Between October 11 and 15, 2024, Nigeria’s Super Eagles will take on the Mediterranean Knights of Libya in two legs of the qualifying matches for the 2025 AFCON. The matches will present an opportunity for the country to continue to build a new Super Eagles from the ashes of recent disasters with foreign coaches, as the country continues to search for a suitable permanent coach.

Meanwhile, Head of the Technical Department of the Nigeria Football Federation, Augustine Eguavoen, continues to hold forth in that position without commanding enough national confidence to make him the permanent coach of the team. It is imperative, therefore, that a decision on next manager for the team be addressed as quickly as possible. Testier times and more difficult matches lie ahead. The psychology of the country and the team needs reinforcement following unconvincing performances and results.

I have a simple ‘interim’ suggestion. The NFF should look in the direction of Samson Siasia again for reinforcement of the present equilibrium.

Why Samson Siasia?

Between 1993 and 1995 I played a role in the Nigeria Football Association as Head of the Technical Committee, and Team Manager (later changed to Welfare Officer) of the Super Eagles. I was an integral part of the national team when Clemens Westerhof was Technical Adviser (Manager).

I was in the heart of the team through the qualification and participation of Nigeria in the World Cup and in winning the African Cup of Nations in Tunisia in the same year, 1994.

It was not a big deal, but I lived with the team in their various camps, shared my ideas quietly with Clemens Westerhof and the NFA led by Air-Commodore Emeka Omeruah, and was directly in charge of the welfare of the players.

In short, I had more than a passing knowledge of all the players beyond their playing the game and doing so very well. It was part of my being and private work to look beyond the surface of things and what roles the players could play after their football careers.

I was particularly interested in those that could become coaches good enough to succeed Clemens Westerhof and ensure that Westerhof became the last foreign coach to handle the Super Eagles. A few of the players were approaching the end of their illustrious playing careers and were loaded with unique experiences that would serve them in good stead and elevate them above the ex-international players of the previous eras in the hierarchy of those deserving to become national coaches.

The Super Eagles were one of the best teams in the world and Nigeria’s most priced international image-maker to the extent that when USA President Bill Clinton visited the country after USA ’94 his first comment to airport correspondents at the Murtala Muhammed Airport was about Nigeria’s Super Eagles and Rashidi Yekini.

The Super Eagles were so revered that they featured on the cover of a special edition of Time magazine on the eve of the 1994 World Cup. The team was that big, and I am proud to claim a little but significant credit for the role I played as Team Manager in charge of players’ welfare between 1993 and 1995.

That experience provided me with a very unique insight into the individual players, enabling me to make academic deductions about their strengths and weaknesses.

The more I studied them the more I realized how important they all would be for the future of Nigerian football, particularly in the area of producing technical leadership and guidance for the national teams, and end the dependence on foreign coaches in Nigerian football. Nigeria had to produce qualified Nigerians drawn from the Class of 1994 with experiences at the broadest and highest levels. These would handle the various Nigerian national teams and take the country to the very top of global football.

The ‘revolution’ began with, Stephen Keshi, the ‘Big Boss’ , who, in 1995, was at the tail end of his playing career.

Clemens Westerhof was aware of Keshi’s outstanding qualities and always told anyone willing to listen. He believed Stephen Keshi was born to lead the Super Eagles as coach one day.

The great player went on to get his coaching licenses, became a coach, eventually became coach of the national team and, despite some ‘jaundiced’ opposition by some administrators and a small section of the media, Keshi fulfilled all expectations and achieved results with the Super Eagles that matched or surpassed the best by any foreign coach before and after him, till now.

Incidentally, Keshi was not alone in that group of players that had the qualities to handle the national teams and to halt the unprofitable practice of regular recourse to unknown and expensive foreign coaches that slowed down Nigeria’s progress in football on the field of play.

The players of the Class of 1994 had all the experiences – as players from the domestic leagues in Nigeria, to high profile teams and leagues in Europe, to winning the African Cup of Nations and qualifying for the World Cup for the first time.

I made these purely academic observations based on my own limited experiences as a player too under local and foreign coaches.

Clemens shared similar views about the players that could become successful national team coaches in the 1994 team with Onochie Anibeze of Vanguard newspaper.

