must be wary of sycophants whose stock in trade is lies and deception. They are hypocrites with self-seeking agenda. They did same with Abacha. For the right price, they can wine and dine with the devil himself. Therefore, he needs to be discerning with the kind of stuffs such people feed him with. He needs to pay more attention to what his critics are saying. In most cases, critics are better than sycophants.

    Equally, the president needs to be more visible. Nigerians want to see and hear their president. It has often been said that president is a man of little words. No! This shouldn’t be the case. He is the leader of a nation of over 170 million people and they are eager to see and hear him. He needs to allay their fears. He needs to say things that would encourage and inspire them. He needs to sometimes move out of the Aso Rock to relate with the ordinary Nigerians. The vice-president did this quite well while the president was away on medical treatment.  He needs to engage the people on several burning national issues. There are several platforms through which this can be done.

    Finally, the president must allay the fears of Nigerians on the allegation of bigotry being levelled against him. He must see the entire country as his constituency. After all, his mandate is a pan Nigerian one. Thus, he must not be seen to favour one section of the country at the expense of the other. In the words of former Senate President, late Dr. Chuba Okadigbo: ‘If you are emotionally attached to your tribe, religion, or political leaning to the point that the truth and justice become secondary considerations, your education is useless. Your exposure is useless. If you cannot reason beyond petty sentiments, you are a liability to mankind’.

    For the president, the clock is ticking and time is running out. History would not be kind to him if he squanders the unique goodwill upon which he rode to the presidency. We have had enough tales of failure. He cannot afford to fail!

    • Ogunbiyi wrote in from Ikeja, Lagos.

     

  • Ogbeh: Time to bow out

    I am sure that many readers of this piece will not consider me disrespectful to our politicians if I write that most of the Nigerian politicians do not have principles and that they are in politics to feather their own nests. They jump from one political party to another as they are not ideologically rooted in any political party. Many of them are now leaving the PDP, the former governing party in droves to APC the current ruling party at the federal level. They are doing this not because they believe in the ideology of APC which to me unfortunately is opaque but to seek ways to butter their bread in the federal government controlled by APC. The jumbo salaries being taken home monthly by our National  Assembly members at the time when the minimum wage is mere N20,000 per month is a clear testimony, that the politicians in Nigeria are in the profession to feather their own nests. Our politicians also lack the courage to speak the truth so as not to jeopardize the perquisites of offices they occupy. For these listed shortcomings and others not listed, I have no apology for the above characterization of our politicians.

    However, despite my above take on Nigerian politicians, I respect and admire few of them. One of the politicians who earn my respect is Chief Audu Innocent Ogbeh, Minister of Agriculture in the present Buhari’s federal government. In fact, to me he is one of the few performing ministers in the cabinet despite his age which is above 70 years. Audu Ogbeh came to national prominence in 1982, when he became minister of communication and later of steel development in the inefficient and rudderless Shagari government of 1979 to 1983. Despite the fact that the administration he served was a disaster, Audu Ogbeh left with his honour intact when the Buhari-led military coup sent the administration packing. When politics returned fully in 1997, Audu Ogbeh joined the PDP and was drafted by Chief Olusegun Obasanjo to be the chairman of the party in place of Chief Barnabas Germade, who could not be controlled by the all-powerful President Obasanjo. Audu Ogbeh held the post of the chairman of PDP from 2001 to 2005. He had offended Obasanjo for writing a well-publicized letter where he detailed the highhandedness of the president in the affairs of the party. His principled stand against the mighty President Obasanjo was applauded by many Nigerians. He later resigned from the party and returned to his Efugo farm in Makurdi.

    Audu Ogbeh came to his present post in 2015, and Nigerians were told by the Vice-President Professor Yemi Osibajo that he was begged to take up the post. Personally, I think he was the right person for the job. There is no doubt that Chief Ogbeh has performed creditably well in this post despite his advanced age. I am in position to asses him objectively because I am a professional agriculturist trained to the highest level in the profession. Having said this, I believe now that Chief Ogbeh is now suffering from what people referred to as ‘diminishing return’, if one judges by the fiasco that characterised the recent exportation of yam to USA under his watch and his recent patronising and insensitive comments on the fiendish activities of the murderous Fulani herdsmen in Benue states and other parts of northcentral and southern states of Nigeria.

    I consider the ill-fated exportation of yams to USA as nothing but unnecessary playing to the gallery because we are yet to satisfy our internal need for yam consumption in the country. In a bid to impress Nigerians that yams can bring needed foreign exchange to the country, proper paper documentations with regard to sanitation and customs requirements were not properly worked out. We arrogantly refused to learn from Ghana which has been long in the business of exporting yams to USA. The net result of this unplanned venture was a national disgrace as the exported yams were rejected in USA with attendant loss of revenues to the country. I hope proper lessons had been learnt from this unmitigated disaster for future guidance.

    It will be an understatement to say that Audu Ogbeh disappointed many Nigerians by his recent statement on the murderous activities of the Fulani herdsmen who had been tormenting our country. Their latest murderous action led to the untimely and unnecessary death of 71 of our country men and women in Benue State. According to Ogbeh, “the inability of the government to pay attention to herdsmen and cow farming unlike other developed countries contributed to the killings”. He continued to tell Nigerians that unlike other farmers involved in arable and permanent crops, the herdsmen had been ignored by the government. This is an unfortunate statement coming from a man known for his principles and honesty. Audu Ogbeh by this statement was inadvertently justifying the killing of his fellow citizens in his own state of Benue State and other states in the country. His statement is in the same despicable league as that of the Inspector General of Police Ibrahim Idris who said the vicious killings in Benue State was a result of communal crisis. Audu Ogbeh is a well-educated man and as a former university lecturer, I expect him to have done a little research and consultations with officials of his ministry before making the statement that has brought down his esteem as a principled and reasonable politician. I am sure that he made that statement so that he would continue to be in the good book of the ruling elite in the country.

