“Traditional democracies will end up on the garbage heap of history” – Alberto Fujimori, 1938-2024, Peruvian President, 1998, VANGUARD BOOK OF QUOTATIONS, VBQ, p 37.

I started the VANGUARD BOOK OF QUOTATIONS in 1965 and got it published in 2007 – 42 years after. The first quote which caught my attention was by Dr Samuel Johnson, 1709-1784, “Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel.” It upended everything Nigeria had taught me about being a loyal citizen. I was launched on an adventure.

Fujimori was elected President of Peru, became a dictator and uttered the statement above about a week after my escape from death in Abacha’s detention. As a life-long believer in democracy, and suffering for that belief, I found the utterance repulsive. I debated with myself whether or not to include it in the book. Two decision rules compelled me to retain it. One, intellectual honesty demands that the researcher should include all the evidence available with regards to an idea – those in support and those against.

Two, a quick look around the world in 1998 revealed that democracies too often degenerated to dictatorships instead of the other way around. Maybe Fujimori was right. The USA provided me the assurance that democracy had a chance in the world. The USA and Trump have extinguished any hope for democracy in the world in my life time. Just look around and count. America, land of the brave and home of the free, voted in November 2024 to surrender both its bravery and its freedom.

Democracy died in the US – hitherto its strongest and most vocal defender (though damned hypocritical) when the people in a nation, whose people were always regarded as intelligent, voted for a presidential candidate who openly announced that he will be a dictator if elected. Because, as Joseph De Maistre, 1753-1821, warned mankind about two hundred years ago, “Every country has the government it deserves.”

Americans, including Leon Musk, who have lost trillion dollars of their wealth in the last month and a half, have only themselves to blame for whatever befalls them. Certainly, their losses are just starting. The most obvious is financial. Staggering as that might be, right now, unfortunately, more wealth is destined to be wiped out. Leon Musk, one of the architects of the American tragedy, has lost $100 billion of his fortune within weeks. Nothing can save him from losing more. On the aggregate, most billionaires worldwide, irrespective of nationalities, are also destined to share in the financial catastrophe which one man’s election in a democracy would have unleashed on our planet and outer space. 

MONEY IS NOT EVERYTHING

“Money makes everything legitimate – including bastards” – Jewish Proverb.

“Money! Money! How much sorrow it creates in the world” – Leo Tolstoy, VANGUARD BOOK OF QUOTATIONS, VBQ, p 163 

Trump was honest with Americans during the presidential campaigns about two things. One, he would destroy other nations’ economies by imposing huge tariffs unless they bowed to his wishes.. Two, he would “Make America Great Again” by turning the planet Earth hell for billions of people – including poor and middle class Americans. Other people in other nations were not involved in the decision to provide him the opportunity to prove his points.

Trump was “Made in America”; so are the global economic and political calamities unfolding. Like all dictators before him, wanting to play God, he and his inner caucus of advisers, particularly Elon Musk, very quickly discarded one of the eternal lessons history has taught us – nobody can single-handedly create the world as he chooses. Unintended and frequently unpleasant consequences result from such attempts. More often than not, millions of human beings die in the attempt.

Already, experts in various fields of endeavour, from the armed forces of several nations to agriculture and food production, manufacturing and markets, are predicting an unprecedented humanitarian crisis worse than what the world experienced during Covid-19 in 2020. Unknown millions will die globally because the repercussions of Trump’s policies will leave them without a dime and without any means of support – all over the world and in America. 

Money is indispensable; it can also lead to the death of millions by its sudden withdrawal. Trump and Musk are aware of this. It is quite possible that a study had been conducted to provide them an estimate of the millions of people to be rendered destitute from the abolition of USAID, Social Security for tens of millions of Americans, and, above all, global imposition of tariffs. No leader in history has ever been able to wipe out hundreds of millions of fellow human beings by merely signing an Executive Order. 

Hitler was inefficient. He spent millions building detention centres, transporting victims all over Europe and building gas chambers. Americans have given the world Trump and Musk, two Arch-angels of death, who can now delete one billion dispensable victims, selected by Musk’s Artificial Intelligence, AI, outfit, with just a flick of the pen. America is already great again – but, for the wrong reasons. By the time Trump is finished with his second or third term, the USA would have rendered millions of people expendable who never threatened its security or waged war against it. America would also have become a full-blown dictatorship; grinding the citizens of a formerly proud and free nation into dust. 

CONSEQUENCES OF THE RISE OF DICTATORSHIPS

“The lamps are going out all over Europe; we shall not see them lit again in our lifetime” – Sir Edward Grey, the British Foreign Secretary, on August 3, 1914, on the eve of World War I.  

Working on the VANGUARD BOOK OF QUOATIONS was almost like staying in a university to read ten or more courses. I certainly read more history books – over 300 – than most graduates of History. From them it has been possible for me to discern when current global or national events repeat those that led to certain repercussions in the past. For instance, most people, including Presidents Trump and Xi – of the USA and China respectively – are not aware that World War III has started. All that is left is the shooting.

Everything possible, including Artificial Intelligence, AI, is being weaponised. Trump, like the leaders of any strongest power, facing a challenger threatening to replace it, invariably opts for war before the upstart becomes stronger. National interest dictates it. And, what is national interest?  “National Interest is defined in terms of power”. Hans J Morgenthau, 1904-1980, a key American figure in International Relations in the last century, was the author of what had become central to America’s conduct of foreign policy.

Underlying the concept was the notion, alien to history, that the USA would perpetually remain the strongest military power on the planet. The leaders of the nation which gave me the opportunity to read history obviously have forgotten that “Fortune, ever fickle, will assail with sudden stroke, the kingdom of the proud.” (Geoffrey Chaucer, 1342-1400). Incidentally, Professor Morgenthau taught me International Relations, in my Senior Year as an undergraduate in 1968.

He symbolised the proud and complacent American; who believed that no nation will ever challenge the USA. I remember one of my classmates, Willie Ndongo, a Cameroonian, telling Prof that “One day America will be fighting for its life – like the Roman Empire.” He was almost thrown out of the class for the impudence – which has now become a prophecy. Obviously, great scholars can also be myopic.

Morgenthau was taking his position at the time when the sun of the British Empire was setting – contrary to the pronouncement of an English author and fool. Today, America is scared of the Chinese and getting ready to fight for its life. Unfortunately, the US has also turned its back on democracy and freedom. A dictator has replaced a President. The lights of freedom have gone out. God’s Own Country has been taken over by the Devil. When a war breaks out, every leader becomes an autocrat out of necessity. America is at war; which it might lose – despite the breast-beating by dictator Trump – for a simple reason the Americans lose sight of. 

On Page 28 of his very provocative book, The Present Darkness: A history of Nigerian organized crime, (2016) Stephen Ellis, British historian and Africanist, compared Nigerian politics to con artistry. Their practices, he said, were not different from acts of fabulists and fraudsters. Ellis’ take on Nigerian leaders synchronizes with a Henry Louis Gate’s The New Yorker piece of September 25, 1995. With the title, “Powell and the Black Elite,” the piece quoted ex-American Secretary of State, Colin Powell, as saying, “Nigerians as a group, frankly, are marvelous scammers… I mean, it is in their natural culture.”

