I just came across an interesting Press Statement signed by one Luka Binniyat, the Middle Belt Forum's Kaduna State Chapter Chairman, dated Sunday, October 6, 2024, in which he tried to raise legitimate questions around the composition of the Board nominees of the newly established North West Development Commission (NWDC).

Without prejudice to the whole essence of the inclusivity message that the said intervention sought to push through, one would still like to insist that there are palpable signs of gross misunderstanding and misrepresentation bordering on outright confusion around the definition of the term or concept of the Middle Belt that its Forum's Kaduna State Chapter Chairman was attempting to project out there via his Press Statement.

Firstly, even from the sound of its name alone, the Middle Belt concept looks to be more of a geographical expression than anything else, and that has been the case since its formal introduction into the public consciousness several decades ago.

Indeed, it can rightly be argued that it all started as an agglomeration of the various peoples or communities spread across the middle or centre of the geographical expression we have all come to know and recognise as Nigeria today. And that has remained so for quite a while now since the Middle Belt concept’s official launch, but I stand to be corrected.

As time went by, however, successive leaders and promoters of the Middle Belt Forum and its ideals actively sought to expand its reach by way of the deliberate extension of its outreach messaging to appeal to other people of the same or similar faith and shared experiences. This is principally on account of their minority status in several of the core Northern States, with a view to fighting for a common cause. And that is all fine and good, to be honest!

But what they should probably have done from that point onwards was to promptly effect an appropriate name change to reflect its renewed focus and expanded status beyond its original geographical circumscription. This is especially so because many of its targeted would-be new entrants are undoubtedly located very far away from the centre or middle of any perceived belt, geographically speaking.

Again, you cannot possibly go on to define the Middle Belt "as all parts of Nigeria that were not ruled or conquered by the Sokoto Caliphate (emphasis mine) and the Kanem Borno Empire in pre-colonial Nigeria", in one breath, and then go right ahead to immediately attempt to contradict yourself by including such historic towns and villages of the Gwandu Emirate as Kalgo, Koko/Besse, Suru and the like, in your patented pipedream of an expanded or greater Middle Belt, in another breath.

That does not make any logical sense at all, unless you do not have the slightest idea of what you really are talking about. To do so would amount to the closest example of approbation and reprobation one could possibly think of, albeit in the reverse sense!

Indeed, if one can ever get away with 'annexing' any other town against its express wishes based on your own strictly defined criteria of not having been ruled or conquered by the Caliphate, that town would certainly not be Kalgo, would it?

Kalgo, by the way, is reputed to be a veritable staging point of sorts for several Gwandu Princes who served as its District Head, better known by its formally recognised title of Sarkin Gobir of Kalgo, en route their onward journey towards their manifest destiny of ascending the Gwandu Emirship stool of their forebears; Gwandu, being the pivotal Western flank of the expansive Sokoto Caliphate, just in case Mr. Binniyat may not have been aware of that fact.

Again, as unlikely as it may ordinarily seem to the untrained eye on account of the legendary modesty of the vast majority of the Emirs in its rich and storied history, the Gwandu Emirship stool has always been, and will forever remain, the second most revered throne in the hierarchy of the Caliphate structure after that of His Eminence, the Sultan of Sokoto; again, just in case Mr. Binniyat may not have realised that just yet.

In addition, and talking specifically about the Southern Kebbi concept, I struggle to see how a place like far away Kalgo; a town that is both critical and historically relevant to the Gwandu Emirship stool and also proximal to Birnin Kebbi, its longstanding capital located  just a stone's throw away, can ever be considered to be an integral part and parcel of any conceivable expanded Southern Kebbi or Kebbi South configuration of his dream by any stretch of the imagination.

At any rate, I am not exactly aware of the existence of any extended Belt of sufficient enough dimension, at the centre or in the Middle of which Kalgo may logically be deemed to have been factored into, and both legally and legitimately embraced.

These are just a few observations around the deliberate provocative narrative spins driven by the extremely wild and way off the mark conjectures informing that strange inclusion of the mentioned areas in the expansive buckle of the utopian Middle Belt concept that Mr. Luka Binniyat may wish to respond to.

In closing, I would still like to humbly restate that nothing I have said or written here is designed to detract from the essence of the primary message he is trying to convey around the recent nominations for the newly established NWDC Board.

Abdullahi Usman 

(Wednesday, October 9, 2024)

The political landscape of Nigeria is constantly evolving, and as we have seen in recent years, smaller political parties are starting to gain traction in regions once considered strongholds of the two dominant parties: the All Progressives Congress (APC) and the People’s Democratic Party (PDP). One such party is the Action Peoples Party (APP), which, following its recent popularity and successes in Rivers State, has captured the interest of many political observers. The question on everyone’s mind is whether the APP could replicate the success of the Labour Party (LP), which has emerged as a formidable force in the Nigerian political arena, particularly after its significant wins in the 2023 general elections.