Sunday Oliseh, Emmanuel Amuneke and Finidi Gèorge did not make his cut because they were relatively younger and reserved in camp, not showing enough of their true characteristics for anyone to have seen their potential as future coaches.

The first and most obvious was Stephen Keshi. His leadership characteristics transcended playing. He was a sure-bet to be a national coach. There was no disputing or halting his rise to the top.

Another player in that group that struck me (and my opinion was supported later by Onochie Anibeze and Clemens Westerhof) was Samson Siasia.

Samson was a silent operator, a player behind the scenes of major events, one who knew what he wanted and would always express it without being the centre of attraction and considered a rebel. He was influential in the team without being unduly loud. He was clever and very intelligent. I saw through all of that exterior, recognised his great potential as national coach, and wrote my views publicly.

Time and providence proved me right. Samson Siasia went into coaching and did not look back. He rose through the ranks from Club football to national Under-20 and Under-23 teams. His teams played in the finals of both global FIFA championships. He was ranked amongst the best young coaches in the world by FIFA after the performance of the Under-23 team at the Olympics finals against Argentina. He was drafted to work first as assistant to Augustine Eguavoen and finally on his own as Super Eagles coach for a short spell.

It is rather unfortunate that he suffered the ‘injustice’ of a suspension by FIFA for an offense it was claimed he was going to commit but never did. What is indisputable is that he is the most qualified, experienced and successful indigenous coach in Nigeria’s history.

Now, he has fully served his suspension in the past few months. What has he been up to since then?

I asked and learnt that rather than lament the ‘wasted’ 5 years of his life, or jumping into the fray of looking for a coaching job, he has moved to Europe to refresh his knowledge and coaching skills in preparation for coaching at the highest levels again.

Nigeria is still looking for a Nigerian that can lead the national team and save the country from the menace of expensive foreign coaches. However that search ends,

Samson Siasia should be drafted as a tag-team partner of Augustine Eguavoen in the present arrangement, to reinforce the team’s technical and psychological depth with his rich skills in preparation to be a part of any new Super Eagles arrangement at the top.

Saturday’s Premier League fixtures promise an exciting day of action, starting with an anticipated clash between Newcastle United and Manchester City at 12:30pm (Nigerian Time).

City, fresh from a series of dominant performances, are the favourites, but Newcastle will be looking to cause an upset at home.

The 15:00 fixtures feature several interesting matchups. Arsenal will face Leicester City at the Emirates, where the Gunners are heavily favoured. Arsenal, looking to continue their strong start to the season, face a Leicester side eager to climb the table.

Meanwhile, Brentford host West Ham United in what should be a closely contested London derby, with Brentford tipped as the favourites.

Everton will take on Crystal Palace at Goodison Park, with Palace viewed as slight favourites. Nottingham Forest face Fulham, with the Cottagers favoured to take the points in this encounter.

The day’s Premier League action will conclude at 17:30 when Wolves host Liverpool. Liverpool, the favorites, will aim to continue their title challenge with a victory at Molineux.

La Liga: Barcelona travel to Osasuna

In Spain, La Liga sees Barcelona as the favourites when they travel to face Osasuna in Saturday’s final match at 20:00.

Earlier in the day, at 13:00, Getafe will host Deportivo Alaves, while Rayo Vallecano are set to take on Leganes at 15:15, both sides seen as favourites in their respective fixtures.

The evening’s action also includes a 17:30 battle between Real Sociedad and Valencia, with Sociedad looking to secure a home victory.

Bundesliga: Top teams face off

The Bundesliga also offers plenty of excitement this Saturday.

Borussia Mönchengladbach will host Union Berlin at 14:30, with Gladbach marked as the favourites. At the same time, Freiburg will face St. Pauli, and Mainz 05 go up against Heidenheim, both matches expected to go in favour of the home sides.

At 17:30, the headline fixture of the day will see Bayern Munich taking on Bayer Leverkusen. Bayern are the seemingly favourites in this showdown, but Xavi Alonso’s Leverkusen will be eager to prove they can compete.

Serie A: Inter and Juventus aim for wins

In Serie A, Inter Milan will look to bounce back from a derby defeat as they travel to Udinese for a 14:00 kickoff. Inter are the clear favourites, with high expectations for them to reclaim momentum in the title race.

