The Nation Newspaper

Category: Dele Agekameh

  • This question of religion

    Wonders shall never end. Like a scene from a Nollywood blockbuster, a “man of God” is seen in a video praying over a supposedly dead body lying in an open coffin. Standing in front of a mammoth crowd of worshippers scattered in every direction behind him, he can be heard screaming for the ‘dead man’ to rise as he continues with his prayers. Then the ‘miracle’ happened. The man, who by all appearances was lying dead moments before, suddenly jolts back to life, sitting up in the coffin, with a quirky expression on his face – a look that suggested he had been yanked back to the land of the living from the great beyond. The ecstatic crowd cheers on as the triumphant religious leader nods in satisfaction at his own (or his god’s) powers.

    The video circulated around the web like quick-fire, like most absurd things do these days. Before long, the criticism began to pour in, then condemnation from ‘peers’ which prompted a disguised admission of fraud and now at least one lawsuit has been filed. The ‘man of God’ in question is South African pastor, Alph Lukau of the Alleluia Ministries, based in the affluent area of Sandton in Johannesburg, South Africa. His ‘dead’ subject has also been identified as Brighton Moyo, a Zimbabwean who reportedly works in Pretoria, and who has gone underground since he found new (and probably unwanted) fame in pastor Lukau’s church. The suppliers of the coffin and the funeral services provider where a hearse was obtained have now reportedly filed a suit against the pastor for involving them in his ‘show’.

    Although some say there are no such things as miracles, in Nigeria, we know all about miracles. Apparently, the religious hustle is not uniquely Nigerian. Like Pastor Lukau, who still remains defiant that he is the real deal, we have had several fake miracles busted by eagle eyed Nigerians, but all to no consequence. In the business of miracles, the first step is to brainwash unsuspecting worshippers, to a level where it becomes sacrilege to even entertain the thought that the religious leader may not be what he/she claims to be. A perplexing industry of ‘soul harvesters’ is growing, especially across Africa, which is home to the poorest people in the world. There seems to be a direct link between abject poverty and gullible religious followership, where the one ensures the perpetuity of the other.

    Without doubt, this is a sensitive topic, especially in these parts. However, no sensible person that is still in control of their thinking faculty would have seen the viral video at Pastor Lukau’s church without being disgusted by the charade. To begin with, the acting of Brighton, the dead poser, could not have won him any awards if he was the only contestant. Pastor Lukau has also come out to say he may have noticed that the very alive Brighton was breathing while in the coffin. The video evidence is as clear as day. In the world of the living, we call it fraud.

    It cannot be denied, that this kind of fraud is being perpetuated everyday, all over the world, especially in Africa. There are so many names that can be called in Nigeria, but the voice of supporters defending their religious leaders will drown any criticism or accusation. It has happened many times. The blind receive miraculous sight, everyday, on the altars of many a pastor, bishop, reverend, apostle, etc. But the cure for blind followership in religion is yet to be found. As the likes of Boko Haram and ISIS have proven, it is not a purely Christian phenomenon. The motives may differ, but spiritual gullibility has no other name.

    The scourge of spiritual entrepreneurs has so pervaded the African continent that drastic measures have been taken in the past to curtail the activities of salvation scam artists, with their fake tickets to heaven. Take Cameroun for example, when Paul Biya, President of Cameroun, ordered the closure of about 100 pentecostal churches in key Camerounian cities sometime in 2013. The order was criticised, as expected, but it drew attention to the truth of fraud, deceit and manipulation that has become the norm in such establishments. If Paul Biya had visited Nigeria, he would have realised that the problem is not with pentecostal churches alone. With miracle working reverend fathers now in operation in Nigeria, no denomination is left out.

    Tim Omotosho is a Nigerian who operated his ‘ministry’ in South Africa but is now facing charges of rape and human trafficking in Port Elizabeth, South Africa. His arrest drew wide attention, but the things he stands accused of continue to happen, especially in Nigeria. Families have lost relatives to religious organisations, where they live at the pleasure of their leader. There is that one case, involving a prominent Emir in Northern Nigeria, where a little girl in Lagos was spirited away to the north, to a Muslim conclave where her Christian parents were barred from seeing their teenage daughter. It is all in the same vein of blind religious followership that easily becomes radicalism.

    It is a wide opinion that poverty facilitates spiritual gullibility. However, one curious detail of Pastor Lukau’s resurrection charade is that his church is located in one of Johannesburg’s more affluent neighbourhoods. Even in Nigeria, the rich and mighty bend their knees before powerful ‘men of god’ and are quick to follow directions whenever they are prompted by these religious leaders. This complicates the poverty argument and further mystifies the rush for spiritual salvation that has gripped Africans.  When systems do not work the way they should and one virtually risks life and limb every time we step out of the door, then it is at least understandable why people are desperate for protection and salvation in these parts.

    It is not anybody’s place to speak about what another person choses to believe or practice within their rights. However, the individual choices of people in this regard is leading to the building of more churches than money making places of business, or schools and hospitals and other necessary establishments. In this respect, it becomes a national concern, especially when it is being driven by fraudulent motives in many cases. In Enugu some time ago, a group of ‘miracle merchants’ were apprehended. Their business involved helping pastors all over the country stage miracles everywhere. Like Brighton, whose friends say he has faked miracles in the past, they made a business out of staging miracles.

    In developed countries, the question of religion is quite muted. Maybe because the authorities rise to their responsibilities to a larger extent than they do here, people are less concerned about spiritual reassurance. It is no wonder that foreign religious leaders love to crusade in African cities where they get more crowds than they do in their better working societies. Yet, the religious fever that envelopes our cities is a direct contradiction to the vice and debauchery that grips the society.

    There is no legislating religious freedom, as President Biya of Cameroun sought to do. However, he was right in thinking that the fraud that pervades religious establishments is worthy of attention. There is a serious need for some action to prevent the incursion of career criminals into the landscape of religion. The institution of more stringent requirements to set up a religious establishment may be a start, and random investigation of ‘miracles’ should not also be out of the question for the sake of sanity in society. Anyone with nothing to hide should have no problem with this.

    Since Pastor Lukau is not operating in Nigeria, there may be repercussions for him, especially now that there are suits filed against him, and Brighton will most likely be found and quizzed about his involvement. It may take one high profile case of fraud being uncovered in a religious establishment in Nigeria before the veil of ultra-religiosity can begin to fall from the eyes of many in our society.

  • This ‘Verdict 2019’sef

    There is a saying, that when two elephants fight, it is the grass that suffers. In thegeneral elections that took place over the weekend in Nigeria, there were many quite familiar disruptive incidents, including pockets of violence in certain areasthat tainted the process and led to the death of at least 16 Nigerians nationwide. Many more were left injured or traumatised. Out of respect for the injured and the dead, and for the sanctity of human life, it is only right to acknowledge the loss of lives in the conduct of the elections before moving on to discuss the politics of last Saturday’s exercise. One prays that someday, we will really reach the point where nobody’s ambition will be worth the blood of even one Nigerian.

    Early on inthe counting of the votes on Monday, Nigerians already got a glimpse of the return of the power of incumbency, as President MuhammaduBuhari of the All Progressives Congress, APC, took an early lead over his closest rival, AtikuAbubakar of the People’s Democratic Party, PDP. By Tuesday morning, the picture of an APC win in the presidential elections had already been formed, with President Buhari in the lead, after winning seven of the 12 states already declared, including in two of his core base states, Yobe and Gombe. Atiku, on the other hand, had won, predictably, in the Southeast states already announced and, interestingly, in the FCT.

