“A society can be judged by the way it treats its children” – Nelson Mandela, 1913-2013.

Few Nigerians now harbour any hope that this country would produce a Mandela among its present crop of old politicians. And, if the young member of the House of Representatives, from Abia State, exhibiting delirium of power, as well as all the young Ministers, just sacked, represent the next generation of power seekers, then, we might have to wait until those in nursery school grow up.

UNPRECEDENTED DETENTION AND PROSECUTION OF CHILDREN

 “The over-zealous man, doing his duty, will, sooner or later, pay his dues to the Devil.” That observation made in the thirteenth century by a philosopher summarises why President Bola Tinubu found himself engaging in damage control. A lot of irreparable damage has already been done to the images of Nigeria, the Federal Government, Tinubu, the Nigeria Police and the judiciary the minute the pictures of those children slumping in Abuja hit the internet.

Messages and calls came to me from four continents; from lawyers, retired justices and human rights advocates asking, among other questions, if Nigeria has decent people running its government. The world has witnessed all sorts of trials by absolutely atrocious and murderous regimes; we have also had two Kangaroo military trials staged by the Abacha junta. In every case, as Mark Twain, 1835-1910, had remarked, it was always a matter of “Are you going to hang [them] anyhow, and try them afterwards?” The accused persons were never going to have a fair trial; because “power tends to corrupt; and absolute power corrupts absolutely” according to Lord Acton, 1834-1902.

But, the world has never seen so many children in an adult court; charged with, of all things, treason. Abuse of power against the most vulnerable and powerless human beings had never been more on display. All the kids have several things in common. They are all out of school, illiterate, malnourished and in rags. Most of them are probably homeless and would not know where to find their parents. They were on the streets when the protests started; they were not among the organisers. To them, what was going on was probably entertainment helping to break the drab monotony of their lives.

So, they joined the procession to have some fun – as kids in Lagos would spontaneously follow a masquerade passing by; without thinking about it. Interestingly enough, the very poor children were arrested in Abuja, Kaduna, Kano, Gombe, Jos and Katsina. None of them could possibly have a GSM set to call others in the same state; let alone, those in Gombe calling Katsina. So, there could be no collusion or conspiracy. Even those arrested in each state might never have met until that day and that hour.

That brings up a question: who were the security officers who decided that three or four children waving Russian flags, thrust into their hands by adults, constituted a threat to President Tinubu? None of those we saw on television could pronounce the word REVOLUTION even if asked to at gun point. What then is the basis for arrest and detention? Another question: why were they not tried in the states where the crimes were committed?

Why bring all of them to Abuja, far from home, if not to satisfy the sadistic instincts of those who took them there? There is more to be said later about the competence and character of all those responsible for the arrest and detention of the kids for 93 days in the first instance. Apparently, the Inspector General of Police, IGP, approved everything. But, the IGP would not have gone far without a complaisant justice.

MAKING HISTORY THE WRONG WAY

 “It takes years to make a reputation and five minutes to ruin it. If you think about that, you will do things differently” – Warren Buffett, 2022.

For 93 days, the detention of so many children under horrible conditions (it has to be horrible because neither the IGP nor the justice would want to keep his children there) was a best kept secret from the public – until their tormentors decided to stage a judicial charade with the kids as the main actors. Not trained in Nollywood production techniques, the prosecutor and the justice messed up the script. Comedy turned to tragedy when four of the kids slumped; and would have died with cameras from global media recording everything. The whole world witnessed the horrors in living colour. In less than five minutes, the reputations of the police and judiciary were ruined forever.

Irrespective of how long Justice Egwuatu had been on the bench, and how long he remains there, justices from four continents think he had soiled the bench. The bail conditions imposed on the victims of this injustice betrayed the hidden agenda to deny them bail and hold them perpetually in detention. Who can take a look at any of those kids and conclude that they can raise N10, 000 bail; not to talk of N10 million? Additionally, can anybody seriously expect any Federal Civil Servant, regardless of grade or level, to risk his/her career by bailing kids who are probably homeless even in their states?

Bail refusal was disingenuously wrapped around bail conditions impossible to meet for all the defendants. Unfortunately for the battered reputation of the Nigerian judiciary, the only person deceived by that subterfuge was the justice. The whole world saw clearly the intention to keep the kids in horrible custody conditions indefinitely. The Nigeria Police, perennially held in contempt, went a notch downwards. Try as he may, the prosecutor could not convince the global court of public opinion, as well as jurists, that he was in the right court, at the right time and prosecuting the right case. How did he expect to interrogate kids who never went to school on treason? He might as well have been prepared to talk to walls. Whoever handed him that case to prosecute must have achieved the intended consequence of ridiculing him. They got more than they bargained for. He has attained notoriety globally. His name will never be erased from the internet for as long as people inhabit this planet.

PRESIDENT TINUBU TO THE RESCUE

“There are times when a leader must must move out ahead of the flock; go off in a new direction; confident that he is leading his people the right way” – Nelson Mandela, 1913-2013, VBQ p 124.

With all the relevant officials of government tied up in their self-imposed judicial problems, while Nigeria’s image was again being dented worldwide, it was left to President Tinubu to set us off in a new direction; to restore sanity to the judicial system and to engage in damage control. His intervention was effective and face-saving for all concerned. Only God knows what would have followed otherwise. I grant the political adversaries their right to play down the gesture.

One commentator pointed to the sudden appearance of the British Foreign Affairs Minister in Aso Rock on the day the announcement was made as proof that Tinubu was prodded by the European Community and the Commonwealth nations to act. I have no evidence of that. But, the EU and the rest of the world tried in vain to convince Abacha to release Obasanjo. So, we must give Tinubu the benefit of doubt; that he acted based on his own conviction. There’s reason for this assumption.

“Idealists in politics lack a sense of reality; and a politician must be a realist above all” – Henry Miller, VBQ p 192.

