In the streets, markets, and homes across Nigeria, a rising chorus of discontent can be heard, a cry from the people burdened by a government they feel has lost touch with their realities. Under the Tinubu administration, policies that were meant to revitalize the economy and improve the lives of Nigerians have instead been perceived as further inflicting hardship on the already struggling masses. From fuel subsidy removal to skyrocketing inflation, Nigerians are bearing the brunt of anti-people policies that seem more punitive than remedial.

“We are already suffering. The little we could afford before is now beyond our reach. Is this the change we voted for?” laments Musa Ibrahim, a commercial motorcyclist in Abuja. His words echo across the nation as the cost of living has soared since the removal of fuel subsidies, sending transportation costs through the roof and putting basic commodities out of reach for the average Nigerian.

Tinubu’s administration, barely a year old, introduced a series of economic reforms that, on paper, aim to stabilize the country’s economy and boost investor confidence. But in practice, these policies have been described as “anti-people,” hitting the poorest the hardest while leaving the ruling elite largely insulated from their impacts.

The removal of the fuel subsidy, hailed by some as a long-overdue reform, has had far-reaching consequences. Nigerians, already grappling with high inflation and low wages, now find themselves paying more than ever before for basic necessities. “I used to buy a bag of rice for N20, 000. Now, it is over N40, 000. How are we supposed to survive?” asks Adebimpe, a market woman in Lagos. “This government seems sadistic. We are crying out, but they are not listening.”

One of the most glaring criticisms of the Tinubu administration’s economic strategy is the perceived lack of empathy in its implementation. The introduction of value-added tax (VAT) hikes, the devaluation of the naira, and cuts in government spending are all seen as economic moves that prioritize fiscal tightening over the well-being of the people.

In a nation where over 40% of the population lives below the poverty line, these policies are seen as cruel. “This is sadism, pure and simple,” declares Peter Okeke, a civil servant in Mowe-Ibafo, Lagos. “We are drowning, and instead of giving us a lifeline, they’re throwing stones at us.”

The cries of Nigerians have been loud and clear. From street protests to social media campaigns, the people are calling for policies that address their immediate needs, affordable food, stable power supply, access to healthcare, and employment opportunities. However, these calls seem to be falling on deaf ears, as the government remains entrenched in its reforms.

The question on every Nigerian’s lips is whether there is a way forward under this administration. “We need policies that are for the people, not against them,” says Chinyere, a school teacher in Onitsha. “We understand the need for economic reforms, but they must be balanced with the realities of those who are suffering. The government should find a middle ground.”

Despite the harsh reception of its policies, the Tinubu government insists that these reforms are necessary to correct years of economic mismanagement and steer the nation toward recovery. However, for many Nigerians, the cost of these corrections has become too high to bear.

What remains troubling is the government’s continued unresponsiveness to the suffering of the people. The administration’s reforms, intended to create a more stable economy, have, in the short term, made life unbearable for millions of Nigerians. If the government does not recalibrate its approach to address the immediate concerns of the masses, it risks further alienating itself from the very people it was elected to serve.

Is the Nigerian government under Tinubu’s leadership truly sadistic, as many have claimed? Or is it simply disconnected from the harsh realities its citizens face? As the cries of Nigerians grow louder, the government’s indifference becomes more glaring.

“We elected them to serve us, not to punish us,” says Chinedu, a frustrated trader in Aba. His sentiment mirrors that of millions of Nigerians who are tired of bearing the brunt of policies that seem to favor the few at the expense of the many.

For now, the government remains unmoved. And the people, left with little choice, continue to cry out, hoping that one day, their voices will finally be heard.

Without a doubt, Nigerians are groaning under the weight of severe economic hardship, from skyrocketing prices of food and essential commodities to the removal of fuel subsidies, which has led to unbearable living costs. Yet, instead of offering relief, the Tinubu administration appears to be tightening the noose further with anti-people policies that disproportionately affect the poor and middle class. Despite the loud cries of suffering from all corners of the country, the government’s response has been largely indifferent, continuing to implement harsh fiscal measures without any meaningful palliatives or interventions. The failure to address the worsening plight of millions leaves many wondering how long the people can endure such crippling conditions.

Is this not an act of sadism, where those in power seem more willing to exacerbate the citizens’ suffering than to alleviate it? The government’s preparedness to double down on these harmful policies, the ones that are stripping Nigerians of their dignity and security, raises disturbing questions about the empathy and priorities of the leadership. Rather than responding to the pulse of the people, it appears Tinubu’s government is content with policies that deepen poverty and inequality, pushing the masses into even greater despair.

When former Governor of Rivers State and ex-Minister of Transportation, Rotimi Amaechi, and a prominent figure in Nigerian politics, recently lamented the high cost of living, it sent shockwaves across the country. Amaechi, who has long been part of Nigeria’s elite political class, has traditionally been seen as insulated from the economic struggles of the masses. His public complaint raises a crucial question: “If a man of his stature is complaining about the unbearable economic situation, what hope is left for the ordinary Nigerian?”

The foregoing question cannot be easily pooh-poohed as Nigeria is currently facing one of its most challenging economic periods in decades. Inflation, unemployment, and widespread poverty are wreaking havoc on the lives of millions. According to the National Bureau of Statistics (NBS), inflation surged to 25.8% in August 2023, the highest rate in nearly two decades, while food inflation has reached even more alarming levels, hovering at around 30%.

In fact, as gathered, Nigeria’s headline inflation rate rose to 34.19% in June 2024, 11.4 percentage points (ppt) higher than 22.79% in June 2023. This is the 18th consecutive monthly increase since January 2023 and the highest inflation rate in 28 years. Compared to May 2024 (33.95%), inflation rose by 0.24ppt. Food and energy costs drove the price increase. Y-o-Y food and core inflation rates increased to 40.87% and 27.40% from 40.66% and 27.04% in May, respectively.

With the rising costs of essential goods and services, the average Nigerian is left with little to nothing to survive on.

The removal of fuel subsidies in mid-2023 by President Bola Tinubu’s administration acted as a catalyst, further worsening an already fragile economic environment. The subsidy removal led to a threefold increase in fuel prices, which in turn increased the cost of transportation, food, and virtually every other commodity that depends on logistics. As a result, the quality of life for ordinary Nigerians has plummeted, with many unable to afford basic necessities.

Rotimi Amaechi, a veteran of Nigerian politics who has held various high-profile positions, recently found himself making headlines not for political reasons, but for joining the chorus of those decrying the soaring cost of living. His remarks came as a surprise to many Nigerians, primarily because politicians like Amaechi are typically perceived to live in a bubble of privilege, far removed from the everyday struggles of the people.