    With the bulk of the remaining northern votes expected to go to the president, and with the projected tightness of votes from the Southwest, analysts already called a Buhari victory after collation was suspended on Monday night, after figures from only 12 states had been returned. However, there were reports of multiple disruptions, especially in the South, from places like Rivers (where one soldier was allegedly killed), Bayelsa, Imo and in Lagos, where a PDP candidate was caught on video disrupting collation after it became apparent that he had lost. He became unconscious in the melee that followed and is reported to have been rushed to hospital. In Rivers State, at least one electoral officer in Ikwerre local government declared that there were no results to report, as the voting materials had been allegedly destroyed by security personnelin the collation centre.

    Even with the irregularities in some areas, some rather interesting results emerged. BukolaSaraki, the incumbent senate president, surprisingly lost his seat to his APC rival, Dr. Ibrahim Oloriegbe. In Oyo South Senatorial district, AbiolaAjimobi, the governor of Oyo State, also lost out in his senate bid to Kola Balogun of the PDP.The keenly contested election in most of the zones of the country was reflective of the arch-rivalry between the PDP and APC at the centre, with the race being as closely contested as has been predicted. With few runaway winners, there is a sense of greater political competition, even with the very narrow ideological playing field.

    One very sore note of the election came out of Lagos State, in Ago, Okota, Aguda and parts of Oshodi where reports of ballot snatching and intimidation of voters emerged on Saturday. Videos on social media depicted the scene where one of the suspected election thugs responsible, identified simply as “Demola”, was almost lynched by an angry mob. The most troubling part of those disturbances, even beyond the possible disenfranchisement of voters, was the ethnic undertones which where rightly or wrongly insinuated into the electoral violence.

    It did not take long after the reports of the disruptions by thugs started circulating that insinuations of a coordinated targeting of Igbos in Lagos began to circulate. Many Igbos in Lagos took to social media and in interviews with reporters from traditional media outlets, claiming that the areas affected where places where people of Igbo ethnicity are known to be in the majority. The insinuation was that they were specifically being targeted in an effort to frustrate them, as part of a long term strategy to force the Igbo out of Lagos. Whilst many other Igbos in Lagos went on social media to express hitch-free participation in the elections, it did little to douse the already bubbling ethnic tension.

    It is disappointing for ethnic sentiments to surface at a time when the country is engaged in a general exercise of this nature, which ought to unite citizens in the limited way that partisan politics can. While some say that the disruptions were simply a partisan affair, it is difficult for moderates to argue against ethnic motivations, as the Igbos have a history of opposing northern leadership, especially the presidential ambition of President Buhari. Unfortunately, partisan rivalry and the traditional voting behaviour of people from the Southeast overlapped in disturbances that now gives fuel to ethnic division.

    As at the time of writing, the final votes have still not been determined, with results from roughly half of the states still to be confirmed at the national collation centre in Abuja. Without doubt, this will go down as one of the most keenly contested presidential elections till date. The question of what is likely to happen after the final results come in looms on every mind. For the National Assembly elections, some of the people that lost out, like Saraki, are likely to resort to legal action in attempts to reclaim their seats. The reports coming out of Imo State also points to a coming legal contention, especially as one electoral officer in the state claimed to have announced results under duress.

    Whether there will be further contention after the final presidential results are announced, one cannot now say. With a likely Buhari win, it may not be inconceivable for legal action to follow, with the strong challenge that has been put up by Mr. Atiku and the PDP. Althoughformer President Jonathan has been hailed severally for his early concession of defeat in 2015, there is no indication that it will become a tradition as at this time in Nigerian politics. If, by some weird stroke, Mr Atiku emerges as winner ahead of President Buhari, one may say, as the incumbent, there is a greater likelihood of further contention of that kind of result.

    Either way, the next four years will be very critical in the history of the country. We are at a turning point, for good or bad, as this column has consistently opined. There is so little margin for error and there is a sense that the populace realise this. The immediate past years have been tough, as even members of the present administration will agree, but the resilience of Nigerians and the hope majority have for the prospects of the country has carried us along. With the regular purposeful or inadvertent stoking of ethnic tensions at every turn, and the weight ofsecurity strains in these past years, there is a greater importance for us to get it right, one way or another, starting from the ballot box.

    Elections are a good compass for gauging general sentiments and testing the system, as it were. On the sentiments of Nigerians, there is a clear eagerness to see positive outcomes, as interest in government and its processes seems to increase with every passing year. However, the efficiency of systems do not seem to be keeping up with the increasing interests, adding to apathy that is seen even in this elections, with the highest number of registered voters in the history of the country. Young people are still lagging behind, but are increasingly getting involved, while confidence in the systems, processes and agents of government, which has been on a steady low ebb over the years, is not increasing. INEC’s decision to postpone added to this. One hopes that the next four years will see an improvement in this regard.

    As we look poised to enter the ‘next level’, Nigerians have lofty expectations, while a growing number of sceptics are equally expectant of certain outcomes. With the not-too-pleasant health condition of President Buhari and the wide complaints of nepotism in his appointments, the next four years will determine if Nigeria is really destined for the ‘next level’ or it will sink totally into the abyss.

  • Here we go again

    The postponement of the elections this past weekend was a sad confirmation of the fears of many Nigerians that electoral activity in this country is cursed by the same hand of mediocrity that has stained all aspects of life in Nigeria. For months, weeks and days before the original date set for the elections, Prof. Mahmood Yakubu, the chairman of the Independent National Electoral Commission, INEC, was resolute in his assurances that INEC was ready to go, and that all areas had been covered. Going by the excuses that poured out from INEC after the dirty deed had been done on Saturday, it seemed that no contingency had been made for the “logistical” issues that arose.

    Everyone would agree that “bad weather” should not feature in a list of things likely to derail preparations for a major national event that has technically been in the works since the last elections in 2015. Not only that, alleged acts of sabotage, which likely led to fires in INEC offices in Abia, Anambra and Plateau states, are said to have also contributed to the postponement, according to INEC. From the different statements collected from INEC officials, the explanations point to an overriding desire by INEC for all election activities to begin at the same time of 8 am throughout the country, which would not have been possible last Saturday. Whether Nigerians are even now confident that this will happen on February 23, is another matter entirely.

    Unsurprisingly, there have been accusations thrown from one political party to the other, and the leadership of INEC has not been spared in the blame throwing. For sure, Prof. Yakubu has to take the lion share of the blame, as the decision to postpone, and all issues leading to it, are areas within his responsibility which were not met. Faced with having staggered elections commencing at different times in different cities or outright postponement within hours to the exercise, INEC chose the latter, after arrangements had been made by people and businesses to accommodate the exercise. The action has now set a trend of unbroken election postponements since 2011 elections.

    Without being unduly critical, the quality of decision making at the highest levels of government in Nigeria always leaves one grimacing, out of sheer horror. The political parties showed lack of adequate planning when they could not meet deadlines set in the INEC timetable for the elections. Many of the lists of candidates from parties were submitted later than directed, and the avalanche of court cases that followed, with the attendant drama at that level, also bit into the limited preparation time for INEC to get ballot papers ready for the 70 odd political parties participating in the elections. The sheer number of parties registered and cleared to contest is another issue that needs to be discussed.

    If we were practicing true democracy in the established traditions of the developed countries we so eagerly want to emulate, then the quality of our party politics would be sophisticated enough for politicians to recognise the incredulity of registering mushroom parties at every opportunity, just to make a political point. In advanced democracies, politicians get ahead in established political parties with the force of their arguments and the profundity of their vision, coupled with an ability to sell these to the wider membership of the party and, by extension, the entire population. In Nigeria, we suffer from a dearth of options in an otherwise bountiful pool of shabby mushroom parties and unknown candidates who have no appetite for the grand scheming of the bigger parties.