Tinubu is perhaps the first real politician we have had as President. All the other Presidents, from Shagari to Buhari, were imposed by others. Shagari was not a presidential aspirant in 1978. A deadlocked convention forced leaders of the NPN to turn to a non-aspirant. Obasanjo was the candidate of the four Generals – Babangida, Abdulsalami, Danjuma and Aliyu Gusau. He in turn imposed Yar’Adua; who was really not interested on account of ill-health. Jonathan inherited the Presidency without which he could not have won in 2011. Buhari, after three failed attempts, was invited by Tinubu to return to political war. Only Tinubu plotted his journey to Aso Rock on his own and confidently announced EMILOKAN. Everybody, including me, who thought he was joking, has become a believer eventually.

While the IGP, Justice Egwuatu and the Minister of Justice were in a quandary regarding how to proceed, the politician with his uncanny sense of danger moved to diffuse the tension. What the officials failed to observe was obvious to Tinubu. Another day in court with the kids would have triggered the ‘Mother of all Protests’ – which the security forces might find difficult to contain. One group was planning to get three lawyers to represent each of the children and turn the trial into a circus. Tinubu was right to stop it.

The two major trade groups in the petroleum downstream market are up in arms with Dangote Refinery, accusing it of monopolistic tendencies to dominate the sector and dictate prices. Independent Petroleum Marketers Association of Nigeria (IPMAN) and Petroleum Products Retail Outlets Association of Nigeria (PETROAN) are insisting that petrol from the Dangote refinery is costlier than imported substitutes and so, they should be allowed to import the product for the benefit of Nigerians.

But in a counter-argument, Dangote refinery says its pricing is benchmarked against international prices ‘’and we believe our prices are competitive relative to the price of imports’; that any product brought into the country at a lower price must be of inferior quality, and could pose health risks to Nigerians and damage their vehicles. If anyone claims they can land PMS at a price cheaper than what we are selling, then they are importing substandard products and conniving with international traders to dump low-quality products into the country without concern for the health of Nigerians and the longevity of their vehicles”.

Unfortunately, the regulator (NMDPRA) does not even have laboratory facilities which can be used to detect substandard products imported into the country’’, the refiner stated in a press statement last Sunday.

This controversy throws up two options with far-reaching consequences for the Nigerian economy: should we return to the era of fuel importation and bring in cheaper products, even if they are of poor quality, or do we resist importation and stick with what Dangote and other local refiners produce? We should consider these options dispassionately before we make a choice. First, what are the implications of continued fuel importation?

Importation will further depreciate the value of the Naira, drain our scarce foreign reserves and exacerbate inflation and the cost-of-living crisis. Recall that at the peak of our fuel importation, the CBN had told us that 40 percent of foreign exchange was used for fuel imports. If the imported substitutes are cheaper as IPMAN stated, the savings motorists make in fuel price may just be offset by a concomitant spike in inflation and the cost of car repairs.

But what do we gain as a country and a developing economy if we do away with importation and buy only from Dangote, even if its price is higher than the price of cheaper imported products? We shall be supporting and protecting domestic industrialization; creating jobs for our young people; enhancing tax income for the government and establishing incentives for other foreign and domestic investors.

A potential investor is always eager to understand the attitudes of the government towards new investments – is the government pro-business or not? Are there enough incentives and protection for domestic production? The manner we treat Dangote today is sending some signals to other would-be investors.

It is natural for a new producer to launch its products or services with relatively initial high prices; but in the long-run, charges begin to fall as output increases and economies of scale set in. Even before its prices begin to dip, the manufacturer surely offers other benefits to the economy which importers don’t. This is why nations, including developed ones, go the extra mile to protect domestic investments.

It is the reason the US government imposes high tariffs on goods imported from China and the Joe Biden administration does not approve the purchase of American steel giant, United States Steel Corporation, by Japanese investors. Similarly, Nigeria must take steps to protect and encourage Nigerian investors who borrow money from banks and invest in this economy to create products and generate employment for our teeming young talents. A domestic producer pays taxes to the government and provides philanthropic assistance to the community in which it operates.

We cannot afford to go back to fuel importation. The Petroleum Industry Act clearly stands against fuel importation whenever local production is available, and, as economists are wont to explain, importation exports jobs and brings in inflation. Those who are touting the importation of petrol as an alternative to domestic refining are buccaneers and profiteers who are not interested in the growth and development of this country. This is the time for the Tinubu administration to be very categorical and firm on this matter by insisting that Nigeria will not go back to the era of fuel importation and that we must be intentional about developing our country and encouraging production.

Our domestic investors, big or small – whether it is Innoson Motors; Ibom Airlines; Dangote Refinery or that small bakery in your neighbourhood – deserve our encouragement and incentives. They create jobs; pay taxes; generate their own electricity; add value and are the reason the government is hoping for a $1 trillion dollar economy. I acknowledge that Nigerians are facing severe challenges due to high fuel prices. I am also aware that Dangote refinery was built at a humongous cost (close to $15 billion) borrowed from both international and domestic sources.

Bank charges are high and the breakeven point is still far; to that extent, it must charge commensurate prices for its products. The refinery should therefore strike a balance between the need to cover costs, especially its variable costs, in the immediate term, and the imperatives to consider the diminished purchasing power of the consumers. Clearly, petrol enjoys inelastic demand, but there’s a limit to what consumers can take in terms of price increase.

The refinery’s tax-free status and guaranteed supply of Naira-denominated crude oil should help it to absorb some costs and keep product prices competitive. Similarly, NNPC should tell Nigerians the status of the turnaround maintenance of the Port Harcourt refinery. Will the four refineries ever come back to life?

Etim is a journalist and author

The late Archbishop Benson Idahosa was once asked to comment on the “proliferation of churches” in the country. His rhetorical response was as cynical as it was clinical: “Why are people not complaining about the proliferation of beer parlours?” This came to mind recently when the old debate about whether or not we should pray for Nigeria was re-ignited. In a season when “Nigeria is doomed” and “Nigeria will never be great” have become the favourite sayings of so many people, why should anyone be so antagonistic to those who are praying for the country rather than those cursing it? A Yoruba adage says: “Whether it will come to pass or not, prayer is better than curse.”