Rivers State, a key political hub in the Niger Delta, has long been dominated by the PDP, with occasional competition from the APC. However, recent developments indicate that the political landscape is no longer business as usual. The PDP’s stronghold is being challenged not only by the APC but also by emerging parties like the APP. In the last election cycle, the APP made significant inroads in Rivers, winning several local seats and gaining visibility.

This rise in APP’s influence in Rivers has sparked conversations about the party’s potential to grow beyond its current standing. Could the APP be the next Labour Party in terms of sudden national recognition, broad acceptance, and electoral victories?

The APP’s growing acceptance in Rivers can be attributed to several factors. First, the leadership of the APP in Rivers State has managed to present itself as a viable alternative to the dominant PDP and the opposition APC. The APP has capitalized on the general discontent among the populace over economic hardships, poor governance, and a perceived disconnect between the ruling elite and the masses. Just as the Labour Party managed to connect with the youth, the middle class, and the underrepresented in the 2023 elections, the APP is beginning to fill a similar space in Rivers.

As gathered from a professional colleague whose beat as a Journalist in the Niger Delta Region includes Rivers, the party’s message of inclusivity, transparency, and grassroots development has resonated with many voters who feel abandoned by the traditional parties. Many Rivers residents are searching for fresh ideas, leadership with integrity, and a party that truly represents their interests. APP’s increasing popularity is also driven by the fact that it has been able to attract credible candidates, both young and experienced, who share the party’s values and vision for Rivers State.

The Labour Party’s meteoric rise during the 2023 elections offers several lessons for the APP. First and foremost, the Labour Party understood that to break the dominance of the established parties, it had to appeal to the masses’ sentiments while positioning itself as a voice for the voiceless. With Peter Obi’s candidacy for the presidency, the LP successfully painted itself as the party of hope, change, and accountability. This narrative appealed to millions of disillusioned voters across the country, particularly in urban areas and among the youth.

The APP in Rivers State has a similar opportunity. By positioning itself as a party that genuinely listens to the people and prioritizes their needs, it can continue to chip away at the PDP and APC’s hold on the electorate. The APP can also draw inspiration from the Labour Party’s focus on grassroots mobilization. Labour’s success was not solely due to its presidential candidate; the party was able to build a network of supporters across the country through town hall meetings, social media campaigns, and personal engagements with voters.

In Rivers, the APP could adopt a similar strategy, deepening its connection with voters at the grassroots level, holding leaders accountable, and maintaining consistent communication with its base. If it can successfully create a narrative that mirrors the Labour Party’s underdog story, the APP has the potential to blossom into a major political force not just in Rivers but across the Niger Delta and beyond.

However, while the APP’s recent gains in Rivers are promising, the road ahead is fraught with challenges. The political terrain in Rivers State is complex and competitive. The PDP, with its deep pockets and entrenched political machinery, will not easily cede control. Similarly, the APC, despite internal fractures, remains a formidable opponent with strong backing from national figures.

To succeed, the APP must avoid the pitfalls that have derailed other smaller parties in Nigeria. One of the key challenges is maintaining party cohesion. Many smaller parties have struggled to remain united as they grow, with internal disagreements often leading to factionalism and weakening their political effectiveness. The APP will need to ensure that it remains disciplined, unified, and committed to its core values.

Another challenge is maintaining relevance beyond local elections. While the APP has gained momentum in Rivers, it must work to translate that local success into broader regional and national relevance. This means identifying strong candidates for gubernatorial, senatorial, and national assembly positions in the next election cycles. If the APP can field competitive candidates in these races, it can solidify its place as a serious political contender.

One key to the APP’s continued success will be its ability to form strategic partnerships and coalitions with other like-minded parties and political actors. The Labour Party’s rise was bolstered by the support of various civil society groups, labor unions, and other smaller parties that aligned with its vision. In a similar vein, the APP could benefit from forming alliances with other progressive parties, community groups, and labor organizations that share its goals for grassroots development and transparent governance.

By working together with other political stakeholders, the APP can build a broader coalition of supporters that can challenge the entrenched political elites in Rivers. This strategy could also extend beyond the state, as the party could seek to partner with national movements that are calling for political reform and greater accountability in Nigeria’s governance.

Whether the APP can fully blossom like the Labour Party will depend on its ability to maintain its momentum, avoid internal divisions, and stay true to its grassroots message. The political conditions in Rivers State are ripe for a change, with many voters disillusioned by the PDP and the APC. The APP has the potential to capitalize on this discontent, but it must remain focused and strategic in its approach.

The party must also remember that its journey to greater relevance will be a marathon, not a sprint. Just as the Labour Party’s rise was built on years of groundwork, the APP must continue to build its base and engage with voters year-round, not just during election season. If it can do so, it may very well become the next major political force in Rivers State, and potentially beyond.

In fact, the Action Peoples Party’s recent successes in Rivers State have raised important questions about its potential to become a dominant political force, much like the Labour Party in 2023. While there are no guarantees in politics, the APP’s growing popularity, strong grassroots appeal, and ability to present a viable alternative to the PDP and APC suggest that it is on the right track. However, the road to political relevance is long and challenging, and the APP will need to remain focused, united, and committed to its ideals if it hopes to fully blossom in the political garden of Rivers and Nigeria at large.