    Can one, for instance, imagine adopting a fixed date for every election, with our weak systems and mediocre commissions? In the United States of America, elections are held on the first Tuesday after November 1st in an election year. It is a matter of law, fuelled by confidence in a working system that guarantees delivery of materials, in spite of weather conditions. In fact, the date itself is said to have been thought out to accommodate the more agrarian population of the US, and the long journeys that some had to make to their respective county centres, which could begin from the preceding Sunday. It is not a random date, but one that takes weather, harvest and many issues of “logistics” into consideration. So also, in the United Kingdom, elections into the House of Commons are done, every five years, on the first Thursday of May, although allowances are made for snap votes, in the event of a no confidence vote on a government.

    Because of politics and other factors that remove from our overall efficiency as a truly independent country, we are nowhere close to setting a date by law. To begin with, many lawful dates are already being dishonoured, like the deadline for adoption of the budget for a new fiscal year at the federal level and in many states. There is just a crippling disregard for time that leads to tangible losses, as in this case. Many statistics have emerged about the cost of Saturday’s postponement to the government and to private business. The director general of the Lagos Chamber of Commerce puts these costs at $1.5 billion while renowned economist, Bismark Rewane, estimates it closer to $10 billion. But of course, we can’t even get into a conversation about how to offset those costs. We barely got little in the way of apology as it is.

    The harm is in the indifference that the decision seemed to communicate. Indifference to hardship caused and expenses incurred by private citizens and the public purse. Some even say it is a new way of embezzling money and making sure that every kobo assigned for the elections disappears in a maze of logistical costs. Sensitive materials already deployed have supposedly been called back, and this recall will be at extra cost to what was projected. On the whole, it just casts suspicion on everything that happens from here onwards. If the one solace to be had is that people will be all the more watchful, then we will take it and run with it.

    It is fact, that not everyone had the chance to obtain their Permanent Voters Cards before the window allowed for collection closed. If the delay had allowed for the continuation of card collection, then it may have been easier to bear. However, the delay appears to be of no benefit to the electorate, except for the unguaranteed “satisfaction” of possibly starting voting at roughly the same time countrywide. We have long been known to major in the minor in Nigeria. If the card readers are functioning as they should, and all INEC systems are sufficiently tamper-proof, it shouldn’t matter terribly whether the elections are staggered across the states or not.

    That there is controversy surrounding the elections is no surprise. Neither is it a surprise that there has been a postponement. What will be really surprising is if the process continues, as re-arranged, with little or no incident. The frayed nerves of Nigerians have endured a lot in the past, and we can surely endure one more week of suspense in the ever playing drama of Nigerian society and politics.  The postponement will cost some more than others, but we are all equally stained by the stigma of never getting it right the first time, of unnecessary delays and the domino effect of African time that may have been started by the same political parties now calling foul and demanding the head of the INEC chair.

    Our already complicated electoral system is being affected by the lack of vision of our over 70 presidential hopefuls, most of whom lack the finesse to form sensible alliances. Instead, they complicate the electoral process with their numbers and ridiculously large ballot papers that do not present more than a few real choices. INEC and all the political parties should take this blame.

  • It’s time to vote

    It has been a roller coaster ride in public affairs in Nigeria since President Muhammadu Buhari won a landmark victory at the polls in 2015, through the political vehicle of the All Progressives Congress, APC. His victory was historic because it marked the first time, since the return to civilian rule in 1999, that an incumbent president was unseated by a rival candidate and party. For his part, former president, Goodluck Jonathan of the People’s Democratic Party, PDP, accepted defeat very early on, thereby fortifying the victory with peaceful legitimacy. Thus, the events of the last elections have set a standard in elections in Nigeria and the time has now come to test the system, along with the candidates, in this coming election.

    From seemingly bewildering inaction on pressing issues, to brazen and calculated official manoeuvres, especially on the anti-corruption front, the present administration has certainly made an impression on Nigerians. As in all things, there are mixed feelings, and these feelings will be unearthed, one way or the other, this weekend. The opposition, consisting of a mammoth PDP and several other minor parties, has been posturing for months, ahead of the showdown. Although parties like Kingsley Moghalu’s Young People’s Party, YPP, threaten to be a dark horse in the race, Nigerians do not need any divination to know that this is a two horse race.

    Promises are being made on both sides of the divide. The APC and its candidate, President Buhari, promise to take the country to the next level (of ‘change’, one presumes). Running in 2015 on the promise of change, President Buhari’s government has put a new shade to governance, one that has produced many positives like payment of pension arrears owed for many years, and some negatives like the multiple cases of human rights violations by government agents.

    AlhajiAtiku Abubakar, now of the PDP, is, interestingly, the Buhari of 2015. He has laboured hard to realise his presidential ambition for years, but he now has the biggest opportunity to do so, having finally gotten on a ticket. Sounding, rather uncomfortably, like Donald Trump of the United States of America, he says he wants to “get Nigeria working again”. Shaking off the aspersions to his character and moral uprightness that linger on from his days as vice-president, he is packaging himself as the new messiah.

    Despite the promises, Nigerians are all too aware that the leading two candidates were, just months ago, comrades in the same APC that defeated the Goliath PDP in 2015. Having joined APC to defeat a Goliath he helped create, Atiku’s ambition has now taken him back, to repair the broken limbs and ego of the PDP. Atiku’s political elasticity is unfortunately widely replicated, especially between the APC and PDP, such that one of the major concerns of the election is that the two front running parties are cut from the same cloth, even though they appear to be saying different things.

    The state of play right now in Nigeria is also deeply concerning. Without doubt, the matter of the terrorists in the Northeast is at the forefront of concerns. At the early part of Buhari’s administration, there was significant improvement on military operations that saw people return to communities they had fled in fear of the terrorists in that region. Lately, however, with a change in strategy by the terrorists, the military is struggling and the sense of insecurity has risen sharply, perhaps to new heights, with the rumoured involvement of organised and experienced Islamic State fighters in the theatre of war.

    The rising insecurity has dented confidence in the military, and within the military itself, due to issues related to funding and complications in logistics. The candidates of the coming election and their associates have had a lot to say about this, but frankly, Nigerians have heard it all before. Without doubt, the insecurity in the Northeast and other regions will weigh on minds, especially in the north, during the elections.

    Following the issue of insecurity is unemployment, and presidential candidates have made it clear that it is the offshoot of economic problems. For this reason, debates and conferences focusing on the economy have taken place. The present administration relies on the patience of Nigerians for the groundwork that has been laid in the past three and a half years to bear fruit in the possible next term of the administration.

    Atiku and his chosen deputy, Peter Obi, have however launched a campaign, pressing on the patience of Nigerians and presenting themselves as the complete economic package, being two successful businessmen outside of government. Although other parties have interesting things to say about the economy, insecurity and other issues, Nigerians seem to show more interest in what the APC and PDP candidates have to say. This negates the issue created by concern for the transmigration of politicians between the PDP and APC in recent years. Therefore, by gravitating towards these parties, we are signalling tolerance or acceptance for this practice as a fact of our political life.

    For the first time in presidential election campaigning in Nigeria, the voice of the candidates for vice-president seem to have gained more importance, almost level to that of the presidential candidates. The APC has unwittingly created a stronger, or in the least, more vocal, office of the vice-president and this is reflected in the choice of deputies for the leading candidates. There is a sense that many presidential votes may be swayed by the choice of vice-president on the ballot, and the two frontrunners have very strong deputies indeed.

    In the present administration, only the rumoured “cabal”, who allegedly call the shots in Aso Rock, threaten the importance of the office of the vice-president, and the inability of the Buhari administration to clearly put that rumour to rest may weigh in on voting decisions this weekend. Curiously, on the campaign trail, the president has been missing some of the heavy weights of his administration, like BabaganaKingibe, Attorney General Abubakar Malami, Chief of Staff Abba Kyari, Mamman Daura and some others who came to prominence in his administration after his victory at the last outing.