As it is done in scholarship, traditional Africa also gives justification for the Ellis comparison. It says, when the shape and size of a peanut’s shell bears striking semblance to the coffin of a species of rat called Eliri, then a justification is successfully established. Last week, there was an eruption of weeping, wailing and gnashing of teeth in many homes. Investors in the digital financial platform called CBEX met their financial waterloo. CBEX ultimately unraveled as a Ponzi scheme, with about 600,000 Nigerian victims in tow. It has given critical minds an opportunity to examine whether there is a meeting of minds between Ponzi chancers and Nigerian political leaders. Why do we dwell so much on Nigerian economic scams and scammers, while we sacralize the equally cancerous virus of political scammers?

The genealogy of this crave for quick wealth dates back in time. In 1925, J. K. Magregor, headmaster of Scottish-Presbyterian-founded, Hope Waddell Institute, of which the great Nnamdi Azikiwe was an alumnus, had written the Nigerian governor-general. His complaints were based on a motif of pupils of the school writing incredibly suspicious letters to unknown persons abroad. In the letter, the pupils asked to be sold medicines of esoteric teachings which guaranteed success and happiness. They turned out to be quack. In a single mail delivery, said Ellis, Magregor discovered 125 of such scam letters. One laughable example was a 12-year-old pupil who had purchased through post from India a “Mystic Charm” with an instruction to him to send more money so that he could be sent “blessings from the Hindu deity Siddheswari”. The letter also told the boy that the sign he would get to confirm the efficacy of the deity was “by watching the flow of his nasal mucus”!

Our visible connect to this pre-colonial crave for mysticism was re-enacted during the First Republic Nigeria. During this period, secret societies played pivotal roles in governance. The barbarism and primitivism of killing people for sacrifice in order to gain ascendancy in political circles became rife. The Ogboni cult held a supremacist place in Western Nigerian politics. It was only the northern part of Nigeria that was saved the barbarity. By the end of the Third Republic, however, military despots like Sani Abacha had reportedly began to seek spiritual interventions of Muslim brotherhoods of Senegal for a mystic buy-in into their infernal rule. Cows were reportedly buried alive in all outposts of Abuja, the Federal Capital Territory by the goggled General. By the Fourth Republic,  politicians had fully imported into Nigeria this Islamic mysticism which was spreading in sub-Saharan Africa. The marabouts were Islamic priests who combined Islam with the syncretic practice of local healers, fortune tellers, spiritual guides and diviners. Today, virtually all Nigerian politicians, like that 12-year Hope Waddell old boy, still seek mysticism, either from Islamic mullah, clergies, Babalawo or Senegalese marabouts to guarantee their political happiness and success.

Economic chancing of the CBEX kind is not purely native to Nigeria. In August 1920, after months of covert investigations by Clarence Barron, Boston Post newspaper’s top financial journalist, of the activities of Charles Ponzi, burst his bubble. Barron had found out that Ponzi, an Italian, born 1882, who immigrated to the United States in 1903, was a notorious con artist. In January 1920, Ponzi had established a “Securities Exchange Company” where he promised investors returns of up to 50% in 45 days. The scheme attracted thousands of local investors who, mimicking early Christians of Jerusalem’s mode of spread of the religion, engaged in a mouth-to-mouth spread of the “good news”. Gradually, they escalated its rapid growth and staggering participation. At the height of the scheme, Ponzi collected not less than $250,000 a day from unsuspecting victims, quadrupling his wealth to over $15million. Immediately after Barron’s investigation leaked, Bostonians rushed to and camped outside Ponzi’s offices. They were panicky crowds of local investors demanding a return of their money. Last week, same scenario was reenacted as angry and exasperated Nigerian victims of CBEX stormed its Nigerian offices.

The divide separating economic, political and leadership Ponzi in Nigeria is very thin. As Ponzi scammers feed fat on the red blood corpuscles of trickery and deceit, so do Nigerian leaders and politicians. Ellis insinuates that scam can be found in the bloodstream of Nigerian politics and political leadership since they first began in the 1940s. If you break Ponzi to its most basic moral component, it is driven by unrighteousness, desire to outwit the other person, gain personal advantage and in most cases, leave sorrow as mementos. Nigerian politics and leadership are founded on same nefarious aspiration.

 Only last week, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia ordered top US law enforcement agencies to release confidential information generated during a 1990s federal investigation. One Mr. Greenspan had, between 2022 and 2023, filed 12 FOIA requests seeking information about a joint investigation of the FBI, IRS, DEA, and the US Attorney’s Offices for the Northern District of Indiana and Northern District of Illinois. He wanted the charging decisions on the activities, including money laundering, of a Chicago heroin ring that operated in the early 1990s made open. The Nigerian president is said to be located at the vortex of this investigation.

While reacting to the American court ruling, the Nigerian presidential media office dismissed it as “having been in the public space for more than 30 years,” and did not in any way “indict the Nigerian leader” while concluding that “lawyers are examining the ruling.” My people say, if someone does not move in gaits that resemble an African pouched rat’s, no one would ask them to eat a meal of palm-nut seeds that is the culinary preference of this species of rats. (Bi eeyan ko bá rìn ìrìn awasa, wón o ní fi ekurọ lọ). The fact that the president’s name is enmeshed in such shame is already a national disaster. I don’t know of any scam bigger than a presidential Ponzi of paying millions of dollars to American lawyers so as to keep blocking American courts from disclosing to Nigerians and the world the truth or lie in the allegation that our president was involved in a heroin trade in the 1990s.

Ellis provided a nexus, no matter how tenuous, to the Ponzi. As far back as 1952, he wrote, Nigeria had become a staging point for heroine drug trade. According to him, the country was “a heavy dope traffic” from the near East to the USA via Europe, with one of those implicated at the Nigerian end of this pipeline being “one O. Chagoury.” Ellis’ conclusion on this pee-independence Nigerian drug trade gives the reader of the book today the latitude to connect its frightening nexus. He had written: “A few decades later, a Lebanese family with the same name had become very influential in both business and in political finance: Gilbert Chagoury, born in 1946…He was very close to the military dictator of the 1990s, Sani Abacha…It seems he is a descendant of a heroin trader who arrived Nigeria in 1952…the heroin trade may provide start-up capital for other forms of business…” You may find this on Page 92 of Ellis’ book.

While we lament the Ponzi scam of CIBEX, I put it to us that we are merely being hypocritical. Ponzi, MMM, CBEX, either figuratively or literally, have always constituted our ways of life. In our individual, collective and national relations, our modus operandi has never been dissimilar from these scammers’. We take delight in sucking the nectar of the joy of our fellow man. We elect known scammers into political offices and when they scam us, we complain. We are like the farmer who knew that the land he planted peanuts on was squirrel-infested. At the time of harvest, this same farmer became grumpy because squirrels had eaten up all his farm proceeds. When a man tells his people he was going on a two-weeks “working vacation,” which we all knew was a euphemism for a date with his Chagoury business partners or a date at the infirmary, didn’t both the man who spun the yarn and we, the people who received it, know we were mutually involved in a CBEX transaction? Or, didn’t we know that the spinner of the lie wasn’t dealing with us straight? Our forebears sounded alarm on characters like this in their saying that, when you meander round truth and refuse to walk straight, you are most likely encumbered by issues of finance (Sàn làá rìn, ajé ní mú ní pẹ kọ̀rọ̀).