Amaechi’s complaint, whether intentional or not, is an indictment of the nation’s economic policies. His acknowledgment of the hardship that even the wealthy are beginning to feel suggests that the situation has reached a tipping point. If the elites, who enjoy government allowances, hefty salaries, and other benefits, are feeling the squeeze, it is a sign that Nigeria’s economic problems have crossed a dangerous threshold.

Yet, while Amaechi and others in his class may feel inconvenienced by the high cost of living, for the masses, the economic situation is much more than a discomfort, it is a battle for survival.

For the majority of Nigerians, economic hardship is not a new phenomenon, but the current crisis is one of the worst in recent history. Millions of families can no longer afford to eat three square meals a day, and many are forced to make difficult choices between food, healthcare, and education for their children. Wages have stagnated, while prices of basic goods and services continue to soar. According to a World Bank report, more than 40% of Nigeria’s population, over 83 million people, lives below the poverty line, and the numbers are rising.

The price of staple foods like rice, beans, and garri has doubled in some regions, making it increasingly difficult for the average Nigerian to survive. Transportation costs have tripled in the wake of the fuel subsidy removal, and this has had a cascading effect on food prices, school fees, and other essential services. Informal workers, who make up the bulk of the Nigerian labor force, are hardest hit, as their incomes have not kept pace with the rising cost of living. Many have resorted to living on credit, borrowing from friends and family just to get by.

With the elite feeling the sting of inflation and high costs, one wonders what options are left for the masses. The truth is, there are very few options. Ordinary Nigerians have been left to rely on their creativity and resourcefulness to survive. From petty trading to offering various informal services, many have taken up side hustles just to make ends meet.

In rural areas, subsistence farming has become a lifeline for many, but even that has been affected by rising costs of farming inputs like fertilizers and seeds. Urban dwellers have had to cut down drastically on their spending, with many opting to live without basic amenities like electricity, water, and healthcare.

Nigerians have also turned to protests and strikes to express their frustration. The Nigeria Labour Congress (NLC) and Trade Union Congress (TUC) have staged several strikes demanding wage increases and government intervention to ease the economic burden on citizens. While these strikes have temporarily halted economic activities, they have done little to change government policy or offer any lasting relief.

Amaechi’s lamentation serves as a poignant reminder of the growing disconnect between Nigeria’s ruling elite and the people they govern. For decades, Nigeria’s political class has largely been shielded from the harsh economic realities faced by the masses. Their access to government-funded luxuries, including housing, security, healthcare, and transportation, ensures they are cushioned from the inflationary pressures that grip the nation.

However, the current economic crisis has begun to blur that line of privilege. Politicians who once claimed not to feel the effects of Nigeria’s deteriorating economy are beginning to show cracks in their shield of affluence. But while they experience these challenges as inconveniences, ordinary Nigerians face them as life-altering catastrophes. It is a sobering reality that many in positions of power have failed to grasp.

To bring lasting relief to the masses, Nigeria needs a government that is willing to implement real economic reforms, reforms that go beyond austerity measures that disproportionately affect the poor. There is a desperate need for social safety nets, subsidies for essential goods, and a significant investment in public infrastructure that can reduce the cost of doing business and help lower the prices of basic necessities.

Corruption, long a scourge of the Nigerian economy, must be tackled head-on. Billions of naira that could be used to provide economic relief and improve infrastructure are instead siphoned into private bank accounts, leaving the public with little hope for meaningful change. Until these structural issues are addressed, the economic situation is unlikely to improve.

Amaechi’s complaints about the high cost of living, while noteworthy, should be seen as a call to action for the Nigerian government. If someone as powerful as Amaechi is feeling the effects of the economic downturn, then it is clear that the situation is critical. For the masses, the question remains: What hope is left for us? The future may seem grim, but it is not without hope if the right steps are taken.

The Nigerian government must move beyond empty rhetoric and take tangible steps to alleviate the suffering of the people. Only through comprehensive economic reforms, tackling corruption, and implementing policies that truly benefit the masses can the government begin to restore faith in its ability to lead the country out of this economic quagmire. In the end, Amaechi’s words serve as a reminder that no one, not even the political elite, is immune to the consequences of bad governance and poor economic management. The sooner the government acts, the better it will be for everyone.

In the last three months, 12 states across five of the six geo-political zones have conducted local council elections. Eight other states have announced plans to hold council polls between next week and February 2025. This rash of local elections is in response to the affirmation by the Supreme Court on July 11th that, as mandated by the constitution, local government areas (LGAs) should be run only by democratically-elected administrators. But there is hardly anything that separates the council elections held before and after July 11^th. The quality of LGA elections remains below par.

Irrespective of the political diversity and the local issues at play, the political parties that the governors belong to (or are affiliated with) always enjoy a clean sweep in the local polls in the states. There are many states in this country where presidential, gubernational, federal and state parliamentary elections are fiercely contested, where presidential and governorship elections are won narrowly and where available seats for Senate, House of Representatives and state assemblies are split between at least two political parties. But those same states become remarkably one-party states once it comes to LGA elections. Clearly, something doesn’t add up here.  

The farce cuts across party lines, as the 12 local elections held after July 11 have confirmed. The All Progressives Party (APC) swept all the available seats in Ebonyi, Kebbi, Kwara, Imo, Sokoto, and Benue states where it is the ruling party; the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) replicated the same feat in its own domains in Bauchi, Enugu, Plateau and Akwa Ibom (where it magnanimously conceded, and in strange fashion, one out of 31 LGAs to APC); the All Progressives Grand Alliance (APGA) ensured that it had a perfect score in Anambra State, the only state it controls; and the Action Peoples Party (APP), a totally unknown party, had a slam dunk in Rivers State (securing 22  out of 23 LGAs) because it is the proxy party of the current governor of the state.

The Labour Party (LP) and the New Nigeria People’s Party (NNPP) are expected to follow the trend by picking all the local seats available when Abia and Kano states hold their LGA elections in the next few weeks.  

To situate how farcical this clean sweep pattern is, let us look at two electorally diverse/competitive states that have conducted local elections after July 11^th: Plateau and Sokoto states. In the 2023 general election, the main parties polled as follows in Plateau State: 42% for LP, 28% for APC and 22% for PDP in the presidential election; 48% for PDP, 44% for APC and 7% for LP in the gubernatorial election; PDP won two senatorial seats while APC got one; PDP secured five seats while APC got three seats in the House of Representatives; and for the state House of Assembly, PDP secured 13 seats, APC got nine and Young Progressives Party (YPP) won two. However, this intense level of political competition and diversity disappeared when it came to LGA elections, as PDP, the ruling party in the state, cleared all the chairmanship slots in the 17 LGAs.