    Beyond the presidential elections, the race for legislative positions may be more important in the long run, due to the system of politics in Nigeria. Although the style of the present government threatens to curb the influence of the lawmakers, their constitutional importance cannot be erased. That is why we need to get the best hands on deck at that level, so we can build from the grassroots. Most of the seasoned legislators, who unsurprisingly are seeking yet another return to the legislative houses, are spent forces and tired government functionaries who seek a lucrative ‘retirement’ into the back bench of the National Assembly.

    There are, however, some shining stars on the legislative ballot in this election. One esteemed example from Bayelsa State is a candidate for the seat in the House of Representatives for the Yenagoa/Kolokuma/Opokuma federal constituency, Prof. Steve Azaiki, OON. The immediate past pro-chancellor of the Niger Delta University is a well-travelled man of letters, who combines a successful track record in public service with a thorough academic aptitude that is missing in 90% of the so-called lawmakers that presently occupy or have occupied seats in the National Assembly. It was a pleasure to see him take the step that many versed and capable Nigerians avoid because of the nature of our politics. He is definitely one to watch in the National Assembly elections and in the nation’s political scene for many years to come.

    These elections should not be decided based on the usual criteria – wealth, existence of ‘political guarantors’ and dare-devilry. We must make informed choices. Also, all agencies involved must serve the greater interest of the country. From the Holy Bible, Ecclesiastes chapter 3 verse 1 says, “to everything there is a season, and a time to every purpose under heaven…”. The season for decision making is upon us again in Nigeria, where we are all expected to utilise our intellect and sense of discernment to make leadership decisions for the next four years. The outcome of our decisions speaks directly to our collective intellect as a nation, as it always has.

  • Lagos on the march again

    Lagos is a cosmopolitan state where indigenes from different parts of the country live and converge to do business. Governing such a state requires some deft political moves, and the ability to read the mood of the populace. In the last three and a half years, Governor Akinwunmi Ambode has shown that he possesses the wherewithal to engender good governance in such a highly cosmopolitan state, as his performance has endeared him into the hearts of Lagosians.

    It is not a secret that there has been some rancour between the governor and major stakeholders of the All Progressives Congress, APC, on which platform he became governor in 2015. The strife pitched Ambode against those who were instrumental to his emergence as Governor of Lagos State, after Babatunde Raji Fashola. The seeming disconnect between Ambode and APC stalwarts manifested in different ways in the state.

    On his assumption of office three years ago, the governor embarked on an ambitious project of road networks, mostly in the nooks and crannies of the state. He also ensured adequate security by re-invigorating the state’s security outfit, the Rapid Response Squad, and securing the waterways through which some hoodlums and armed robbers had attacked banks in the busy Victoria Island and Ikoyi environs in the past. To further ensure the safety of Lagosians, he embarked on the clearing of notorious slums and shanties in Oshodi, by removing the makeshift shops that sometimes served as hiding places for criminals. In place of this, Ambode is replacing the shanties with a modern market which meets international standards and which will transform the area.

    However, Ambode’s success so far has not gone without its own pains. His government has engaged in tussles with traders in the Ladipo area of Lagos, which has led to the closure and re-opening of the market there on several occasions. The governor is concerned that the traders are not complying with sanitation rules or taking adequate steps to protect the health and safety of Lagosians. His ban on okadas on major roads has also been met with groans by people engaged in the transport business. About a million or so people are affected. Many of them took up okada riding due to the hardship experienced after losing jobs or being unable to find other jobs. It is a known fact that some inner roads in the state have been unmotorable, so okada is an alternative for many people. In addition, it has the advantage of helping to beat the notorious Lagos traffic.

    The governor’s attempts to clear Lagos roads of street traders has also not yielded results, as street traders are ubiquitously found everywhere, chasing after motorists on major roads in the metropolis. Side by side with the street petty traders, are the pick pockets who have defied every measure put in place to clear them off the roads. They all take advantage of the bad roads, especially in the raining season where the rains cause more traffic on major roads in the state.

    On a general scale, Ambode is seen to be carrying out a face lift of Lagos, with transformations like the Iganmu-Badagry ten-lane expressway, the Oshodi-Abule Egba BRT lane and the Oshodi-Lagos International Airport road, all of which are still under construction. The fortune of the ongoing construction of these roads took a nose dive during and shortly after the clash between the governor and major stakeholders in the APC last year. His deteriorating relationship with the leadership of the APC in the state seemed to make his bad relations with Lagos APC leaders even worse.

    The relationship between Ambode and the APC leaders is said to have deteriorated to the point that the leadership of the APC thought Ambode could not continue to govern Lagos for the next four years. In the first instance, Ambode was said to have allowed the gulf between him and the APC leaders to widen, due to his sudden taciturnity. It was not always so. Right from when it was first announced that he would take over from the former governor, Babatunde Fashola, the stakeholders thought he was relatively unknown, besides being a former accountant in the Lagos State Civil Service. But some APC leaders in the state continued to assure the others until he was accepted, to the chagrin of Fashola.

    However, no sooner had he been appointed than he began to fence out some people. He did away with Fashola’s appointees, while gradually distancing himself from other APC leaders in the state. His relationship with the speaker of the Lagos State House of Assembly Mudashiru Obasa, has also not been very rosy. Even his own appointees found it difficult to reach him, as he would not pick their calls. The APC leaders were not left out of the cold treatment, as it is rumoured that Ambode ignored calls or refused to return them. This was why Lagos stakeholders supplanted him with Babajide Sanwoolu.

    The move to replace Ambode with Sanwoolu caused rupture in Lagos. All entreaties to Lagos APC leadership, including from the president, could not stay their hand. At the end, Ambode, in a display of poor political brinksmanship, decided to contest face to face with Sanwoolu, despite advice and warnings from those who should know better. The contest was held but the rest is history.

    The last straw that almost broke the camel’s back and which threatened Ambode’s substantive position as governor is said to be his open confrontation with the Lagos State House of Assembly on the presentation of the 2019 budget. Ambode is said to have merely sent a copy of the 2019 budget to the House in December, without going to present it formally at the House. He is also said to have by-passed the Lagos State Assembly in a new spending spree, although he claimed he had acted within the law. His claims notwithstanding, the lawmakers responded by threatening impeachment.

    Ambode turned a deaf ear to all entreaties to soft pedal. For example, he ignored advise for him to seek the intervention of notable people outside the government, including the founder of the Redeemed Christian Church of God, Pastor E.A Adeboye. He is said to be holed up in his office, without speaking with his own associates. Some rumour peddlers even say he has been engaging in anti-party activities, to the extent of hobnobbing with Jimi Agbaje, the governorship aspirant of the People’s Democratic Party, PDP, and financing his bid to run in Lagos. But the PDP candidate has since denied these.

    In spite of the denial, the Lagos Assembly members picked up on the rumours by claiming that if the budget is passed, they are not sure Ambode would not deploy Lagos’ funds to cater for the opposition. Despite the allegation, Ambode remained defiant, believing himself to be in the right. There were claims from some quarters that the assembly members were only desperate to find a way to fund their individual campaign expenses. Also, the assembly members had been accused by a non-governmental organisation of misappropriation of N28.8 billion as the running cost of the house, while threatening the governor with impeachment.

    Just as the battle line was being drawn in the sand between Ambode and the Lagos Assembly members, Asiwaju Bola Ahmed Tinubu, the national leader of the APC, and other APC leaders in Lagos demonstrated leadership and quickly intervened. They later publicly declared, through Tinubu, that there will be no impeachment for the embattled governor, and that all issues had been resolved.