    I know as a matter of fact that since 1973 when the first document titled ‘Agricultural Development in Nigeria (1973-1985)’ was prepared by the late Professor Olajuwon Olayide, the renowned agricultural economist and former vice chancellor of University of Ibadan, efforts had been made to encourage the Fulani herdsmen to embrace settled agriculture through ranching and use of grazing reserves. The inability and omission referred to by Audu Ogbeh in his statement were not necessarily caused by the government but were brought about principally by the refusal of the Fulani herdsmen to embrace modern system of livestock farming which has been adopted by many developing countries in Africa such as Kenya and Botswana. Their obduracy to this system of modern livestock farming was because they had solid political backing at the federal level and this still continues till the present time.

    Nobody with conscience and human feeling will find any justification for the barbaric killing in Benue State after watching the gory pictures emanating from the mindless massacre. It is unfortunate that Ogbeh made that statement and with this statement, I think for some inexplicable reasons, he has lost touch with reality.  He should now bow out and go for deserved rest in his Efugo farm in Makurdi. Luckily for him, he should take advantage of the imminent cabinet reshuffle to tell his boss that he wanted to throw in the towel. I sympathise with the families of those who were needlessly hacked to death in Benue and other states by these untouchable marauding Fulani herdsmen.

     

    • Professor Lucas writes from Old Bodija, Ibadan.

  • Cattle colonies: Why we should not be lured into it

    To us here in Nigeria, a colony is nothing new. The colony of Lagos established by the British in 1861 has familiarised us to it. The idea underlying a colony, both in antiquity and in modern times, is that of settlement: see British Settlements Act 1887. A colony is a place for the settlement of people “with common or similar language, interests or occupations, living together in close association”, like the farm settlements established in some parts of the Eastern Region by the government of M.I. Okpara.

    The cattle colonies which the federal government proposes to establish in every state of the federation can, therefore, mean nothing other than a place for the settlement of Fulani herdsmen, however much the federal government may try to hide this fact, by, for example, calling it “cattle colony”; that is what it is intended to be, and will eventually become, if it is not such from inception.

    Its character as a place for the settlement of Fulani herdsmen is implicit in the agriculture minister’s long presentation giving details of the proposed project, as published in the Nigerian Tribune of January 12, which leaves him no room to gainsay it. It is not the  idea that cattle is to be left in a colony without a herder or keeper, without someone to feed it, give it water, and keep a watchful and protective eye on it. Rearing cattle or livestock necessarily requires a herder. From what we know, two or more herders will be needed to follow and tend 100 cows; accordingly, 300 herders will be needed to tend 30,000 cows. A colony of 30,000 cows requires 300 herders living in the colony. It may be expected that a herder may have a family, a wife (wives) and children living with him in the colony. We are therefore talking of 300 Fulani herdsmen and their families lodged in the body of a state under the scheme.

    Here’s what the minister said: “We are talking of colonies because 20, 30, or 40 ranchers can share the same colony. A ranch is usually owned by an individual or a company with sometimes very few cattle. Some have more than 200 or 300 cows. In a cattle colony, you could find 30,000 cows owned by different owners.”

    “The reason we are designing the colony is that we want to prepare on a large scale, on economy of scale, a place where many owners of cattle can coexist, be fed well, because we can make their feeds. They can get good water to drink. Cows drink a lot of water. We can give them green fodder.”

    The minister talks only of cattle owners or ranchers, but not at all of herders, who are essentially the cause of the problem. The cattle owners or ranchers are no doubt a part of the problem but the part they play seems somewhat peripheral. The herdsmen are at the centre of the problem.

    From the minister’s presentation, the cattle colony scheme may magnify the problems beyond what they presently are. The scheme is not intended to, and will not, stop the open grazing practice, which is the main cause of the problem. It may well reduce, but will not completely stop it. The minister affirms this when he said: “We will tell the herdsmen, if you are passing through a state, you can only go to the colony and stay there, feed your cattle and, when you are moving off, agro-rangers will follow you and make sure you don’t destroy anybody’s farm.” This statement is confusing to say the least. It seems to suggest that a cattle colony as a settlement for herdsmen and their cattle will be combined with the existing practice of herdsmen roaming over the whole country with their cattle, but stopping at a colony to feed them.

    The minister’s emphasis on the process of acquiring land for the colony is misdirected. The issue is not so much about the process for acquiring land, but about the ownership of the land after it is acquired and, more important, about the right to the exclusive use, management and control of the land so acquired. Does the ownership of the land belong to the federal government, or to traditional communities, villages and families supposed to have been divested of it? Does the right to the exclusive use, management and control of the land belong to the federal government, the cattle owners or the herdsmen?

    Perhaps, more worrisome, is the issue of the relationship of the Fulani herdsmen settled on the land and the political authorities in the state – the state government, the local government authorities and the traditional authorities, the town unions, the community development associations, the civil defence and vigilante groups, etc. Will the Fulani herdsmen settled on the land, the cattle owners and their association, the Miyetti Allah, not constitute themselves a “state” within a state?

    The deadliest of the implications of the establishment of cattle colonies in every state of the federation is the religious and cultural implications.

    The colonisation and islamisation (by conquest) of Hausaland is reminiscent of the colonisation and islamisation (again by conquest) of North Africa by the Arabs in the 7th century A.D. The conquest has been described as “the most amazing feat in military history”: Will Durant, The Story of Civilisation, vol iv, pp. 155.

    But even if we are able to avert being subjugated and Islamised by Fulani herdsmen militia armed with AK47 guns, we may still meet the same fate by peaceful penetration into our various communities by Fulani herdsmen settled in the cattle colonies through the process known as acculturation. The Fulani settlers will bring to the cattle colonies, as part of their baggage, the religion of Islam, just as the English settlers in the 13 colonies in North America in 1607 and the years following took with them, as part of their baggage, English law, with its political institutions as well as English customs, conventions and traditions, including the precepts and practices of the Christian religion, just as the early Greek settlers in their colonies on the coastline of Italy, France and Spain took with them, as part of their baggage, Greek culture, tradition and religious precepts and practices.

