In Nigeria, the allure of politics is undeniable. It offers power, influence, and, quite often, a direct route to immense wealth. This “cool money”, as it is often called, seems to come easily to those in political positions. From lucrative contracts, salaries, and allowances to political connections that open doors to more financial opportunities, the gains are obvious. However, this reality has led to a critical question: “Does making cool money from politics truly make Nigerian politicians more hardworking than other citizens?” Or has the allure of easy wealth blurred their perspective on the value of genuine hard work?

Politics in Nigeria is frequently seen as a fast track to financial success. Politicians, once elected or appointed, often enjoy the benefits of inflated allowances, hefty salaries, and control over national resources. The National Assembly, for instance, has been repeatedly criticized for its opaque pay structure, with many speculating that lawmakers earn far more than the average Nigerian can even dream of.

This financial reward system makes it tempting to view politicians as “successful” or “hardworking” simply because of their access to this wealth. For the everyday Nigerian struggling to make ends meet, the perception often forms that politicians are reaping rewards not necessarily from their hard work but from the privileges of their position. The question of whether this money was earned through genuine labor or through systemic advantages remains.

There have been instances where political elites, through their speeches or actions, indirectly imply that the average Nigerian is lazy. A notable example is President Muhammadu Buhari’s 2018 comment at a Commonwealth Business Forum, where he stated that “many Nigerian youths just want to sit and do nothing because Nigeria is an oil-rich nation.”

In a similar vein, Tinubu’s wife, Oluremi Tinubu, recently mocked ordinary Nigerians by implying that their struggles were due to laziness, using the phrase “No food for lazyman.” Her remarks, made in a tone that many found dismissive, seemed to downplay the genuine economic hardship and widespread unemployment faced by the masses. Instead of acknowledging the structural challenges and governance issues contributing to poverty, she shifted the blame onto the people themselves, sparking outrage and reinforcing the perception that Nigeria’s political elites are disconnected from the everyday realities of its citizens.

This perception of the general public as “lazy” often comes from politicians who, ironically, are seen as the beneficiaries of a system that rewards them without requiring proportional effort. Some politicians may genuinely believe that they work harder than the average Nigerian, because of the grueling nature of campaigns or the time-consuming nature of governance. But this interpretation raises several questions: Is sitting through legislative sessions or heading ministries truly harder than the back-breaking labor of farming, trading, or running small businesses in an unstable economy?

For the average Nigerian, hard work takes on a different meaning entirely. Farmers work long hours under the hot sun, traders spend their days hustling in chaotic markets, and small business owners face endless challenges from inflation, poor infrastructure, and erratic government policies. Despite their immense efforts, the rewards are often meager and uncertain. Yet, these Nigerians continue to work because they must, and there are no fat allowances or political connections to fall back on.

In this context, the claim that politicians are somehow more hardworking than the average Nigerian rings hollow. While the processes of governance and legislation are undoubtedly demanding, they are not comparable to the labor-intensive, physically exhausting, and financially unstable conditions faced by millions of Nigerians daily.

There is another angle to consider in this debate: the distinction between hard work and public service. Ideally, politicians should not only work hard but also serve the public. The concept of public service involves a sense of sacrifice, of putting the needs of the people above personal gain. Yet, in Nigeria, it sometimes seems that the goal of politics is not public service but personal enrichment.

Many politicians enter politics already wealthy or connected, and they often leave with even more wealth, regardless of the quality of their service. The irony is that politicians are compensated well for their “hard work” in a system that continues to underpay doctors, teachers, and public sector workers, many of whom are far more essential to the day-to-day functioning of society. The question arises: “Is it truly “hard work” if the primary outcome is personal gain, rather than public benefit?

Another critical factor in this discussion is the widening gap between politicians and the public. Many politicians, especially at the federal level, lead lifestyles that are vastly different from those of their constituents. With luxury homes, foreign education for their children, and frequent trips abroad, it is easy for them to lose touch with the struggles of the ordinary Nigerian.

This disconnect often fuels the perception that everyday Nigerians are “lazy” or unwilling to work as hard as the political class. But in reality, it is the system that creates the disparity, not the people. When politicians enjoy a life of privilege while the masses toil under economic hardship, it becomes easy for those in power to underestimate the laborious efforts of the public.

It is impossible to discuss the wealth of Nigerian politicians without addressing corruption. While not every politician is corrupt, the country’s political system has been plagued by mismanagement, embezzlement, and the misuse of public funds. Corruption allows some politicians to amass wealth with very little actual effort, which only deepens the divide between the political elite and the general public.

Many Nigerians see this corruption as proof that the “hard work” of politicians is not what it seems. It is one thing to attend sessions or sign contracts; it is quite another to profit from kickbacks, inflated contracts, or diverted funds meant for development projects. When “cool money” is made through such channels, can it really be said that politicians are working harder than the average Nigerian?

At the heart of this debate is a fundamental misunderstanding of what it means to work hard. Politics is indeed demanding, but it is not inherently harder than the efforts of millions of Nigerians who work tirelessly every day with little to show for it. The wealth that politicians accumulate often comes from a system designed to reward them, rather than from the sweat of their brow.

If politicians truly believe they are working harder than other Nigerians, it may be time for them to step out of their comfortable enclaves and experience the daily grind of the average citizen. Perhaps then, they would see that the real hard work in Nigeria lies in the everyday struggles of the people, not in the halls of power.