Our scam began from the very beginning when Nigerians brought in a presidential baggage they didn’t have access to its constitution. Last week, the White House released President Donald Trump’s annual health report. Nigerians are left to make guesswork on what ails theirs and the billions of their patrimony spent to maintain it. Our president’s health is run like a coven, which reminds one of the miasma that surrounded the health of monarchs of pre-modern Africa. The king must not be seen to have taken ill like a commoner. It is a sacrilege. What Ponzi is greater than this, full of its opacity!

Replying to criticisms that, after almost 200 Nigerians had been killed in the president’s absence, he is still oscillating like a spirit from France to London, his media office told us he could rule Nigeria through remote control from anywhere in the world. Nigerians instantly remembered they had walked that punishing road before. At Easter, the statement purportedly issued by the president was that, “evil forces will not triumph in Nigeria” at a time when Evil had been crowned as King. What evil is greater than the carnage ongoing in Plateau and Benue States which, as usual, was dressed beautifully in a refrain, “the president has ordered decisive action”. Both of us, the president and Nigerians at large, know that this statement is a complete scam. There is no action coming from anywhere, not to talk of its being decisive. When the killers strike again soon, the presidency will recalibrate the commiseration refrain. Charles Ponzi must be happy he has identical offspring in the Nigerian presidency.

Wherever you turn, Nigeria is a an ocean where sharks feast on sharks and lesser fishes devour one another. Atiku Abubakar and his co-travelers on a coalition have started spinning their own political Ponzi which they know its end is not basically for the Nigerian people. Peter Obi is busy with his own Ponzi as well. Muhammadu Buhari, who regressed Nigeria colossally in eight years as president is the one to decide Nigeria’s political future now because he is patrons to millions of Almajiri voters who know not their right from left. As the week was ending, Reno Omokri, the Peter Obi-hating political Smart Alec, spun another of his serial Tinubu intervention Ponzi yarns. “Nigeria is safer now under Tinubu”, he said. If any of Omokri’s family members had been among the almost 200 victims of Nigerian Ponzi rulers killed in Benue and Plateau in the last two weeks when Nigeria had not even a scare-crow in Aso Rock, will the “Ambassador” spew this undiplomatic puke?

What is glaring is, by the time this current CBEX government in Aso Rock finishes with us, we will have a long roll-call of victims.

I was nowhere near the venue of the coronation of the new Alaafin of Oyo but, thanks to technology, I fed my eyes with a lot of happenings at the colourful and eventful event. The media, be it traditional or digital, electronic or print captured the event for posterity and beamed it to the world for everyone so interested to watch and read from the comfort of their homes or workplaces. The new Alaafin’s colour sense – or was it his wife’s? – was baam! He must have a liking for bright colours like Nelson Mandela. The late South African president loved bright colours. Long may you reign, Kabiyesi!

The controversies and intrigues that trailed the coronation did nothing to detract from its importance or momentum; such big events cannot but attract all sorts – what the Yoruba call “iru wa, ogiri wa”. While “iru” has a smell that is “fanimorous”, as they say, “ogiri”, on the other hand, fouls the air and offends the nostrils. Growing up in my native Owo, the Iya Olojas selling “ogiri” at Ulede or Oja-Oba market had their stand closest to the toilet – if you understand what I mean! Yet, both “iru”and “ogiri” are time-honoured seasonings that have great medicinal value.

 The controversies surrounding the choice of the new Alaafin started immediately when the previous Alaafin joined his ancestors. Usually in Yoruba land, all interested princes from the ruling house would be free to compete for the throne. Everyone deploys whatever arsenal is at his disposal to get the job. In the olden days, Ifa oracle was heavily relied upon but even then, occasions were recorded when either the custodians of Ifa or the kingmakers perverted the course of justice. Corruption is as old as humanity itself. Chief Hope Harriman, brother of his better known brother, the diplomat Leslie Harriman, told me in an interview when I was still an editor at The PUNCH that injustice is not a new phenomenon but that it started yester-years. God Himself said the heart of man became corrupted in his youth and that it repented Him that He created man.

 So, I was not surprised when the process of choosing a new Alaafin was mired in controversy. One of the princes favoured by some of the kingmakers was alleged to be the candidate of the Sokoto caliphate and but for the timely intervention of the Oyo State governor, Seyi Makinde, he would have been railroaded into the sacred palace of the Alaafin, which is one of the pricest Yoruba palaces regardless of what anyone may think, say or do. A reporter’s gumption is that there is no smoke without a fire. Eventually, Ifa was approached and the outcome was the choice of the new Alaafin. The unassailable integrity of the man who said “Ifa said” was enough for everyone to file behind the choice of the new Alaafin.

 And that is of utmost importance. The new Alaafin must not forget that. I heard him say he did not lobby anyone or manipulate the process to become the Alaafin. If Ifa chose him, then, he MUST not turn his back on Ifa. If he acts otherwise, God sparing our life, we will still be around to remind him! The river that forgets its source will do what? The religion, customs, traditions, medicine, body of knowledge, and belief system of our ancestors are nuggets of wisdom which, unfortunately, we have thrown away on the altar of all things foreign, which profit us little, if anything at all. Instead, they are at the roots of the wars, insecurity, corruption, bad governance, acrimony, confusion, and hatred that bedevil our society today. Alien culture breeds habits that are alien to our land. This is apart from the fact that no matter how much we try, we can never master anything alien as their originators or owners. Shina Peters told us that “O-ni-n-kan l’a n je o se” Abi no be so?

 Today, I bring to your reading pleasure a piece written by Wale Olajire Ajao, a friend, classmate and comrade at the then University of Ife (now Obafemi Awolowo University), Ile-Ife, on the lingering Alaafin-Ooni controversy which, unfortunately, was also said to have reared its ugly head at the coronation of the new Alaafin. I watched a video which alleged that the Ooni was not accorded the dignity and recognition due to his office as the Ooni of Ife, the Arole Oodua, whereas other important traditional rulers outside of Yoruba land were so dignified. Can that be true? I hope not! Shouldn’t our charity begin from home? “Ile l’a ti n k’eso ro’de” is the wisdom of our elders. Should the age-old nonsensical spat between past Alaafins and Oonis begin so soon with the new Alaafin, Iku Baba Yeye?

 The treatment meted out to the Oluwo of Iwo was even worse, allegedly! He was shown on television being denied entry through a particular gate purportedly reserved for a certain category of dignitaries. If I may ask, is the Oluwo of Iwo no longer a first-class Yoruba Oba? What qualifies the Sultan, an Emir or Oba from elsewhere that did not qualify a Yoruba first-class Oba? We must watch it! What you call your cloth is what others will call it with you. Orlando Owoh crooned that whosoever sells his own person very cheap in the marketplace will not be able to buy him back with the same amount. The wisdom of our elders is that it is not every cloth that we spread out to dry in the sun. I am averse to the theatrics of the Oluwo as a person but it is our fault that he sits on the throne of Iwo. Did he appoint himself? Was he not appointed by some people? As our people will say, the “oyibo” that made pencils also made erasers. If we are no longer comfortable with him, remove him but the throne of Iwo, a first-class Yoruba throne, must be kept sacrosanct – “Iwo Odidere, Iwo omo ajagun” as Chief Commander Ebenezer Obey crooned.              