It is a different party but the same pattern in Sokoto State. In the 2023 general election, PDP got 49% to APC’s 48% in the presidential election; APC won the governorship with 52% to PDP’s 47%; APC secured two senatorial seats to PDP’s one; APC got eight seats while PDP secured three seats in the House of Representatives; and in the state House of Assembly, APC won 20 seats to PDP’s 10. However, the diversity completely vanished at the LGA level, as APC produced all 23 chairpersons and all 244 councillors.

Governors across party lines, and for various political and financial reasons, want the local councils in their breast pockets. Their first preference is to run the LGAs with appointees who are beholden and answerable only to them. In clear violation of Section 7 of the 1999 Constitution, governors used to routinely dissolve democratically-elected councils and appoint caretaker committees to run the LGAs. By the time the Supreme Court ruled on this obvious, wilful and flagrant violation of the constitution, caretaker committees were running the show in local councils in 20 of Nigeria’s 36 states.

The governors are now rushing to conduct LGA elections because, with the Supreme Court ruling, they have no cover to continue with their preferred but illegal option. But they have, without great exception, moved on to their second preference: conducting sham LGA elections. And this is easy to do, and is being done by all irrespective of party and religious affiliations, because there is another cover that is still fully in place: the state independent electoral commissions (SIECs), as presently configured, are extensions of state governments. So, the governors have moved, grudgingly, from Option A to Option B while retaining absolute control of those running the councils. Head or tail, they win.

The governors are not deciding the outcome of the LGA elections merely because they have the resources and the structures to determine electoral outcomes at the subnational level (otherwise, they would have been determining 100% the outcomes of all other elections held at the state level). Governors have an oversize influence on local elections simply because the SIECs, which conduct LGA elections, are fully in their pockets. The ‘independent’ in the name of SIECs is a semantic mockery. The SIECs are anything but independent. The governors constitute (and decide when to constitute) the SIECs. The governors fund and decide when to and how well to fund them. As long as this arrangement remains in place, the governors will continue to impose their puppets as LGA chairpersons and councillors. 

My sense is that there is an emerging consensus on the need to break governors’ chokehold over SIECs, and by extension LGA elections. However, opinion is divided on what to do. There are those who believe SIECs can be made truly independent. Some others prefer that all elections should be conducted by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC). The Senate is working on creating a federal agency just for local council elections. I have my reservations about some of the options and also have my preference, but that is neither here nor there. What is important is that we need to fashion a way to take our LGA elections from the big joke that the governors have turned them into.

Outcomes of LGA elections should reflect the choices and the diversity of the local communities. Put another way, we need to make our local politics/elections truly local again (it used to be). It is when local officials are those truly elected by the local people that the elected will feel an obligation to be answerable to the people and be responsive to their needs and when the people will feel empowered to hold the elected to account. Financial autonomy to LGAs will not mean much if the people do not have a say on who runs their affairs and if those entrusted with power do not think they need the people to get into and stay in office.

Of course, the status quo favoured by the governors would not simply disappear because of Supreme Court’s ruling or merely because of our expectations. The outcome of LGA elections conducted in 12 states after the judgment of the apex court has made that point abundantly clear.  There is some serious work to be done by all of us not only to make LGA elections truly free, fair and credible but, more importantly, to improve the quality of governance and service delivery at the local level across the country. As I have said repeatedly here and elsewhere, Nigeria will be a considerably better place if our LGAs (with the resources and responsibilities assigned to them) are run in a more responsive, accountable, competent, efficient and effective manner. Financial autonomy, which the Supreme Court has granted, is good thing but it can’t be the cure-all. It can only be a starting point.  

MacArthur Foundation’s Momentous Trifecta

Last week, the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, an American philanthropic organisation with offices in Nigeria, India and USA, rolled out the drums to mark some momentous milestones. The first, and the highpoint, was the celebration of its three decades of identifying and walking with Nigeria, staying the course, and making significant and catalytic interventions targeted at supporting the Nigerian government, civil society organisations and individuals to tackle some of the key constraints to human development and overall national development in the country.

MacArthur Foundation came into Nigeria in 1994, at a time when the country was embroiled in the political and economic uncertainty that followed the annulment of the June 12, 1993 presidential election and when a ruthless military dictatorship was unfolding. This was a period when many Nigerians and friends of Nigeria were doubtful of what the future held and not sure if the country would even hold together. Other donor organisations operated from a safe distance, either in their home countries or in neighbouring countries. Some closed shop or scaled down.

But it was at this moment of national turmoil and doubt that MacArthur Foundation decided to pitch its lot, in country, with Nigeria. Under the able leadership of Professor Bolanle Awe, eminent historian and gender activist, the foundation started life in Nigeria with a population and reproductive health programme, which contributed to saving lives through improvement in health services and reduction in maternal and infant mortality in the country.

Since that entry in 1994, the foundation has not wavered on Nigeria. It not only stayed but also expanded its portfolio to other equally impactful areas like human rights and justice sector reforms, gender and social inclusion, and capacity development for higher education. In the last 30 years, MacArthur Foundation has awarded close to 1000 grants amounting to about $320 million to 500 organisations and individuals, according to Professor John Palfry, the current president of the foundation who was on hand to witness the celebration with some members of his senior team and a member of the foundation’s board, Professor Funmi Olopade.

The cross-section of Nigerians—from far and wide and across generations and sectors—that turned up in Abuja last week for the 30^th anniversary event is an acknowledgement of and an ode to the MacArthur brand of philanthropy. A proud and grateful Professor Awe, now a nonagenarian but still lucid, was on hand to join the celebration and move to the beats.

The foundation’s second milestone was a couple of activities organised to mark the winding down of the bet it took on Nigeria nine years ago. The Big Bet On Nigeria commenced in 2016 and terminates in a few months. The overall goal of the intervention is to reduce corruption by supporting Nigerian-led efforts that strengthen transparency, accountability and participation.

The On Nigeria programme is indeed a big bet on the country. It accounts for more than half of MacArthur’s grant in its 30 years of operating in the country. Specifically, the foundation has given out more than $150 million in grants to more than 200 grantees and subgrantees in four cohorts: media and journalism; behavioural change; criminal justice reform; and advocacy and accountability. Grantees cut across anti-corruption agencies, academia and think tanks, civil society and media. Beyond providing grants, MacArthur has also invested in building the capacity of its grantees, challenging and helping them to devise strategies for sustaining their important work beyond the life of the programme, and nurturing a coalition of change agents and partners within and outside of government. Beyond the well-documented impact of the big bet on Nigeria, its effects will continue to reverberate in years and decades to come.

