Tag: speeches

  • Nigerians urged to stop hate speeches

    Nigerians have been advised to stop hate speeches as the country approaches another general elections.

    The advice was given by the President of the Muslim Community of Lagos State,  Professor Tajudeen Gbadamosi, during the inauguration of its executive committee at the Lagos Central Mosque.

    He said  the country needed peace now and hate speeches could cause problems before elections.

    Prof Gbadamosi called for religious tolerance and challenged other states to copy Lagos where Muslims and Christians are doing everything together.

    Members of the committee are Prince Tajudeen Olusi, Bashorun Macfoy and Tajudeen Uzamat. Professor Gbadamosi also decried the high rate of consumption of hard drugs by youths in the country. He charged parents to find time for their children because they are the future of the family and the country.

    Professor Gbadamosi assured the Muslim community in Lagos that the committee members would do their best to their basic duty in promoting Islam in the state and country in general.

    In his message, the Chief Imam of Lagos, Sheik Sulaimon Abu Nolah charged the committee to serve with honesty and good intention.

    He reminded them that “people are expecting results from you, so you need to work arduously.

    Also, the Baba Adini of Lagos, Alhaji Afees Abu, described the work of the committee as that of jihad and prayed for Allah’s guidance for the committee members.

    Baba Adini charged them to make the proposed Lagos Muslim University a reality.

     

  • Annals of commencement speeches

    In a sojourn of more than five decades in the classroom and the newsroom and as a member of the audience for news and public affairs, I have had my full share of commencement addresses delivered by persons of great specific gravity to young men and women about to enter the world after a period of study in their cloistered environment.

    Like you, dear reader, few of their edifying messages cling in my memory.

    I have no doubt that at my graduation from the University of Lagos, what the chancellor and former president of Nigeria, and later the Owelle of Onitsha, Dr Nnamdi Azikiwe, and the vice chancellor, the distinguished historian Professor JF-Ade. Ajayi commended to the class and commended with stirring eloquence was nothing less than a distillation of the wisdom of the ages. Yet, weeks later, I would have  found it difficult to recall their exhortation with confidence.

    The commencement speaker at the School of Journalism the year I graduated from Columbia was Garry Wills, author (Nixon Agonistes) and Pulitzer prize-winning historian.  He must have spoken with great earnestness about the obligations of American journalists and the media in the post-Watergate era.   But I have no memory of his oration.

    I remember that the leader – and sole Member of Parliament for the anti-apartheid Liberal Party of South Africa, Helen Suzman, was among those honored at the larger University Commencement but I cannot now tell whether she gave a speech.  If she did, I have entirely forgotten whatever she said.

    All is not lost, however.  I do recall a few commencement speeches, but mostly for the wrong reason. I cite two memorable instances here.

    The first was at the 1991 post-graduate Convocation of the University of Lagos.  I was as attending as guest of my wife, who was due to receive the MSc(Ed), and of course as a newspaper reporter.  A one-time Naval chief was standing in for the Visitor, military president Ibrahim Babangida.  His speechwriters had apparently determined that this was a chance to show all those condescending lecturers and their misguided wards that the Ivory Tower has no monopoly on learning.

    In his solemn address before the assembled audience, the Guest Speaker recalled the “subventions, extra-budgetary grants and mass transit vehicles” the Federal Government had availed the university the previous year.

    These measures, he said, were “predicated on our belief that the ambience of our tertiary institutions  should be ameliorated, to facilitate the teaching and learning process.”

    Fund raising, he advised the university’s authorities, should not be undertaken only on formal occasions “but as on-going, well-articulated, perennial activity.”  They should keep it in mind that “the provision  per se of supplementary funds cannot obliterate the problems of our universities, because “deft          management is also a desideratum.”

    He went on to remark and deplore how students’ grievances reveal “a hiatus in the communication structure,” and how “distortive” processes cannot be a reflection of positive development.  He spoke of how, after the “ferments” on campus, “the prescribed quantum of knowledge become unimpartable and the degrees ultimately awarded stand a risk of being emasculated…”

    He closed by reminding teachers that since they stood “in loco parentis” to their students, they were “vantagely placed to show meritorious examples and moral rectitude to those who are in statu pupilari.”

    A guest in the row behind us said the whole thing reminded him of Bomber Billy in Ogali A. Ogali’s Veronica my Daughter, the flagship title in the Onitsha Market Literature Series.

    No prizes for figuring out that the guest speaker was Vice President Augustus Aikhomu, since deceased.

    Some two decades later and half-a-world away, I watched on live television a commencement address given by Noam Chomsky, philosopher, cognitive scientist, historian, social critic and political activist, among other defining attributes.