In a world teeming with social influencers, celebrities, and internet personalities, it is easy for one voice to get lost in the noise. Yet, every so often, someone comes along who is not just another face on the screen, but a force of nature, a beacon of truth, and a rallying point for millions seeking justice and fairness. Very Dark Man (VDM) is one such individual. To say he is God-sent would not be an exaggeration, and it would not be overstating it to claim that someone like him only comes once in a lifetime.

VDM, as he is often fondly referred to, has captivated audiences with his fearless stance against injustice, his unapologetic exposure of societal ills, and his tireless commitment to holding those in power accountable. In a world where many are quick to exploit their platforms for personal gain, VDM has chosen to use his influence for something far more meaningful: to be a voice for the voiceless and to speak out against societal injustices that others are too scared or indifferent to address.

One of the reasons Very Dark Man resonates so deeply with his audience is his ability to connect with everyday people. He doesn’t just talk about injustice from a distance; he brings it close, makes it personal, and invites others to see the world through the lens of those who are suffering. His unique approach, blending raw emotion with well-researched facts, has struck a chord with those who have long felt ignored by the mainstream media and societal leaders.

When he speaks, it is with the conviction of someone who has lived through the struggles of those he defends. He does not sugarcoat his messages or tiptoe around delicate issues. Instead, he confronts them head-on, showing the raw truth and forcing society to look at its own reflection. This unfiltered, direct approach is rare in today’s world, where diplomacy often translates into silence, and where fear of backlash leads many influencers to avoid controversial topics.

Very Dark Man’s advocacy for justice goes beyond merely shedding light on issues. He actively seeks to hold those responsible accountable, whether they are individuals, corporations, or governmental institutions. His investigative skills are second to none, as he meticulously gathers evidence to support his claims before presenting them to his audience. This approach has earned him a reputation for being credible, authentic, and deeply committed to the truth.

His most impactful work has been in exposing fraud and corruption within institutions that have for years gone unchecked. Whether it is highlighting police brutality, tackling issues of social inequality, or calling out organizations that exploit vulnerable individuals, VDM has consistently shown a deep-rooted desire to see justice served. In a country where many shy away from taking on the establishment for fear of reprisal, VDM stands tall, unyielding, and unwavering.

His fight for justice has come at great personal cost. Like many who dare to challenge the status quo, Very Dark Man has faced threats, smear campaigns, and attempts to silence his voice. Yet, he remains undeterred. His bravery in the face of such adversity only serves to inspire others to speak out, proving that even in the darkest moments, there is hope for change if we are willing to fight for it.

VDM’s influence extends far beyond his immediate audience. His work has sparked a new wave of activism among young people, many of whom have been inspired by his courage and dedication to making a difference. For a generation that has often felt disconnected from traditional forms of advocacy and political engagement, VDM provides a fresh, relatable perspective on how to effect change in the modern world.

His methods, which include utilizing social media to raise awareness, have resonated particularly well with younger audiences. He has mastered the art of making complex social issues accessible and engaging, all while maintaining a sense of urgency and importance around the topics he discusses. This ability to connect with a younger generation is a critical part of his appeal and speaks to why someone like Very Dark Man comes around only once in a lifetime.

He is not just an influencer; he is a movement. People from all walks of life, whether they are activists, students, or everyday citizens, are rallying behind his cause, inspired by his passion and his unrelenting pursuit of truth. In a world where apathy often reigns supreme, VDM has reminded us all that we have a role to play in shaping the future, and that no voice is too small to make a difference.

For many, it feels as though Very Dark Man is nothing short of God-sent. His timing is impeccable; he arrived on the scene when the world needed him most. In an era marked by disillusionment, mistrust in authority, and a growing sense of hopelessness among the masses, VDM provides a much-needed sense of direction and purpose. His work is not just about exposing problems, it is about offering solutions and galvanizing people into action.

It is not often that we come across individuals who are willing to put their personal safety and comfort on the line for the sake of others. Yet, Very Dark Man has shown time and time again that he is willing to sacrifice everything to ensure that justice is served. His selflessness is a rare trait in a world that often prioritizes personal gain over the common good. It is this quality, perhaps more than anything else that makes him an once-in-a-lifetime figure.

As we continue to watch Very Dark Man’s journey unfold, it is important to recognize the significance of his contributions and the impact he has had on our society. In a world where so many have chosen to remain silent in the face of injustice, he has used his platform to speak loudly and boldly. He has reminded us of the power of one voice and the change that can come when that voice is used to uplift others.

We must not take for granted the fact that individuals like VDM are rare. They come along only once in a generation, if at all, and when they do, they have the potential to change the course of history. It is up to us to support his work, to amplify his message, and to ensure that his efforts are not in vain.