    The resolution seems like the lull that Lagosians have been praying for in the gathering political storm in the state. The people of Lagos would have been the victims of this eleventh hour crusade against the governor. It is now time for the numerous stalled projects in Lagos State to be given the much needed attention that will crown this welcome resolution and ensure an enduring legacy for the governor. With his track record in office as governor, it is a pity that Ambode was caught in a web of conspiracy. One also hopes that Ambode and his party leadership are getting nearer to true reconciliation, because the performing governor can still be useful for APC in the future.

  • CJN: Who’s “gate”?

    The Watergate scandal of 1972 in the United States of America gave rise to the adoption of the “-gate” suffix that is now used to depict scandals of every type. The way it works in Nigeria is that the suffix is added to the subject matter of the scandal or to the name of the individual or group at the centre of the scandal, as in the very recent Adeosungate. Now, there is a fresh and ongoing scandal at the highest level of the country’s judiciary, but the heroes and villains are difficult to tell apart. Where does the smear of scandal fall in the ongoing drama between the presidency and the now suspended (?) Chief Justice of Nigeria, Justice Walter Onnoghen?

    When news suddenly got out that the CJN would be arraigned for offences related to non-declaration of assets, there were mixed reactions from Nigerians. There was dismay in the South-south, irritation in the legal community and bewilderment in the wider society. Tied to the different emotions was the knowledge of the looming elections, just over two weeks away now. Facts quickly emerged about the speed of development in the case from the submission of petition to filing before the Code of Conduct Tribunal, CCT. Then the lawyers injected some more controversy about the legality of the procedure and constitutional arguments erupted. While this was going on, the CJN’S bank accounts were published publicly.

    The CJN’s battalion of lawyers and Senior Advocates of Nigeria, SANs, objected to the CCT’s jurisdiction by filing cases in other courts. They filed several applications for discontinuation of the CCT case, including one that led to an order from the Court of Appeal to stay the proceedings. However, President Muhammadu Buhari, in an address on Friday, suspended the CJN on the strength of an order granted by the CCT, naming Justice Tanko Mohammed as the Acting CJN. There was widespread rejection of this move by most of the notable legal practitioners in the country, thereby compounding the debate on the legality of the Code of Conduct Bureau heading straight to the CCT in the first place. Given the sensitive timing of the prosecution and the blurry legality of the process adopted, the international community has also expressed concerns.

    Thus, what could have easily become another anti-corruption victory for the Buhari administration has turned into a constitutional crisis, and the possible shame of a CJN is being overshadowed by what appears to be his persecution, against the spirit of the law and in disrespect of its procedures. Like in many of the country’s affairs, bad management of this issue has escalated an already sensitive matter into a national emergency. In what appears to be a passive protest at the development, other Judges of the Supreme Court did not attend the swearing in of the members of the Election Tribunal for next month’s elections. Only one of the Supreme Court judges attended the ceremony conducted by the acting CJN.

    Meanwhile, the Nigerian intelligentsia is caught between a genuine desire to see corrupt officials exposed, tried and removed and anger at the seeming disregard for legal procedure, which would have ensured the rule of law in this matter. For others, it appears like an ethnic affront or an audacious political gambit calculated to influence the judiciary in the aftermath of the elections. This cacophony of emotions and the posture of the judiciary at this time is the last thing we need in the run in to elections. The National Assembly is also poised to weigh in on the matter. The constitution assigns the Senate a role in the removal of a CJN, which is where this is headed.

    Legally speaking, the constitution is silent about the exact procedure and power to suspend a sitting CJN. However, it gives the National Judicial Council, NJC, power over discipline of judicial officers. This strengthens the argument of the CJN’s lawyers who have relied on a Court of Appeal decision in Nganjiwa v FRN to claim that all questions of misconduct against a judicial officer should be referred first to the NJC, which was not done in this case. Some others have cited a provision in the Interpretation Act that purportedly allows the president to exercise the power of suspension against the CJN, in the silence of the constitution on that particular matter. As only a competent court of law can decide this issue, one would think that the body language of the judiciary should guide the presidency in this matter.

    As for Onnoghen, the game may be up for him. There appears to be no scenario where he returns happily to serve as CJN until retirement. Even a successful defence of the allegations against him may still not remove the moral obligation on him to step down from his tainted office as the CJN. Had he done the honourable thing at the beginning by stepping aside to face the allegations, he probably would now have the benefit of doubt and the safety of the judicial system to ensure fair hearing. Onnoghen’s seeming crisis of honour and lack of self respect has led to the degeneration of this matter into a full blown constitutional crisis. Other not-too-palatable decisions have been made by the executive arm of government, but an honourable self recusal by Onnoghen could have tempered the storm and minimised the backlash.

    With his administration’s record of disregarding court orders, and other procedural oversights, the nation will find it difficult to accept President Buhari’s reliance on the one court order that should not have been followed. His decision may help to strengthen the theories about ulterior motives for the move against Onnoghen at this time. In any case, even if the law had been followed to the letter and the NJC’s go-ahead had somehow been obtained to prosecute the CJN, bringing it at this time would have still been met with suspicion and criticism, casting negative light on the coming elections, as has now happened. The bulk of the criticism should go to the president’s advisers, including the Attorney General, Abubakar Malami, the chairman of the Presidential Advisory Council on Anti-Corruption, Prof. Itse Sagay and the vice-president, Yemi Osibajo, a Senior Advocate, who was probably on a “toilet break” when the decision on Onnoghen was made.

    With Donald Trump’s pandering to his far right core support base and Theresa May’s obstinate mission for a hard Brexit (even with the very close Brexit referendum result), it appears true statesmanship and compromise in politics has been lost with the times. In Nigeria, President Buhari’s anti-corruption fight, which is allegedly chequered by politics, seems to be poised to consume his government. It is a damn-all-consequences crusade that lacks the delicate touch that, thankless as it may be, must be applied in a society such as ours. For the sake of peace, a quiet and private audience with the CJN, intimating him of the findings against him, with irrefutable evidence, could have induced a voluntary resignation, in return for the protection of his dignity.

    The president’s advisers, whether it be the so-called cabal we keep hearing of or some other rabble rousers in his inner circle, may have goaded him into this path that may affect his chances at the elections. It can also potentially lead to more undesirable consequences that could have been avoided. The presidency may have made an unpopular move to satisfy a popular hunger. With the CCT case now adjourned indefinitely, post-suspension, this week will be revealing on the next chapter of this saga, and one fears it is far from over.

    In the end, this is not a matter of gates. It is a constitutional crisis, bordered by disappointing ethnic issues and good old national distrust. There is still an unflattering leeway out of this; for the presidency to admit it’s indelicate handling of the matter and revert to the NJC. The CJN also still has the opportunity to muster some courage and accept his suspension or reaffirm it by announcing his own desire to stand aside to vindicate himself or accept punishment.

  • Britain’s dirty laundry

    Many think of Britain as one of the most advanced democracies in the world. One has often marveled at how the British parliament manages to finely marry the vagaries of party politics with the practice of direct democracy and indirect democracy in parliament.

    This is why it is shocking to see how the British government has lost its luster in the past couple of years, following the historic decision of the British people to leave the European Union, EU. The exit process has been a big embarrassment for the UK.

    Brimming with confidence after a conservative party sweep of parliament in 2015, immediate past British Prime Minister, David Cameron, was faced with domestic groans over the burden of continental influence on British affairs.

    With key concerns about immigration and the huge financial commitment of UK to the European Union, there were calls for an exit from the EU, a drive known simply as “Brexit”. The Brexit drive had supporters in Cameron’s Conservative Party, the Labour Party, and others, as Euroscepticism bubbled to the surface of British society.