    Wasting no time on preliminaries, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology professor launched into  an impassioned disquisition on the latest findings from research on the structure and functions of the brain, and on their implications for how we learn and think, and how we develop and use language.

    There was pin-drop silence.  No rustling or shuffling of papers.  The only sound was from Chomsky’s delivery.  It was unapologetic. It made not the slightest concession to the less intellectually endowed, nor to those who might have found some relief in eye contact.  “Total immersion” is what best describes the performance, for performance it was.

    After some 20 minutes, he finally looked up, gathered his notes, thanked the audience curtly, and retreated to his seat on the platform.  A huge sigh washed over the audience, followed by thunderous clapping.  Finally, it was over.  The school’s authorities, the students and the guests could finally face             the real business of the day.

    Until last week, there was one convocation address that I felt sure Nigerians of my generation would never forget, namely, Chief Obafemi Awolowo’s speech on the provisional results of the 1973 National Population Census, delivered at the University of Ife (as it then was), on July 6, 1974.

    Of that census, supervised by former chief justice Sir Adetokunbo Ademola, the Head of State, General Yakubu Gowon had stated, at once defensively and affirmatively: “The figures are very provisional but I can say that the 1973 count was probably the most thorough headcount in the history of the world.”

    Not so, Awolowo rejoined.

    “I have examined this result from several standpoints which time does not permit me to elaborate upon here, and as a result, I have been irresistibly impelled to the conclusion that the so-called provisional figures are absolutely unreliable and should be totally rejected by the Supreme Military Council,” he said.

    So absolutely unreliable, so incurably flawed, that no post-enumeration survey could save it.  With his trademark forensic brilliance and expository rigour, he showed that the 1973 Census reversed previous population growth rates in the 12 states of the Federation, crediting the Western State with an inter-censal growth rate of negative 0.62, and the North Eastern State with a growth rate of 7.04.

    “This just cannot be true,” the great man said.

    One of the first acts of the Murtala Muhammad regime on overthrowing Yakubu Gowon was to cancel that census.

    To this convocation address, this unforgettable instance of speaking truth to power, we must now add General TY Danjuma’s speech last week, at the Taraba State University, in Jalingo.

    During the past year, lethal clashes between nomadic cattle herders and farming communities have become the grisly subject of conversation where two or three Nigerians are gathered.  The orgy of bloodletting reached a high point of sorts when, over the New Year weekend, more than 70 helpless residents of Benue State were killed, reportedly by herdsman armed with sophisticated assault rifles, who also made it a point to leave entire communities pillaged.

    Similar killings have occurred repeatedly in Plateau, Nassarawa, Kaduna and Zamfara, Taraba, and Adamawa, among other states.

    How could this go on when Nigeria was not engulfed in a civil war? How could the perpetrators operate with such brazen contempt for the lives of Nigerians and the laws of the land? Why is it that none of them had been apprehended, much less prosecuted?

    With characteristic forthrightness, Danjuma, the nation’s former Chief of Army Staff and one-time Minister of Defence, furnished some answers to these questions in his convocation address at Taraba State University. His speech was unscripted, and the delivery had about it the subtlety of a whiplash.

    Excerpts, transcribed from the cable service provider TV Continental:

    ‘Taraba is a mini-state.  Taraba is a mini-Nigeria, composed of various ethnic groups living together reasonably peacefully.  But the peace of that state is under assault. There is an attempt at ethnic cleansing in the state, and of course in all the riverine states of Nigeria.

    “We must resist.

    “We must stop it.

    “Every one of us must rise up.

    “The armed forces are not neutral.  They collude.  They collude.  They collude with the armed bandits that kill people, kill Nigerians.  They have assisted their movements.  They cover them.

    “If you are depending on the armed forces to stop the killing, you will all die one by one.

    “The ethnic cleansing must stop in Taraba State, must stop in all the states of Nigeria.  Otherwise, Somalia will be a child’s play.

    “I ask every one of you to defend your country, your territory, your state.

    “You have nowhere else to go.  You have nowhere else to go.

    “God save our country.”

    A great many people have interpreted the address as a call to arms, a piece of incitement.  A great many also see it with greater truth as a call to self-defence in the face of the government’s inability to protect innocent, law-abiding citizens.

    Wherever one stands in this divide, there is no denying that General Danjuma has re-framed the national conversation.

  • Stop divisive speeches, Ooni tells youths

    The Ooni of Ife, Oba Adeyeye Enitan Ogunwusi, Ojaja II, has warned youths to stop making speeches that can cause division among the nation’s ethnic groups.

    The monarch advised them to engage in activities that promote the unity and peace.

    Addressing reporters at Ile-Ife, Osun State, on this year’s Youth Empowerment Summit organised by the Young Entrepreneurs of Nigeria (YEN), the foremost Yoruba monarch advised youths to shun social vices that dent the image of the country.