In fact, Very Dark Man is more than just a social media figure or influencer, he is a symbol of hope, a warrior for justice, and a once-in-a-lifetime advocate for truth. His legacy is already being written in the hearts of those he has inspired, and it is one that will undoubtedly endure for years to come.

The Nigerian populace has, in recent months, been faced with an unprecedented economic downturn that has stretched their resilience to its limits. Many citizens are struggling to make ends meet, as inflation skyrockets, unemployment rises, and the cost of living reaches unbearable levels. Amid this economic storm, a statement by Nigeria’s First Lady, Remi Tinubu, stirred the public. Defending her husband, President Bola Ahmed Tinubu, she claimed that he was not responsible for the economic hardship currently plaguing the nation. Her comment, while undoubtedly aimed at deflecting criticism, has been met with mixed reactions, mostly frustration and disbelief.

As Nigerians grapple with daily economic woes, the call is clear: they seek actionable, people-friendly solutions, not excuses or blame-shifting. Against the foregoing backdrop, permit this writer to, through this article, examine Nigeria’s leadership under Tinubu’s administration, scrutinize the claim that the president is not responsible for the economic hardship, and call for solutions that focus on the needs of the people, rather than defensive rhetoric.

From the onset of Bola Tinubu’s presidency in May 2023, Nigeria’s economic situation has deteriorated significantly. The removal of the fuel subsidy, which Tinubu announced within his first few weeks in office, set off a domino effect that worsened the already precarious financial situation of millions of Nigerians. While the fuel subsidy removal was hailed by some economists as a necessary policy shift to prevent long-term fiscal collapse, its immediate consequences were brutal. Fuel prices tripled overnight, leading to increased transportation costs and the inflation of food prices and essential goods. The government provided promises of palliatives to cushion the effects, but the implementation of these promises has been slow, and their impact remains largely unseen by the general populace.

Additionally, the floating of the naira led to further devaluation of the currency, exacerbating the cost of imports and increasing inflationary pressure. For many Nigerians, this meant their purchasing power diminished at an alarming rate, leaving them unable to afford basic necessities. Businesses, particularly small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), have been hit hard by the twin forces of inflation and high energy costs. With dwindling profits and rising operational expenses, many are forced to shut down or scale back operations, leading to increased unemployment.

It is within this context that Remi Tinubu’s defense of her husband must be viewed. While it is true that the Tinubu administration inherited many of Nigeria’s economic challenges, the public perception is that his policies have worsened an already bad situation. Nigerians are not looking for excuses, but for leadership that can pull the nation out of its current crisis.

During an event at the Palace of Ooni of Ife, Oba Adeyeye Ogunwusi, on Thursday, the First Lady emphasized that the Tinubu administration is still in its early stages and should be given time to implement its policies. She argued that President Tinubu was not responsible for the current economic hardship, implicitly suggesting that the blame lay elsewhere, perhaps with previous administrations or global economic factors. While it is undeniable that Nigeria’s economic problems are deep-rooted, with decades of mismanagement, corruption, and policy failures playing a significant role, the timing and tone of her defense struck a nerve with many Nigerians.

The statement appeared to downplay the struggles of ordinary citizens, many of whom are finding it increasingly difficult to survive. In a country where millions are living below the poverty line, a defense of the president without tangible solutions to alleviate their suffering seems out of touch with the harsh realities on the ground. Instead of deflecting responsibility, Nigerians expect their leaders to confront the challenges head-on, demonstrate empathy, and propose meaningful, sustainable solutions that address the root causes of their plight.

Moreover, leadership entails accepting responsibility for the decisions made under one’s administration. The removal of the fuel subsidy, the devaluation of the naira, and the failure to promptly implement effective palliative measures all fall under the Tinubu administration’s purview. Deflecting blame, as the First Lady’s statement seemingly does, only fuels public frustration and erodes trust in the government.

At this critical juncture, Nigerians are not merely looking for explanations, they are looking for hope. Hope that comes from well-thought-out policies, hope that stems from a government that listens to the people’s cries, and hope that comes from leaders who show empathy and take action. The Tinubu administration must prioritize the development of people-centered solutions that focus on alleviating the burden on the masses.

One immediate step that can be taken is the implementation of social safety nets that are transparent and accessible. The government’s promise of palliatives following the removal of the fuel subsidy has been mired in delays and poor execution. Many Nigerians have yet to feel the effects of these promised relief measures. The administration must expedite the distribution of palliatives, ensuring that they reach the intended recipients, particularly those in rural areas and the most vulnerable segments of society. This would provide much-needed relief in the short term.

In the longer term, the government must focus on creating an enabling environment for businesses to thrive. SMEs, which form the backbone of Nigeria’s economy, are in dire need of support. Access to affordable credit, subsidies for energy costs, and improved infrastructure would go a long way in reviving these businesses and stimulating job creation. Furthermore, the government should focus on diversifying the economy away from its heavy reliance on oil, investing in agriculture, technology, and other sectors that can provide sustainable economic growth and employment opportunities.