    Cameron disagreed with the calls, fancying his own ability to negotiate a deal that addresses the major concerns, while still keeping UK in the EU. His attempts at negotiation soon met a rocky patch. The resulting criticism of opponents, in and outside his own party, drove Cameron to seek the comfort of public opinion, perhaps, to show that he had the confidence of the people, and also to demonstrate to Brussels how close UK could come to leaving the EU, in the absence of a better deal. It was a terrible gamble, one which he lost, and, as some say, one which UK still stands to lose from.

    In acknowledgement of his grave miscalculation, Cameron resigned his position, paving the way for the incumbent British Prime Minister, Theresa May, who accepted the challenge of steering UK out of the EU. When she came, her slogan was “Brexit means Brexit”, and this thrilled some of the hard-line Brexiteers within and outside the Conservative Party. Two years down the line, and within weeks from the deadline for the exit from the EU, Brexit really is looking like Brexit; a no-deal Brexit. Theresa May’s handling of the process has been tenuous and deeply embarrassing for the UK.

    For the first time in so long, the cracks within the British government are becoming visible to the world. The Brexit negotiation has witnessed the resignation of key members of the Prime Minister’s Brexit cabinet, including two Brexit secretaries, whose roles were right at the forefront of the negotiations. As the negotiations dragged on, it was soon obvious that Europe would keep to its word and make the process excruciating for the Britons. It seems that the EU’s Brexit position is now having adverse effects on the British parliament, with Theresa May having already survived two no-confidence votes since December.

    The back and forth in the House of Commons betrays deep divisions within parliament that traverses party affiliation. The deal that May’s team brought for ratification before the British parliament suffered the biggest defeat in over a century, by 230 votes, despite the fact that the vote was initially postponed because of the high likelihood of a defeat. The relationship between May and Jeremy Corbyn, leader of the main opposition Labour Party, has sometimes degenerated to bitter bickering on the floor of the House of Commons. There is a general sense that the government and opposition are being irresponsible with their standoffish relationship, so much that the best interests of the country may have been pushed to the back bench.

    The major grouch with May’s deal is the “backstop agreement” that excludes a physical border in Northern Ireland. The staunch Brexiteers say that it is against the spirit of true Brexit and the deal does not deliver what the people asked for. The labour leadership canvasses for membership of the European custom’s union, which Theresa May is opposed to. The immigration concern is also thought to be unaddressed with the present deal as it is. With little time before the March 29 Brexit deadline, Theresa May thinks she can renegotiate a deal that parliament can accept, and in time to ensure that there is a deal in place before the deadline.

    In the end, what the British parliament seems unwilling to face or talk about is that The UK may have only two options left – a no-deal Brexit that leaves businesses and people in the wilderness, or a reversal of course to remain in the EU, which may require another referendum. Theresa May has always been emphatic about not calling any further referendums. With the only deal now rejected by parliament, the unwillingness of the EU to bulge on its positions and the Scottish threat of another referendum, Theresa May, or a successor, may have to swallow some pride and explore the possibilities of remaining in the EU, as a practical step on its own or as a measure to avoid a no-deal Brexit and its potentially crippling uncertainty.

    A remarkable number of young people voted against Brexit during the 2016 referendum. The polls showed that a greater percentage of older people supported an exit from the EU. At least two personal encounters with older Britons during the period confirmed this, with one of them explaining how different The UK felt from what he was used to whilst growing up. He felt uncomfortable with the immigrants he saw around and their influence on British culture. He was expressing an honest opinion that had its own merit.

    However, the future belongs to the younger generation and they seem to like the UK of today and the potential of tomorrow. It is that section of British society that should carry the day. Statistically, more young people would now be eligible to vote in a new referendum. With the bolstered numbers and the votes of others who may have had a rethink after the horse show that have characterised the Brexit negotiations, one may rightly predict that the result will most likely be different. But why does this scare those in the British government? Or is it just the Conservative Party trying to save face?

    As we observe, Brexit many miles away from the confusion in Westminster, there are pointers for our own society. Nigeria may have not attained the status of the British government or what is ordinarily known of the strength of its democracy, but as we are continually haunted by the shadow of a disintegration of our union in Nigeria, perhaps people need to understand some of the unsavoury intricacies of such an event, which is now on full display in The UK. Just as Brexit shows, as each day passes, that UK may fare better if it remains in the EU, it may inspire desire for the continued union of the peoples of Nigeria. Besides, the younger generations of Nigerians do not seem to be inclined towards a breakup. This ought to guide us in navigating away from courses of action that threaten the unity of Nigeria.

    David Cameron cannot take back that ill-fated decision he took in 2016. The negative impact of that decision on the lives of people inside and outside the UK will forever weigh on his conscience. There is no one rooting harder for a positive Brexit outcome than Cameron. Theresa May’s government has now met a difficult situation with strong-headed politics and a single mindedness that could throw the stability of British society into disarray. By continuing in her position, she looks on one hand like a determined leader eager to deliver the people’s choice, and on the other hand, like an “African strongman” type, incapable of changing his mind or stepping down.

  • CJN in the dock

    Nigeria is a country of many possibilities. Anything can happen. Even things that were hitherto not thinkable in this planet could just occur. One of such possibilities happened last week when the Code of Conduct Bureau, CCB, dragged the sitting Chief Justice of Nigeria, CJN, Justice Walter Onnoghen, to the Code of Conduct Tribunal, CCT, over non-declaration of assets. It marks the first time a sitting CJN will be arraigned in court. It also marks the second time, in this administration, that senior judicial officers have been subjected to legal action without recourse to the National Judicial Council, NJC, the disciplinary arm of the judiciary.

    The action against Onnoghen is predicated upon a petition submitted to the CCB by the Anti-corruption and Research-based Data Initiative, ARDI, a civil society group. Although Onnoghen’s chairmanship of the NJC may have presented minor complications if the bureau had reverted first to the NJC, its decision to proceed straight to arraignment presents much bigger complications, and it is not all legal in nature. As it is, there are legal and political aspects to the ensuing controversy.

    Legally speaking, the move by the CCB is a curious case. The CCB’s action at the CCT touches on the discipline of judicial officers, an area which the NJC claims superseding, or in the least, supervisory, powers. Paragraph 18 (1) and (2) of Part I of the Fifth Schedule of the 1999 Constitution, as amended, grants the tribunal the power of punishment of public officers for offences in contravention of the Code of Conduct, including matters related to declaration of assets. However, paragraph 21 (b) & (d) of the Third Schedule to the constitution grants the NJC power over the discipline of judicial officers. As such, there is a question of which power supersedes the other.

    Also, it appears that the ultimate aim of the action against Onnoghen is to prosecute and remove the CJN from office. Although the constitution authorises the CCT to remove public officers as a disciplinary measure, section 292 (1) (a) (i) of the constitution specifically mentions the CJN as part of a cadre of public officers who can only be removed from office by the president, acting on an address by two thirds of the members of the senate.

    Nigerian law dictates that specific provisions, as in section 292, supersedes general provisions or references, as in “public officer” in paragraph 18 of Part I of the Fifth Schedule to the constitution. Although paragraph 5 of Part II of that schedule lists the Chief Judge of Nigeria as one of the “public officers” referred to in Part I, the list also includes the president, who, for obvious reasons, cannot be subject to the authority of the CCT. One can argue that there are reasons that exclude the CJN from its authority as well.

    Then there is the question of the 2017 judgment in the case of Nganjiwa v F.R.N, which has been cited against CCB’s action by some legal practitioners. In that case, the Court of Appeal held that any question of misconduct against a judicial officer is actionable only after the NJC has acted on it and removed the judicial officer. Prof. Itse Sagay, chairman of the Presidential Advisory Council on Anti-Corruption, has argued that the issue of declaration of assets is not a matter that arose “in the course of duty”. Irrespective of his view, Prof. Sagay continues to display shockingly misguided utterances for a supposed legal luminary when he seemed to encourage disregard of the Court of Appeal’s decision in any case, even as it remains binding.