On that note, I would like to be upfront that today’s essay is unusual. I am not an expert on religious matters, but I am weighing in on this prayer debate all the same. I think that we are being unfair to those who want to keep praying for the peace and progress of Nigeria. What is religion without prayers? Muslims are mandated to pray five times daily. Christians are asked to pray “without ceasing”. How can you tell them not to pray or dictate the topic? If you are not going to pray for your country, it is your choice. But if I decide to pray for my country, it is my choice too. No one should be attacked for choosing to pray — just as no one should be demonised for choosing not to pray.

Before I progress, though, I need to first confess my reservations about certain calls for prayers. For two reasons, I am sceptical when our leaders (or their wives) ask us to pray. One, there is the embedded element of hypocrisy (well, religion and hypocrisy enjoy each other’s company, don’t they?) I always feel the leaders are trying to pull the wool over our eyes. They know what they are doing to drag us down but rather than change their ways, they transfer the responsibility to prayers. It is called work avoidance. Two, politicians like to make an open show of religion because they know it appeals to the sentiments of Nigerians. We are a religious people, so they love to play the game.

I was especially enraged in 2017 when meningitis killed hundreds of poor Zamfara people and Alhaji Abdulaziz Yari, their governor then (who famously spent more time in Mecca and Abuja than Gusau) blamed it on fornication. Surprisingly (maybe unsurprisingly, on a second thought), many of them agreed with him. On a radio programme, a caller said “our sins are too many in Zamfara”. If fornication were to be the causative agent of meningitis, Las Vegas would be the most afflicted in the world (I hear many people say Ilorin, but let it be on record that I strongly object to that). Yari knew what he was doing: guilt-tripping his people by applying religious verses. It is called manipulation.

I, accordingly, object to political leaders sponsoring prayers or gathering us to pray. That is not what they were elected or appointed to do. There are enough pastors, imams, dibias and babalawos in the land for that purpose. I object to the use of prayers to siphon public funds. Nigeria is full of prayer consultants who charge huge appearance fees. Some people went on trial for allegedly collecting billions of naira in 2015 under the subhead of “spiritual warfare”. Billions of naira. Nigerians can transform anything to business; nothing is too sacred. Even many respected men of God are cashing out on the filthy lucre. I, therefore, oppose the commercialisation of prayers with public funds.

In the camp of the anti-prayer movement, I understand that they want to save religious people from themselves. They want people to take concrete action, such as holding their leaders accountable, instead of hiding behind prayers to dodge their civic responsibility. They want Nigerians to open their eyes, rather than close them, to the bad governance. They want people to speak out — or speak with their thumbs at the ballot. I understand the frustrations of this movement but they are also assuming that “night vigils” and “night shifts” are word and opposite. You can do both. In fact, prayer could be the strength of one while action could be the forte of another. I think they don’t have to be at odds.

I have many friends who believe it is a waste of time praying for Nigeria. They are divisible into two groups. You have the religious and the irreligious. Some in the religious anti-prayer movement are saying God has given up on Nigeria and it is of no use praying for the country. Some in the irreligious anti-prayer movement are saying there is no God in the first place and any form of prayer is a waste of time. Let me make it clear here that I am a Christian and I believe in the power of prayers. Moreso, my Christian faith mandates me to pray for everyone and everything. In my church, praying for Nigeria is mandated at every Sunday service. We devote a couple of minutes to the assignment.

The anti-prayer movement says Nigeria does not need prayers to develop and that what we need are good leaders. Well said. They cite examples of countries full of atheists and how their quality of life is far better than that of many God-yelling countries. Very well said. In fact, one of my favourite countries in terms of development trajectory is Singapore, and Lee Kwan Yew, its founding father and moving spirit, neither spoke in tongues nor went for Umrah. In fact, I once spoke to a friend, a Christian, who said he almost stopped going to church when he relocated to the UK because what he used to ask God for while in Nigeria was now being made available by the British government. Word!

The logic, therefore, is that if countries are advancing without being religious and if they are recording remarkable development statistics without fasting and praying, then it should accord with common sense that there is something else driving their success stories. This view is held by both the religious and the irreligious and I don’t think we can minimise their argument. Even as a Christian, I am not averse to this line of reasoning, although I know at the back of my mind — based on the scriptures — that “the Father causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous”. I believe God cares for every creature of his, not just the religious.

But that is not even the point. As my pastor, Dr. Sam Adeyemi, would say, God created some basic principles and laws to govern the universe and no matter who you are, they apply to you. The law of gravity, for example, applies to everybody: if you jump from a height, you are coming down — no matter how religious or irreligious you are. That is physics. If you mix two units of hydrogen with a unit of oxygen and add sufficient heat to provide the activation energy, you will get water. That is chemistry. It doesn’t matter if you are a Jehovah’s Witness or Ahmadiyya Muslim. If you add one to one, you will get two, even if you are a hired killer. That is mathematics. And so on and so forth.

Likewise, I would say the principles of national development are universal. Competent and patriotic leadership is the irreducible minimum. Any country lacking visionary leadership is heading nowhere. Any country blessed with good leadership is going somewhere. These are the laws and principles that govern God’s universe. I must quickly point out that contrary to the notion that most advanced countries are godless, some were actually founded on religious ethics. That they are in a living post-God age today does not mean it was atheism and agnosticism that catapulted them to greatness. This clarification is very necessary because some prayer critics are severely abbreviating history.

I hear people argue that we cannot have good leadership without good citizenship, that leadership is a product of citizenship and that citizens get the kind of leaders they deserve. This sounds quite plausible, but I am not aware of any country that developed without good leadership. There is a reason we have leaders, otherwise why bother? I believe leadership shapes citizenship. Good leadership begets good citizenship. Maybe I am wrong, but I have spent quite a number of years studying the development trajectory of several countries and one common thread I see everywhere is visionary leadership and good governance. That is the starting point. The rest is a matter of details.

I also often hear this argument that if Nigerians are not allowed to elect their leaders through credible elections, the country can never develop. It is argued that because people collect rice and vegetable oil during elections, they can never have the right leaders at the top. I am completely against vote-trading, but I also ask myself: even if voters don’t collect rice and vegetable oil, is that a guarantee that the people they will elect will automatically perform? How does a voter know who will do well in office? Is it from the campaign slogans, poster designs, eloquent debates or the glossy résumé? I don’t think voters have the capacity to see into the future. Voting is similar to gambling.