    Oba Ogunwusi reiterated his commitment to the empowerment of youths, describing them as the mirror of the nation.

    He noted that hate speeches and blame games would only endanger the survival of Nigeria.

    The monarch implored youths to go through Nigeria’s history to get the requisite inspiration on nationhood.

    According to him, the survival and growth of Nigeria as a nation-state depended on the forthrightness and pro-activeness of youths.

    He said: “I completely support the positive initiative to empower Nigerian youths and make them responsible.

    “All the hate speeches and blame games should stop; they are not good for this country. We need to go back to history and learn how our forefathers started the struggle for the nation’s emancipation in 1920s and 1930s.

    “I am urging leadership of YES to challenge other youths for positive things and build a country of our choice and desire.

    “Let us stop hate speeches. I want to implore youths: let us come together and work together. Let youths come together and support the government. Nigerian youths should wake up from slumber. We should stop being used and dumped by politicians.”

  • Hate speeches in national discourse

    SIR: Hate speeches emanating from various parts of the country has created anxiety and doubts on whether or not Nigeria will remain a sovereign entity.

    An undiscerning mind can easily draw the conclusion that these threats posed real and potential danger, especially when viewed against the backdrop that those who expected to speak against such threats in order to douse the tension it generated are either keeping quiet or reacting a bit too late.

    The situation lends to suspicion that the elite, who are expected to immediately condemn the hate speeches, are either in support of the utterances or are sponsoring such activities because of group interests.

    Over the years, successive administrations in Nigeria made efforts to foster national unity. A look at various universities and unity schools in the country showed that students from respective parts of the country studied under the same academic environment. The National Youth Service Corps (NYSC) also stands out as one scheme that has ensured national integration for several decades.

    A poignant question to ask is why must Nigeria remain one? The nation is the only African nation that possesses immense human and natural resources that attract most attention from the international community especially the super powers. Nigerians must also be mindful of the clandestine agenda of those nations that are envious of the dividends of our diversity.

    Ghana, Togo, Cote d’ Ivoire and Senegal overcame secession threats at different points in their history and this should be a lesson for Nigeria since it is the mouthpiece of the African continent. For the nation to continue enjoying such status, political stability, peace, security and development are key qualities.

    It is important to underscore the fact that no African nation, split through referendum or by civil war has really achieved high level of security and development. Most of the countries that experienced wars or civil strife still spend scarce resources to processes and purchase arms to fight against insurgencies. Nigeria should avoid such situation considering that fact that the nation survived a civil war that lasted three years.

    Inferences could be drawn from Libya and South-Sudan. Both countries depict the gloomy picture of divided nations torn apart by strife.

    The implementation of a dynamic policy of unity of purpose which the current leadership is leaning towards will ensure that all Nigerians have a better understanding of the collective interest. The full implementation of the strategy will halt permanently agitations for secession and consolidate the much desired unity of the nation.

    Any move to cause war or civil strife in Nigeria should be avoided because of its negative impact on the growth and development of the nation. George Kennan, an American diplomat and strategist who captures the frightful impact of hate speech purveyors said: “War has a momentum of its own, you know where you begin. You never know where you are going to end.’’

     

    • Ayobami Akanji

    Abuja

  • Stop hate speeches, Abina charges clerics

    General Overseer of the Gospel Faith Mission International (GOFAMINT), Pastor Elijah Abina, has charged clerics across the nation to stop hate speeches.

    He warned that the worrisome trend of hate speeches can lead the nation to “avoidable chaos.”

    Instead, Abina told them to promote love speeches that will strengthen the unity and cohesion of the nation.

    He spoke last week with reporters ahead of the 52nd annual convention of the church slated for August 7-13.

    The convention with the theme a new beginning takes place at the new camp ground of the church, the Gospel City, on KM 30 Lagos-Ibadan Expressway, Ogunmakin.

    Abina noted that hate speeches were tearing the nation apart, warning clerics as positive agents to build Nigeria with their words.

    He condemned calls and activities aimed at breaking the nation, saying Nigeria remains better off together.

    According to him: “There is no reason why we should separate. We have lived too long together to throw it all up.

    “We are better together and our strength is in our population. If we separate now, the glory is gone.”

    He noted that every ethnic group in the nation has valid reasons for agitation but called for dialogue to iron our grey areas.

    “If there is a problem, we should sit down and resolve the issues. Let’s settle down and handle the differences that we have,” he stressed.

    Abina said the convention will usher the church into a new beginning with the change of venue from the Igbo-Oloyin camp on Lagos-Oyo Expressway to Ogunmakin.

    “For us and the nation, it is a new beginning. For those who come trusting God, it will be marked with new happenings,” he assured.