    When the justices of the Supreme Court were raided, arrested and some arraigned by the Department of State Services, DSS, in 2016, the NJC decried the usurpation and disregard of its authority. It stressed the importance of going through the NJC in every matter involving a judicial officer, as a condition precedent to any further legal action. It now seems that NJC’s statement and warning has gone unheeded in the worst possible way. Some lawyers thought that the Nganjiwa judgment provided some cover for NJC’s authority, but the limitations of that judgment are now being clearly tested in this matter. With all the uncertainty, only judicial interpretation can resolve the pressing questions.

    Leaving the legal aspect for the determination of competent authorities, there are political ramifications of the arraignment of Onnoghen that are disturbing. With elections only weeks away, a move on the head of the judiciary cannot but have political gears grinding, with allegations of ill-motive being shouted from the roof tops by opposition parties. Adding to the precarious timing of the petition is the seeming reluctance of the president to confirm Onnoghen in the first place. His confirmation was left till the eleventh hour, with the vice-president almost hurriedly having to send a nomination to the senate for confirmation. Not only that, the executive secretary of the ARDI, Dennis Aghanya, who submitted the petition against Onnoghen, has now been linked to the president. Apparently, he was National Publicity Secretary of President Buhari’s Congress for Progressive Change, CPC, before it merged into the All Progressive’s Congress, APC, with other parties.

    Although all of the connections above are mere conjecture, it has attracted enough attention to cause the Niger-Delta governors to call an emergency meeting. Also, it has made the dormant militants of the Niger Delta to raise their heads from their sleeping state to issue threats. Whether intended or not, the political backlash was always going to be severe in an atmosphere where a long-serving and diligent official in the Independent National Electoral Commission, INEC, is being castigated in a harmless capacity within the commission. The presidency and all agencies connected to the CJN’s case need to read between the lines of our fragile union in Nigeria and be well advised on decisions that could tip the pot especially at a time like this, so close to elections.

    The polity is being held together at the seams by what remains of our common decency as Nigerians and the belief in a better tomorrow. Decisions that stir the boiling underbelly of tribalism and ethnicity in our fragile union can easily lead to unwholesome consequences at this pivotal time, so close to elections. One is not saying that where there is a clear case of misconduct, it should not be acted upon, but where the question of due process of law is shrouded in uncertainty, there is a greater duty to maintain public peace and confidence in the system than there is to enter into expedited action against senior judicial officers.

    There are many talking points, but none is greater than the fact of the damage already done to the image of the CJN. Details of his accounts have been made public and there is no taking back the impression created by the manner of deposits of foreign currency in his accounts. The year 2011 when the deposits were made was also an election year, and this adds to the suspicions about the financial activity in his accounts. In a profession where the slightest inference of misdeed is catastrophic, the damage has already been done to the CJN. While the legal community has gone up in arms to protect their own, and the CJN’s kinsmen have rallied around him, let us not lose focus of the fact that judicial officers are held to the highest standards and there are indeed questions to be answered by the CJN.

    The important issue is not so much about the executive picking fights with the judiciary, but about constitutional loopholes that should not be exploited in the worst possible manner. Had Bukola Saraki, the senate president, been found guilty of his own case before the CCT, the same issues would have arisen when it comes to what the tribunal has power to do. It is therefore imperative that these overlapping functions arising from the constitution be thoroughly handled when next there is an amendment.

  • Systems; not messiahs

    Dissatisfaction is a leading sentiment in most sectors in Nigeria. Irrespective of ethnic or political affiliation, the consensus is that we have under-achieved in all our 58 years of independence. Because our system is not running the way it should, people feel short-changed by constituted authority, by the individuals who are custodians of that authority and by everyday people they encounter in the normal course of their lives. The combination of the dissatisfaction and general paranoia has created a victim mentality that has led to an endless search for messiahs.

    In their hundreds, ‘messiahs’ appear on every plane in Nigeria. They come as religious leaders, community elders, influencers of thought, philanthropists, and, most commonly, politicians or government functionaries. For a dissatisfied people with trust issues, it is easy for these messiahs to rouse sentiments against the status quo at any point, using the promise of a better future as bait. Therefore, in our search for El-dorado, we have forgotten that our supposed messiahs are just as much part of a system as we are. We all are parts of a system forged in the furnace of exploitation and oppression, and chronically resistant to change.

    In 1999, when Olusegun Obasanjo was to become president, just out of prison, he was likened to Mandela by some people. He was charged with a mandate to lead us on from the loosened shackles of military oppression. The retired general ended up leading the nation with an iron hand. In the end, he turned out not to be the messiah that we sought after all. He left after a failed attempt to become another long-term “African strongman”. When he left, in his own wisdom, he installed a not-so-strong man in power, who was reportedly reluctant to fill his shoes. But the sickly Umaru Yar’Adua appeared to be the God-sent saviour of the masses, as his activities during his brief stint in Aso Rock suggested.

    As fortune would have it, Yar’Adua succumbed to illness mid-tenure, and Goodluck Jonathan, his deputy, became president. The could-be messiah from Otuoke in Bayelsa State, South-south Nigeria, ran into difficulties of his own. Accused of weakness in many respects, he survived one election in 2011. By 2015, the country was already in need of another messiah, and thus, the man from Otuoke was ousted by popular vote for a perceived strongman, in person of President Muhammadu Buhari.

    Next month, Nigerians will go back to the polls. Surprisingly, Nigerians seem to have developed appetite for a new messiah. The search for Nigeria’s messiah is endless. It is devoid of consistency or any deep thought. It is almost as if Nigerians give in to their yearnings like toddlers, whose only focus at any time is escaping the discomfort of the moment. We have not learnt to become political adults, who know the value of endurance and perseverance.

    Truth is, the status-quo is again being ultra-criticised and this creates the perception of an unbearable atmosphere in the country. Although there are grave concerns at the moment that threaten our future, none has developed overnight, or in the last four years. Our problems have evolved consistently over the years and over many administrations. This is because of our misguided criticisms and messiah obsession as a people.

    Our past democratic leaders have not deserved all the criticism they got. Yes, they have had their shortcomings, but our criticism of them very quickly leaves the realm of objectivity and descends into subjective and less analytical realms that do not help progress. Olusegun Obasanjo introduced the likes of Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala, Nasir El-Rufai and even some of the more popular candidates for presidency in 2019, Atiku Abubakar and ObyEzekwesili, into governance. Although, attitudes towards these people are diverse, their good qualities are credit to the eye of the Egba man. Even Akinwunmi Adesina, Nigeria’s golden boy at the head of the African Development Bank was nominated by Obasanjo as minister of agriculture.

    It was always said that Goodluck Jonathan had good intentions, despite the appalling bazaar of corruption that people in his administration engaged in. One cannot speak to his culpability in the massive looting in his administration, but the groundwork for many policies, including the Treasury Single Account, TSA, were laid before he left. President Muhammadu Buhari’s administration has also made impact in agriculture and introduced policies that place the country on better footing than previous years. Although there have been missteps a-times, there is not enough to justify the sometimes potent hatred that has been cast at his person and the office since his election.

    The point is that, in concentrating on being victims, we have gotten lost in the labyrinth of our problems, so much that we have missed the little victories and progress, in every administration, that could have been converted into success. Our so-called messiahs are similarly strapped into the same system of thoughtlessness that encourages short-term thinking and mediocre results. The populace has been conditioned for a life in mediocrity where the victim mentality feeds the machine of corruption.