    As Will Durant, in his monumental eleven volume treatise, titled The Story of Civilisation, vol. 11, p. 127, tells us, these ancient Greek  “colonies became greater than their mother cities, and preceded them in the development of wealth and art.  The real creators of Greek culture were not the Greeks of what we now call Greece, but those who fled before the conquering Dorians, fought desperately for a foothold on foreign shores, and there, out of their Mycenaean memories and their amazing energy, made the art and science, the philosophy and poetry that, long before Marathon, placed them in the forefront of the Western world.”

    One of the products of the Greek colonies on the Italian coastline was Pythagoras (580-500 B.C.), generally acknowledged as the father of both science and philosophy in Europe — his theorems and his theories of numbers and proportion became the foundation of geometry, arithmetic and algebra (the terms mathematics and philosophy were first used by him).  He was born of Greek parentage in Samoa, a Greek colony, and lived most of his life in Crotona, another Greek colony.  The great Athenian oracle on philosophy and political ideas, Plato (427-347 B.C.), took so much of his ideas from Pythagoras.  And the first written code of law in Greek history originated in one of these colonies in 664 B.C.

    The same feature characterised the colonies on the  Mediterraneous coastline of North Africa settled by the ancient Phoenicians and Greeks of which the largest and best-known were Utica (Utique) and Carthage (both in present-day Tunisia) and Oea (Tripoli in Libya), founded by Phoenicians in 1100 B.C., 813 B.C. and 900 B.C. respectively, and Cyrene, founded in 641 B.C., by Greek settlers (Cyrene together with four other Greek colonies, constitutes the province of Cyrenaica, one of the three provinces of present-day Libya.)  Like the English settlers in North America in the 17th century and Greek settlers mentioned earlier, these Phoenicians and Greek settlers in North Africa also took with them to their new settlements, the civilisation, the habits, traditions, the political ideas, governmental institutions and processes they had imbibed in their home countries.

    • Prof Nwabueze is a renowned constitutional lawyer.

     

  • Ogbeh: Time to bow out

    I am sure that many readers of this piece will not consider me disrespectful to our politicians if I write that most of the Nigerian politicians do not have principles and that they are in politics to feather their own nests. They jump from one political party to another as they are not ideologically rooted in any political party. Many of them are now leaving the PDP, the former governing party in droves to APC the current ruling party at the federal level. They are doing this not because they believe in the ideology of APC which to me unfortunately is opaque but to seek ways to butter their bread in the federal government controlled by APC. The jumbo salaries being taken home monthly by our National  Assembly members at the time when the minimum wage is mere N20,000 per month is a clear testimony, that the politicians in Nigeria are in the profession to feather their own nests. Our politicians also lack the courage to speak the truth so as not to jeopardize the perquisites of offices they occupy. For these listed shortcomings and others not listed, I have no apology for the above characterization of our politicians.

    However, despite my above take on Nigerian politicians, I respect and admire few of them. One of the politicians who earn my respect is Chief Audu Innocent Ogbeh, Minister of Agriculture in the present Buhari’s federal government. In fact, to me he is one of the few performing ministers in the cabinet despite his age which is above 70 years. Audu Ogbeh came to national prominence in 1982, when he became minister of communication and later of steel development in the inefficient and rudderless Shagari government of 1979 to 1983. Despite the fact that the administration he served was a disaster, Audu Ogbeh left with his honour intact when the Buhari-led military coup sent the administration packing. When politics returned fully in 1997, Audu Ogbeh joined the PDP and was drafted by Chief Olusegun Obasanjo to be the chairman of the party in place of Chief Barnabas Germade, who could not be controlled by the all-powerful President Obasanjo. Audu Ogbeh held the post of the chairman of PDP from 2001 to 2005. He had offended Obasanjo for writing a well-publicized letter where he detailed the highhandedness of the president in the affairs of the party. His principled stand against the mighty President Obasanjo was applauded by many Nigerians. He later resigned from the party and returned to his Efugo farm in Makurdi.

    Audu Ogbeh came to his present post in 2015, and Nigerians were told by the Vice-President Professor Yemi Osibajo that he was begged to take up the post. Personally, I think he was the right person for the job. There is no doubt that Chief Ogbeh has performed creditably well in this post despite his advanced age. I am in position to asses him objectively because I am a professional agriculturist trained to the highest level in the profession. Having said this, I believe now that Chief Ogbeh is now suffering from what people referred to as ‘diminishing return’, if one judges by the fiasco that characterised the recent exportation of yam to USA under his watch and his recent patronising and insensitive comments on the fiendish activities of the murderous Fulani herdsmen in Benue states and other parts of northcentral and southern states of Nigeria.

    I consider the ill-fated exportation of yams to USA as nothing but unnecessary playing to the gallery because we are yet to satisfy our internal need for yam consumption in the country. In a bid to impress Nigerians that yams can bring needed foreign exchange to the country, proper paper documentations with regard to sanitation and customs requirements were not properly worked out. We arrogantly refused to learn from Ghana which has been long in the business of exporting yams to USA. The net result of this unplanned venture was a national disgrace as the exported yams were rejected in USA with attendant loss of revenues to the country. I hope proper lessons had been learnt from this unmitigated disaster for future guidance.