A key component of addressing Nigeria’s economic crisis lies in leadership that takes responsibility. While it is true that no single administration can fix Nigeria’s systemic issues overnight, leadership involves acknowledging the failures of past policies and taking ownership of the current situation. The Tinubu administration cannot afford to sidestep accountability. Instead, it should engage in meaningful dialogue with stakeholders, including the private sector, labor unions, and civil society, to develop comprehensive strategies that address the root causes of the current economic woes.

Moreover, communication is crucial. The Nigerian public deserves transparency and regular updates on the government’s efforts to mitigate the economic crisis. Remi Tinubu’s defense of her husband, while perhaps well-intentioned, lacked the substance that Nigerians are desperate for. Citizens want to know what specific actions the government is taking to improve their lives, how soon they can expect to see positive changes, and how their leaders plan to steer the nation toward economic recovery.

As Nigerians continue to navigate the tough economic terrain, they are not interested in who is to blame for their suffering, they want relief, hope, and solutions. The Tinubu administration must pivot from defensive rhetoric and focus on implementing policies that genuinely uplift the people. Leadership in times of crisis requires humility, empathy, and action. Nigerians are looking for leadership that can provide practical, people-friendly solutions to ease their burden.

The First Lady’s defense of her husband highlights the frustration within the corridors of power, but it misses the mark in addressing the real issues on the ground. Nigerians are tired of excuses, they want a government that listens to their struggles and acts with urgency to deliver solutions. Time is of the essence. The Tinubu administration has the opportunity to turn the tide, but it must act now and act decisively. Nigerians have waited long enough; they deserve a leadership that can bring about the economic relief they so desperately need.

Given the foregoing backdrop, it is expedient to ask, “Who will tell our first lady that Nigerians want people-friendly solutions, not excuses?

In Nigerian political speak, there are many words and phrases, or many expressions so to say, whose usage does violence to the grandeur of English lexis and grammar. One such expression is the application of ‘platform’ as a metaphorical symbol of the importance of political parties in Nigeria’s electoral process. Daily, in the media, print or electronic, you are bound to read or hear the expression about one politician or the other contesting or not contesting for an office, public or party, “UNDER the platform” of party A, B, or Z. This expression appears in newspaper reports or headlines, and in the articles of respected columnists; it features in the commentaries of popular TV anchors, just as politicians mouth it on different campaign grounds. It’s been so repeatedly used that many do not seem to know that the phrase violates some basic English language rules.

Literally, a platform is a raised ground; it is what Oxford Languages, said to be the world’s leading dictionary publishers for more than 150 years, defines as “a raised level surface ON which people or things can stand.” In a second definition, Oxford Languages also describes platform as “the declared policy of a political party or group.” For clarity, the publishers of this leading English dictionary give an example of the usage of that word in this sentence: “seeking election ON a platform of low taxes”. From both definitions, ON is the only preposition that is used before ‘platform’ when it functions as a noun in a sentence. The preposition, UNDER, did not feature in any shape or form in both definitions aforesaid. In any case, the purpose of a platform is to allow whoever stands ON it to stand out and be seen by many people around, or for that person to see far into the distance.

Since every expression must be literally meaningful before its metaphorical application could be sensible, I couldn’t understand how Rivers State Governor Siminalayi Fubara could have directed his supporters, as reported by one columnist, “to contest (the controversial local government elections in the state) UNDER the platform of the almost unheard-of Action People’s Party (APP).” Of course, the “almost unheard-of” APP handsomely won almost all the chairmanship and councillorship seats in the state, just as the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC) in Benue State as well as the ruling Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) in Akwa Ibom State respectively won all the seats in contest during the council polls in those states. Significantly, the winners in the council polls in both Benue and Akwa Ibom States, as it happened in other council elections in other states, were mostly reported to have contested UNDER the platform of the ruling APC and PDP in the respective states. 

In the 2023 general elections, many of the candidates who contested UNDER the platform of their various parties, particularly in the governorship and National Assembly polls, won the elections with what the media loved to call “a wide margin.” Although I do not know if the situation was similar in previous polls, particularly the 2007 election in which the then President Olusegun Obasanjo had described was a do or die affair for the then ruling PDP, or even the 1983 election in which the then ruling National Party of Nigeria (NPN) recorded what was then described as a landslide victory in many states across the country; I want to believe there is a nexus between the nature of a candidate contesting for an office UNDER a political party and the “sweeping victory” (apology to the media) of that candidate in the polls. This would, of course, require further study by political researchers who understand the dark arts of Nigeria’s political and electoral process.