 Because of space constraints, I can only bring you snippets from Wale’s piece titled “Monarchy, democracy and development in Nigeria”. When we return, I will make concluding remarks. Enjoy it: 

“History may turn out an unintended tool of self-destruction if its interpretation and essence are misused or misunderstood advertently or inadvertently. As the younger generation of historians go about the business of interpreting and presenting past events, they must keep in mind the fact that we study the past to do better now and in the future. In his article titled “It is the turn of Alaafin Owoade”, Dare Babarinsa indirectly referred to the unending and needless debate on who is superior between the Alaafin and Ooni. He gave the impression that the Ooni is superior because Ooni Adesoji Aderemi was chairman of the Western State council of obas all through the reign of Ladigbolu I, Adeyemi II, Ladigbolu II, and Adeyemi III. His submission led Ajisebi Oyo radio TV to respond with their own version of history as they argued that Alaafin is superior to the Ooni because Ladigbolu II was also at a point chairman of the Western State council of obas even when the legendary Oba Adesoji Aderemi was still the Ooni of Ife and also Governor of the Western Region. In these presentations, both Ajise bi Oyo TV and Babarinsa revisited a needless debate that has been overtaken by events.

 This is a debate which one of the leading Yoruba historians, Professor Siyan Oyeweso, deliberately avoided in his address at the coronation of Alaafin Abimbola Owoade on Saturday, April 5, 2025. I imagine that Oyeweso would have thought that revisiting the superiority debate is needless. Yoruba land is now part of a nation created by nineteenth-century British imperialism. The Nigerian state today must address the major challenges facing all neo-colonial states. That task is about how the disparate political and administrative structures bequeathed to all former British colonies can be recreated to achieve democracy and development. In our world today, democracy and development have become the major yardsticks of assessment of the performance of nation-states. In this regard monarchy, no matter how effective it still may be in some parts of the world, will also be assessed in relation to how far it can bring development to the people. It is in this sense that historians have no choice but to relate monarchy to its usefulness in contributing to the development of a nation. It is also in this sense that the role of the Ooni and Alaafin in Nigeria’s contemporary history must be assessed.

 In her quest for development, the Nigerian state has made efforts to restructure the dysfunctional aspects of the neo-colonial state. For example, the colonial state created three regions –  North, West, and East – and made the North bigger in land mass and convoluted census figures… More states have been created since then. Still, many still say that the Nigerian federation is imbalanced because those who own the resources do not control them. The central government controls the resources and tells the real owners what share they can have. Neither the Alaafin nor Ooni has a say in this very critical matter. The Alaafin and Ooni are now under different state governments and who is superior has no relevance to the administration of their two different states. It is a waste of time, energy and resources for both monarchs to flex muscles over superiority when nineteenth-century British imperialism had turned them both into cheerleaders of whoever is the governor of their respective state.

 All Alaafin agreed that they originated from Ife. However, their claim to superiority is because they eventually built an empire which controlled more than half of Yorubaland. But this was useful only in the pre-colonial era. The foremost Yoruba historian, Samuel Johnson, in “History of the Yoruba” suggested that both the Alaafin and Ooni be given equal leadership roles. He advocated that the Alaafin should be the political head of the Yoruba nation while the Ooni should be its spiritual head. Professor Adeagbo Akinjogbin and Professor Ade Ajayi advocated that the Ooni ought to be the leader because of the “orirun” concept in Yoruba culture. This means that where a person originated from takes precedence. But colonialism brought the Yoruba into a new nation.

 It is true that the colonial masters recognized Alaafin as the leader of the Yoruba because he was the head of the Oyo empire from which Ibadan and Ogbomosho and other Yoruba towns took instruction. The Oyo empire even extended to the present-day Benin Republic and parts of Togo. Yet we need to move forward and read history forward… The idea of classification of obas as first class or second class flows from colonialism. No oba is superior to another oba as no people are superior to other people in a democracy. Ife is not superior to Oyo just as Oyo is not superior to Ife. Babarinsa, in referring to Adeyemi III, kept saying that he reigned from 1970. The correct sequence is from January 14, 1971. But this is just by the way…”

 Well said, Wale! Wale, Oyeweso and my humble self were classmates at Ife. While Wale and Oyeweso read History as their major, I read History and Political Science combined. Babarinsa, on the other hand, is my professional colleague and contemporary as a journalist. The controversy over superiority between the Ooni and Alaafin is a mere academic exercise; but it is also a rich source of mischief-making for enemies of Yoruba unity and progress. Professor PLO Lumumba said: In a controversy between two dwarfs, what sense does it make for one dwarf to say he is taller than the other, seeing that both still remain a dwarf! Neither the Ooni nor Alaafin wields effective power anymore! They are both relics from the past! Let no one disturb our peace over non-issues!

HAROLD Laski, in a preface to the fifth edition of his book, Grammar of Politics, had warned of “inevitable disasters to the world if we did not concern ourselves with the need to change; that government by tradition must be replaced by government by consent.” By the above, despite the complexities he identified with ‘consent’, Laski was drawing attention to the need for democracy to work for the people. Democracy as a governmental concept has been variously defined, but one definition that appears widely accepted is the one by the 16th American President, Abraham Lincoln, which was excerpted from the speech he gave at Gettysburg, while paying tributes to some soldiers who paid the supreme sacrifice. Lincoln, who served from 1861-1865 had said: “That government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.”  Those words have continued to present the world with a simple and digestible definition of the form of government that has become the most popular around the world.

Since colonialism ended, most of Africa and the world have come to adopt the practice of democracy in one form or the other. In the Global Parliamentary Report produced by the United National Development Programme (UNDP) and the Inter-Parliamentary Union (IPU), in 2012, the global bodies had admitted that no fewer than 190 of 193 countries surveyed were operating the legislature, a component arm of democracy, an indication of the popularity of the form of government.

As much as democracy is meant to be the government of the people and by the people, it has been established that there would not come a time when every member of the society would be involved in governance. Even in the village square setting of the Athens, it must have been practically impossible to hear everyone’s voice in the making of a government policy and that gave rise to the representative nature of democracy.  With representatives, the people can exercise their powers through the ballot and get the one elected to carry through their mandates. That led to the rise of majority rule that was criticized by one of the most popular philosophers, Aristotle, as capable of undermining the rule of law. He had opined that holders of popular power can undermine the rule of law by tyrannising everyone. Apparently to circumvent Aristotle’s fears of a fusion of tyranny and democracy, Western proponents of the concept of democracy built into it the concept of opposition politics.

Researchers have said that the coming of opposition politics into the practice of democracy took its roots in the various historical and philosophical developments and was influenced by the politics of Ancient Greece and Rome, the British Parliamentary system and the Liberal democratic theory. In the Ancient Greece and Rome, we learnt that philosophers like Aristotle and Cicero encouraged the practice of opposition through their emphasis on debates, deliberations and dissent, while the British system around the 19 Century formally recognised the role of opposition in government business. The works of thinkers like John Locke, John Stuart Mill and Alexis de Tocqueville have been associated with the growth of the liberal democratic theory as well as the rise in opposition politics, debates and government accountability.