The third milestone is understated but equally significant and can be classed as the connecting thread between the other two: the celebration of Dr Kole Shettima’s 25^th year at the foundation. Dr. Shettima joined MacArthur in 1999, took the torch from Professor Awe and has kept it alive and aloft since. One of Nigeria’s leading political scientists, he is the country director of the foundation. Along with Erin Sines, he is the co-director of the On Nigeria Programme.

Unassuming and approachable, Dr Shettima seems incapable of the kind of the hubris common with a breed of grant makers in this clime. His passion, compassion and ethics are unmistakable, even when he doesn’t go around advertising them. He has contributed not only to sculpting the work and image of MacArthur in Nigeria but also to shaping the values and outlook of his colleagues in the Abuja office. An encounter with any of them, from the highest to the lowest, leaves a firm impression of how he has successfully moulded a passionate and professional team. He is a great leader and an all-round great man. He deserves his flowers.

Our people say that the difference between a blind man and one who is not blind is not the absence of an eye socket. It is also not even the absence of an eyeball in many cases. In the latter case, the eye socket would not be lacking in an eyeball. It is just that the eyeball in the socket is without vision, even as it stares at you with the fixation of a presumably seeing eye. Thus, blindness is simply the inability to see, physically or metaphorically.

There is also this other saying of our people, to the effect that a leopard hunter who, during his hunt, takes time off to smoke his pipe while close to the lair of a feared leopard, should please notify his ancestors to expect him at short notice before lighting his pipe. The most sophisticated lady who is being chased by a lion will not remember her catwalk in such a situation.

 When a land is in great thrall, largely because of a collective guilt that everyone is eager to deny responsibility for, the road to healing and solutions is not yet in sight at all.   When problems that had a long gestation, and which therefore took decades to develop and mature due to reinforced errors, neglect of what should be done and deliberate acts of mischief, are treated as if they sprang up only yesterday, then the people are not yet ready to take the path to self-redemption.

With the above thoughts in my head, I found myself in a dream. I was looking down at our fatherland and admiring its beauty.  Several leaders of yore walked past as I looked, apparently heading to some meeting, or gathering. Most of them had such impressive carriage and quiet personal dignity. Such bearing! Such poise! Such character!

“These are the living symbols of the traditions, laws, values and pristine wisdom of the land” I murmured to myself. Standard Bearers of right and wrong for the people and the nation! “This land is blessed”, I murmured again.

Then I turned to look at the women and the maidens. Many of them embodied flawless grace and unimpeachable womanly dignity! Like the elders, the women and the maidens, the young men and children, too, looked very diligent and alert. I smiled in admiration and took in everything with calm scrutiny.

I could then really see why most countries admired and respected our fatherland and its people many decades ago. It is only human beings that can make a community good or bad. No community is good simply because of its natural endowments, no! The people themselves, their ways of doing things and their sense of propriety, not what is in the soil or above the soil, are responsible for the image and reputation of any society. The goodness and badness of a nation is always and only traceable to the people. But back to the dream.

Then, lo and behold, I found myself looking at yet another profile of the same fatherland of ours. I shuddered in dismay and consternation. How could this be? The land had changed so much. All the natural resources were still there, no doubt. The fertile soil had not become any less fertile. Nothing had really taken away the ever-benevolent climate and peaceful nature of the people.

Yet, there was a smell of un-sanctity in the air. It enveloped the land in a strange, stupefying sort of way. It was possible to sense it all, tot smell and almost touch it. Yet, it was impossible to pinpoint what was wrong, or what the matter could possibly be. I was simply impossible to put his finger on it.

Then I felt, or heard, a voice whisper to me that our fatherland’s esteem was at its peak before bad leadership came upon the scene over 50 years ago. Baffled, I looked around, but saw no one.

Then my mind went to the well-known fact that many people in governorship, religious and traditional leadership positions today are actually doing very unusual things. They compete with supply contractors, professional road builders, and even pick pockets. They love conspicuous consumption. They love the looks on famished faces as they flaunt their material possessions. Oh, how they love the display!  And yet, what they are prancing about with, and showing off with, belongs to the people. Leaders indeed!

In the dream, and from my vantage position, I could see the faces of the people. They were watching their governors, their local government chairmen, their councillors and their ward chairmen and, especially, their lawmakers in the state and National Assemblies. Most of the people looked thoroughly perplexed, or generally distraught.

But some of the people seemed quite happy, if in some cases they had a pasted smile that concealed considerable inner personal turmoil. But, for the record, many were actually happy with the ongoing signs of depravity around them.

Looking still more closely in the dream, I noticed that it was mostly the shameless in these places, and especially also a large population of young people who were serving as Special Assistants and Personal Assistants, that were happy.  There were signs of debauchery everywhere. The ignorant among the populace celebrated what they were seeing. But many far-seeing elders, and even some not so elderly ones, were not impressed at all.

And time passed in my dream.

I turned and noticed that some groups of people were discussing in low tones in their little corners. Their concern was the problems in the land. None knew whom to blame. The young ones blamed the elders, saying that they had ruined the nation and their future. The elders blamed changing times and global trends, as well as the elder statesmen. The latter feigned outrage, as they indignantly declared that any insinuations about their complicity in the nation’s problems was baseless.

Untold misery, despondency and a dreary feeling of the spirit soaked the land through and through. And I found myself wondering about it all. Then, as if in response to my thoughts, the strange voice whispered to me again in my dream: “The people who are looking at the Federal Government are all acting as if there are no leaders at State, Local, Council and ward levels”. Agan, I couldn’t see the speaker.

Really? But it is true! No one is interested in asking what happens to the monthly allocations to these tiers of government. They are also not all too keen on doing the right things in their personal and professional lives.  They are not interested in listening to what any sensible person has to say. They have no idea about what is going on around them, because they are totally beholden to their self-replicating acts of folly.  They give themselves no time to see clearly, think clearly, or to find out what anyone thinks, or feels.

Yet they want change, they want a better society. They are willing to live in the best version of their country, and they are waiting impatiently for someone to create it. Just look at how politicians move from one party to the other, doing the very things a responsible leader should not do. Abomination, right? Perhaps not, really. It is now the norm. No wonder, then! Yes, no wonder!

The subsisting smell of sacrilege in the air, has its roots in decades of our nurturing of the wrong paradigms for social cohesion and responsible leadership.  The complaints, as well as the ominous silence, of some of the wise men and women at the state and local government levels today portends ill; and may yet beget the as yet unknown, unnamed and unseen.