I, however, suspect, indeed would like to believe, that there is some dishonesty or fraud or danger or deviousness in any activity taking place UNDER something rather than in an open space. Why do Nigerian politicians prefer to contest election UNDER, rather than ON, the platform of a political party? Could it be because of the endless possibilities of winning elections UNDER the table, sorry platform? Could it be where ghost voters are conjured, where every INEC (Independent National Electoral Commission) innovation to improve the electoral process is perverted, where electoral thugs are procured, where stolen and damaged voting materials are hidden, where vote-buying money is minted, where the security agents used for harassing political opponents or chasing voters away are quartered? Could it even be where those funny judges issue strange ex parte orders even in cases their courts have no jurisdiction, or where favourable judgments could be easily bought by the highest bidder? Is that the oven where those hot election victories are baked? Could that also be the reason why the (political) platform, in the words of a colleague, “shifts like a thermometer”; where a politician belongs to one party in the morning and another in the evening, or contests election UNDER the platform of the PDP in 2019 and the APC in 2023?

Should that be the situation, we should collectively collapse the platform, literally and metaphorically, as to leave no space UNDER for political parties to carry out unwholesome operations. That way, politicians would be left with no choice but contest for elections ON a party platform or whatever remains of it.

THE world commemorated the first year of the October 7, 2023 Hamas attack on Israel with no clear vision to end the on-going carnage. In the First World War, there were about 22 million deaths. Humanity vowed: “Never again!” Never again will we allow such mass scale slaughter. To ensure this, the League of Nations was created in 1920 to preserve world peace and promote international cooperation. Nineteen years later, the Second World War began on September 1, 1939. This time, the slaughter was so horrendous that Russia alone lost over 22 million people, that is a higher figure than the combined slaughter in the First World War.

This time, we created the United Nations, UN, for the maintenance of international peace and security, well-being of the people of the world and international cooperation. These, 79 years later, are precisely the things that are missing in the world.

However, while in the past wars, we shouted “Never again!” These times, we have lost our collective voices and resolve. We accept genocide, even when the footages are brought right into our bedrooms. Admittedly, there are differences. In the past wars, there were some restraints, especially when it came to children, women and the elderly. For instance, young men were so disproportionately killed in the Second World War that there was a severe shortage of men to begin families.

Many men who returned from the war, were traumatised. But in the on-going conflict in the Middle East it is children and women that are the main targets. In the first year of the so-called War in Gaza, over 42,000 have been killed with about 70 per cent of these victims being women and children. An indication that those carrying out the slaughter in today’s world do not care about the target; all they want is to exterminate the populace.

Some make the mistake of assuming that the ‘Gaza War’ which is actually an Israeli-Palestinian war, began on October 7, 2023. No. Even months before that attack, Israel had killed over 250 Palestinians.

This war, is also, not a matter of disagreements between two neighbours. The issue is one of a settler colony where a people migrate from one part of the world to seize or colonise another part, militarily dominate and settle in it at the expense of the indigenes. To be able to do so in a sustainable way, the indigenous population has to either be subjugated or exterminated.

The United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand are such settler colonies where Europeans pacified the indigenes. There were bloody attempts in Kenya and Algeria by Britain and France to achieve the same aims. Uprisings by the Mau Mau in Kenya and heroic resistance by the Algerians who lost two million people, stopped these unholy plans.

The Germans wiped out two thirds of the Namibian people in a failed attempt to make it a settler colony. In the case of Zimbabwe, British businessman, Cecil Rhodes, seized it and made it a settler colony until the people won the war of independence in 1980. In South Africa, the Europeans established their first settlement in 1652 and the indigenous people did not regain control until 342 years later.

But the Israeli case is unique. First, the European settlers claim to have been indigenous to the territory thousands of years earlier before going into exile in the 6th Century. Secondly, their leading lights did not regard the indigenous peoples they were going to meet as nationalities with equal rights. Rather, they regarded them as dispensable barbarians. Thirdly, they regarded themselves as Europeans going to establish a new European country as was done in Australia, New Zealand, USA and Canada, and was being done in South Africa and Zimbabawe, then called Rhodesia.

In fact, Theodor Herzl, the Austro-Hungarian journalist who founded the Zionist Movement  and is regarded as “The Spiritual Father of the Jews”, wanted to create Israel in the image of colonial Rhodesia. In 1902, he wrote Rhodes: “You are being invited to help make history. It doesn’t involve Africa, but a piece of Asia Minor; not Englishmen but Jews… it is something colonial.”

One of the arguments of Herzl was that Europeans of Jewish ancestry or who had adopted Judaism, were being discriminated against and profiled as unscrupulous. This was depicted in the “Merchant of Venice”, a play written in 1596-97 by William Shakespeare. In it, an unscrupulous businessman of Jewish origin, Shylock, wanted a pound of flesh from a Christian, Antonio.

Herzl proposed a solution to rid Europe of the Jewish problem by securing lands for them in Palestine, and simultaneously, building a new European country in Asia. This way, the Jews will also have a homeland and simultaneously, help Europe to police the Middle East.

But what would happen to the indigenous Palestinian People? Herzl has a simple solution: “We must expropriate gently the private property (Palestinians) on the state assigned to us. We shall try to spirit the penniless population across the border by procuring employment for it in the transit countries, while denying it employment in our country. The property owners will come over to our side. Both the process of expropriation and the removal of the poor must be carried out discretely and circumspectly.”