So, for centuries, opposition politics has remained an integral component of democracy. Even though many African societies were ruled by the Kabiyesi phenomenon in the pre-colonial times, which posited that kings were without question, historians still made us understand that the powerful Old Oyo Empire ruled by the Alaafin, practiced a system of checks and balances.

Having adopted democracy by choice, African countries, especially the rulers are therefore compelled to live with the idiosyncrasies of opposition politics as far as they are within the confined of the constitutional and legal frames of the democratic setting. But what have we seen in the Nigerian context? We’ve seen fickle-minded opposition or no opposition at all.  One will, however, be unable to brush Nigeria’s First and Second Republics with such tar. While the contestations within the ruling party and the opposition’s community eventually led to the spiralling events that kicked out the First Republic, the perennial political ambition of the military top brass led to the collapse of the Second Republic. But the two republics cannot be said to have been starved of credible opposition, especially with the way and manner the Sage, Chief Obafemi Awolowo provided the government of President Shehu Shagari with reasoned alternative views as the veritable opposition leader.

A key issue for the opposition at the time was the prolonged stay of the late president outside the country. He had taken ill and got his publicists to announce that he was going for medical treatment in Saudi Arabia, late in 2009, but he did not do the needful by handing over power to the vice president. As days grew to months and the president was nowhere to be found, the opposition was largely silent. It took an internal uprising from within the ruling Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) and the civil society groups to arouse the National Assembly into an action which eventually led to the invocation of the Doctrine of Necessity in February of 2010.

With President Goodluck Jonathan’s administration effectively in charge between May 2010 and May 2015, a liberalized political setting was in place, and I would say his policy of ‘my vote is not worth the blood of any Nigerian’, made the opposition to thrive. Opposition politicians embarked on an all-out politics and relentless criticism of government policies and programmes. The coalition of forces eventually birthed the All Progressives Congress (APC), which supplanted Jonathan in 2015. Some people would say that Jonathan’s ‘soft’ policy towards the opposition was exploited to deny him a second term in office. But I will submit that Jonathan’s democratic credentials were never diminished even after his ouster from power in 2015. Political opposition is an in-built nature of democratic governance, and the very essence of opposition is not to create ordinary antagonism but to provide alternative views on government policies, ensure checks and balances; prevent government from relapsing into repression and ensure governmental accountability. Afterall, no democrat would question the rationality of the submission by Lord Acton, who justified the principle of checks and balances by saying: “Absolute power corrupts absolutely.” 

Since 2015, the opposition in Nigeria has practically been groveling at the feet of the ruling governments. I dare say that such does not meet the basic requirement of a democratic opposition.  Criticism with hate and bile is bad, but critics are not the enemies of the state. In literature, critics are some of the most revered scholars because they make the work greater, if not bigger than the original writer had probably intended. Contrary to the African thinking that sees the critic as an opponent or contender, whose market should not be allowed to thrive, the democratic opposition is the holder of public conscience, who engages in constructive criticism.

The PDP of this era would qualify as the worst example of a public conscience and a democratic opposition. You make want to ask that party, which is the nation’s main opposition party, where are its alternative blueprints for governance? Where are its periodic reviews of governmental policies and action/inactions? Why are its governors doing more of idobale (prostrating) for the ruling party than even the governors of the ruling party themselves? We saw the Senator representing Kogi Central, Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan, a member of the PDP, fighting a lone battle all this while, have you heard the PDP utter a word in her defence? And how are the opposition, including the Labour Party (LP), managing their own internal affairs to give the public an assurance of a possible alternative to the ruling government? If the opposition parties are not coming up with three claimants to one party office, they are dragging themselves through the courts to determine a simple issue. How would that give the electorate any hope of better governance? Before I put the pen on paper to write this, I interacted with some knowledgeable leaders in the polity, two of whom assured me that the governors of the PDP would soon take charge of its affairs and give it direction. But the meeting of the party’s governors in Ibadan last week gave the faintest hope of a party ready for redemption. Instead, their resolutions widened the gulf between the pillars of that party. The leaders of my community would say that what is good deserves prayers and what is not so good equally demands prayers. Constructive criticisms are like the prayers and tonics for democratic governance. If the opposition fails to provide that, they would simply be seen as failing the democratic test.

It seems that everybody wants Nigeria to remain one indivisible entity. Right? At least, that is what they profess openly. But don’t be deceived, the hoopla that will greet you at the slightest sign of a social or political strain will make you wonder at the unwisdom of forcing such atavistic tribes together under one flag in one massive war theatre.

Each time there is a centrifugal tendency preaching separation, secession or even confederation in Nigeria, the mustachios of some of the usual suspects who can be described as professional defenders of the Luggardian contraption, stand on edge.

“Nigeria is indivisible”, they say. “Says who?, their interlocutors ask.

And agent provocateurs add their bit: “The house that Luggard built in the service of his female king cannot endure.”

“Female king? There you go again!”

Patchy Unity

Since 1960, we have always managed to patch Nigeria’s leaking roof to force a people with 350 independent languages to remain under one roof as one country! As a person, I am fascinated by the plurality of my country and the beauty of the variegated landscape. If I had my way, I’d have selfishly kept faith with Lord Luggard’s colonial contraption. However, I think it is about time we all put on our adult caps and look at other possibilities of running our societies without rancour so that we can all still remain brothers and sisters.

n 2017, when Prof Ango Abdullahi as the chair of the Northern Elders’ Forum (NEF), declared that, ”The North is ready for a split of Nigeria if…”, all the other tribal organisations called him out as an unpatriotic elder.

According to Ango Abdullahi, “If we agree that we should live together as a people and as a country, so be it, but if the general consensus is that Nigerians want to go their separate ways either on the basis of ethnicity, culture, history or religion, why not?” He added that, “If anybody tells you that the large informed opinion in the North is against the dissolution of Nigeria, he is telling you lies.”

Abdullahi argued that since the Southwest, south-south and southeast parts of the country have been campaigning for either a breakup or loose confederation, he wanted the world to know that the North was not afraid of a breakup. He was particularly unhappy at the detailed developmental plans of the Southwest (as stated in the document of the DAWN commission).

“The Southwest wants preferably a region, a region that was at one time under the leadership of Chief Obafemi Awolowo, unless, of course, you are trying to ignore all the writings, all the things that had been written, particularly in their declaration called DAWN, Development Agenda for Western Nigeria, then you can ignore this,” he said.

One wonders what could be wrong with a section of the country having a development agenda. Must we all remain stagnated in the stagnant mud of prehistory?

Southern leaders immediately rose to the challenge. They reiterated their love for their northern brothers but insisted that they needed some breathing space. They felt they would be able to better develop their areas and improve the fortune of their people if they were in the driver’s seat, deploying their natural resources in the service of their people.

Apart from the well-known agitation of the Igbo of the Southeast for Biafra, leaders of the south-south also made it known that they would prefer a peaceful arrangement where each of the six geo-political zones would run its own affairs as an independent country or as a semi-autonomous part of a confederal Nigeria.