  • Purveyors of hate speeches

    Purveyors of hate speeches

    It was Gina Greenlee who said ‘’experience is a master teacher, even if it is not our own.’’  I am sure many  have heard or read about how hate speeches and incitement to violence played a significant role in the 1994 genocide that left at least 800,000 people dead in Rwanda. Well, it is worth rehashing here for the purpose of this discourse.

    Anti-Tutsi articles and cartoons in the Kangura newspaper, as well as hate speech and incitement to violence on the radio station called RTLMC – Radio-Television Libres des Mille Collines (Thousand

    Hills Free Radio and Television) helped to set the stage for that genocide. The station was set up by hard-line Hutu extremists, and received the backing of many rich and prominent people in that country. Those who saw the danger posed by the station called for it to be shut down, but against the backdrop of freedom of speech, such calls fell on deaf ears, until it was too late. Some 23 years later, Rwanda is yet to fully recover from the impact of the genocide, triggered by hate speech and senseless incitement to violence.

    In Nigeria today, the hate being spewed on radio stations across the country is so alarming. If you tune into many radio stations, you will be shocked by the things being said, the careless incitement to violence and the level of insensitivity to the multi-religious, multi-ethnic nature of our country. Unfortunately, even the hosts of such radio programmes do little or nothing to stop. Oftentimes, they are willing collaborators of hate speech campaigners. This must not be allowed to continue because it is detrimental to the unity and well-being of our country.

    Let me use my own personal experiences to make these more vivid. On Wednesday, 26 April 2017, after the weekly Federal Executive Council (FEC) meeting, I briefed State House Correspondents on what transpired at the meeting. I said, among others, that President Muhammadu Buhari did not preside over the day’s meeting because he decided to work from home that day. In reporting my briefing, one of the correspondents quoted me as saying the President would work from home henceforth, rather than on that day only. The reporting generated a lot of uproar, until I issued a rebuttal. This is a clear case of disinformation – which is defined as false information deliberately spread to deceive the people.

    The following month, after I had briefed State House Correspondents on the proceedings of another Council meeting, one newspaper’s headline went thus: ‘’We do not know who will sign the 2017 budget – Lai Mohammed.’’ This is at variance with what I said.

    When I was asked a question relating to the signing of the 2017 budget, my exact words were: ‘’When it is transmitted to the Presidency, a decision will be taken.’’ The reporting is another clear case of disinformation.

    Also in May 2017, I travelled to China on official assignment. I had just arrived in that country, after a long flight, when I started receiving calls from Nigeria, seeking my reaction to a story making the rounds in the Social Media, quoting me as saying that though President Muhammadu Buhari is in a London hospital, he is using Made-in-Nigeria drugs. I purportedly made the comment in an interview with Channels Television, after the Federal Government’s launch of the Made-in-Nigeria campaign in Abuja a few days earlier. At first, I chose to ignore the story, saying Nigerians would easily see the folly of it. But the phone calls from Nigeria became more frequent and more intense, to such an extent that they could no longer be ignored. I had to put a call through to Mr. John Momoh, and Channels Television promptly issued a rebuttal, saying it neither interviewed me nor carried any such story. This is a clear case of fake news.

    Many will also recall the quantum of hate speech directed at candidate Buhari during the last electioneering campaign. Never in the history of electioneering campaign in Nigeria has such a quantum of hate speech been directed at any candidate. This did not stop even when he won the election and became President. For instance, the President had hardly left Nigeria for his vacation in London on 19 January 2017, during which he said he would have routine medical check-up, when these hate and fake news campaigners circulated the news that he has died. Between then and now, they have repeated similar fakes news times without number.

    Let me be clear: all the instances I have cited did not happen by accident. No! They were all orchestrated. And who better to target than the President himself, or the official spokesperson of his government! The campaign is a multi-million naira project and the people behind this string of hate speech, disinformation and fake news are not about to stop. In fact, they will become more vicious in the days, weeks and months ahead. And what is the purpose of their campaign? Simply to discredit the government, destabilize the polity and make the country ungovernable. There is no doubt that the resurgent push for separatism as well as rising cases of ethnic and religious disharmony are all traceable to the growing phenomenon of hate speech, as well as the disinformation and fake news campaign.

    During my visit to the Copyright Society of Nigeria (COSON) House in Lagos, I had said that any programme tagged Nigerian or local content programme, which is meant for the consumption of Nigerians, must be produced in Nigeria, rather than in foreign countries. The hate speech, disinformation and fake news campaigners quickly distorted what I said and went ahead to report that the Federal Government has decided to ban the production of music videos and films outside the countries. Gullible and malleable commentators, many of them recruited by the campaigners, went to town abusing me and the federal government, without even trying to know the truth. Such is the tragedy of our time.