The Palestine was then under the Ottoman Empire and Herzl, in 1901, met Sultan Abdul Hamid II. He offered Jewish assistance and £150 million for Jewish settlement. He said: “If His Majesty the Sultan were to give us Palestine… we should there form a portion of a rampart of Europe against Asia, an outpost of civilisation as opposed to barbarism.” But the Sultan refused.

However, the Ottoman Empire was in decline and Britain, the new emergent power, offered the Zionist Federation, Palestinian lands. In a November 2, 1917 letter, then British Foreign Secretary Arthur James Balfour, wrote: “His Majesty’s Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.”

Armed conflicts ensued between the new settlers and indigenous peoples. In 1948, the former won the first war, seized 77.9 per cent of the lands and expelled the indigenes. Following another victory in the 1967 Six-Day War, the Israelis seized East Jerusalem, Gaza, the West Bank and Syria’s Golan Heights.

A two-state solution agreed under the 1993 Oslo Accords have now been rejected by Israel which wants the entire Palestine with an eye on Lebanon and Syria, and possibly Jordan.

A crew of DStv sports journalists traveling to cover the African Cup of Nations (AFCON) qualifier match in Uyo, Akwa Ibom State, were attacked and kidnapped.

The Anambra State Police Command confirmed that six of the crew members have been rescued.

According to a statement from the Public Relations Officer of the Anambra State Police Command, SP Tochukwu Ikenga, the media crew was abducted along the Isseke-Orlu Road in Ihiala Local Government Area while they were traveling from Lagos to Uyo.

Joint security forces launched a rescue operation following the incident, which led to the safe recovery of six kidnapped journalists.

“Joint security forces have successfully rescued six members of the media crew who were abducted while traveling from Lagos to Uyo along Isseke-Orlu Road in Ihiala,” Ikenga said as quoted by Sahara Reporters.

The police spokesperson added, “Meanwhile, operations are still ongoing for the possible rescue of the seventh crew member. Further development shall be communicated.”

Meanwhile, a prominent journalist and former staff of the broadcast station, Colin Udoh confirmed that one of the crew members is dead.

He tweeted, “A journalist, one of my former SuperSport colleagues, was killed yesterday when members of the production crew for Friday’s game against Libya were kidnapped on their way to Uyo. Some of the crew have been freed, while at least 2 others are still unaccounted for.”

Vanguard News

The National Working Committee (NWC) of the PDP has extensively considered the series of complaints raised against the Acting National Chairman, Amb. Illiya Damagum and National Secretary, Sen. Samuel Anyanwu particularly with regard to the letter addressed by them to the Court of Appeal in Appeal No:CA/PH/307/2024 against the Party’s position in the case involving the 27 former members of the Rivers State House of Assembly who vacated their seats upon decamping from the PDP to the All Progressives Congress (APC).

The NWC condemned this anti-party activity of the Acting National Chairman and the National Secretary which is in gross violation of the provisions of the PDP Constitution (as amended in 2017) and their Oath of Office.

Consequently, the NWC, pursuant to Sections 57, 58 and 59 of the PDP Constitution, has suspended Amb. Illiya Damagum and Sen. Samuel Anyanwu as Acting National Chairman and National Secretary of the Party respectively and referred them to the National Disciplinary Committee for further action.

In the meantime, the two officials are suspended from all meetings, activities and programs of the NWC pending the conclusion of investigation by the National Disciplinary Committee.

Signed:

Hon. Debo Ologunagba
National Publicity Secretary

Fulham star, Alex Iwobi has named his four best ever Super Eagles players of all-time.

Iwobi spoke ahead of Nigeria’s 2025 Africa Cup of Nations, AFCON, qualifier with Libya on Friday in Uyo.

In a recent interview with PoojaDissects, Iwobi was asked to name his four best ever Super Eagles players.

The former Arsenal player simply said: “[Austin] Jay-Jay Okocha, Nwankwo Kanu, Joseph Yobo and Victor Osimhen.”

Okocha, Kanu and Yobo have all retired from football.

Osimhen, meanwhile, is currently playing for Galatasaray on loan from Napoli.

When one of the Afenifere chieftains who had gone to commiserate with Pastor Enoch Adeboye over the death of the son reported that the man showed them a video of Sunday Igboho insulting him, it occurred to me how much this big man of God is affected by public opinion. Otherwise, why would someone like Adeboye care about the opinion of someone like Igboho that he would justify his politics? Some people’s criticism of you should always fly beneath the radar of your notice. For Adeboye to pay attention to critics, to the point of even singling out an acerbic individual, something has shifted in the social culture.

For a society that lacks a culture of accountability, the internet has made imperviousness to the critics harder. So much has the internet shrunk the social distance that the influential class must now deal with a plebian public whose existence they would not have been aware of before the age of Web 2.0. From the political class who will send the police after you over social media comments, to Nobel Laureates and even megachurch pastors, the internet has bent the hierarchical relations of power between the big man and the small fries. The radicalism the internet allows is both the anarchist’s ideal universe and the conservative’s nightmare. No one is spared criticism or ridicule in the internet’s court of public opinion.