Moreover, what about countries where they don’t hold elections at all but still make progress? To be clear, I am an advocate of democracy (because I’m a sucker for civil liberties), but I am sane enough to acknowledge the bleeding fact that many countries are also making progress without democracy. The UAE is a praying country with visionary leadership — but without democracy. South Korea was developed under military rule. China is not your idea of democracy. Rwanda is not the home of free and fair elections. But one thing that these countries have going for them is visionary leadership. That is the driving principle behind the development of nations, whether or not they pray and fast.

What then? God forbid that I stop praying for my country. I will also pray for God to guide our leaders right. I believe that every ingredient to make Nigeria great is here, so I will pray for the right chefs at all levels — federal, state and local. The harvest is plenty but the labourers are few. Sadly, we have had promising chefs but when many of them eat the ogbono soup in office, their belly becomes their god. Still, I will keep praying. Is God answering our prayers? Well, praying is like planting a seed. The fruit doesn’t always show up instantly. A seed does not become an Iroko in one day. So, I will keep praying for good leadership that will build a great country. May God grant my heart desire. Amen?

AND FOUR OTHER THINGS…

TRUMP TIME

President Donald Trump has staged a comeback as the “leader of the free world”, winning the US presidential election in a very convincing manner. I was not surprised that he won — there was a clear indication that most American voters are in love with his style and ideas. I am also not surprised that Trump always beats women — Hilary Clinton in 2016 and Kamala Harris in 2024. I am a bit worried about the impact of his polices on global trade, immigration, women’s reproductive health and world peace. But if the world survived Trumpism for four years before, it should survive him again. Now, will Trumpism be just a passing phase or become a global standard in politics? Worrying.

MINOR MATTERS?

Prof Muhammad Pate, the coordinating minister of health and social welfare, launched the Maternal Mortality Reduction Initiative (MAMII) on Thursday with a heart-warming announcement: that caesarean sections will become free for poor and vulnerable women. “No woman should lose her life simply because she can’t afford a C-section,” he said. This gladdens my heart. The reality is that all women hope to have normal delivery and hardly budget for C-sections. There is a lot to budget for already and it is not as if their resources are limitless. It is one thing to announce and another to implement, so I am hoping we will hold government accountable regarding this initiative. Positive.

STOCKHOLM SYNDROME

Mr. Stephen Abuwatseya, the cab driver who was assaulted by Hon. Alex Ikwechegh, a member of the house of reps, has apologised to his assailant. Abuwatseya accused himself of provoking Ikwechegh into saying things like “I can make you disappear anywhere in Nigeria and nothing would happen”. Abuwatseya said: “Please Nigerians let us forgive and forget.” Ikwechegh will now most likely escape justice as Abuwatseya himself said: “There is no justice than forgiveness.” He has even become a philosopher. I think I know what went down, but it is not in my place to speculate. Clearly, Nigerian prisons are meant for the unfortunate. The big men always have their way. Warped.

NO COMMENT

Mr. Baltasar Engonga, aka “Bello”, has sensationally put Equatorial Guinea on global map with his astonishing sexcapades. Engonga, now suspended as the head of his country’s anti-graft agency, has been remanded in prison after it emerged he had allegedly slept with hundreds of women, including wives of relatives and VIPs, and recorded his activities. The legend was being investigated for something else — fraud, in fact — but over 400 pornographic videos were discovered in the process. He reportedly did not use any form of protection. That is a big danger to a country of 1.7 million people. People love to win trophies for their countries — but not this dubious one. Wonderful.

The unraveling of the regime of General Yakubu Gowon shortly after the end of Nigeria’s civil war in the decade of the 1970s began as a tale of two Josephs. One was Joseph Dechi Gomwalk, Gowon’s in-law and governor of his home state. The other was Joseph Sarwuan Tarka, one of Gowon’s trusted Ministers. It made for a riveting political spectacle whose legacies have proved durable.

In 1974, General Gowon, who had led Nigeria through a 30-month-long civil war, was into his eighth year as military head of state. It was four years after the end of the civil war and the country comprised 12 states. Although he grew up in Zaria, Gowon was Angas, a minority ethnicity in what was then known as Benue-Plateau State, whose military governor was Police Commissioner, Joseph Gomwalk. He was also related to Gowon by marriage.

Seven months into the year, in July 1974, Godwin Daboh-Adzuana, an activist – or so it was thought then – published an affidavit containing serious allegations of grand corruption against his kinsman and Gowon’s Commissioner (Minister) of Transport and Communication, Joseph Tarka. Under pressure from Gowon and the public, a reluctant Tarka was forced to resign from his ministerial perch but not before warning that his resignation would “set off a chain of reactions.” At the time, the suspicion was widespread that Godwin Daboh was an agent of the government of Benue-Plateau State.

The following month, at the end of August 1974, Tarka’s protégé, Aper Aku, published his own affidavit containing even more damning allegations, this time against the state governor, Joseph Gomwalk. Atanda Fatayi Williams, at the time a senior Justice of the Supreme Court who would later himself rise to head the country’s judiciary, reports that a troubled Gowon telephoned the Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN) “complaining about the manner in which the courts in the country were being used for the indiscriminate swearing of affidavits in which allegations of corruption were made against public functionaries.”

At the time, Taslim Olawale Elias, who had served Gowon as Attorney-General of the Federation for the first six years of his regime, was the CJN. In response to General Gowon’s importuning, Chief Justice Elias embarked on a series of urgent consultations first with the justices of the Supreme Court, followed by an emergency convening of the Advisory Judicial Committee (AJC), the forerunner of what is today known as the National Judicial Council (NJC). At the end of those consultations, the Chief Registrar of the Supreme Court issued a press release prohibiting courts generally from allowing any aggrieved persons to depose to affidavits.

Unlike Joseph Tarka, Joseph Gomwalk survived the allegations against him with the help of a judicial landing invented out of nothing by a CJN beholden to the head of state. The AJC lacked the powers to prohibit affidavits but the high command of the judiciary felt obliged to genuflect to the head of state. The public uproar was deafening and helped to tar the regime of General Gowon with an eternal brush of corruption. One year later, his colleagues in the military replaced him with his Barewa College junior, Murtala Mohammed. As head of state, Murtala Mohammed disembarked Taslim Elias from the office of CJN.