    Now, what do these phenomena of hate speech, disinformation and fake news have in common? They are all capable of destabilising the system, inciting people to violence and weakening the people’s confidence in their government, just like I said earlier. Let me quote how a German newspaper described this phenomenon: ‘’For a society in which people are informed mainly through the media – and form their political opinions through it – this process is threatened when lies spread through the media. When it is no longer clear what is false and what is correct, people lose their confidence in the state’’.

    Nigeria is a country of ethnic and religious diversity. That should be a source of strength, if the fault lines are not deliberately being exposed and exploited by those who are bent on setting the people against themselves, using their new-found tools of hate speech, disinformation and fake news.

    This dangerous trend is threatening the very foundation of our national unity. It is daily pushing the nation close to the precipice, perhaps more than at any other time since the end of the civil war.

    What is the way out? We all must say NO to hate speech, either on our radio and television stations, newspapers, the Social Media, on our phones or in the public space. We must be resolute in tackling the canker-worm of hate speech, disinformation and fake news. We as government information managers must embark on a relentless campaign against these evil tendencies at our various levels, whether federal or state. We must boycott any medium that engages in hate speech, incitement to violence, disinformation and fake news. The regulators must also be alive to their responsibilities by promptly sanctioning the purveyors of hate speech, disinformation and fake news. Yes, our constitution allows freedom of speech and this government believes in it, but freedom of speech must not be allowed to become freedom of irresponsibility.

    We are also appealing to the media, the traditional media in particular, to show responsibility by repudiating the freewheeling and out-of-control purveyors of hate speech, disinformation and fake news. Unlike the Social Media, the traditional media is subject to the rigours of accuracy, fact-checking and fairness, among others. Sadly, even a section of the traditional media now apes the hate campaigners by lifting their unverified or distorted news and dumping such on their readers. This is not right.

    A section of the tradition media is also now thriving on anti-government tendency. If you pick up copies of some newspapers, you will think the government of the day is doing nothing at all to alleviate the sufferings of the people, occasioned by the economic downturn. They ignore any positive actions of government, including the massive investment in infrastructure like roads and railways, and instead focus on anything that will make the government look bad.

    Instead of reporting the news freely and fairly, they have constituted themselves to an opposition bloc.

    It is only because we have a peaceful country that we have journalists, doctors, teachers, lawyers, etc all

    practising their trade. If we allow our country to be plunged into crisis just because of the antics of an irresponsible few, neither the journalists nor any other professionals will be able to practise their professions. This is the blunt truth. We all have a stake in this country, hence we must not allow hate campaigners and purveyors of fake news and disinformation to drag the country down with them.

     

    • Excerpts of a speech by Mohammed, who is the Minister of Information, at the extra-ordinary meeting of the National Council on Information in Jos on July 21.
  • Senior health workers seek end to hate speeches

    Nigerians have been called upon to dissociate themselves from hate speeches. According to the executives of Senior Staff Association of Universities, Teaching Hospitals, Research Institutes and Associated Institutions (SSAUTHRIAI), the dangerous trend of hate speeches is becoming alarming. Also the call for disintegration of the country should be promptly and vigorously attended to.

    SSAUTHRIAI executives made this known at the end of their two-day meeting in Makurdi, Benue.

    They said after thorough discussion and critical evaluation of the situation, council agreed that the solution to the problem was for the government to allow true Federalism as suggested by many eminent Nigerians and governors.

    “The council noted that no progress is made towards the implementation of the agreements with JOHESU which prompted again JOHESU’s letter ref. HQ/JOHESU/ADM/ VOL. 11/380 of 12th May, 2017 to the Secretary to the Government of the Federation. Council urged the Federal Government to expedite action on the release of necessary circulars on adjusted CONHESS, 65 years retirement age and funds to settle all the issues in dispute to prevent another crisis in the health sector. We hereby use this medium to call on Mr. President to prevail on the Minister of Health and other Agencies of Government to implement agreements reached with unions.

    Council observed the non-payment of arrears of promotion (years 2011 to 2016), relativity allowance and other allowances due to members of the union by the various managements of our tertiary hospitals. The council hereby urged the Federal Government to urgently release funds for the payment of all outstanding arrears failing which the union may embark on industrial action. Council also noted the action of the Federal Ministry of health (FMOH) in directing that promotion of our members who have skipped CONHESS 10 and are now on CONHESS 11 and above, should be on the same grade level. This directive is not only absurd, but also negates the dictates of the Public Service Rules. Council, therefore, calls on the Minister of Health to reverse the directive in order to ensure continuous industrial harmony.”