    It will be an understatement to say that Audu Ogbeh disappointed many Nigerians by his recent statement on the murderous activities of the Fulani herdsmen who had been tormenting our country. Their latest murderous action led to the untimely and unnecessary death of 71 of our country men and women in Benue State. According to Ogbeh, “the inability of the government to pay attention to herdsmen and cow farming unlike other developed countries contributed to the killings”. He continued to tell Nigerians that unlike other farmers involved in arable and permanent crops, the herdsmen had been ignored by the government. This is an unfortunate statement coming from a man known for his principles and honesty. Audu Ogbeh by this statement was inadvertently justifying the killing of his fellow citizens in his own state of Benue State and other states in the country. His statement is in the same despicable league as that of the Inspector General of Police Ibrahim Idris who said the vicious killings in Benue State was a result of communal crisis. Audu Ogbeh is a well-educated man and as a former university lecturer, I expect him to have done a little research and consultations with officials of his ministry before making the statement that has brought down his esteem as a principled and reasonable politician. I am sure that he made that statement so that he would continue to be in the good book of the ruling elite in the country.

    I know as a matter of fact that since 1973 when the first document titled ‘Agricultural Development in Nigeria (1973-1985)’ was prepared by the late Professor Olajuwon Olayide, the renowned agricultural economist and former vice chancellor of University of Ibadan, efforts had been made to encourage the Fulani herdsmen to embrace settled agriculture through ranching and use of grazing reserves. The inability and omission referred to by Audu Ogbeh in his statement were not necessarily caused by the government but were brought about principally by the refusal of the Fulani herdsmen to embrace modern system of livestock farming which has been adopted by many developing countries in Africa such as Kenya and Botswana. Their obduracy to this system of modern livestock farming was because they had solid political backing at the federal level and this still continues till the present time.

    Nobody with conscience and human feeling will find any justification for the barbaric killing in Benue State after watching the gory pictures emanating from the mindless massacre. It is unfortunate that Ogbeh made that statement and with this statement, I think for some inexplicable reasons, he has lost touch with reality.  He should now bow out and go for deserved rest in his Efugo farm in Makurdi. Luckily for him, he should take advantage of the imminent cabinet reshuffle to tell his boss that he wanted to throw in the towel. I sympathise with the families of those who were needlessly hacked to death in Benue and other states by these untouchable marauding Fulani herdsmen.

    • Professor Lucas writes from Old Bodija, Ibadan.

  • Obasanjo’s tirade

    The problem with Nigeria is the absence of a patriotic national establishment. President Olusegun Obasanjo – an establishment player needs to move away from letter writing to help those in power to succeed. The lack of collaboration by major actors to move Nigeria forward is the country’s greatest hindrance. Unlike someplace where statesmen come together to hold think clinics, looking for the way forward, ours are always busy in ego wars.

    While this may sound conjectural, I think former President Olusegun Obasanjo is green with envy at President Muhammadu Buhari’s popularity especially with his awe-inspiring admiration by the plain folks in the north. No establishment player in our time has that advantage. Not even Obasanjo in his geographical block. This is not a campaign for President Buhari because he has also let me down on a number of issues, considering that I voted for him, having expected so much from him.

    The system in Nigeria is the problem of Nigeria and not of personages. We have a system where elected officials rig their ways into offices, many places with deaths in tow. It is a system where statesmen don’t keep political undertakings and party pledges. Nigeria is a country with no genuine party structure leading to a real political party system. This profited President Obasanjo who brazenly did away with his party’s rotational presidency agreement on principle that should have seen us more united than ever. He could afford to do so because politics in Nigeria is not by training and experience but by twist of fate. The reason he wanted to run for office for the third time against the democratic reasoning of Nigeria. The great number of Johnnys-come-lately in the political corridor is responsible for where we are.

    In the light of this, I expected him to go around addressing critical issues to make Nigerians have a decent life. I don’t see question and answer sessions between elected officials and the led to suggest a democracy in progress. No accountability seminars are held in all states of Nigeria that I am aware of and so good governance has been subordinated only to the central government. Survivalists are everywhere in political garbs and there are no democratic heroes. Our borders are not only porous but Chadians, Malians, and Nigeriens are better treated in Nigeria than Nigerians in the north because of religious affiliations. Little wonder that it is so easy to get soldiers of fortune for fratricidal wars. And the purchasing power parity between Nigerians and Ghanaians (the latter’s advantage) has always been wide. Even during his terms in office.

    The metrics for gauging our democracy is so low that road construction is celebrated by governors and documented on television. It marvels me to see advertisements showcasing the building of classrooms and of seats to schools in broadsheets not by NGOs but by state governors. I wonder what the Romans who first constructed paved roads before Christ would say were they alive today or even the Egyptians that built the Pyramids?

    The hypocrisy element of President Obasanjo is trying. Even in his presidency the poor suffered from the activity of the rich. I didn’t see a Mo Ibrahim give him an award for good governance. There were no ground rules set by him on carbon tax and gas flaring which is the order of the day in the Niger Delta. Neither did we see cottage industries and many emerging markets under his administration. People point to GSM and I can’t help but give them the look of askance.

    He didn’t remove subsidy to fund more schools, build more or work in partnership with states to train more teachers. Today the teaching profession is an all-comer affair. Most teachers are not able to teach the three Rs (Reading, Writing and Arithmetic), in education, even those out of teacher training colleges.

    A chief executive owes it a duty to leave positive legacies for posterity.

    On which school of thought did President Obasanjo run this country? I can’t remember him for any positive, life-changing speech mark. He acts like he has a mitt to protect always.

    No disrespect but the system and not Buhari is to blame for the rot in Nigeria but those in charge of evaluating performances have chosen to create red herrings by blaming people and not the system, made worse at any rate by a sitting president who has settled for easy familiarity with the people of his religion and region instead of easy familiarity with all people and religion for the growth of the country. The armed forces of any country are the only profession where soldiers are taught how to oil their gunnery for war and leadership. No other profession teaches the latter.

    I know that the power of a president is titanic and a soldier turned politician should know how to use such power. Look to the United States, half of that country’s presidents were military men, others were affiliated to paramilitary/militia groups. But President Buhari has shown total lack of capacity to use his presidential power to provide real presidential leadership. Power does not imply that people must agree and be acquiescent to controls of the holder even when it is dishonourable. This president seems to think so and doesn’t care squat to give presidential speeches when lives are lost and expect Nigerians to understand him without a communication strategy.