This past week called to mind the legacies of those tumultuous embers of the Gowon years and their damaging imprint on the institutional psychology of Nigeria’s judiciary. Last August, the government orchestrated the mass arrest of young people from different parts of northern Nigeria for taking part in the #EndBadGovernance protests. They thereafter transported those young persons to Abuja where they were held for 93 days in pre-trial detention. At their arraignment at the beginning of the month on bogus charges of treason, Obiora Egwuatu, a judge of the Federal High Court in Abuja, granted them bail in the sum of N10 million Naira with two sureties both of whom must be senior, director-level federal civil servants.

“Egwuatu” in Igbo language could mean “fearless” or “fearful” depending on the tonal infection. In this case, it is not difficult to divine which of these two meanings best captures the state of mind of the judge when he set out to impose bail terms that he surely knew were beyond the reach of the suspects.

After setting these impossible conditions, the judge adjourned the case to 25 January 2025. The intention was transparent. In response to the spectacle of several of the suspects collapsing in court, the Inspector-General of Police authorized a statement to go out in his name justifying the proceedings and claiming that the collapse of the children in court had been “staged”. Despite the record on the face of the charge sheet indicating clearly that many of the arraigned suspects were children, the prosecutor, Rimazonte Ezekiel, a Superintendent of Police, claimed that they were all adults and that many of them were indeed married with children.

The public uproar threatened such steep political costs that a regime whose authoritarian instincts had caused the mass arrest and incarceration of the children in the first place, nearly lost its nerves. Things moved very quickly. Overnight, the Attorney-General of the Federation asked for and received the transfer of the case file from the Nigeria Police. On the next working day following the week-end, the President reportedly “ordered the release” of the suspects despite the fact that they were held under a remand order issued by a court. It was unlikely that the president was exercising powers of prerogative of mercy under the Constitution because that is contingent on consultation with the National Council of State which had not convened.

What happened next was even more exciting. The judge with the ambivalent surname who could not previously find a date earlier than the time it takes to trek from Siberia to Ulaanbaatar in the Winter, suddenly discovered an excess supply of free time on his diary. With military alacrity, he held a hearing and ordered the release of all the suspects.

It was impossible not to see that this case did not involve any application of law. Rather, it was a straightforward case of a judge obeying the instructions of the president. As far as the judicial role in Nigeria goes, a more squalid advertisement of all that is presently wrong with it is difficult to find.

In the aftermath of this, it was reported that the president had ordered an investigation into what transpired. It is possible that the NJC will investigate the judge for bringing his office into manifest disrepute but no one should hold their breath. He was following the example of his supine superiors. The Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) is not in a position to investigate its members who were happy to mouth verifiable falsehood in bib and collar. The Body of Benchers, which long ago expropriated this role from the NBA, counts the regime’s poster-boy for hubristic impunity, Nyesom Wike, among its leading members. It won’t. The only person who can investigate the Inspector-General of Police, meanwhile, is the president who himself is the author of this whole thing.

The president’s inquiry does not need to labour too much before reporting. A regime committed to capturing all levers of power and arresting the machinery of constitutional guardrails has succeeded beyond its wildest imagining, enabled – it must be acknowledged – by a complicit judiciary no longer troubled by any inkling of its own constitutional standing or obligations. It is the latest illustration of how the story that began as a tale of two Josephs ended up normalizing a reign of jumpy judges.

• A lawyer and a teacher, Odinkalu can be reached at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

As a scholar of classical antiquity and history of political thought, I believe I am well positioned to situate the current debacle in America with the eventual unraveling of the Roman Republic which was once the greatest democracy on Mother Earth before the Visigoths intruded upon the realm.

Once, the greatest boast on earth was “Civis Romanus I” – I am a Roman Citizen. Such was the dignity and reverence of Roman citizenship.

There is even an anecdotal exemplary about a Roman Ambassador who confronted a recalcitrant Barbarian monarch by drawing a circle around the ancient monarch insisting he should bow to the demands  of the Roman Republic without which he could not leave the drawn circle. Trembling before the Roman might, the subdued suzerain naturally gave way to the Roman authority.

Such then was the pacific Roman dominance wielded with the balance of the sword and democratic pulchritude, magnified by the Augustan beauty that the great Johnson once spoke of “that it would have been better that Augustus was never born or Rome never existed.” In this very contradictory statement inheres the very decline of the American democracy.

Johnson spoke of a great Augustan era that spurred the parade of enlightenment, the recrudescence of commerce, the elevation of literature, the spurring of the Arts, the acclaim  of wisdom and then the vitiating of the Republic through venomous populism, the antiquated divisionism, the baiting for blood and the rise of the authoritarian order. And then the eventual fall of Rome.

All human institutions are subjected to a rise and fall, to an effulgence and a withering of the clime, to a brightness and a dawn.

Christopher Columbus “discovered” America through a navigational fault that eventually decimated the indigenous population, invariably transplanting a foreign composition.

The new conquistadors implanted their truths, their verities, their mores and imported norms. With brute force they wiped out the indigenous entities, enforcing a new order, from murder, slavery, liberative gradualism and the revered Lincolnian emancipatory democracy.

From FDR to Kennedy, America grew in enlightened might and democratic values, enshrining the rights of man in her compositional order.

It eventually grew into that beacon on the hill, the shining North Star upon which the world swoon and embrace with amazement and alluring attraction.

No more. America the beautiful now is adorned in ugly bewildering spectacle. It is now a frightening sight woven in racist divisionism emblematic of a fascist called Trump. The giant of old is thus diminished, crumbling into nothingness, dissolving into the dust, wasting into the vastness of a grim desert.

The world needs the core values of America which enshrine hope for the lost, justice for the deprived, and the reclaiming latitude for those who have lost the redeeming path.

How then to handle the Trumpian sickness. Alas, he represents a dark and unfathomable side of America. Trump and his MAGA crazies are now emblematic of an American demise, a dissolution of all that is righteous and fair, an avulsion and darkling of the brightness of old.