Later, at 17:00, Juventus face Genoa, while Atalanta are favoured to win against Bologna in the final match of the day at 19:45.

Ligue 1: Monaco host Montpellier

In Ligue 1, Monaco will face Montpellier at 20:00 in a match where Monaco are the clear favourites.

Earlier, at 16:00, Lens will play Nice, followed by Le Havre hosting Lille at 18:00, with Lille expected to take the win.

[Punch]

In a speech that will be remembered for years to come, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu captivated global leaders at the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) today, September 27, 2024. His address, rich with references to biblical history and modern-day geopolitics, left world leaders in awe as he artfully linked Israel’s ancient past to its present and future on the global stage.

Netanyahu’s speech was far more than a standard diplomatic address as it was an invitation to view Israel not just as a nation with contemporary challenges but as a civilization with a storied legacy. By drawing on ancient biblical references, he evoked powerful imagery that transcended politics and reached into the heart of Israel’s cultural and spiritual identity. The speech resonated on a deeply emotional level, not just for Israelis, but for people across the globe who see the Bible as a shared heritage.

With a commanding presence, Netanyahu began by referencing King David’s battles for Jerusalem, framing Israel’s current position in the Middle East as a continuation of biblical struggles. “Just as David faced Goliath with courage and faith, today Israel stands before great adversaries. But like David, we will prevail,” he declared, his voice ringing through the hall. The analogy drew a standing ovation from many in attendance, with several world leaders visibly moved by his words.

Netanyahu’s references to the Bible did not stop there. He invoked the prophetic wisdom of Isaiah and Ezekiel to discuss the turbulent dynamics of the Middle East and the constant threats Israel faces, particularly from Iran. “As the prophets warned of destruction, we are tasked with vigilance in our time,” he said, turning the attention of the assembly to Iran’s nuclear ambitions. His plea for the international community to unite against the Iranian threat was bolstered by this historical context, giving his words a timeless, almost sacred weight.

In an era of fleeting political sound bites, Netanyahu’s speech stood apart, rich with substance and history. His eloquent invocation of biblical scripture was not just rhetoric, it was a profound reminder that Israel’s story spans millennia, and that its survival has always been a matter of divine providence as much as human resilience.

Many in the room acknowledged after the speech that it was a moment destined to be remembered. Political analysts, diplomats, and scholars were quick to note that Netanyahu’s address could be a defining moment in both his career and in Israel’s diplomatic narrative at the UN. It was not just his words that stirred the assembly, it was the depth of his message.

Netanyahu’s ability to weave together ancient texts and modern concerns created an extraordinary impact. “This wasn’t just a speech, it was a moment in history,” said one European diplomat. “He reminded us all that Israel’s survival and its pursuit of peace are part of a much larger story, one that has been unfolding for thousands of years.”

The speech also marked a turning point in Netanyahu’s leadership style. Known for his hardline stance on security and diplomacy, today he showed a different side, a leader deeply in tune with the cultural and spiritual currents of his people. His speech at UNGA today will likely be studied for years as an example of how a leader can use history and tradition to reinforce national sovereignty and diplomacy.

World leaders, from the United States to the Middle East, were left with much to ponder after his address. Netanyahu’s remarks on the Abraham Accords were particularly striking. He described the agreements as not just political pacts, but as the fulfillment of ancient prophecies of peace between Israel and its neighbors. “These accords are the dawn of a new Middle East, one that embraces peace, mutual respect, and shared prosperity,” he said.

Netanyahu’s speech at the UNGA may well be remembered as a milestone in Israeli diplomacy. His skillful blending of biblical history with modern geopolitical realities gave the speech an enduring quality—one that world leaders will recall long after the assembly has concluded.

As the audience dispersed, the consensus was clear: this was a speech that transcended the usual political theater of the UNGA. Netanyahu’s message was a powerful reminder of Israel’s deep historical roots and its enduring commitment to peace and security. By invoking the wisdom of the Bible, he reached beyond the immediate political challenges, offering a timeless perspective on the nature of leadership, resilience, and survival.

Historians and diplomats alike agree that Netanyahu’s speech will go down in the annals of the UN as one of the most remarkable and memorable addresses ever delivered. By drawing on the rich tapestry of Israel’s biblical past, he gave the world a speech that was more than just words—it was a testament to Israel’s enduring strength, faith, and determination to secure its future in a turbulent world.