    I think President Buhari should run for a second term if his health permits. Ours is a democracy of conciliation. This fourth republic heralded the emergence of two presidents from southern Nigeria who ruled Nigeria for 14 years with nothing to show for it. The first refused to be an officer and a gentleman and annulled a party’s agreement. And the last who is a scholar left this country more divided than he met it. All of the persons who plan to contest against Buhari do so for piquant symbolism. They can’t match his popularity with the average Joe in Wuse Market, not minding Kano State.  What is worse is that the ones I see do not have what it takes to unify Nigeria. But he should rule with the rule of right if he succeeds and not approbate to region, people, religion and herders. Only this time, I wouldn’t vote for him. I feel strongly that social stability is important before economic and political stability. I feel strongly that Nigeria doesn’t belong to the north with its false sense of entitlement. It doesn’t also belong to Obasanjo’s southwest and its propaganda machine always, or to the southeast that revels in sulking constantly. It belongs to us all. If the arrangement is kept, we may see a president from the southeast in 2023. After which a president should come from my region of the country. Who says someone from the Igala Kingdom isn’t fit to become president of Nigeria?

    But one man can change the political dynamic for President Buhari. If Bola Ahmed Tinubu pulls the south-western plug from the present alliance with the north, Buhari wouldn’t be president because no thanks to Goodluck Jonathan, one only needs four regions to become president in Nigeria. Here is where President Obasanjo got it wrong.

    • Abah writes from Abuja.

  • Wild revenge

    When cows and rats turn man-eaters, could it be revenge for their family we eat as delicacy? As herbivorous animals, maybe not. Yet, cows and rats have become agents of gruesome death in our country. For cows, their herds would kill for their beloved to have access to water and vegetation. Any vegetation, wild or cultivated, damned the owner. The people of Benue, Taraba and Plateau states, more than others, bear the scars of this wild revenge. On another level, in Ebonyi, Nasarawa and Kogi, especially, rats revenge by urinating Lassa fever into food.

    Perhaps it is not the animals but a revenge for electing incompetent governments over the years. Laggard leaders, who allowed man’s delicacies turn man-eaters. Instead of enjoying the biblical injunction, to subdue the wild as food, out of misrule and incompetence, we allow our food to turn us to food for maggots. Without foresight to pre-empt the ongoing deadly competition for food, between cows and cow eaters, we are at the mercy of a wild revenge which has turned Nigeria into an orgy of violence.

    In Ebonyi, the rats are also avenging leadership incompetence, and their scabbard is Lassa fever. Last week, two doctors and a nurse, and of course their patients fell to this revenge. According to a source, the state government has built and handed over to the federal government, a structure for a much needed diagnostic centre. The state intervened following the lethargy of the federal government to build the structure. Now that the building is ready, the federal government should bring in the equipment to save her citizens from rats.

    The deaths in Abakaliki, Ebonyi State, could be averted or minimised if the equipment and expertise to test victims at the earliest sign of Lassa symptom are in place. To gain a proper diagnosis for a disease which is perennial in the state, a sample will have to be taken to the Specialist Hospital in Irua, Edo State, the closest centre that has the testing machine. Why the governments of Sam Egwu and Martin Elechi, didn’t invest enough in finding a permanent solution to this poverty related disease is strange.

    Again, Ebonyi’s Anyim Pius Anyim, was a top shot in the Jonathan government and yet that regime looked away while the cat nibbled away the lives of the people. No doubt, many of our officials are more interested in personal aggrandizement while in power than in saving their fellow citizens from their weaknesses. Perhaps, a revenge for our corrupt practises. Of note, wild rats remain major delicacy in rural Ebonyi, Benue, Kogi and Nassarawa states. They love the taste of wild rats, even though the rats pee into their food to kill them. A revenge for poor hygiene.

    Since the Lassa fever ravage some states every year, is it beyond the economy of the affected states to jointly find a solution to that problem? But, perhaps because the federal government unjustly claims excessive share of the available national resources for itself, many state governments rather wait for federal intervention, for a local problem. A revenge for our skewed federalism. When the federal government take taxes from companies operating in states for consumption in states, when it owns the minerals in the states, the states become mere apparition of federating units.

    But the narcissist avengers are the cows. They have eaten all the shrubs up north, and they are determined to finish off those in the middle and southern part of the country. Some even meow all the way from Central Africa. As is genuinely feared now, they are determined to eat-off our country. We may have consumed millions of cow, since God knows how long, but is that a reason to allow cows to chew the fabric of our country? Of course, we know that cows use man to avenge itself. Perhaps it a time to do a census of the cows and its owners, so we can know what we are up against.

    With government’s dereliction of duty, the census would allow us to know those vicariously responsible for the wild killings going on. After all, we have been told, by those who know, that herders will kill or recruit killers to avenge the death of any cow. They avenge a stolen or dead cow, with the lives of human beings. But the greater challenge is that the cows are now so many, and their free food getting so meagre, that unless common sense returns urgently, Nigeria may end up a cow colony. If the wild revenge continues unabated, we will end up a country of cow colonies without the cow eaters.

    I agree that the herders, many of them, now trained killers, may be accustomed to living in the bush and trekking, all their lives; but it is a lie to say they would hate a sedentary life, if it can be more rewarding. The Miyetti Allah Cattle Breeders Association, and their associates, who speak on their behalf, lie when they defend the practice of an archaic culture that brings herders and others misery. They lie to them that there is no alternative life, better than walking dangerously across the wild in search of pasture, which can be curried in an orderly comfort, for herds and herders.

    Those lying spokesmen live in cities, they send their children to school, and yet speak for those who wander across the wild. They are dishonest. Perhaps the right tactics is for the federal government to forcefully herd the herders to the taste of good sedentary life. A life of seeing their cows enjoy a richer pasture, gaining weight and more money from buyers, a life of seeing their children go to school, would be irresistible. But their lying owners, who own them and the cows, will frustrate such a move, so as not to lose the cheap labour and free pasture they enjoy.