  • Utomi: hate speeches, threat to economic development

    Political economist and founder of Centre for Values in Leadership(CVL), Prof. Pat Utomi, has raised concern that the economy is under serious threat as a result of hate speeches by leading  political and religious leaders in the country.

    Utomi said unguarded statements by leaders have strong potentials to push Nigeria over the cliff  with serious consequences for the economic and political development  of the country if the warring parties  are not restrained from  utterances  capable of sowing seeds of discord in the polity.

    He traced the country’s problem from the military era to over dependence on oil and the cluelessness of some Nigerian leaders, adding that the country needs a complete and total reform of government as a matter of urgency.

    He advocated good leadership  and disciplined execution of budgets. These he said would have peoples’ priorities reflected in order to save the country’s economic situation.

    “Our major problem is that we lack planning and if there is no planning and fiscal prudence, then, budgeting is a waste of time.

    “In the beginning of a budgeting process, it must be targeted to where the people are going. Beyond revenue and expenditure, budget has to do with disciplined execution,” Utomi said.

    According to him, the current economic crisis would have been avoided by the Federal Government, if proper policy choices were made, adding that the crash in oil prices should not have resulted in recession.

    He noted that if government had borrowed money against its assets, devalued early and applied intelligent leadership, Nigeria would not have been at a crossroad.

    He also took a retrospective look at most factors that led to recession and submitted that the attitude of the present government, in the face of the dwindling oil prices, scared investors away from the country.

    He said: ‘’There is what we call the big man hamburger quotient which economists use to evaluate exchange rate. Macdonald’s hamburger in London is exactly the way it is in New York. How many naira will it take to produce this hamburger in Lagos and how many pounds will it exactly cost to produce it in London?  This is what is called the big man hamburger quotient.

  • Politics, speeches, tips for tourism

    Politics, speeches, tips for tourism

    PERHAPS confirming the event as a tourism show, Bayelsa State governor, Mr. Seriake Dickson said his government is determined to position Bayelsa State as a key investment destination in Nigeria with emphasis on entertainment and tourism. The governor emphasized that his government will continue to support the annual event, which he said has encouraged the youths in different aspects of creative endeavours. He disclosed that the sum of N800million was spent to organise this year’s edition of AMAA, and announced an initial donation of N250million for the proposed Bayelsa Film Trust Fund.

    President Goodluck Jonathan who was represented at the event by the Minister of Culture and Tourism, Mr. Edem Duke, pledged technical and financial support to the host state in the promotion of the tourism industry and establishment of an under-water Research and Imaging Centre in the state. He noted that the project would be executed in collaboration with the United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), to create training opportunities for the people.

    Duke used the opportunity of the event to reiterate government commitment to the development of the film sector. He noted that the N3 billion grant promise by Jonathan during a Presidential dinner a few months back was still valid. He disclosed that the framework for the fund will be out soon, and that the leaderships of the film industry will be appointed into a committee that will determine the modalities for disbursement. The Minister also announced a donation of N25 million in support of the proposed Yenagoa Film City.

    President of South Africa, Jacob Zuma, who was represented by his country’s high commissioner in Nigeria, Lulu Luis Mnguni said his country shares in the aspirations and struggles of Nigeria and the entire African continent to eradicate poverty and marginalization as well as create a better Africa and a more cohesive world.

    For Chief Executive of AMAA, Ms Peace Anyiam Osigwe, it is incumbent on filmmakers to use the medium to change the mindset of Africa by Africa and for Africa. She noted that this was the essence of the Academy.

    Osigwe had asked for a minute silence in memory of popular entertainment industry lawyer, who died penultimate Thursday. The AMAA CEO complained about the challenges of moving guests from within African countries to Nigeria for the event. She appealed to the authorities in African countries to break the barriers and foster unity among African nations.

    Osigwe’s points were buttressed by Hollywood star, Mario Van Peebles who was visiting the country for the first time with his son. Mario expressed his desire for a united Africa, just like the United States of America.

  • Jonathan’s extemporaneous speeches

    Jonathan’s extemporaneous speeches

    To everyone who follows his speeches, President Goodluck Jonathan comes across as someone who loves to speak extemporaneously. It helps him to communicate and channel his anger and frustrations in ways prepared speeches do not permit. Except you are a Barack Obama or a Bill Clinton, prepared speeches are often impure crystallisations of the disparate thoughts and sometimes sham reasoning of speech artists. Few leaders have the ability to be coherent outside their prepared speeches; they often stick to the text and hope the audience would be fascinated. Extempore remarks, the sort which mystifyingly enthrals the rather ineloquent Jonathan, must be handled with care even by gifted orators. As Adolf Hitler, Winston Churchill and Charles de Gaulle showed, diligent preparations must accompany extempore speeches, up to the point of honing even the accompanying gestures.