In the end, it is clear that “cool money” from politics does not necessarily reflect harder work but instead highlights the deep systemic inequalities that have shaped Nigeria’s political and economic landscape. The challenge moving forward is to bridge this gap and foster a political culture rooted in genuine public service and hard work for the collective good, rather than individual gain.

The political terrain in Nigeria is often seen as a battleground where the rule of law and accountability tend to take a back seat. Rivers State is no exception, and recent developments beg the question: “Who will tell Nyesom Wike, Governor Siminalayi Fubara, and their supporters that Rivers State does not belong to them?”

For years, the political scene in Rivers has been dominated by powerful individuals whose influence and actions suggest an unchecked belief that the state is their personal fiefdom. Nyesom Wike, the former governor and current Minister of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), and Siminalayi Fubara, the incumbent governor, have become the faces of this perceived political hegemony. Their supporters, emboldened by their political clout, are seemingly complicit in a narrative that depicts Rivers State as a political inheritance of Wike’s making.

Nyesom Wike’s rise to prominence has been a significant political story in Rivers. After serving as Chief of Staff to former governor Rotimi Amaechi, Wike’s influence grew, and he eventually became governor in 2015. During his time in office, Wike earned a reputation as a strongman, one who could use the powers of incumbency to sway political outcomes. His administration was marked by several achievements, notably in infrastructure, but was also criticized for high-handedness and for stifling dissent.

In 2023, Wike helped engineer the ascension of Siminalayi Fubara as his successor. Fubara, a former Accountant-General of the state, was seen by many as Wike’s handpicked candidate, someone who would protect the interests of the former governor even after his exit from the state’s top seat. Unfortunately, the relationship between Fubara and Wike has since become sour, raising concerns about whether the state is being governed in the interest of the people or for the benefit of a few political elites.

While their relationship was initially seen as a united front, recent reports suggest that Wike and Fubara may be embroiled in a quiet power struggle. Fubara’s refusal to attend a recent Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) rally in the state was seen as an open challenge to Wike’s authority. This has sparked speculations of friction between the two, with some interpreting it as a subtle attempt by Fubara to assert his independence. However, this clash is a reflection of deeper problems: a political culture where personal loyalty and interests take precedence over governance and the will of the people.

The battle between these two political figures, if unchecked, could drag the state into further instability. Rivers is no stranger to politically motivated violence, and a brewing conflict between Wike’s loyalists and Fubara’s camp could escalate tensions in the region. Rivers people deserve better than to be caught in the crossfire of political egos.

In the midst of this unfolding drama, one has to wonder: where are the voices of Rivers people? For too long, the citizens of Rivers State have been sidelined in political conversations about their future. Elections come and go, and leaders rise to power, but the people are left to watch from the sidelines as political elites carve out their influence.

It is a tragedy that in a democracy, the will of the people seems secondary to the ambitions of a select few. Rivers, rich in oil resources and strategically important to Nigeria’s economy, should be a beacon of progress, but instead, it remains mired in political turmoil. The state has witnessed successive administrations that prioritize personal political survival over addressing the pressing issues that face the people.

The question then becomes: who will tell Wike, Fubara, and their supporters that Rivers State does not belong to them? It is high time that the people of Rivers rise up and reclaim their state from the clutches of political godfatherism.

The concept of godfatherism in Nigerian politics is not new. It is a phenomenon where powerful political figures, often referred to as “godfathers,” wield immense influence over the political landscape, determining who gets elected into various positions of power. In Rivers, Wike has played this role, and Fubara’s rise to power is seen by many as a product of this system.

The problem with godfatherism is that it erodes the democratic process. Leaders are no longer accountable to the people but to the godfathers who put them in power. Policies are crafted not with the welfare of the populace in mind, but to please the political overlords. Rivers State, like many other states in Nigeria, has suffered from this undemocratic practice.

For Rivers to truly progress, there must be a collective rejection of godfatherism. The people must demand leaders who are accountable to them, not to a powerful few. It is only through such a shift that the state can move beyond the current cycle of political patronage.

It is not enough to simply identify the problem; there must be a concerted effort to address it. The people of Rivers must begin to question the legitimacy of a political system that operates in their name but excludes them from the decision-making process. Civil society organizations, traditional rulers, and youth groups must play a pivotal role in this regard. They must speak out against the monopolization of political power and demand greater transparency in governance.

Additionally, electoral reforms are needed to ensure that future elections in Rivers reflect the will of the people, not the preferences of political godfathers. The Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) and other relevant bodies must work to curtail the influence of money and incumbency in the electoral process.

Furthermore, governance in Rivers must be people-centered. The state is plagued by numerous challenges, including unemployment, poor infrastructure, and insecurity. These issues require leaders who are focused on delivering dividends of democracy to the people, not on perpetuating their personal political empires.

The current situation in Rivers State is a microcosm of the larger political challenges facing Nigeria. The dominance of powerful political figures like Wike and the rise of leaders like Fubara under their tutelage is a clear indicator that the democratic process in Nigeria is still fragile. But it is not too late for change.

The people of Rivers must awaken to the reality that their state does not belong to any individual or group of individuals. It is a collective inheritance that must be governed with the interests of all in mind. Only through active participation, vigilance, and a rejection of political godfatherism can Rivers State truly fulfill its potential.

In the end, the question remains: who will tell Wike, Fubara, and their supporters that Rivers State is not their personal property? Perhaps it is the people of Rivers who will, by rising to demand better governance and an end to the stranglehold of political elites. The time for change is now, and it is up to the people to make their voices heard.

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.