    While the federal government must rein in the killers in Benue, Taraba and elsewhere, to stem a descent into a civil war, it has to put in place a policy to force the herders, to stop the culture of wandering in the wild, as the only source of ensuring food and water for cattle. Those who say it is an age-long practice and cannot be changed are liars. Selling others as slaves or killing twins, was a culture, albeit barbaric.

    Every culture is dynamic, and am sure some of the forbearers of our present crop of leaders, were once itinerant herders, but how many of them can survive in the wild, a day or two. Those of them who defend those living in the wild, while they enjoy city life, are frauds, and scammers. We know they own the cows and love the cheap labour and the free pasture, but it is the responsibility of government at all levels, to stop them, before they turn other Nigerians, to wild avengers.

  • Anti-graft war: Lessons from Singapore

    Institutions must be strengthened. President Buhari is on the right path, but he won’t succeed unless institutions are built. The president will be in office for eight years at most. If there is one good quality corrupt people have, it is patience. They can sleep for eight years and emerge as monsters in the ninth year.- Prof Patrick Lumumba, Former Director of Kenya Anti-Corruption Commission

    Corruption is a complex phenomenon and its effect on development varies with each country. But while the costs may vary and systemic corruption may co-exist with strong economic performance, experience shows that corruption is bad for development.

    With reference to Nigeria, corruption has almost become a culture; a situation which has tolled heavily not only on the country’s development but also on its image. Indeed, it has retarded its development to such an alarming extent that the vast majority of the populace now live in abject poverty, having serially lost their commonwealth to a deeply entrenched band of thieving elite. This fact is well documented by the World Bank, International Monetary Fund, African Union and anti-graft watchdogs such as the Global Financial Integrity, a US-based group. Corruption has assumed the most topical issue of discourses on governance in Nigeria today.

    And no wonder, Nigeria’s progress has been significantly impeded by the country’s inability to manage its immense oil wealth for the benefit of all its citizens. The major preoccupation of the elites has been how to corner the nation’s resources and this they have ruthlessly done in the last decades. According to Prof. Jide Osuntokun, “the kind of looting we are being told happened is enough to depress any sane and patriotic Nigerian. The level of looting poses existential threat to this republic.  In China some of what happened in the recent past would have attracted ultimate punishment”.

    It was, therefore, not surprising that the last Presidential election in Nigeria was swayed by the opposition party’s seeming tough stand against corruption. As observed by Godwin Onyeacholem, of all the vote-catching strategies laid out by the ruling All Progressives Congress in the lead up to the 2015 general elections, its promise to prosecute an all-out war against corruption was unquestionably the most compelling and believable. Thus, at inception, the President Muhammadu Buhari-led government identified corruption as the bane of Nigeria’s socio-economic development and vowed to nip it in the bud just like Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew, announced, after Singapore attained independence, that he was “sickened” by decadence and corruption, and pledged to rid Singapore of graft. The Singaporean leader lived up to his promise. This is not the case in Nigeria because two and a half years after the APC took the reins of power, Nigerians seem not to believe that the various anti-corruption laws apply to all and that the government will enforce the laws without fear or favour.

    Singapore is a high-income economy with a gross national income of $52,090 per capita, as of 2015. The country provides one of the world’s most business-friendly regulatory environments for local entrepreneurs and is ranked among the world’s most competitive economies. In the decades after independence, Singapore rapidly developed from a low-income country to a high-income country. GDP grew at an average of 7.7% since independence; in the first 25 years, growth topped 9.2%. Per capita GDP over the same periods grew by 5.4% and 7.2%.

    In 2015, Singapore was named the eighth least-corrupt in the Corruption Perceptions Index released by the Berlin-based watchdog, Transparency International. Singapore received an overall score of 85 out of 100.

    How did Singapore become one of the countries with the lowest crime and corruption rates in the world? How has Singapore achieved some measure of success in eradicating corruption? Since Singapore attained self-government in 1959, corruption control has been top of the government agenda. Corruption control has become a strategic tenet of governance. The smooth conduct of government affairs had to be grounded on a rational basis, with clear rules for all to follow. It provides the predictability and confidence for the public to rely on the government to discharge its duty without bias. Strong political will, effective laws, independent judiciary, effective enforcement and responsive public service are the hallmarks of anti-corruption in Singapore.

    Political will is a key ingredient in the transformation effort from Singapore’s corruption infested past as it forms that all-important sub-structure upon which all the superstructures of anti-corruption work rest. It provides the soil and the nutrient which allow the seeds of anti-corruption work to germinate and grow. With strong political will, the country institutionalised a robust, comprehensive anti-corruption framework that encompasses carefully crafted laws, rigorous law enforcement, the public service and public outreach. It enacted the Prevention of Corruption Act (PCA), which puts the burden of proof on the accused to show that he acquired his wealth legally. Any unexplained wealth disproportionate to known sources of income is presumed to be from graft and can be confiscated.

    Singapore has also developed a system that “eschews corruption” as it officially opened the Corruption Reporting and Heritage Centre (CRHC) in June 2017. Stressing the important role of the public in maintaining a corruption-free country, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong said the new centre demonstrates the government’s desire to treat each complaint seriously and transparently, and urged the public to step forward should they suspect any corrupt behaviour. Complaints lodged in person are most effective as the CPIB can obtain further details about suspected corrupt practices more readily.