• Prince Uthman Shodipe –Dosunmu, the Oloriekun of Olowogbowo and Apesinola of Okolaba Ẹkun wrote in from the U.S.

The Registrar of the Joint Admissions and Matriculation Board (JAMB), Professor Ishaq Oloyede is soon to be turbanned as Kuliyan Sokoto.

This followed a recent approval by the Sultan of Sokoto, Alhaji Muhammad Sa’ad Abubakar, confering the traditional on Oloyede who is also the Secretary General of the Nigerian Supreme Council for Islamic Affairs (NSCIA). The Sultan is the President General of the Council.

Information about the conferment of the title on Professor Oloyede was contained in a letter signed by Umaru Abubakar III, Private Secretary to the Sultan.

In the letter dated 2nd November 2024 and titled CONFEREMENT OF TRADITIONAL TITLE OF KULIYAN SOKOTO, Abubakar wrote: “I am pleased to inform you that in recognition and appreciation of your invaluable contribution to the development of the Muslim Ummah, the Sultanate Council, Sokoto, Sokoto State, Nigeria and humanity in general, His Eminence, Alhaji Muhammad Sa’ad Abubakar, CFR, mni, the Sultan of Sokoto, has approved conferement of traditional title of Kuliyan Sokoto on you today 2nd November 2024.

” The details of the formal turbanning ceremony will be communicated later. While wishing you the best of luck and Allah’s guidance in your future endeavors, please accept my heartfelt congratulations. ”

[theshieldonlineng]

Six weeks after the death of his wife, Gov. Umo Eno was conferred with a doctorate degree in Political Science by the University of Uyo this afternoon, making him the first sitting governor in the country to attain such qualification while in office. Congratulations to the governor. It must be a moment of mixed emotions for him and his family as this is coming exactly two weeks to his wife’s funeral events. It should also be an inspiring occasion for Akwa Ibom youths and I urge them to learn a few lessons here, chief among which is that no matter your situation in life, you can achieve whatever you set your mind to. I know this for a fact and it is what I tell my children every day.

 The second lesson is that education is a very important tool that helps you fulfill your potentials in life. Dr. Umo Eno said this much in his speech at the convocation ceremony in Uyo this afternoon. In recognition of the importance of education, the governor said, he is sustaining the compulsory free education which his predecessors have implemented since 1999. In addition, he’s improved on the value of scholarship and bursary awards to various categories of students and is revamping primary schools to enhance learning environment. But despite these, a lot of our children are still hawking in the streets during school hours, instead of being in school. Last month, I talked with a young boy of about 10 years old, who was hawking groundnut around. He said he dropped from school because his guardian did not buy him exercise books. His father is dead, his mother sent him to live with a guardian who has now turned him into a hawker; and so, his teacher asked him to withdraw till he gets his exercise books. There are so many cases family situations stopping our children from going to school. The government should address the nagging problem of school dropouts.  

I understand that our primary schools, especially those that are located in the villages, require more teachers. The government should set in motion a rigorous recruitment process to bring in brilliant, qualified and dedicated teachers into our primary and secondary schools. The last recruitment exercise happened over five years ago. We should also emphasize vocational training and rehabilitate the dilapidated vocational schools in the state. In terms of WAEC performance, our state has been around the 17th position consistently for many years. I am sure we can improve on that if our teachers are more dedicated and motivated. Alumni associations should launch motivational programs to encourage our students. The governor should also pay attention to the needs of the state-owned university, AKSU.

Indeed, education is a very important tool and we need to make the necessary investments to make it work for everybody.

As Americans head to the polls to elect their next president, the world is reminded of the far-reaching implications of this election outcome. From the Russo-Ukraine war to conflicts in the Middle East and the geopolitics of Africa and Asia, the election outcome will shape events far beyond the shores of the US.

With most polls suggesting razor-thin margins between Trump and Harris, this election is turning out to be one of the most closely contested elections in American history. Undecided or hesitant voters have become critical in breaking the tie between closely matched support bases on both sides come 5th November 2024. The race to the White House is driven by an intense war of words, where rhetorical framing is the key weapon being deployed by both sides to shape opinions and influence voting decisions. Here are my thoughts on how Trump and Harris employ rhetorical framing to tip the scale in this neck-to-neck race for the White House.  

Issue salience and selection

Both candidates assign prominence to issues they believe resonate with their audiences. Kamala Harris emphasises the significance of economic support for the middle class and working families, framing her vision for reform as an “opportunity economy” that serves ordinary Americans. She also focuses on themes of unity and inclusivity, pledging "to be a president for all Americans,” and stating that regardless of differences, Americans “all have the same dreams and aspirations.” Additionally, Harris’ campaign rhetoric always essentialises her commitment to protecting reproductive rights, and the need to “chart a course for the future and not go backward to the past.”

On the other hand, Trump prioritises illegal immigration, crime, and economic decline, rhetorically framing the situation as one of severe crises. He often employs emotive rhetoric to project fear of “criminal immigrants” stressing that "millions of people pouring into our country from prisons and jails, from mental institutions and insane asylums” are taking jobs meant for Americans. By framing immigration and crime as national crises, Trump aims to rile up his base and discontented voters against the political establishment.  

Identity and Personal Framing

Both Trump and Harris rely heavily on identity framing to connect with voters.  Kamala Harris often frames herself as an advocate for middle-class and working families. Referencing her childhood during her live debate with Trump, she said, “I was raised as a middle-class kid. And I am actually the only person on this stage who has a plan that is about lifting up the middle class and working people of America.”

Throughout her campaign, Harris consistently amplifies her experience as a prosecutor and her capacity to unify America in contrast to Trump’s leadership. She said: “Americans see in each other a neighbour…they don't want a leader who is constantly trying to have Americans point their fingers at each other.”

