Much ado about youth prowess

Paul Ade-Adeleye

When President Muhammadu Buhari permitted a Freudian snigger escape him as a beleaguered Governor Babajide Sanwo-Olu read out the 5-point demands of protesting youths in Lagos State, he consolidated a deep-rooted suspicion in the youths that any promise he gave should be regarded as proceeding from a forked tongue. They therefore doubled their efforts in the protests, and before the governor could return to Lagos, they had increased their demands to a 7-point agenda. Though the protesters have been shaken by the anarchy that resulted from the hijack of the protests, they are nonetheless adamant that the fault is not theirs. They have retreated, for now, to the social media to think things over and float exotic ideals and propaganda. In the interlude, philosophical minds, who watched with keen eyes as events unfolded, have vented their opinions on what exactly happened. Among them is the esteemed former Minister of Education and Nigeria’s former Ambassador to Germany, Professor Tunde Adeniran, who in a recent interview, expressed hopes in the capacity of youths to turn Nigeria around.

He said “I pray the potency of the youths will affect the 2023 elections…. The army of thugs that desperate politicians recruit out of the pool of unemployed youths will no longer be fashionable. I expect that the vibrancy, capacity and power of the youths will have impact in the election and also alter what has been chaining them, weakening their capacity to seek not just relevance, but to also be appreciated by their intellect being utilized. Ideas rule the world. But the way we are doing now, we are ignoring that. But when the youths are better organised, they will, with their force, put an end to the type of allocatory politics of the self-serving political gatekeepers who have been doing so much to ensure that they only select those that will serve as their errand boys and serve their selfish interests rather than looking for the very best who will help in utilising the resources to lift the country up.  So, the trajectory will certainly change from the way things are. Things can never be the same again. The only thing that can allow things to remain the same is if the youths now relent and do not push any further. If you do not push further, you will lose the grounds that you have gained.”

While the eminent professor was spot on regarding what the youths could attain if they were better organised, he may have unwittingly glossed over the factors that militated against the complete success of the protests and how some of the successes recorded have been reversed by other realities closer to home than the ideals he espoused in his interview. To start with, he was quite amiss to have noted, earlier in his interview, that the EndSARS protests served as a metaphor for bad governance. The protests were focused ab initio on police brutality, and to that extent, the youths were united. The moment the federal government acceded to their demands and the narrative switched to bad governance, fissures emerged among the protesters. Tribal undertones and ideological differences, which hitherto had no place in the protest against glaring police brutality, emerged on the social media which served as the vehicle driving the protests.

Among some of the more popular influencers of the youths, cracks also arose. There was no unified consensus anymore on what anyone wanted. Into this maelstrom sailed hired hands  characters who had been contracted to confuse the narratives and counsel of the youths  and well before the unfortunate and unclear incidence at Lekki tollgate, which temporarily retired the youths and the protests, the cracks were glaring for the peeled eye to see. This inability to effectively steer the protest even when virtually the whole country was behind them is telling. It must not be glossed over. They have shown that although their cause was true, a congress of factors including ignorance, exuberance and a vacated sense of pragmatism among other minor factors mean that they were unprepared to man the nation’s helm.

Indeed the professor was right in observing that the youths can affect the elections in 2023, and that their choices can shake things up in political circles including putting corrupt “gatekeepers” out of business; he should have, however, also pointed out the youths’ penchant for sensationalism and warned them to receive ideological interventions on their legal and moral merits, not on the merits of the messengers. Until they have that mental filter, they will continue to constitute toothless bulldogs in the Nigerian polity  potent enough to be noticed and to raise Cain occasionally, but ineffectual to govern the country any better than those they have serially maligned.

Reps declare war on civilians

In another sorry plot twist at the House of Representatives, the House Committee on Federal Road Safety Commission (FRSC) has pointed out that the body’s enabling act of 1992 permits its officials to wield weapons and that it was about time that this provision was adhered to. According to Akinfolarin Mayowa, who led the committee, no stone should be left unturned in eradicating accidents on the road and so FRSC officials should wield weapons to enforce federal traffic laws. Although it is not clear where the mix-up arose, it is expedient to note that the FRSC (establishment) Act of 2007 repealed the 1992 version of the Act.

It is not immediately clear what branch of philosophy the lawmaker subscribed to, which enlightened him that the best cause of action that the country needs at the moment is the arming of another paramilitary corps. It is also not clear how much research the House Committee undertook into the causes of road accidents that would justify the expenditure of funds on the arming of this body and the subsequent training of the FRSC’s 280 units nationwide, but the legislator displayed matchless temerity in boldly presenting that proposal to the house.

The use of force as a first cause of action continues to rankle Nigerians, who are fresh off protests against the excessive use of force by the police. Nothing can justify Hon Mayowa’s call for arming the FRSC, especially as Section 14 of the 2007 act notes that the equipment to be provided for the corps by the commission include uniforms, identification cards, light reflecting night garments, raincoats, high-powered motor-cycles, motor cars, ambulances, recovery vehicles, powerful touches, two-way mobile radio, telephone sets and any other necessary communication gadget. Firearms were not listed among the necessary equipment for the corps’ members and the legal principle of ejusdem generis, which allows interpreters of the law deduce other items that can be added to the list, will not justify the addition of firearms.

The unwise proposition for the use of firearms by the corps also takes the responsibilities of corps members, as spelt out in Section 4 of the Act, to the extreme. Already, Nigerians have kicked against the arming of FRSC members, being all too acquainted with the thirst of security bodies for ultra vires use of force. The legislators behind the proposition may find that it will be easier to brainstorm other more civil propositions to tackle poor adherence to traffic laws than the introduction of guns, especially given the recent flare-up of the youths against police brutality.