    While this may be a variant of Nigeria’s whistle-blower policy, what is, however, worrisome is how the National Assembly, that pontificates on being the champion of anti-graft law, seems to be averse to such policy/law in its internal operations as manifested in the suspension of its members. For instance, Ali Ndume, a member of the Senate, was suspended by the Senate for triggering investigations into allegations of forgery against the Senate President, Bukola Saraki, and Kogi State Senator, Dino Melaye. Also, the House of Representatives in 2016 suspended the former chairman of Appropriation Committee, Abdulmumini Jibrin, for a period of 180 legislative sitting days. Jibrin had accused the Speaker of the House, Yakubu Dogara and other principal officers of the lower legislative chamber of padding the 2016 budget to the tune of over N40bn. This ugly development might have justified the submission of Adebanwi and Obadare that the gravest threats to anti-corruption campaigns often emanate from a combination of intra-elite rancour and political intrigue, based on corrupt practices which are reflections of deeper socio-political pathologies of a ‘normal’ post-colonial state.

    Having tough laws is no guarantee that there is effective enforcement. If there are tough laws but lax enforcement, corruption will still flourish because the corrupt escape detection and investigation. The situation will be like having a good battle plan but poor troops. The integrity of the government, the system and the men and women in charge has been key to Singapore’s success. In 1986, Lee’s minister of national development, an architect named Teh Cheang Wan, was investigated for accepting kickbacks from two real-estate developers. He killed himself with a fatal dose of barbiturates, maintaining, in a suicide note addressed to Lee Kuan Yew, “It is only right that I should pay the highest penalty for my mistake”.

    Today, Singapore enjoys a well-earned reputation for high level of incorruptibility. And this is not by accident or a feat achieved through sheer luck or wishful thinking. Indeed, the Nigerian political leadership urgently needs a compelling tutorial from Singapore, at least in the spirit of South-south knowledge transfer for which Singapore is a model, on elementary and essentials (both infrastructure and supra-structure) of anti-corruption strategies.

    In spite of the gains recorded through the new whistle-blower strategy of the federal government in the last few months, it is strongly held in many quarters that the whole anti-corruption crusade of the Buhari administration is fast losing steam. In other words, the substance of the anti-graft war is being eroded daily. The tragi-comedy that literally epitomises the activities of some public office holders and agencies of government in this regard is worrisome.

    • Dr. Omilusi writes from Ekiti State University, Ado Ekiti.

  • Tamp it down

    As if the crisis in the middle of the country is not inflammatory enough, the Niger Delta region is roiling, and we should pay attention. A war of words has blown up in one of the states of the region, Bayelsa, where the incumbent governor has pitched allegations against his predecessor and a minister of state.

    The allegations from the lips of Governor Seriake Dickson have it that Governor Timipre Sylva and minister of state for agriculture Heineken Lokpobri sponsored the wave of barbarous killings in the state a few weeks back. The former governor and minister of state denied the allegations.

    The allegations and rebuttals have brought to the high wind the tensions not only between the two political parties but also the vicious rivalry between the incumbent Governor Dickson and former Governor Sylva.

    The new wave of recriminations erupted in the aftermath of bloody incidents in the Letugbene and Bilabiri riverine areas of the Ekeremor Local Government Area. It was an act of impunity in which a band of young men, also known as militants, raided the communities and undertook a sweep of slaughter that left at least four soldiers dead. In one gory episode, one of the militants lopped off the head of a security officer and, in brazen exhibitionism, brandished it about the communities as a sort of trophy.

    There is no place in human civilization for such extravagant savagery, not even these days when reports in Benue and Taraba States have cast a shadow of fear and bloodshed across the land. Caskets clacked amidst the tears of the bereaved and a people besieged when the citizens of this country in Benue state buried 73 of their own in one dark, lugubrious afternoon. The Mambilla Plateau douses its scenic lustre with blood spattered from internecine rages.

    For such a spectre to sully the beauty and bring screams of fear and death to the quiescence of rural Bayelsa should not be taken lightly.

    Governor Dickson lodged the blame at the heart of his political foes. Hear him: “The minister of state, Senator Lokpobri, is the one who armed and equipped Kareowei who killed soldiers and subjected innocent communities to hardship.” Kareowei is the honorific for a warlord whose proper name is Oyawerikumor Peregbabofa. He was arrested and killed by security agencies for beheading the senior intelligence officer and killing four soldiers.

    Dickson further said, “The guns he used to kill and other ammunitions were supplied by Senator Lokpobri. I have evidence that on January 2, Kareowei and his cohorts were in Ekeremor, celebrating with Lokpobri, and that is the person appointed as a minister of state.”

    These are serious charges. Hence Lokpobri countered with a spirited denial, saying Governor Dickson’s charges were a “figment” of his imagination. “I was with my kith and kin at Ekeremor from December 31 to January 2 to celebrate the New Year. A football match, wrestling contest and lots of fanfare characterized the celebration. I was, however, bade farewell by family, relations, friends and well-wishers and left in the morning of January 2,” Lokpobri explained. He said later that the “accusation of purchase of arms and equipment for the militant is a figment of the imagination of Governor Dickson. I have nothing to do with the militant.”

    The firestorm of rhetoric on both sides reflects the worst of our politics, and it needs to stop. Both sides do not appreciate each other and when the inflammation of language continues to escalate, it emboldens the foot soldiers on both sides and this foreshadows more anger and insular world views. The consequence is the repetition of the wave of slaughter that left the soldiers dead.

    The army launched a revenge onslaught and killed quite a few of the marauders. But the ordinary citizens fled to the bushes with their children. We call on the President to respond to the charges of the Bayelsa State governor as the charges should not be thrown aside, whether they are true or not.

    But the most important thing for both sides is to look for ways to cooperate for peace even when there are big grounds of disagreement. The first thing we expect from them is to tamp down their rhetoric and embrace the serenity of public utterances.

    Tempers are rising again in the Niger Delta with the recent threat from the Niger Delta Avengers to resume their umbrage in the creeks. They have said that they may breach the accord that brought peace and relief to the region close to a decade ago. They have threatened to attack pipelines, a paradox because the price of oil is now about 70 dollars per barrel.

    Bayelsa State needs to be quiet given the recent blood-letting in neighbouring Rivers State, the schism along political lines is yielding grisly body counts.