I shuddered over and over again in my dream. Then other thoughts assailed me.

I found myself wondering how people in positions of responsibility could be so completely bereft of all native wisdom and good sense. Does a representative of the peoples need to be told that a sharp object, which is used for trimming the fingernails, is not good for cleaning the eyes? Does anyone need to be reminded that a sensible person does not invite the community to inspect every part of his body in the village square, just to prove that he baths with extreme care?

Who would be the beacon when people in leadership positions act as if they are at a drunken revel? What should the people do when what should be hidden from children is put on display in the Village Square and, sometimes, in the marketplace? Who will give the people a sense of the sacred when the officiating priest at a coronation ceremony is not sober?

Many more questions flooded my mind, but they were too many for me to consider at once. Yes, the questions were just too many! Then my mind went to some proverbs. Yes, proverbs again!

There is great wisdom in the saying that the friends and relations of a mad man do not find the latter’s behaviour in public amusing, or entertaining. But what do you say, or do, in a situation where those who should be custodians of the highest values in the land seem to be the mad men in question?

I stared about me in the dream. I thought of the proverb, which said that whoever revealed the identity of the person behind a mask had profaned the mystery of the masquerade cult. But here, today, those who should play the role of protectors of the sacred put their imprimatur on profanity everywhere. What do you do when supposed protectors of the realm now seem to have turned into Patron Saint of mediocrity?

Then the strange voice whispered to me again, saying that many who ought to speak and provide guidance at state and local government levels have had their voices strangulated by the favours they had received, and continued to receive, from various quarters. This latter group does not want to lose the advantages and privileges of the hour. I nodded, thinking of the wisdom of our forefathers.

Fourth seed Coco Gauff came from a set and a break down to beat Paula Badosa to reach her first China Open final.

The 20-year-old American dug deep to come through 4-6 6-4 6-2.

Spaniard Badosa, ranked 19th in the world but a former world number two, had looked in a good position when she served at 4-3 up in the second set.

But Gauff broke and rattled off the next four games to set up a decider, eventually wrapping up victory in two hours and 21 minutes.

She will face either unseeded Czech player Karolina Muchova or home favourite and fifth seed Qinwen Zheng in the final.

Badosa, who was as low as 140th in the world rankings in May, came into the semi-final meeting on a good run of form in Beijing which included victory over second seed and US Open finalist Jessica Pegula in the last 16.

And she took advantage of Gauff’s inconsistencies, particularly on her serve which produced 11 double faults, to win the opening set and break in the first game of the second.

Gauff is working with new coach Matt Daly after ending her partnership with Brad Gilbert last month following her fourth-round exit at the US Open, where she was defending her title.

She saved four break points to avoid going 4-1 down in the second set and from then the momentum was with the American, who regained her composure as Badosa dropped her first set of the week.

Gauff broke three times in the decider to seal the win as she bids to add to her only title of the year so far from Auckland in January.

“I tried to stay focused, it was tough but mentally I just tried to reset,” she said.

 [Leadership]

The Peoples Democratic Party in Kano State has elected Yusuf Kibiya as the new chairman of the party in the state.

Kibiya is a former Commissioner for Agriculture under former state governor, Senator Rabiu Kwankwaso, between 1999 and 2003.

The party’s Election Committee chairman, Halilu Mazagani, disclosed this while announcing the election results on Sunday.

He noted that Kibiya secured a landslide victory, garnering 3,964 votes to defeat his opponent, Nura Nuhu, who scored 244 votes.

Mazagani, who commended the party’s officials in the state “for a job well done,” said the smooth conduct of the congress was an indication that the PDP would soon resolve the lingering differences between some members of the party to make it “a better and stronger opposition that can defeat the ruling party.

“Our party being the largest in Africa, no doubt, faces some internal challenges, but as always, we have learnt to manage our differences.

“I can assure you today that we are working hard to ensure unity and we are mobilising like never before, to ensure our success in the forthcoming 2027 general elections which I can confidently say the people will vote for us.

“So, it is now left for us to present credible candidates to Nigerians like we did before and we wish to improve on that.”

Also speaking at the event, an ex-Kano governor, Senator Ibrahim Shekarau, assured all that the party would produce a winning team in the 2027 general elections, adding that the PDP is poised to challenge any party in any election in the country, including the local government election scheduled to hold on October 26, 2024.

[Punch]

There is nothing new about elections in Nigeria. Except for the annulled June 12 election, we have never had a free, fair and credible process because our politicians know that voters don’t believe in them. It is worse that it is the ruling party which uses all organs of government to ensure the right candidate does not win.

The new system in which voting is open but collation is manipulated dates back to 1999 when former American President Jimmy Carter led the international election monitoring group. Carter told reporters that the number of voters on the voting queue was different from the results that were announced. In other words, the mischief that needs to be cured in Nigerian elections is the collation process. Everything is usually changed during the process to overturn the correct results with the strong telling the weak to go to court. 

Our courts are not allowed to interfere in the election process hence the law that courts should never stop an electoral commission from doing its work. Many young people were probably too young to be aware of this while those who are old enough to know about the law think that the law can be experimented upon. All that one needs to do is to have enough funds to hire big lawyers that can intimidate a judge. But whether we hire a long list of lawyers or not, the basic truth is that no court is allowed to stop an electoral body from doing its work. Although one legislator said the other day that it was for this reason that they put in the law to make it impossible for courts to stop electoral commission, it is good for Nigerians to know that even the military had the same law.  

In 1993, Senator Athur Nzeribe’s Association for Better Nigeria ABN attempted to stop the June 12 presidential election, but the electoral body ignored the court and went ahead with the election. The decision of the then electoral body was informed by Section 19 (1) of the Presidential Election Decree No. 13 of 1993 which barred any court from interfering in its work.  So, there is nothing new with what the courts are doing today; they are following the old order whereby Judges are materially influenced to give wrong judgments. How can a court bar police and other security agencies from securing an electoral process and argue that it didn’t bar the electoral commission from doing its work? If courts are to positively contribute to national development, they must tackle the unending failed elections in the country.

Our judges are very different these days; gone were the days of Justice George Oguntade, then a judge of the court of appeal who dealt with the subject substantively. According to Oguntade, “where a court makes an order in contravention of a statutory provision which forbids it from making such orders, the order so made is null and void and no appeal need be filed against the order.” What this confirms is that we have always had stomach infrastructure judges and lawyers including senior advocates who are always pretending that there is nothing a court cannot do. We say here today that a judge who attempts to stop an election is an unpatriotic citizen who is not bothered about our toga of a country whose elections always fail integrity tests. Oguntade’s ruling remains the latest and only law on the subject. 