In the corridors of Nigerian politics, certain phrases have become so commonplace that they seem to lose their meaning over time. Among them, none stands out as more overused, and, some may argue, more hollow, than the oft-repeated declaration: “I can assure you.” This phrase, typically uttered by politicians in positions of power, has been wielded in moments of crisis, failure, or disappointment to pacify a weary populace. However, the constant repetition of this phrase has caused it to lose credibility and effectiveness over time.

When Nigerian political leaders declare “I can assure you,” it often signals a deflection rather than a resolution. For instance, during times of economic downturn, insecurity, or fuel scarcity, government officials are quick to “assure” citizens that better days are coming. However, these assurances are frequently followed by minimal action or tangible improvements. This reliance on rhetoric, instead of genuine reform or policy change, has led to growing skepticism among the public.

Consider the case of Nigeria’s power sector. For decades, successive administrations have promised to fix the country’s erratic electricity supply, with numerous ministers and heads of parastatals beginning their speeches with the same assurance. Yet, the national grid continues to collapse, and citizens are forced to rely on generators or solar power to survive.

Similarly, promises of job creation are repeatedly given as an assurance to Nigeria’s large youth population. In 2023, as unemployment figures skyrocketed and inflation hit record highs, politicians routinely used “I can assure you” to pacify the public, promising that job creation and economic recovery plans were in place. Yet, to date, the tangible benefits of these assurances remain largely invisible, with many Nigerians struggling under the weight of economic hardship.

To understand why this phrase has become a favorite among Nigerian politicians, one must consider the role of political optics. “I can assure you” serves as a verbal Band-Aid, designed to quickly soothe public unrest or discontent without addressing the root cause of the problem. It momentarily placates citizens who are waiting for solutions, buying time for leaders to either delay action or deflect responsibility.

This tactic has been especially prevalent in the aftermath of major national crises. Whether it’s the #EndSARS protests, high inflation rates, or the rising cost of fuel, “I can assure you” has been deployed as a way to temporarily cool tempers while tangible responses remain elusive.

For example, in 2020, during the heat of the #EndSARS protests, a movement that rocked the country and saw Nigerian youth taking to the streets to demand an end to police brutality, political leaders were quick to assure protesters that their demands would be met and that necessary reforms were underway. Yet, nearly four years later, the issues that sparked the protests remain unresolved, with many citizens questioning whether the assurances given were ever genuine.

One of the major issues with the overuse of “I can assure you” is that it diminishes accountability. If political leaders were judged on the assurances they have given, many would fail spectacularly. However, the phrase is so frequently used, and often forgotten by the time the next crisis hits, that no one is held responsible for unfulfilled promises.

For example, during election campaigns, politicians offer assurances on everything from job creation to infrastructure development. Once in office, however, the specifics of these assurances fade away, leaving the citizens with empty words and no real progress. This lack of follow-through is not unique to any political party but has become a culture across Nigeria’s political landscape.

In the build-up to the 2015 general elections, for instance, the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC) assured Nigerians that the issue of insurgency in the northeastern part of the country would be a thing of the past within a matter of months. President MuhammaduBuhari’s administration “assured” the nation that Boko Haram’s reign of terror would be swiftly ended. While some progress has been made, the insecurity crisis has since evolved into a broader range of threats, including banditry, kidnapping, and farmer-herder clashes, leaving many Nigerians feeling that the assurances were nothing more than campaign rhetoric.

Repeatedly hearing “I can assure you” from leaders who fail to deliver has nurtured a deep sense of cynicism among Nigerians. Citizens are increasingly less inclined to believe these words and more likely to demand action. The disconnect between what is assured and what is delivered has eroded trust in public institutions and political leadership.

This skepticism is evident in the public’s response to recent economic policies. When Nigeria’s leadership assured citizens that removing fuel subsidies would benefit them in the long run, the immediate result was skyrocketing prices and widespread hardship. While citizens were assured that the government had their best interests at heart, the realities on the ground told a different story.