    This is a time for impulse control. Peace is the result of any pursuit of understanding.

     

  • Shit, Shittalk and Shitholes

    Shithole Countries! That’s the brand new name allegedly given to Africa by the President of the United States. Mr. Trump was quoted as saying he wondered why the US should continue taking citizens of Africa, El Salvador and Haiti as immigrants in his country. For Haiti, he allegedly said, “take them out” of an immigration bill being proposed. And for Shithole Africa, he would like to see an end to America’s magnanimity in extending immigration opportunities to the 54 shithole countries of the black continent. He’s denied saying these, admitting however that he’d indeed used “strong terms” but not the ones as demeaning as “assholes” or “shitholes”. But some senators from across the political aisle, who were in the Oval Office when POTUS was meeting the lawmakers, have debunked his claims, saying he did use “shithole” and even stronger and more shitty terms. Senator Dick Durbin (Dem) and Senator Lindsay Graham (Rep) both confirmed the use of “really very dirty” words the president uttered in describing Africa and Haiti. However, few other senators, Republicans, who were present in the Oval Office also, claimed they could not remember the actual words or state categorically whether the president used those terms.

    Few people would doubt the usage of such obnoxious terms by the 45th US President. Mr. Trump is known for hard and vulgar language in deriding his critics and opponents or expressing his disgust. He had once referred to a former beauty queen as “too fat and ugly”. He’d called a female critic of his, “fat pig” and he once said that the bloodshot eyes of Megyn Kelly- a famous television personality who got angry and hard on him during a live presidential debate- resembled that of a female blood-flow during menstruation. During the presidential debates from 2015-2016, Trump had called each of his co-aspirants all sorts of bad names and during the final debates with Hillary Clinton, he hadn’t spared her either, calling her “crooked Hillary”. He repeatedly called Mexico the hub of crimes, drugs and playfield of rapists. He called out China as a currency manipulator and a cheat in trade, and the American and international media, he had severely bashed and embarrassed as “fake news”.

    On an Access Hollywood tape in 2005, Trump had boasted that he enjoyed “groping” women, particularly the married ones, in the private areas; and had derisively claimed he had enjoyed unhindered sexual access to women of all shapes and texture regardless of their marital status, because he’s rich and a celebrity and because women often throw themselves cheaply at celebrities and rich people. He later denied this too, but the denial had become laughable when his friend and host of the programme, Billy Bush, who was with him on the same show-bus where he shared these lewd jokes in 2005 confirmed Trump and he did make those derisive comments about women. In another episode, Trump’s reference to North Korean leader, Kim Jin-un as ‘Rocket Man’ during his inaugural address at the UN earned him backlashes at home and abroad.

    Trump is therefore not new to controversies arising from his own utterances. His capacity for badmouthing is as huge as the ability to persistently praise-sing people or to justify unpopular acts. Just few days before the “shitholes” episode, he had reportedly said all Nigerians (because many of them apply for immigrant status in the States) live in huts and never want to return to their huts in Africa once they see America. Haiti, a country with a high subscription rate for immigrant application, had also not been spared. Trump had reportedly described Haitians as AIDS carriers. Before the dust from these ones could settle, Trump again doubled down on the anti-Africa slander by calling Africa “shithole countries”, which should not be considered any longer for immigration, showing preference for Norway, a wholly Caucasian country, in this regard. The persistent criticisms of Africa and other predominantly black nations, including Haiti and El Salvador immediately heightened speculations about Trump’s racist leanings.

    But are African countries truly ‘shitholes”? Botswana, South Africa, Ghana and Kenya, which were the first to react, rejected this negative tag and requested the US ambassadors in their countries to make clarifications on what their leader meant. The United Nations followed suit, describing Trump’s utterances as racist. While the African Union joined in condemning the US President for such racist slur on Africa and asking for unreserved apology from him, a US ambassador to Panama, John Feeley resigned, explaining how difficult it had been carrying out international diplomacy under the Trump administration. Nigeria, having dragged its feet for some time, finally summoned the US ambassador in Abuja for clarification and questioning on the derogatory “shithole Africa” comment.

    But, are we ‘shitholes”? While things may not be going well for many African nations, it is out of place and outright offensive for a leader of another sovereign state to describe them as “shitholes”. It is even more shocking and considered most insensitive and reprehensible when the Leader of the Free World is the one mouthing such offensive and inflammatory terms, officially, to describe other nations. Truth is, you may be a very ugly person and you know it, but you will take offence if someone else chides you with your own obvious attributes. When Fela Kuti called out the Nigerian army in 1978 and described them as “zombie” (which they were) in a song track), the army, incensed,  moved in immediately on his Kalakuta Republic and destroyed it, injuring his mother so much that she eventually died.

    The use of certain inflammatory or vulgar words in international diplomacy can cause conflicts or break down ties between states. On moral grounds, reckless use of dirty words by someone considered as the most powerful man in the world may be taking the world to a very wrong direction. Shittalk in the Oval Office will most naturally normalize shittalk everywhere.  Our children, who are impressionable at their age, will hear such shitty things and count them as a way of life. As for those who accept these shittalk and acquiesce to the thesis that they live in shitholes, good luck to them on their shit status.  Only “shits” live or go through “shitholes”. So, they are shit people.

    In all this, one thing is however clear: while it is incontrovertible that indeed most African rulers are assholes who create shithole of a country all over the place, we can only say these things about ourselves at home. Black people can call each other “nigga” and go about smiling it away,  but we see it as a racist slur when it is spewed from the mouth of a “non-nigga”. This is the law of nature. The “Nigeria HUT”, “Haiti AIDS CARRIERS” and “SHITHOLE African COUNTRIES” name-calling naturally becomes offensive and cannot be acceptable when it comes from a non-black person, particularly when he is perceived as a racist or someone who has a track record for not meaning well for black people.

     

    • Folarin, PhD Professor of International Relations

    Covenant University, Ota, Ogun State