On the other hand, Donald Trump positions himself as a strong leader fighting against the political establishment to protect American borders and restore its greatness on the global stage. During his debate against Harris, he touted his strong relationship with world leaders to underscore his influence on the global stage. Trump boasted, “He (Hungarian Prime Minister, Viktor Orban) said the most respected, most feared person is Donald Trump. We had no problems when Trump was president… China was afraid of him. North Korea was afraid of him.” Trump often refers to his political opponents as ‘weak.’ By framing himself as a strong leader, Trump seeks to amplify the contrast between his image and the characterisation of weak leadership he ascribed to Harris on fundamental issues like immigration, crime, and the economy.

Oppositional Framing

Trump and Harris regularly employ oppositional framing to diminish the credibility of the opponent. Harris frames Trump as a failed, divisive, and self-serving leader unfit to lead America. For example, she stressed that ”Trump will not talk about people’s needs, dreams, and desires” and that America deserves a leader who “puts them first” positioning herself as such a leader. She also consistently frames Trump as dangerous to American democracy, referencing the January 6^th Capitol riots as Trump’s attempt to upend the will of the American people. Furthermore, she refers to Trump as a liar, warning their debate audience from the start of the debate to expect “a bunch of lies” from Trump, in a pre-emptive tactic to undermine his credibility. In the last few weeks leading to the election, Harris’ campaign has ramped up rhetoric that frames Trump both as a fascist and mentally unstable.  

Trump’s framing of Harris is equally pejorative, often using rhetoric that positions her as weak and incompetent on the economy, crime, immigration, and foreign policy. He also characterises Harris as unintelligent, mentally unfit, a radical leftist, and a Marxist, who would confiscate guns, stop fracking, and allow “transgender operations on illegal aliens.” By framing Harris this way, Trump reinforces the portrayal of Harris as a radical leftist who has lost touch with American values.  

Rhetorical Appeals

Both Trump and Harris often employ a range of emotional, logical, and credibility-based appeals. Harris uses vivid imagery to emphasise concerns about women impacted by restrictions on reproductive rights. She rhetorically painted an image of "pregnant women...bleeding out in a car in the parking lot” to connect with the emotions and struggles of American women and underscore her commitment to their plights. She also uses fear rhetoric to describe a potential Trump presidency for the second time.

Trump, on the other hand, employs fear and a sense of urgency to drive emotional appeal. He frequently uses hyperbole and repetition to amplify issues and frame them as major crises. For example,  he often claims that “millions of criminals, and terrorists are pouring into America and destroying the country." By invoking fear and a sense of urgency, he seeks to play on people’s anxieties about national security.   

In terms of logical appeal, Harris’ rhetoric regularly seeks to drive persuasion by presenting logical arguments. She cited Goldman Sachs’ endorsement of her economic plan to suggest that her policies are supported by independent expert evaluation. She also employed logical appeal to discredit Trump’s economic plan, arguing that reputable entities like Goldman Sachs’,  Wharton School, and 16 Nobel Laureates all declared that Trump’s plan would worsen the US economy.

Trump, in contrast, appeals to logic whenever he declares that he “created one of the greatest economies in the history of America” and that he would do it even better again if given a second chance.

Applying credibility-based appeal, Harris often emphasises her credentials as a prosecutor to demonstrate her capacity to fight crime and maintain the rule of law. Similarly, Trump appeals to credibility by consistently highlighting his achievements as a strong leader on the global stage, touting his ability to negotiate and stop what he alleged to be a rip-off from China, Europe, and NATO.  

Conclusion

Overall, this US election looks set to be decided by swing or undecided voters, the majority of whom will not conduct granular scrutiny of each candidate’s policies. Instead, they will respond to key soundbites and rhetorical framing that collectively shape their view of both candidates and consequently, their voting decision. While some argue that campaign rhetoric has limited influence on core voter bases, the rhetorical framing of arguments and counter-arguments that resonate with swing voters will ultimately tilt the scales towards Democrats or Republicans.

Dr Toju Ogbe is a Strategic Communications consultant and an academic whose research focuses on rhetorical leadership.  

Programme: CITY TALKS WITH REUBEN ABATI

Time: 12:00pm

Guest: Dr Idowu Oyebanjo
(Energy Expert)

Topic: Incessant National Power Grid Collapse

Date: 9th Novemeber, 2024

Join Zoom Meeting
https://zoom.us/j/92877141732?pwd=VEJWb29OL2VVekZUTHRpdWYxK0xxZz09

Meeting ID: 928 7714 1732
Passcode: 600206

Hon. Dabiri, Your Cultural Point is Well Taken, But Hon. Kemi’s Global Criticism of Nigeria Reflects the Nation’s Persistent Corruption, Human Rights Violations, Police Brutality, and Leadership Impunity — Not a Rejection of Culture and Heritage

In a recent statement, Hon. Abike Dabiri-Erewa, Chair of the Nigerians in Diaspora Commission (NiDCOM), extended a diplomatic gesture toward Kemi Badenoch, the newly appointed Leader of the UK Conservative Party, hoping to bridge cultural ties by emphasizing her Nigerian heritage. Dabiri-Erewa’s outreach, which sought to congratulate Badenoch on her ascent to this prominent role, was undeniably rooted in a desire to maintain connections with Nigerians in the diaspora. Yet, it is important to understand that Kemi’s silence in response to this outreach does not signify a rejection of her heritage, but rather speaks to a much deeper frustration with the state of her homeland, Nigeria—a frustration that cannot be ignored by any well-meaning Nigerian, whether in the diaspora or at home.

Kemi Badenoch’s relationship with Nigeria is complex, rooted in both pride and disillusionment. Born in Wimbledon, London, to Nigerian parents, Badenoch spent significant portions of her formative years in Nigeria, the United States, and the UK. Her youth in Nigeria was marred by the harsh realities of political instability, economic mismanagement, and the slow decay of basic services that the nation’s citizens continue to suffer from today. These experiences forged her political beliefs and a deep-seated desire to see her home country achieve the prosperity and justice that should accompany its vast resources. But despite Nigeria’s bountiful natural wealth and the billions of dollars funneled in from international donors, the country has remained stagnated by pervasive corruption, human rights violations, police brutality, and a justice system that is more a tool of the powerful than an institution for fairness.