Historic Challenge

One of the most consistent voices for the peaceful unbundling of Nigeria is the renowned professor of History, Banji Akintoye, who leads one of the major Yoruba self-determination groups. Akintoye is convinced that a peaceful separation which would give rise to peaceful neighbours is possible. And he thinks that President Bola Tinubu is best suited to guide Nigeria in the process.

Akintoye’s argument: “President Tinubu needs to note that countries which separate violently tend to be dogged by violence afterwards – as in the case of Pakistan which separated in a storm of violence from India in 1947; South Sudan which separated after years of violence from Sudan in 2011; and some of the eight countries that resulted from the violent dissolution of Yugoslavia.

“Nigeria’s peoples are now trapped in a Nigerian space that is churning in an abominable curse of utter darkness, unspeakable poverty, hunger, hatred, hostility, mass murders, fear and death. The hatred and hostility are so deep…”

Then, last week, an intriguing article attributed to one Aminu Sa’ad Beli trended massively on social media. Titled “Road Map To Solve Nigerian Ethnicity Crisis, And Economic Development”, the piece draws on the lessons of history to canvas a peaceful unbundling of Nigeria.

Separation Is Not About War

In 1776, the USA split from the UK.

In 1830, Belgium separated from The Netherlands.

In 1965, Singapore split off from Malaysia.

In 2002, East Timor got split off from Indonesia.

In 1921, Ireland split off from the United Kingdom, and (possibly in the future) there will be secession of Scotland.

In 1944, Iceland split from Denmark with remarkable ease.

In 1905, Norway split from Denmark

In 1905, Norway and Sweden also peacefully split ways. One got the car. The other got the kids.

In 1947, the British India Dominion was partitioned into India and Pakistan. In 1971, Bangladesh seceded from Pakistan.

In 1992-93, the two parts of Czechoslovakia agreed to each go their own way. Thus were born the Czech Republic and Slovakia after what’s been named the “Velvet Divorce”. About the same time, another kind of separation occurred, of course, in Yugoslavia. This one led to a bloodshed.

In 1965, Singapore split from Malaysia for a variety of reasons, including religious (Malaysia is majority Muslim, Singapore isn’t)…

Ethiopia and Eritrea

Sudan and South Sudan are now separate countries

USSR is now broken down into several countries.

“I see separation as an avenue for a healthy competition for development as the case of Singapore and Malaysia, India and Pakistan, Norway/Denmark/Switzerland.

“In the case of Nigeria, I am sensing a healthy competitive development among the original component part, the North/West/East each making useful progress while competing with the others.

“It is not about war, after all there is nothing wrong for one to decide he is no longer comfortable with the union and therefore want to opt out. Let’s give peace a chance and separate honourably,” he said.

Many social media commentators also noted that most European countries today comprise only one tribe, compared to Africa where colonialists lumped together hundreds of linguistic groups as was the case in Nigeria.

Tinubu’s Re-engineering

As President Tinubu prepares to rejig the second half of his first term, perhaps he may want to have a firm handshake with history by attempting a re-engineering of the Nigerian project. It doesn’t have to be a total dismantling, but certainly a level of unbundling to allow regions to develop at their own pace can’t do any harm.

Nigeria is wide enough for all the tribes to thrive. As Chinua Achebe would say, “Let the kite perch and let the eagle perch too – If one says no to the other, let his wing break.”

There was a large turnout of people at your political party event in Agbor last weekend which had the APC national chairman, Alhaji Abdullahi Ganduje, in attendance. How significant was that gathering for your party and your people?

The most important thing is the boost the APC under the national chairman, Alh Abdullahi Ganduje, received in Agbor where thousands of PDP members decamped under what they called DUD. DUD is a social group in Delta operating within the PDP. They all decamped into the APC. So, APC is growing in strength. The national chairman was there to receive them, I was there and so was the Edo state governor.

And at that event, when the national chairman said President Bola Tinubu, himself and the APC leadership are supporting the creation of Anioma State as the sixth state for Ndigbo. So, Ndigbo have a duty to make sure that this happens. And for this to happen, they must support the APC across the board.

Look, the most important part of the story is that when the state is created, Ndigbo generally will begin to feel a sense of belonging – something they have been asking for since the Civil War ended.

Why do you think that many of our people since after the war began to deny their ‘Igboness’? Maybe you are not aware (that) many people here were massacred in Asaba, Ishiagu and other communities by the Nigerian troops. Thousands were killed in their cold blood. What was their offence? Because they were Igbos, because the Col. Nwawos, Achuzias and Nzeogwus were from this side (Anioma).

So, they easily understood that we are Igbos. But, of course, for many people to avoid being killed, they began to say, “Don’t kill us, we are not Igbo (anyi aburo Ndigbo). We are people from….’ And that has continued to date. So, let me commend Ohanaeze Ndigbo. Ohanaeze has done wonderfully well in trying to integrate the Igbos in Delta and Rivers.

As a matter of fact, as far as Ohanaeze is concerned, there are seven Igbo states. They treat Anioma as a state; they treat Ikwerre as a state. And now we have a chance to make one of those states a real state. And God knows that once Anioma becomes a state, the next attention is Ikwerre.

I hate when I remember what former President (Buhari) said when he was describing ESN (Eastern States Network) and our youths. He was angry talking about them. He said they are a ‘dot’ in a circle. You remember he said that.

But Ndigbo generally – Igbo governors, Senators and other National Assembly members – have a duty to support their brethren; their lost brothers as it were. We need that support; we need that love. We are the same – the same language, culture, food, music, attire and the same virtually everything.

Anioma is in Delta State in the South-South geopolitical zone. How would its creation redress the agitation for an additional state in the Southeast zone to enable the zone have an equal number of states with other zones including the South-South?

It (Anioma State) will be the sixth state of the Southeast. Then, there will be another state to be called “Delta” – new Delta – with the capital in Warri that will become the sixth state in the South-South.

We already have five states in the Southeast. Why do you divide the five states? Why don’t you come here and acquire another state because you will have more land. Do you understand the difference? Because if you divide any of the five states to get another state, you are wasting your time because you are not increasing in population, you are not increasing in land mass, you are not increasing in natural resources, you are not increasing in anything.

Senator Chris Adighije told me a story last year when he came to see me. He told me that after the war, he had a cook from Ogoni. One day he was hungry and told the cook to give him food. He said the cook brought the food with only one meat in the soup. He was angry. He asked the cook why he would give him food with just one piece of meat. “When did you start giving me one meat in the soup?” Senator Adighije had queried. He told me that the cook didn’t say anything but rather carried the food back to the kitchen. Five minutes later, the cook came back with the food with five pieces of meat in the soup.

He (Chris) asked the cook again, “Why did you give me one piece of meat before?” The cook replied, “Oga, you wanted five pieces of meat. So, that one piece of meat is what I cut into five pieces.” That one piece of meat that Senator Adighije rejected was what the cook cut into five pieces. So, now you have five but in real terms, it is only one meat that he ate. Do you understand Senator Adighije’s story?

So, any Igbo man or woman who is asking for any of the five states that you already have to be divided is as bad as that cook in Senator Adighije’s story.

Anioma will give you more historical justice because we have suffered; we have been denied, deprived, denigrated and for too long our people have been more like in the wilderness.

And this is a chance for restitution; a chance to support. Do you know that when the Anioma State is created, no Anioma person in the next generation will say “I’m not an Igbo man?” They would have reversed the killings done in Asaba and other neighbouring villages during the Civil War.