The issue of fuel subsidy removal is a classic example of overused assurances. Time and again, citizens have been “assured” that the removal of subsidies is necessary for the growth and sustainability of the economy. Yet, when such policies are enacted, the burden of adjustment disproportionately falls on the masses, while politicians and those in power remain largely insulated from the harsh realities of inflation and rising costs of living. This gap between promise and outcome has left citizens disillusioned.

The phrase “I can assure you” is not only problematic because it is overused but also because it is often accepted without being challenged. The Nigerian media, which plays a crucial role in holding leaders accountable, has at times been complicit in amplifying these assurances without enough scrutiny.

However, in recent years, the rise of independent media and investigative journalism has put some pressure on political leaders to be more accountable. Civil society organizations and citizen journalists have also played a key role in questioning the assurances given by leaders, especially in the era of social media, where political statements are dissected and analyzed almost instantly.

Nigerian leaders must recognize that the era of placating citizens with empty assurances is fast coming to an end. The public is more informed, vocal, and impatient than ever before. Politicians can no longer rely on mere rhetoric to carry them through their terms in office. Instead, they must back their words with decisive actions, measurable progress, and transparent policies.

The overuse of “I can assure you” is not just an issue of political language but one of governance. If leaders cannot deliver on their promises, they should refrain from making them. Nigerians deserve leaders who take action, hold themselves accountable, and offer more than hollow reassurances.

In conclusion, “I can assure you” has become a tired phrase in Nigerian politics, one that represents more of what has gone wrong than what could go right. It’s time for a new lexicon of leadership, one that emphasizes action over words and results over rhetoric. Nigerians are waiting, and they will no longer be placated by promises. If Nigerian politicians want to regain the trust of the public, they must replace assurances with visible change, addressing the pressing issues of governance, insecurity, and economic hardship that plague the nation. The clock is ticking, and the people are watching.

Eight more young girls trafficked to Ghana have been rescued and brought back to Nigeria.

Chairman/CEO, Nigerians in Diaspora Commission (NiDCOM), Hon Abike Dabiri-Erewa @⁨Abike Dabiri⁩ receiving the young ladies at the NiDCOM Annex Office in Lagos, thanked the First Lady of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, Senator Oluremi Tinubu, (CON) for her unwavering support in facilitating the return of the girls

She also acknowledged the significant role of Chief Callistus Elozieuwa, President, Nigerians in Diaspora Organisation (NIDO) Ghana Chapter, the Nigerian embassy in Ghana and the Interpol Units of Nigeria and Ghana.

According to the NiDCOM Boss, the Renewed Hope Agenda of President Bola Ahmed Tinubu is committed to combating human trafficking and protecting the rights of Nigerian citizens both at home and in the Diaspora.

Furthermore, the Chairman/CEO, said the rescued girls have been handed over to the National Agency for the Prohibition of Trafficking in Persons (NAPTIP) to ensure that the girls have safe and comfortable accommodations pending their formal rehabilitation and reintegration with their families.

The rescued girls, aged between 15 and 22, hail from various states across Nigeria, including Ebonyi, Akwa-Ibom, Imo, Plateau, and Cross River, were lured to Ghana under false promises of employment but were forced into sexual exploitation.
She noted that there are still many more trafficked victims waiting to be rescued and thanked the Ghanaian security agencies for their co operation

Meanwhile, a 28-year-old Nigerian, Ms. Favour Ugwu, one of the traffickers, was arested and jailed for eight years in prison, by the court in Ghana on account of human trafficking.

Signed,
Gabriel Odu,
Media, Public Relations and Protocols Unit,
NiDCOM.

Nigeria will be 64 in a few days’ time. It has not all been sixty-four years of pain. No, it has not. Much optimism greeted the birth of the nation. Much bloodshed went into a civil war that was ostensibly fought in order to keep it together for the good of all its constituent units. But the nation has not come this far without some broken promises and dashed hopes. There are still broken promises and dashed hopes, as I write.

Yet here we are: In thrall, as they battle painful policy decisions of the moment, which may yet deliver long-term benefits. In thrall, but unbowed, angry but determined not to be totally disruptive, full of angst and yet convinced that we are on the path to authenticity. Nigerians are facing their worst daymares (not nightmares anymore) yet.