Of course, we are not saying that courts are irrelevant in our electoral process.  There is time for courts to work, so they need not work before their time. For example, all the wrongs which the federal high court found with the rivers state electoral commission could be used to nullify the election; they cannot be used to stop the election from holding because that would be against the law. If courts start to break the law, then we are heading towards destruction. Even if the military keeps to its promise of allowing democracy to grow, we should not tempt them to change their mind. Besides, let us not remind politicians that they can revert to the old order where strong candidates were murdered just before voting day because people have lost faith in the judicial process. Our nation needs to listen now.

As far as ‘go to court’ is concerned, it is getting obvious that those who mouth it know the exact courts where the case would eventually be heard. To start with, it is usually the federal high court which on its own has a limited jurisdiction. The court has become so popular that it can alter state matters into federal matters. In Kano for example, although chieftaincy matters are purely state matters, the federal high court in the city successfully created another emir. Could this idea of further compounding every controversy be the nation’s expectation of the judiciary? Chief Justice Kekere-Ekun must in her moments of deep thoughts begin to see how some judges can be stopped from getting involved in ousted matters.

She also needs to take a closer look at the way unlimited state high courts are made to lose their jurisdiction to the federal high court which ordinarily only has limited jurisdiction.  We are not unaware that despite several warnings, court are still intransigent on those rules which were made to keep them in line. Perhaps it is time to resurrect the old law which stopped the judiciary from determining winners of elections. Instead, they should examine an election and see whether the process was followed or not. If it was followed, no problem but if it was not followed the court should nullify the election and give room for a repeat election. That may help to retrieve the integrity of the judiciary which is right now spoiling her image through the determination of elections in which there are more votes than voters.

Another thing that the heads of court can do is to stop forum shopping. Whereas it is true that all federal high courts have the same jurisdiction, it is suspicious that people leave the federal high court in the state where they live and where the case arose to the federal high court in Abuja to file their cases. What is special about the federal high court in Abuja that it is so well patronized? Could it be that judges of the federal high court in that city are secret members of a political party? If the situation is not reversed, the judiciary would someday be like police that always cancels check points only for another Inspector General to assume office only to cancel it again because it was never obeyed. What this means is that whatever takes away food from the corrupt hands of officials will really never stop. Instead, they will design new strategies for continuing with the mischief.  

Except we take such stringent action, we might soon get to a situation in which a common thief can be freed if in his defence, he cites the police. It would then be argued that since the case has police involvement, it has to be moved to the federal high court because states cannot deal with the police. In other words, we have successfully turned the object of a case to its subject. In Kano, it was only a chieftaincy case but as soon as police and other security agencies were added to it for implementation of judgment it became a federal high court case.Obviously, those who are benefiting from the roles the federal high courts are being made to play now are enjoying it but it is only fair that we are all reminded thatsomeday those in government now may not be there again. 

When the APC was the opposition party, it went to court, to stop the involvement of the army in Nigeria’s election. The party won the case and it was decided that the army should be far away from election centres. Today, the APC is in government and probably now sees the “usefulness” of the army in elections. If it saw this earlier it may not have gone to court to secure a victory against what it’s now doing. Nigeria’s elections would be better handled if every organ is allowed to play its assigned role. There is no need to display voting and declaration of result segments while collation of votes is done in secret. Our Federal High Court should please give us some breathing space.

Well, well, well… what an eventful week! So eventful I was unsure of what topic to write about. I started out wanting to do a follow-up to my last article, ‘On States, Regions and Federalism’. I also wanted to make an important clarification on the Unification Decree of 1966, having forgotten to add that it was repealed a year later. And while I was still thinking, violence broke out in Rivers state after the LG election as the war between Chief Nyesom Wike and Governor Siminalayi Fubara advanced to the next stage. I was still trying to catch my breath when the NNPC Ltd announced another increase in the price of petrol. I became confused on the choice of topic. Can you see my predicament?

When I started writing, I wanted to explain that while one military government announced the end of federalism and adopted a unitary system in 1966 (typical of the way military runs things), another military government reversed it in 1967 but it still turned out to be a pseudo-federalism — in the sense that the military high command, represented by the National Military Government (NMG) headed by the supreme commander of the armed forces, still called the shots. Military governors were appointed by the supreme commander. They were his subordinates. There were many ripples from the new arrangement as the civil war eventually broke out, but that is a topic for another day.

I also wanted to write, for the benefit of those who may not know, that “republic” does not mean unitary system. I saw a bit of confusion over that. A republic simply means a country is ruled by those elected into power by the citizens — compared to a monarchy where the king or queen has absolute powers. Although Nigeria became independent in 1960, it was not officially considered a republic because the Queen of England was still the head of state and was represented in that position by the governor-general of Nigeria, Dr Nnamdi Azikiwe, in a role conferred on him by a special arrangement with his northern allies. Sir Abubakar Tafawa Balewa, as prime minister, was the head of government.

In 1963, Nigeria officially became a republic and the role of governor-general was abolished. Azikiwe became president and head of state but the executive powers were with the prime minister as head of government. A parliamentary system separates the positions of head of state and head of government — unlike in a presidential system where the president is both the head of state and head of government. Countries such as the UK, Australia, Canada, Jamaica and New Zealand are officially not republics as the King of England is their head of state. However, for practical purposes, they are republics since they have elected representatives. The king is only a ceremonial leader.

I was still piecing my thoughts together when the Rivers state crisis progressed to another phase. I decided to abandon the federalism topic and write about Wike and Fubara as they fight over who should be Rivers’ head of “state” and head of government. In the first republic, we had premiers and governors under the parliamentary system. They shared duties. Premiers were the chief executives of their regions and ran government business, while governors were the ceremonial heads, performing such functions as making consequential announcements and declaring parliaments open. In a presidential system, governors hold executive powers and do not report to an individual.

In Rivers state, there is clearly a battle between Fubara, the elected governor, and Wike, his benefactor who handpicked him as his successor. The war started as soon as Fubara took office, with Wike complaining openly that his successor was destroying his political structure in the state. To be sure, this is not the first fight between godfathers and godsons in our political history. This war happens all the time. We saw it in Kwara in 1983 and 2003, Anambra in 2003, Oyo in 2006, Lagos in 2019, Edo in 2020 and even in Delta in 2023. However, the Rivers state crisis is getting out of hand and the risks are too high for us to ignore. Sadly, this is a country where we never learn our lessons.