It is this disillusionment with Nigeria’s political and social systems, not a rejection of Nigerian culture, that likely informs Kemi’s decision to remain silent. As an influential British politician, Kemi Badenoch’s voice carries weight, not only within the UK but also internationally. Her career in British politics, spanning high-profile roles in the Conservative Party, highlights her ability to navigate complex political landscapes, from her technical background in IT to her rise through ministerial positions. Despite her ascent in British politics, it is Nigeria’s failure to realize its potential, largely due to the misconduct of its leaders, that draws her harshest criticism.

Badenoch’s silence in response to Dabiri-Erewa’s outreach should be viewed not as a personal affront to her Nigerian identity, but as a symbolic protest—a muted cry in response to the disheartening and increasingly inescapable reality that Nigeria’s leaders remain mired in corruption and impunity. While Dabiri-Erewa’s outreach is rooted in cultural pride, the reality is that Kemi, much like many Nigerians in the diaspora, has watched as Nigeria’s government continues to betray its people. The frustration and pain caused by these ongoing failures are not abstract—they are visceral and real.

Nigeria’s leaders, who are blessed with unimaginable wealth, both from the country’s vast oil reserves and foreign aid contributions, continue to perpetuate the suffering of the Nigerian people. The immense sums of money that pour into Nigeria from international partners, including Britain, are regularly siphoned off by corrupt officials, leaving Nigeria’s infrastructure in a state of disrepair. Basic human rights, like access to healthcare, clean water, and electricity, remain largely inaccessible to the majority of the population. Even more troubling, Nigerian leaders, such as former President Buhari and current President Tinubu, routinely travel to the UK for extended stays, often receiving healthcare treatment unavailable in their own country, while Nigerians at home die due to the absence of basic medical services. This hypocrisy—the wealth of the leaders against the suffering of the citizens—is what pains Kemi. She sees how her country is being drained by a system of governance that protects the rich and powerful, leaving the vulnerable to suffer.

This is why, despite her Nigerian roots, Kemi Badenoch has voiced her concerns about the state of her country and its leadership with blunt honesty. In her recent statements, Badenoch emphasized that while colonialism had a significant and lasting impact on Nigeria’s development, the time for using that as an excuse has passed. She agrees that the colonial legacy left a deep imprint on the Nigerian political system, but she firmly believes that contemporary Nigerian leaders must take responsibility for addressing the systemic issues that continue to plague the nation. In Badenoch’s eyes, it is not enough to simply point to the past—it is essential that Nigeria’s current leadership stop exploiting these historical grievances as a shield to justify their own failures. The responsibility for reform and development now lies squarely with the country’s leaders.

It is vital to note that Kemi’s silence in response to Dabiri-Erewa’s outreach is not an expression of hatred toward Nigeria or her Nigerian heritage. Instead, it can be interpreted as a deep and emotional response to the relentless corruption and impunity within Nigeria’s political structures. Kemi understands that the power of her voice can make a difference, and while she remains silent in this instance, her position on Nigeria’s political leadership has been crystal clear. She speaks out because she believes that the Nigerian people deserve better than the perpetual cycle of corruption, police brutality, and political impunity that continues to characterize the nation.

What should be understood from this interaction is that while NiDCOM’s efforts to connect Nigerians in the diaspora with their heritage are admirable, they should not overshadow the larger issues at play. Dabiri-Erewa’s approach, while well-meaning, is only part of the equation. The reality is that for many Nigerians abroad, including Kemi, the struggle goes beyond cultural identity—it is about Nigeria’s leadership and its failure to deliver on its promises to the people. A cultural connection, while important, cannot supersede the urgent need for governance that respects the rule of law, protects human rights, and prioritizes the needs of the people.

Moreover, it is crucial to acknowledge that while Kemi’s silence might be interpreted as cold or unresponsive, it speaks volumes. It reflects not only her sorrow over Nigeria’s continued degradation but also her frustration with the global complacency toward these issues. As a Nigerian-British leader, she carries the weight of both worlds—the cultural pride of her heritage and the moral responsibility of witnessing Nigeria’s ongoing struggle. In choosing to remain silent, she may be crying inside—tears shed for the countless Nigerians suffering at the hands of their own leaders, while their elected representatives live lives of luxury abroad.

While the outreach from NiDCOM should be appreciated, we must also recognize the deeper truths behind Kemi’s silence. She knows that no amount of cultural celebration can erase the systemic failures that continue to afflict Nigeria. Dabiri-Erewa’s efforts to congratulate Kemi on her political rise are laudable, but they must be tempered with an understanding of the larger political context—one that is shaped by deep-seated corruption, human rights abuses, and the suffering of Nigeria’s most vulnerable.

In the future, we hope that Kemi Badenoch will feel moved to acknowledge the congratulatory messages from NiDCOM, not only as a gesture of gratitude but also as a recognition of the potential for future collaboration and constructive dialogue. Her response, however, should never be seen as an obligation, but rather as a reflection of her own journey—a journey that is simultaneously one of pride in her Nigerian heritage and frustration with Nigeria’s ongoing failure to meet the needs of its people.

Let us hope that in time, Nigeria’s leaders will heed the calls for reform and accountability, embracing the responsibility to create a society where the basic needs of every citizen are met. And let us also hope that, in the future, Kemi Badenoch will see her silence give way to a more constructive dialogue—one that acknowledges the cultural ties that bind us, while also demanding the ethical leadership required to move Nigeria forward. She is a leader who has shown that change is possible, but that it requires honesty, accountability, and a willingness to confront uncomfortable truths about the past, the present, and the future.

Professor John Egbeazien Oshodi, born in Uromi, Edo State, Nigeria, is an American-based police and prison scientist, forensic psychologist, public policy psychologist, and legal psychologist. He’s a government advisor on forensic-clinical psychological services in the USA and the founder of the Dr. John Egbeazien Oshodi Foundation for Psychological Health. With a significant role in introducing forensic psychology to Nigeria through N.U.C. and Nasarawa State University, he’s also a former Secretary-General of the Nigeria Psychological Association. He’s taught at esteemed institutions like Florida Memorial University, Florida International University, Nova Southeastern University, and more, and is currently an online faculty member at ISCOM University,  Weldios University and Walden University.