    On Tuesday, Jonathan once again threw caution to the wind with one of his lengthy unrehearsed speeches, complete with unfathomable logic, misrepresentation of history, university freshman’s reading of Marxism, and a poor laparotomy of the election that brought him into office. The occasion was the 52nd Independence Anniversary lecture held in Abuja, for which former Ghanaian president John Kuffour was invited to speak on the topic, Nigeria: Security Development and National Transformation. Jonathan’s remarks came after the main lecture, and it responded to Kuffour’s presentation but veered off in a different, controversial and uninspiring tangent. Quite apart from the fact that the topic was inappropriate for Kuffour, who would have done much better with a regional issue, the occasion helped give us another unflattering peep into the complicated and seething mind of our president.

    Proceeding from a class analysis not borne out by history, the president argues that ordinary people find it extremely difficult to survive in times of crisis where big players often survive. Beyond his examination of class survivability in times of crisis, he drives home the point that peace is a critical ingredient of economic development. But it is in fact when he discourses upon the factors that promote peace that the president yields to his well-known nostalgic passion for monarchism. “Peace is one of the cardinal marks of a leader,” the president begins magisterially. “In the monarchy in the olden days, the king had maximum power, but for your kingdom to be stable you must have the military strength. So without stability of any state it cannot develop.” In case he has lost you in the vastness of his private historical imprecision, the president is merely saying monarchies show greater tendency to guarantee peace. He does not, however, say whether ineluctably they also guarantee greater development.

    Jonathan’s pained reference to the virtue of monarchism of course shows his difficult relationship with democracy and what he sees as its insufferable insistence on checks and balances. This is not the first time he has embraced ancient forms of government and repudiated sophisticated and modern systems. Indeed, we must expect that he will continue to embrace or repudiate systems and values according to his well-known proclivities. These proclivities – his distaste for modernism, especially – will continue with him to the end of his presidency, whether that presidency terminates in one term or two.

    The president also attempted a dichotomous explanation of physical and political insecurity. The first, he says, indicates the use of guns and bombs and involves the security of the individual. The second, he fails to define, but indicates its consequence to be a lack of development. You will have to read between the lines to understand why the president felt justified to draw a puzzling line between what he categorises as two types of insecurity. After all, neither conduces to development, and both are often attended by shootings and killings. In fact, however, the president was leading to the highly suspect notion that the media is guiltier than any other institution in predisposing the country to insecurity. The press is his bête noire. When he does not hate it, he distrusts it.

    After ruminating on the axiom that says the pen is mightier than the sword, the president goes ahead to suggest that by reflecting “these unending political conflicts in the media, whether print, electronic or social media, it brings a lot of insecurity to the system and sometimes people begin to doubt your government.” He places at the doorstep of the media the blame for the people’s lack of confidence in his government and leadership style. In essence, he would have preferred the media to shut out political conflicts and live in denial as the government often does.

    It seems all but evident that Jonathan wishes to court the media but doesn’t know how. Indeed, he naively believes that once the media embraced him, all would be well. Hear the president: “The media environment that should have helped our transformation agenda is being used negatively… The way Nigerians challenge and abuse me… yes, the president has enormous power, but if you use that enormous power to some extent you will look like a dictator.” If we disentangle his fustian on press freedom, which freedom he shockingly believes to be a privilege, from the other parts of the speech we would reach an even more disturbing false bottom in his logic about the powers of the president in a democracy. He erroneously thinks the president has enough powers vouchsafed to him by the constitution to be a dictator if he likes, but he plaintively regrets his inability to use that facility. The truth is that he does not have the powers he thinks he has, and worse, cannot even indulge himself as he wants.

    In his apportionment of blame for insecurity, he refers to the problem the flawed 2007 election gave him and his predecessor, and then compares that poll with that of 2011 and concludes, with unrestrained self-glorification, that the latter was more credible. But he appears baffled that so soon after an election he gave top marks he had become deeply unpopular. According to him, “Immediately after that election, not quite six months, the kind of media hype that started hitting us made us to stop and ask where is this coming from? I said I did not just come out from the blues to contest the election, I was deputy governor for six and half years, I was a governor for one and half years, I was a vice president, and before election, I was the president up to April when the elections were conducted, people knew me. So within this period, including when I even acted, if I was that bad would people have voted for me?… But the media condemned me.”