I worry about Rivers in many ways. First: the threat to national security. When oil-based kidnappings and pipeline sabotage began in the state in 2005 or thereabouts, we thought there was really nothing to worry about. Today, we have territories run by militants and ex-militants. Second: the threat to the national economy. As I have argued here many times, the economic challenges we are facing today are fundamentally because we are not earning enough petrodollars, and this can be traced to many factors, including the negative impact of the unrest in the Niger Delta on investments in the petroleum sector over the years. We can do with some peace in the oil-producing region.

My worry has now moved another level: the disturbing role of the judiciary in the desecration of our democracy. How can a court rule that the police should not provide security during an election? What is that? The constitutional role of the police is to secure life and property. Every Nigerian deserves to be protected no matter his or her political choices. It is fundamental. How on earth can a court rule that police should not provide security? At this rate, bandits and oil thieves, operating through lawyers, will soon procure court injunctions banning the police, the army and other agencies from providing security at certain locations in the country. We are gradually getting to that stage.

The police actually withdrew from council headquarters in Rivers state on Monday and hell was let loose shortly after, with at least three buildings vandalised and set on fire by political thugs. That is the story of Nigeria in 2024 — sadly on the 64th anniversary of our independence and 110th year of amalgamation. Are we going forward or backward? President Bola Tinubu must, as a matter of urgency, call the warring factions to order before bigger and irreversible damage is done to this country. Politics cannot be everything and everything cannot be politics. People must know how to win and how to lose, how to advance and how to retreat. No individual is bigger than the society.

I decided not to write on Rivers but I would still want to remind the National Judicial Council (NJC) of its responsibility. These funny injunctions might be doing the bidding of politicians, but the judiciary has become a laughing stock. It looks like the judiciary has totally taken over our democracy, determining who should be party chairman, who should be deputy governor, who should be governor and when the police should provide security or when not to. This is downright dangerous. The lawyers who help to ridicule the judiciary with frivolous applications must also come under scrutiny if we want to run a decent society. Things are getting out of hand. There must be a limit.

Compare this to Italy, where a court jailed two prosecutors, Fabio De Pasquale and Sergio Spadaro, on Tuesday for professional misconduct. They hid vital evidence that would have exonerated Shell and Eni in the OPL 245 trial. A Brescia court, chaired by Roberto Spanò, ruled that the prosecutors were obligated to present every document — even if it favoured the other side. But in a similar trial in Nigeria, Mr. Mohammed Bello Adoke, former attorney-general of the federation, was falsely accused of buying a N300 million property from the OPL 245 “bribe” — even when all the evidence points to the fact that the house in question is owned by the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN).

In fact, documents showed that Adoke had taken a bank loan of N300 million in 2012 to buy the property valued at N500 million. But on failing to pay up his N200 million equity contribution after a year, he lost the offer. The vendor returned the N300 million to the bank, retrieved the land papers and sold the property to the CBN. I saw the transaction documents. But the prosecutors still went ahead to tell a federal high court that it was a bribe from OPL 245 resolution. Yet, in another case before the FCT high court, the same prosecutors admitted that the N300 million was a bank loan. Contradiction. The courts discharged and acquitted Adoke, but the prosecutors went unpunished.

In any case, I was not planning to write on the OPL 245 saga. It is in the past. The current troubles in Nigeria are sufficient for the day thereof. We have enough crises in our hands, which are now further fuelled by another upward adjustment in the price of petrol. NNPC says it is market forces at play, but Nigerians are crying that the pains of Tinubu’s reforms are getting out of hand. Tariffs are rising. Prices are rising. Inflation is biting hard. Incomes are losing value. I am old enough to say this is one of the toughest times in the history of Nigeria. I would only rate 1983/84 a little tougher because we were queuing up to buy essential commodities as a result of their unavailability in the open market.

I still decided not to write about the new petrol price. It is now clear that Tinubu is determined to free the pricing of petrol. No matter the pains and complaints, he will not change his mind. While this will align with what obtains in most countries, I now hope our leaders will also align with the demands of good governance. I hope Nigerians will organise themselves to demand accountability,  to look into every kobo being saved from subsidy removal, and to demand that the money is spent on making life better through improved healthcare, education and critical infrastructure. Otherwise, we will just suffer reform pains for nothing. Our latter end will be worse than the former.

AND FOUR OTHER THINGS…

CELEBRATING MACARTHUR

The John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation commemorated its 30th anniversary of development work in Nigeria on Wednesday, while Dr Kole Shettima, the Africa director, marked his 25th year as director of Nigeria office. MacArthur’s contributions to key sectors in Nigeria — ranging from health and education to human rights and media — have been huge and impactful. The Cable Foundation, which I head, is a beneficiary of MacArthur’s support for investigative and solutions journalism. Shettima has been an exemplary leader, mentor and motivator, supported by the extraordinary Dr Amina Salihu and other colleagues. Congratulations are definitely in order. Legacy.

CART AND MOUSE

With the unending hikes in the price of petrol, there is a campaign for Nigerians to adopt vehicles powered by compressed natural gas (CNG) as the antidote. CNG is cleaner and far cheaper. It has become very popular in countries like Iran, Argentina, Brazil and China. The downsides, though, are also there: cost of conversion and the mammoth space required for the cylinder. My opinion has been that mass transportation vehicles powered by CNG should have been sufficiently incentivised to be on the ground long before now. It would have made it much easier to manage the impact of high petrol prices on the masses. But, trust us, we prefer to put the cart before the horse. Typical.

POWER OF VISION

Those who have been following the trajectory of the Covenant University (CU) are not that surprised that the privately run institution has been scoring high marks. It is the vision of the founder, Bishop David Oyedepo. CU has just been named the best university in Nigeria by THE Rankings, a comprehensive global ranking of universities. CU has been ranked Nigeria’s No 1 four times since 2019, exchanging places with only the University of Ibadan, Nigeria’s premier university funded by the federal government. The CU story confirms what I have always believed: that every ingredient to make Nigeria great is here with us. When we get the leadership right, we will go places. Vision.

NO COMMENT

Did you hear this? On October 5, the Akwa Ibom State Independent Electoral Commission (AKISIEC) conducted election in the 31 LGAs of the state. Prof Inyang Ating, the returning officer for Essien Udim LGA — home of Senate President Godswill Akpabio (APC) —  declared PDP’s Enobong Patrick Friday winner with 55,612 votes, while APC’s Usoro Ntiedo got 686 votes. The following day, though, AKISIEC announced APC as the winner of Akpabio’s LGA. We know elections in Nigeria are full of wonders without numbers, but I must pay special homage to AKISIEC for the miracle that happened between Saturday and Sunday that transformed the scores and handed victory to APC. Wonderful.