Will you want the Igbanke people in Delta State to join you in Anioma State?

Yes, they are part of us.

But they said that Ogbemudia sold them to….

(Cuts in): No, no, no. They came to me. And I have told them ‘Let’s face the nine local government areas first; that by the time we achieve that through boundary adjustment, I will bring them in.

You said President Tinubu and the APC national leadership support the quest for Anioma State creation, which is why you probably decamped from the PDP that gave you the platform on which you won the election to the Senate to the APC. However, this administration has only two years to go. How would you feel if at the end of this tenure, Anioma State is not created?

It will be created. If it is not created this time, it will be created in the next government. Tinubu will still be president in the next government, I’m sure. It will be created.

Does Anioma have what it takes to survive as a state?

We have oil and gas. Six of the nine local government areas that make up Anioma are rich in oil and gas and other minerals. We have 10 major oil platforms, small refineries, gas refineries and companies operating in Anioma land.

The president promised me something before I joined the APC and he has done it. He said he would help to fund two dams in our area for pipe-borne water for home-use and irrigation. In the current budget, we have almost N30 billion for the two dams – to complete the Ogwuashi Ukwu Dam and to build another one behind there not far from here (points at an area in his community).

This wouldn’t have been possible if I had remained in the PDP. That’s why I said every Igbo man should support the APC because we can get a lot more from the federal government.

Bolstering a country’s global stature is not just a matter of image and pride. It is much deeper than that. It is a strategic necessity for countries that want and need to be more than bit players in the global arena. As the post-World War II order continues to strain at the seams, it is imperative for Nigeria to navigate the uncharted terrain with tact and to carefully position itself as a strong voice to reckon with on the global stage. We need to do this for ourselves and for others.

Even as some countries become more inward-looking largely in response to unmet domestic expectations about globalisation, the world remains intimately and intricately connected. Decisions and actions in one far-flung corner of the globe sometimes have outsized impacts on the health and the prosperity of people across the world. The link between the global and the local is yet to be decoupled. Nigeria therefore does not have the luxury of simply minding its internal business or of joining the growing gang of the insular. It is in our enlightened self-interest not only to advocate for the evolving global order to be a fairer and more just one but also for us to actively join in shaping the structure of what is likely to emerge.

But Nigeria’s capacity to do this will not merely be a function of its current and projected population or of its past reputation or a claim to some form of manifest destiny. Nigeria’s agency will derive from the capacity to sort out its internal challenges; its appreciation of the dynamics of the evolving moment; and its readiness to make the necessary investment in time, thought and money.

Nigeria’s Minister of Foreign Affairs, Ambassador Yusuf Maitama Tuggar, appears to instinctively get this, and maybe not surprisingly too—having had to wrestle with the theories and practice of international relations as a student and a practitioner at the highest levels. On Thursday, fresh from a fence-mending shuttle to Niger Republic, Tuggar had a two-hour, high-level engagement with the crème of the policy, academic and civil society firmament in Abuja. He spoke eloquently and passionately about the need for Nigeria to re-prioritise diplomacy and about the importance of recalibration, pragmatism, resilience and thought-leadership as the country engages with the rest of the world in this uncertain period and in the undefined days ahead.

The minister spoke at the inaugural session of the Agora Policy Forum, an initiative of Agora Policy supported by the MacArthur Foundation, which is designed to facilitate structured and frank interactions between senior government officials and informed members of the public about current and emerging public policies. The forum aims to provide policy makers the opportunity to speak about the rationale, the direction and the content of public policies and for critical policy stakeholders to provide considered feedback and inputs.

The theme of the engagement with Tuggar was: “Nigeria’s Foreign Policy at a Time of Global Uncertainty.” Tuggar, who had served as Nigeria’s ambassador to Germany, delivered an opening statement where he flagged the unfolding fragmentation of the current multilateral order. He made a case for Nigeria’s increased agency, via greater emphasis on diplomacy, in ushering in a new and more inclusive world order. “We see the existing order deconstructing,” he said. “It was an order that did not present a level-playing field for Nigeria and Africa. As that order breaks down, what follows is much less clear. It is our responsibility, as the region’s key power, to be a voice for Africa—to play our part in helping create a modern and dynamic order that reflects our national and shared interests. And that responsibility is fundamentally diplomatic”.

Tuggar went on to identify the four pillars of Nigeria’s foreign relations in these uncertain times. These are: strategic autonomy; economic diplomacy and sustainable development; security and regional stability; and Nigeria’s voice and agency in the global arena. It appears that the philosophical anchor of our foreign policy going forward will be strategic autonomy, which maintains and builds on earlier stance of neutrality or non-alignment. Roughly, this will mean that the compass of navigation will be Nigeria’s national interests, not sheepish alignment or automatic opposition to any camp.

The foreign affairs minister captured it this way: “As global power shifts toward multipolarity, Nigeria must assert greater strategic autonomy in its international engagements. We are strengthening our bilateral relations with emerging powers like China, India, and Brazil while maintaining constructive partnerships with the United States, the European Union, and traditional allies. We aim to ensure that Nigeria is not merely a passive actor in global affairs but an active shaper of outcomes that align with our national interests.”

Nigeria, he said, will pursue its national interests guided by some of the following: partnerships, investments and development financing for economic growth and sustainable development; fair energy transition and climate financing to promote green industrialisation; design and enforcement of home-grown mechanisms for tackling insecurity in our immediate neighbourhood and beyond; reform and strengthening of global institutions, especially the UN Security Council; and leveraging collective action to address global challenges.

He concluded his address with an exhortation: “Nigeria must remain proactive, adaptive, and innovative in its foreign engagements as it navigates global uncertainty. Evidence-based policymaking, a long-term vision, and a commitment to national and continental advancement must underpin our strategy…Nigeria’s foreign policy during a time of global uncertainty is not merely about responding to external pressures but also about shaping our destiny within the international order. It is about ensuring that our economy is resilient, our security is safeguarded, and our voice is amplified in global decision-making. As we look to the future, I urge all stakeholders—diplomats, academics, business leaders, and civil society—to play their part in strengthening Nigeria’s global standing.”

After his opening statement, I had a fireside-style chat with him for about 30 minutes and moderated the interactive session between him and the participants for about one hour. Issues raised and discussed included: his trip to Niger and his assessment of ECOWAS at 50; the reasons for and the pathways out of the multiple crises in West Africa and the Sahel; the failure of the administration to appoint ambassadors in 18 months; the shrinking of Nigeria’s global profile; an interrogation of the concept of strategic autonomy; the gap between international relations research and foreign policy implementation; the decomposition of the nation-state and its impact on relations within and among states; the dissonance between posturing about democracy abroad and democratic realities at home; the link between foreign policy and domestic realities; the impact of limited local governance on development deficits and instability in the region;  the implication of the tariff wars on Nigeria and others; regional insecurity and human trafficking; the balance between career and non-career ambassadors in diplomatic postings; and the impact of social media disinformation on foreign relations.