Someone like Adeboye has greatly suffered on the internet and in many cases, his own words were parsed to convict him. Things pastors used to say within the confines of their churches now hit the internet and make them sound unreasonable.

Take, for example, the story Adeboye told of the billionaires in his church who paid “hefty” tithes and demanded a monthly account of how the money was being spent. He said he did not find a biblical justification for their request, and those people suffered severe repercussions for daring to challenge him. A story like that tells you so much about Nigeria’s culture of underdevelopment. The RCCG churches in the USA, do they not give regular account to their congregation? If the IRS demands to see their accounts, will Adeboye tell them there is no basis for giving in to such request? Their society is organised, and their God is not so shady that he would destroy people for making reasonable requests.

Adeboye’s recent admission of doctrinal error over tithes is another victory for the internet. Daddy Freeze (Ifedayo Olarinde), who galvanised other disgruntled elements over the issue of tithes should be proud of what he has achieved. When he began to claim the doctrine of tithe as preached in the contemporary Pentecostal church was unbiblical, hardly any famous Pentecostal pastor did not demystify himself just to attack him—a mere individual. Yet, no matter how much they spun it, nobody who has read the Bible or history books properly would ever agree that tithes can buy you eternity or a good life. That is a transactional gospel, tantamount to the Catholic Church’s selling indulgences in the Middle Ages.

By publicly apologising, Adeboye joins the league of famous prosperity gospel preachers like Benny Hinn and Creflo Dollar who have also admitted their errors over tithes. Except that Adeboye’s apology came across as a non-apology. He could have stopped at saying he was wrong, but no, he still dug further by saying “ten percent was for beginners” and people should “give violently” (what does that even mean?). He could have stayed focused and stopped putting percentages on people’s money.

It would be setting the bar too low to applaud Adeboye for making the minimum effort of apologising. Merely saying “sorry” is the easy part. The real test of Adeboye’s remorse and integrity on this matter would be him dedicating himself to undoing the structures that the wrong doctrines have created within the RCCG and across denominations where people have looked up to him. The doctrinal and administrative mechanisms for milking people of their money must also be systematically dismantled. He must actively preach against a religion where the things of God have become commodities to be purchased, and where worship means nothing without money.

Through the legitimacy tithe sermons like Adeboye’s provide, some preachers have run amok with a transactional gospel that sometimes even puts Adeboye up as the quintessence of the truth of such theology. Even some preachers whose sons have become ministers actively carry on with the same doctrine of give! give! give! as if that is all there is to religion.

Things are so bad in some Pentecostal churches that preachers now claim that Adam was sent out of the garden because he did not pay tithes, or that Job faced tribulations because of tithes. By what theological permutation does one even arrive at such a twisted conclusion? Some of these preachers forget that some of us can read the Bible for ourselves, and we have access to a wide variety of literature written by erudite people against which we can crosscheck their preaching. Like the Berean church, we can study to discern and reject nonsense. Thanks to social media, we can also broadcast our dissent.

Let me preempt those about to tell us to mind our business because tithe and Adeboye’s doctrinal errancy are a family affair. First, you are mistaken because there is something called “a matter of public interest.” Look it up on Google. A society where your preachers teach that God punishes people for asking a pastor to give account is one where politicians too will adopt the same standard. Second, tithes and the religious relationship they spawn are transactions of faith. The people who seek refuge from a troubled world in the church give in good faith; the tithe-hustling pastors who manipulate them into giving what they cannot legitimately afford confront them with bad faith. Society itself is built on the infrastructure of faith; whether you are a believer or not, we all have the collective responsibility to ensure that people’s faith in certain institutions are not abused. Looking away from the abuse of faith in religious institution is one step away from looking away from similar abuses in the integrity of healthcare, banking, educational, and other social systems.

Finally, I must restate that the issue at stake is not whether people should give to churches. Worldwide, non-profit organizations rely on public donations to run. Personally, I would not mind giving to my former university, but nobody has ever asked. As far as I know, no Vice Chancellor has taken the initiative to create a scheme that allows regular donations from alumni. The result is that outside churches that have created such a structure, our part of the world hardly makes public donations. What we do is more at a personal level rather than institutional. It is a culture that has both its good sides and its shortcomings.

If you belong to a church or similar community, you should give to support them. Churches need regular donations to operate. Many local churches have social welfare projects, and their efforts are why society has not broken down entirely in this Tinubu economy. Their efforts might be invisible to the public, but they have helped families pay house rent and school fees, sent food items, and even paid hospital bills. All these they do in addition to other moral support they provide. Initiatives like that deserve support, and whoever is led to give to support should do so. What is unacceptable is making exaggerated promises to get more money out of people. No, God will not make you billionaires because you paid tithe. And no, your life is not guaranteed because you paid tithe. Pastors who espouse that logic are no different from money ritualists.