    For context, high handed troops of the Nigerian Army may be products of a military establishment that gives poor training, leading to over-reaction in the field. The poor campaign against Boko Haram in recent times may also be a result of the allowances afforded bad elements within government and military hierarchy to exploit the imperfect system we run, resulting in ill-equipped troops of low morale. That is not to say that the military has been completely ineffective. Nigerians may be more indebted to them than we realise, but we have to tackle the problems that limit success instead of searching for messiahs.

    This can be a good starting point for considerations ahead of the general elections, for caution in decision making and short-term thinking. There is evidence of our affairs all around us, and history is replete with the antecedents of intending office holders. We must not develop short memories to accommodate our yearning for a messiah in 2019. We must stop searching for the candidate with a magic wand, because there are none. The business of nation building is a painstaking process of building and rebuilding, sometimes of trial and error, but always about perseverance.

    In the United States or the United Kingdom, there is a system that works, mostly independent of whoever occupies the White House or Number 10, Downing Street. Of course, their decisions matter for business and other things, but the machine of state spins on, based on a foundation of efficiency that no doubt was painstakingly laid years before. If Nigerians wish to reach that level of efficiency, then we must act like participants in the project of development instead of victims, and seek efficient systems instead of messiahs.

    Government functionaries like Babatunde Fashola, former governor of Lagos state, are clear examples of how the system can constrict even the greatest talents. As minister of power, works and housing, he may have learnt that marshalling the affairs of a country of close to 200 million is no picnic. The opposition now ridicule him with past comments he made about fixing the power problem within a short time. The power of individuals in the mammoth that is Nigeria is exaggerated. We ought to be working towards developing a good system, rather than finding a messiah or playing victim.

    Based on the evidence of many years, the writing on the wall is clear. There are no victims and no messiahs. We are products of the system we have allowed in Nigeria. We must seek to build a system that is stronger than any individual, and we must do so with our eyes open and our long-term thinking caps on. There is no short cut to development and efficiency, as every cog in the wheel must be accountable.

  • 2019 is here!

    2018 was a moderately eventful year in Nigeria. The year witnessed the good, the bad and the ugly side of life in the country at different times in the year. The turn of the year understandably raises anxiety in the mind of Nigerians and foreigners with interests in the country. One of the reasons for this, and rightly so, is the coming election. However, there are many other major areas of concern as we enter into 2019.

    Without doubt, the coming general elections cast a long shadow on other parts of life in Nigeria. As it is, even the possibility of a transmission in political power is causing some effect, especially on businesses. If one is being honest, the landmark election of 2015 has caused a change in our politics. Politicians are now forced to re-brand themselves and their image during campaigning. They now pay attention to things that were overlooked in the past – like social media. In 2019, they will have to do even more work in this regard.

    In the run up to 2015, many, perhaps, saw Baba Buhari (as President Muhammadu Buhari is fondly called) out of his customary Babanriga or Kaftan for the first time, when he donned a suit in one of his campaign posters. Also, late last month, Christian faithful were serenaded to a popular Christmas song by the trio of Baba Buhari, Vice-President Yemi Osinbajo and Adams Oshiomhole, chairman of the ruling All Progressives Congress, APC. It was a sight that could not have been imagined in 2007 or even 2011. When politicians begin to respond or adjust to changes in society, it signifies an entry into a new age. In this case, it is an age we are yet to fully understand.

    Beyond the area of politics, it will be interesting to see how society adjusts to the changing times. With a population fast pushing 200 million, over half of Nigeria’s population is below 35. The huge economy of Nigeria has struggled to accommodate the bursting number of young adults, raising the rate of unemployment to a record high. With the government responding with social intervention programmes, like N-Power, the onus still ultimately falls on young Nigerians themselves to utilise the great potential of Nigeria to their own advantage.

    Without taking anything away from the good intentions of these government schemes, the social intervention programmes largely serve to tether the youths to overburdened government purse, seemingly designed to drag the youths along the path of development. All in all, it is an unsustainable approach to the problem of unemployment and weak personal development of young Nigerians. Come what may, 2019 is another opportunity to re-appraise this approach to government interventions and instead, create the enabling environment that allows businesses to thrive and for jobs to be created organically.

    Just like the social intervention schemes, the somewhat testy negotiations between government and labour for a new minimum wage of N30,000 may be a band aid for a bigger problem. There is no doubt at all that workers seriously need a raise in Nigeria’s current economic climate. However, to rush into hasty decisions would create greater problems in the future. There is a sense in certain quarters that the time for that raise is not ripe yet. The economy is in a transitional phase, and as such, patience and endurance may be needed to ensure a proper transition to the next phase, where the originally proposed N50,000 minimum wage may even be possible. 2019 will be interesting, as state and federal governments try to meet up with the proposed amount or burst up the agreement.

    The changing times are also reflected in the area of security. For so long, there seemed to be little to cheer in this area, and patience is running really thin, especially in the Northeast. The nature of the fight there is changing, and because of bureaucratic factors holding up funds and other operational and command difficulties, our military response has fallen short of expectation. If the problems are not addressed in 2019, we risk becoming a country in a permanent state of war.

    There has been fighting in Afghanistan between the US and the Taliban since 2001 and there is no clear path to ending that war. Although there is some talk of inviting the military of countries like the US to participate in active combat in the Northeast, Afghanistan and many other hot zones show that it is no guarantee for the peace we seek. The decision-making of the government and military command in 2019 will be crucial to determining the future of the war in the Northeast.

    Returning back to the issue of the massive number of young adults in the country right now, it is safe to say that the percentage of working age young people to others in this country is the single most important indices, going into 2019. Young Nigerians are driving change in ways that they do not realise and it will be wise for the government to pay more attention to the development of that section of society. The re-branding of politicians and the videos we all share and abuse today are facilitated by youth-driven innovation. Many of the recruits of Boko Haram fall within this age bracket, so also the number of potential voters in the voting register.

    With the recent death of former president, Shehu Shagari, the only president of Nigeria’s second republic, one is reminded of the generational transition of power from the heroes of independence to the military cohort, and gradually to new age power brokers who are mostly middle-aged and greying themselves. Younger Nigerians are mostly on the sidelines, showing a keen interest to disrupt the order, if the “Not-Too-Young-To-Run Bill” was anything to go by. It is evidence of a restless generation of Nigerians hungry for engagement, and they manifest this hunger in many ways, good and bad.

    For this reason, managing the young section of society should be a priority in 2019 and beyond, and this will be easier through careful observation of the behaviour of young Nigerians, starting with elections in February. Although one can say that the top candidates in the coming general elections are from a different age, their success in the elections and afterwards may depend on their engagement of the youths. The future of the country may hinge on how well-placed the youths are after the next tenure.

    Today, the country is at a fork in its road to development, with one road leading to the heights of prosperity and the other leading to the precipice of disaster. One way or the other, the youths will be a big part of where we land in 2019 and beyond. Government organisations and leaders of private business need to have a youth policy, especially in the northern part of the country where birth rates are higher and youth restiveness is sharp. Irrespective of the rumoured foreign fighters present in the Boko Haram camp, idle youths are their greatest minefield. And this goes for other sections of society.

    It is crucial to get it right from the start; that is why we need to have discussions about the future of the country at this time every year. The new year brings anxiety, but we should be more anxious about the future and how the youths are engaged in this country. Fine men and women have walked these lands and made positive impact, but their hard work can be undone if we don’t invest more in the areas that matter.

    Beginning the year with elections will mean different things for different people. One hopes that we do not sell our future for political porridge in 2019. If we neglect the pressing concerns of today, they may turn to gargantuan complications in the future. May we all enjoy a year of good decisions.