    Jonathan says the criticism he was subjected to so soon after the elections made him stop and ask where it was coming from. There is absolutely no truth in that statement. Neither he nor his aides stopped to ask where the problem was coming from. He simply concluded that some people were manipulating the situation to make his government seem incompetent, for which he now blames the ‘political’ (not the ‘professional’) media. In his opinion, the fault has to lie elsewhere, not in his lackluster style, not in his goofs and gaffes, not in his retrogressive ideas of government and governance, not in his improper grasp of economic and political issues, and not in his ordinary and uninspiring vision of a modern and progressive society. He cannot grasp the fact that between the two main candidates in the 2011 presidential poll, the electorate voted for him because he appeared safer, not better nor more cerebral nor more principled, and that barely a few months after the election the people recognised they were sold a pig in a poke, for which they have reacted very vigorously in the fashion that now confounds him.

    Jonathan gives a brief of his political career, wondering whether the people did not consider these before they voted for him. The truth is that they neither knew him nor, even more mortifyingly, knew that he had apparently reached the end of his tether as governor, and that both the office of president and the virtues of democracy, not to talk of the concepts of freedom of speech, rule of law and federalism, were above his ken. The six months he speaks about is the period it took the people to discover their folly in opting for the safer rather than the better.

    Jonathan exceeds himself in his extempore speech by reiterating his discredited views on the subsidy protests of January. As he put it: “Look at the demonstrations on fuel subsidy; look at the areas these demonstrations are coming from, and you begin to ask, are these the ordinary citizens that are demonstrating? Or are people pushing them to demonstrate? Take the case of Lagos, Lagos is the critical state in the nation’s economy, it controls about 53 per cent of the economy and all tribes are there. During the demonstration in Lagos, people were given bottled water that people in my village don’t have access to, and people were given expensive food that the ordinary people in Lagos cannot eat… They go and hire the best musician to come and play and the best comedian to come and entertain. Is that demonstration?”

    It is no use trying to convince a deeply resentful president that he is wrong. The more you try to persuade him, the more implacable he gets. This columnist covered the January subsidy protest from beginning to the end and saw no coordinated attempt to feed the protesters or assuage their thirst. A few good Samaritans gave out tokens, but they were so insignificant that it would be sheer exaggeration to consider these orchestrated. Food hawkers were there to make money, and musicians and comedians, whom some presidency officials deprecated as clowns, jostled to get attention, and would have paid to have their moment in history. Meanwhile, the president sat paranoid in Abuja and relied on misleading reports. And because he does not read his country’s newspapers, which he believes to be manipulated by politicians, he failed to educate himself on the true position of the protests.

    But much more than believing falsehood, Jonathan once again proves his long-running resentment towards Lagos, a city he sees as snobbish but which has done nothing to assist in spite of acknowledging its centrality to the Nigerian economy. How is it the fault of Lagos if the president’s village does not have access to bottled water, and why on earth must he compare the city to his village? Does he know the kind of food ordinary Lagosian eats? Shortly after he sent troops to quell the protests, he denounced Lagos elite as pampered and their children, whom he claimed rode five cars, as spoilt rotten. Who can forget also that while campaigning for votes in 2011, he attempted to instigate other ethnic groups against Lagosians using false statistics? Yet, he is surprised that he is challenged and abused, and regrets not having the powers of a monarch to do as he pleases and the ability of a propagandist to manipulate the media in his favour. He is shocked that barely six months into his presidency, his romance with the people came to an end, even though he did nothing to sustain that romance and has repaid the votes he garnered with scorn and ill will. It is no credit to his learning and office that every time he encounters challenges and repudiation, his instinctive defence mechanism is to take refuge in the values and systems of the feudal past of his longings.

    Finally, and as a fitting summary of his worldview, Jonathan lets us into the secret of his fortitude and indifference. Hear him: “For me, if I see somebody is manipulating anything, I don’t listen to you; but when I see people genuinely talking about issues, I listen. I am hardly intimidated by anybody who wants to push any issue he has. I believe that that protest in Lagos was manipulated by a class in Lagos and was not from the ordinary people.” With this syllogism, the president rounds up his philosophy of governance in the most unspeakable fashion. It does not matter whether the critic is right, as long as the president thinks the troublemaker is instigated, he will not listen. How can he tell who is instigated and who is not? Again, it hardly matters; the president gets intelligence report, or perhaps he simply makes up his mind anyhow he fancies. And if the critic is wrong, as long as he is not instigated, then the president will listen. If this is not recipe for both autocracy and misrule, nothing else is.

    The much we know about the president comes from his extemporaneous nuggets. There will be many more of such gems before his term ends. Every time he orates, we imagine we have reached the nadir that no human can possibly plumb. But every such time, we have been mistaken. In the months ahead that chasm will be dug deeper than we think him capable, for it is now clear that though Jonathan is gifted in many areas and speaks with the candour that is unusual in these climes, his talents are altogether suited only to ages past. Lagos had better take heart, and all critics, whom the president dismisses as calumnious, must reconcile themselves to contending with a man whose values and philosophy are hewn from the granite of a completely different era.