On the whole, the interaction was comprehensive, engaging and productive. The minister gave thoughtful answers and clearly articulated the current direction of Nigeria’s foreign policy, the most lucid I have heard in recent times about our foreign policy, and more fleshed out than the acronym of 4Ds—democracy, development, demography and diaspora. The participants offered knowledgeable comments and asked probing questions but in a respectable manner. This is refreshing: discussion of policy issues in a cerebral, not emotional and vacuous way, and devoid of the partisanship, dogmatism, antagonism and gratuitous insults that mask vacuousness and have gravely diminished the quality of public discourse in recent times. We need more discursive and deliberative platforms for more inclusive and effective public policies.

I align with Tuggar on the need to amplify Nigeria’s voice and standing in global decision-making. Some of us still remember, with great pride, the period when Nigeria was deemed the undisputed voice of Africa and of the black race. The ‘Africa Has Come of Age’ speech still remains a seminal moment in the annals of our international relations. Nigeria’s role as a frontline state in the fight against apartheid and colonialism in far-away southern Africa, even when largely unappreciated, confirmed our status as the true giant on the continent. Our leadership of ECOMOG to end civil wars in Liberia and Sierra Leone and to restore a democratic rule in the latter as well as our contributions to global peace missions and even our Technical Aid Corps underscored our willingness to give freely of ourselves to ensure peace and progress in our neighbourhood and beyond. We were a giant not just by size but by deeds, and we naturally commanded the respect and the influence attached to that.

But we fell off the global arena in the last decade and a half. This is partly on account of the inevitable rise of others, especially post-apartheid South Africa. But it is mostly because we have become overwhelmed by our own internal challenges, especially insecurity and because we have been attaching little seriousness to foreign relations beyond just showing up with obscene entourages at international meetings. The rigour of our positions on issues and our understanding of the politics of the international arena vis-à-vis our interests need to improve. We need to be more proactive, deliberate and strategic. For instance, on the issue of reciprocal tariffs by the United States, a more strategic approach would have been to constitute a multisectoral team to look at the different ways in which Nigeria may be impacted and devise appropriate strategies instead of ministers singing discordant tunes. In a similar vein, we should have experts studiously building scenarios and options about the evolving world order to ensure that we are not caught napping and not left scrambling to make sense of things after the fact.

It is not a vanity project for us to aspire to be a major player on the global stage. We were still under colonial rule when the expiring order was designed. Now, some of the former colonies have come of age. Nigeria is one of them, and we deserve to be rightly considered an emerging power, with the opportunity to speak for ourselves and for others. But we have to get our act together. Getting our act together will include tackling more seriously the domestic challenges (slow growth, creeping insecurity etc) holding us down. Size without strength will not suffice.

This will also demand greater clarity about the outcomes that we seek and much better resourcing of our foreign affairs ministry. We need to also invest in domestic understanding and in building domestic support behind our foreign policy aspirations. Our citizens must understand what direction we are going and why. Even as kids, we knew why Nigeria had a role in the decolonisation of southern Africa. We also need to proactively mobilise all the assets at our disposal. Look at the global reach of our Afrobeats, Nollywood and comedy. For example, Burna Boy had a sold-out concert at Stade de France on Friday night. That is soft power right there, and it is enormous. Clearly, these sectors and artistes exploded onto the world stage and consciousness in spite of the Nigerian state. But their reach can still be creatively leveraged to enhance Nigeria’s standing and influence in the world, especially as we approach a new epoch in international relations.  

The Chairman of the Federal Civil Service Commission ( FCSC), Prof. Tunji Olaopa on Saturday paid tribute to a former President of the Association of Nigerian Authors (ANA), Dr Wale Okediran, as he turned 70.

Olaopa delivered the tribute titled "Writing the Public Service into the Nigerian Consciousness" at the "70th Birthday Event/Celebration of Dr. Wale Okediran and a Reading/Writers Dialogue" held at the Mamman Vatsa Village, Abuja, by the Abuja chapter of ANA.

 Okediran , a medical doctor-turned writer has equally made a foray into politics where he was at a time a member of the House of Representatives. 

In his congratulatory message, Olaopa noted the role of the writer in national development. He specifically drew attention to how Okediran has used his medical, literary and political trajectories to improve the lot of Nigerians in particular and humanity in general.

As Olaopa put it, Okediran "has come a long way and has blazed many trails so consistently that at a beautiful age of seventy, he has achieved a sublime legacy that embodies existential fulfilment."

Consequently, to Olaopa, Okediran in his estimation "is Nigeria’s answer to C. P. Snow’s two-culture thesis. According to that thesis, there is a significant and unbridgeable divide between the humanities and the natural sciences in ways that ensure seeming lack of communication between the two. The literary intellectuals and the natural scientists pride themselves on their inability to understand each other, and this, Snow argues, leads to an inhibited intellectual progress. In Wale Okediran, we have a fluid and exemplary personification that firmly undermines that thesis. Dr Okediran fluidly incorporates the love for science and the humanities." 

According to Olaopa, Okediran is the very embodiment of the "renaissance man—the multi-talented man imbued with a secular sensibility that draws on the human condition to articulate an Afropolitan sensibility of humaneness, compassion, strength, open-mindedness, passion and empathy. 

It was almost inevitable that Dr Okediran’s love for medicine and literature would be deployed in the service of the humanity in Nigeria and on the continent. Medicine is not just physiological and psychological, at least not in Africa. Medicine ministers to the brutalized bodies of Africans. As a medical doctor therefore, Dr Okediran has the unenviable space to confront the many psychotic manifestations of governance failure in Nigeria."

Praising further Okediran's legacy, Olaopa said that his "literary interests and skills provide the opportunity to tell the postcolonial Nigerian stories as he encountered them over the course of his own personal existential and professional trajectories. And this explains Dr Okediran’s path into politics; what better way to effect significant changes than being in the corridor of power? 

"One could only wonder how long a man of such literary sensibility would last within the murky space of Nigerian politics. Fortunately, public service is not restricted to being a member of the House of Representatives. Dr Okediran’s public service space encompasses the local, the national and the regional—from the National Old Student Association of Olivet Baptist High School to the Pan African Writers Association (PAWA). Dr Wale Okediran’s literary sensibility enables him to build a community of service. The Ebedi International Writers Residency at Iseyin is a unique and defining sense of the metaphor for Okediran’s enlarged sensibility that draws in people and creates possibilities."

Auwal Mohammed Jatau, Deputy Governor of Bauchi State, has denied slapping the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Yusuf Maitama Tuggar.

He said this while reacting to unconfirmed reports that he attacked the the minister on the way to the palace of Emir of Bauchi for the turbaning of former Governor Muhammad Abdullahi Abubakar, SAN, as Makama Babba 1 of Bauchi Emirate, and the wedding Fatiha of his daughter, Khadija Muhammad.

Speaking through Muslim Lawal, his media aide, Bauchi’s number two citizen said, “No, no, how can a deputy governor slap a minister? I don’t think such ever can happen in Bauchi because l know my principal as a responsible leader and number two citizen in Bauchi can never slap a minister or any person.”

“I am not aware about that and I am hearing it for the first time. If there is any evidence that the deputy governor did that you can speak on that. We don’t know about it. The deputy governor cannot do that and that is our position,” Lawal said.

All efforts to get the reaction of the Foreign Affairs Minister were not successful at the time of filing this report.

See pictures from the turbaning below:

[DailyTrust]