In 1982, on the foothills of the road to Nigeria’s 1983 general elections, it was quite clear that the ruling National Party of Nigeria (NPN) had no plans to declare a vacancy in any significant political office around the country. Instead, they seemed bent on consolidating power in order to avoid a remake of the judicial nail-biter that yielded the presidency to Shehu Shagari in 1979.

The essential party positions featured a stellar cast. Adisa Akinloye, the party chairman, was a veteran lawyer with political experience predating Nigeria’s independence. The energetic Suleiman Takuma ran the party secretariat and Trade Minister, Umaru Dikko, was the ruthless campaign strategist. The job of guaranteeing the outcome that the party sought to engineer, however, fell on Sunday Adewusi, the then inspector-general of police (IGP). The son of parents from Ogbomoso, Adewusi grew up around Keffi in what later became Nasarawa state. He graduated at the top of his cadet set in 1958 and, at 45 in 1981, he was appointed Nigeria’s youngest ever IGP.

As inspector-general, Sunday Adewusi headed the armed and uniformed wing of the NPN. For the elections, his genius lay in his ability to depute just the right kind of officers to the places where the party needed to manufacture results. Then, as now, the ruling party felt called upon to claim the politically prodigal south-east of Nigeria as part of its realm, irrespective of the will of its people. For this purpose in 1983, the NPN desired to capture old Anambra state which happened also to be the home state of Nnamdi Azikiwe, Nigeria’s first post-colonial head of state and at the time leader of the NPN’s estranged political partners, the Nigerian Peoples’ Party (NPP). 

For the job of softening up Anambra state, Adewusi found just the right man in Bishop Eyitene. The “Bishop” in Eyitene’s name was not an ecclesiastical office nor was it a Pentecostal title. Bishop’s tenure as the commissioner of police in Anambra state was an extended bout of political Jiu Jitsu with then-state governor, Jim Nwobodo. Their politically irreconcilable co-habitation became the subject of bitter litigation, all designed, it seemed, to open the political flanks of the governor and his party. It worked a treat. 

On behalf of Adewusi, Eyitene won litigation before the court of appeal asserting the autonomy of the police on questions of personnel postings. For accomplishing his political task with aplomb, Adewusi rewarded Bishop with redeployment to Lagos ahead of the 1983 election. The new team he sent to Anambra state routed Jim Nwobodo and his NPP in the governorship election. It was left to the Supreme Court to certify the beauty of Adewusi’s handiwork and they duly obliged in December 1983 before the military sacked the lot of them.

Thirty-seven years later, the Supreme Court relied on numbers confectioned by a rogue Commissioner of Police to declare in January 2020 that the man who came fourth in the governorship election in Imo state the previous year was in fact the winner. Today, the judge who rendered that judgment leads Nigeria’s judiciary.

This past week has offered up a rich advertisement of the convenient partnership between judges, the police, and politicians. 

In Rivers state, the inspector-general of police clearly took sides in the political contest between the incumbent governor and his immediate predecessor, who is now the minister of the federal capital territory and who also desires to be known as the godfather-general of Rivers state. First, he sought to arrest scheduled local government elections in the state on the artifice of obeying a court order.

The problem is that there were two court orders, not one, from what lawyers would call courts of co-ordinate jurisdiction. The high court of Rivers state in Port Harcourt had mandated that elections occur on October 5. In requiring the police to withdraw from providing security cover for the vote, the federal high court in Abuja effectively ordered that they should not. 

Thwarted by what appeared to be a spontaneous civic revolt, election day witnessed uniformed police officers under the command of the IGP going from station to polling unit to cart away ballot boxes and tear down the displayed rolls of voters. The day after voting, supposed winners having been sworn in, the IGP announced the withdrawal of his officers and men from the state. As if on cue, practised arsonists descended on local government secretariats, burning and destroying them one after the other. 

In neighbouring Edo state, meanwhile, the IGP’s situational commitment to obeying court orders failed him. Lawyers for the governorship candidate of the Peoples Democratic Party, (PDP), Asue Ighodalo, armed with the duly served order of a competent court to inspect election materials found their way into the state headquarters of INEC in Benin first blocked by a wall of uniformed police officers. When the police requested reinforcement, they were joined not by units of more police assets but by thugs of the ruling party. 

The Nigeria Police Force is the oldest institution in the country and also the largest single employer of labour. Its personnel just happen also to be both uniformed and armed. Under the constitution, the president appoints the man who heads the police and that appointee is also obliged to take operational orders from the president. Historically, therefore, the position of the IGP has always been fraught and successive incumbents have mostly been prepared – with a few exceptions – to manage this delicate relationship with skill and professionalism acquired through exposure to their predecessors and to high-level leadership training. 

Much of this training was missed by the current incumbent, Kayode Egbetokun, while he spent much of his time in the force as long-term aide-de-camp (ADC) to the current president. His claim to the job therefore lies in personal fealty to his benefactor. For this, he has been handsomely rewarded, first with expedited preferment to a role for which his preparation falls short and, second, with a targeted amendment of the law to extend his tenure in order that he will be around to pre-determine the 2027 elections.

In November 2009, Kayode Fayemi, then an opposition candidate, took a temporary leave from the protracted legal tussle over the outcome of the governorship election in Ekiti state in south-west Nigeria two years earlier in which he was involved to travel to New Orleans in Louisiana, in the United States of America, to address the annual conference of the African Studies Association on “Electoral Politics and the Future of Electoral Reform in Nigeria.” 

In a deeply thoughtful delivery, Fayemi feared that “the quest for consolidating our democracy is now in retreat and risks encountering outright reversals.” He explained that there are “five ‘minigods’ that one must pay significant attention to in any attempt to understand the nature of electoral politics in Nigeria”. These include the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), “which often acts like a Siamese twin of the ruling party….”; the security agencies – particularly the Nigerian Police Force; “thugs and bandits”; the judiciary; the money god. 

Twenty years ago, the late Innocent Chukwuma and I met with Tafa Balogun inside the office now occupied by Egbetokun to discuss a document he had commissioned from us. After reviewing our recommendations, Tafa looked at us with the full majesty of his corpulent authority and told us that he was inclined not to proceed with our suggestions. Almost wistfully, he added that when it was someone else’s turn, the person could do what they wanted. It is now Egbetokun’s turn and, as inspector-general, he has turned Fayemi’s predictions of electoral dystopia supervised by the troika of the police, bandits, and crooked judges into a manual of policing. It just remains for police officers to be required to sing: “On your mandate we shall stand….!”

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.