Against the background of the foregoing, there is the prospect, or threat, of a national protest on the very day the nation is to celebrate the 64^th anniversary of its flag independence. And, lest we forget, there is nothing wrong with protests or petitions in themselves; as part of the global democratic enterprise. They may take the form of written correspondence, verbalized and non-violent submissions, or physical displays of discontent; including street matches and generous showing of placards, on which are blazoned the matters of disagreement at the moment.

Thus, protests are legitimate means of social expression, so long as they are designed and structured around the desire citizens to bring up, and bring about, useful and positive, interventions in the society. And that is what makes it radically different from a riot. In the latter case, aggravated misconduct is the norm. This may have no higher social purpose in view, beyond the desire to plunder the polity and carry off anything of value that lay in the way of the rioters.

Most riots are characterized by deeds of madness. There are usually no clear collective goals, beyond the general and specific acts of vandalism that could acquire lives of their own if unchecked. Even when they are checked, riots are what they are: riots. Unstructured, socially self-defeating and sometimes driven by what can best be described as motiveless malignity.

The national protests of two months ago, which, presumably, is about to precipitate another one that has been in gestation, were no riots in most places. Some poor, jobless and hungry people took advantage of the situation to go on a stealing and looting spree. The northern part of the country was the most affected in this regard. This was no surprise to many, because that part of the Federal Republic of Nigeria has been under the weather of ungovernability for far too long.

But we need not do ourselves in because of the allegedly planned October 1 protests. We saw more than enough protests in 1993, after the annulment of the presidential elections. We also know of the Aba Women’s Riot and several others, on the strength of which some have averred that our nation got its independence and everything about it today as a result of one type of protest or the other.

As was said here some two months ago: “It was the long-drawn protests of our founding fathers, in written addresses, in several constitutional conferences and some other means, that eventually birthed an allegedly independent Nigerian in 1960. Just as sceptics had their doubts about the sincerity of the colonialists when they promised us independence, many reasonable Nigerians also doubted the sincerity of the military whenever a ruling junta announced plans to return the nation to civil rule”. And that was after all manner of subtle pressures and open protests.

It was said, further: “Even more sceptics looked on with grave misgivings at the protracted military rule, unconvinced that it was serious when it “threatened” to birth a democratically elected government. Twenty-five years later, and despite the apparent shortcomings, we are making progress; willy nilly if you will. And that progress has more elements of suffering, misgovernment, lack of intraparty cohesion and the absence of a memorable ideological focus from the political class.

Our progress is coming through bitter, mind boggling, morally disorienting and psychologically devastating lessons. The lessons are apparently unscripted, and the teachers are teaching away without Lesson Notes and conventional teaching certificates. And they are exacting and merciless – these teachers.

The names of the teachers include the following: (1) Dishonest politicians, (2) Broken promises, (3) The consequences of citizen gullibility, (4) The results of supporting the wrong candidates, (5) The progressive denudation of the capacities of our national defense and security forces, and (6) The increasing inability of the ruling elite to protect itself from its own depredations”.

As was further observed here, “President Obasanjo, coming in as the first to hoist the flag of democratic rule after the military, was a quasi-military-civilian president. He did his best to craft good policies and establish institutions that would aid good governance. Presidents Goodluck Jonathan and Muhammadu Buhari were the circumstantial by-products of a system of elite myopia that had prevailed in the land for over 50 years. They were not entirely responsible for the problems they inherited. Their parties, the PDP the APC, were, again, not entirely responsible for everything that went wrong with Nigeria under their watch.

The Nigerian State was taken hostage long ago. For over 50 years now, many powerful individuals and groups have succeeded in pushing personal and limited group interests into the front row of national consciousness; such that, today, 25 years into a now-unsettling experience with a fledgling democracy, we are not sure where we really are as a nation. Those whose interests are at variance with wider and deeper national interests have become the real enemies of Nigeria. They may well have actually constituted themselves into a team of highway men and women who waylay everything that could rescue Nigeria and consolidate our current democratic experiment.

Protests are coming and going, because our “25 years old democracy is being bombarded from all sides by (1) A fundamentally distorted eldership recruitment process, (2) Skewed values, (3) A largely dysfunctional educational system, (4) A flawed national psyche and (5) A youth bulge that is increasingly becoming the biggest unaddressed national crisis. With every passing day, these problems morph into new, and self-replicating, societal challenges”.

The havoc wrought on the soul and psyche of this nation by the Nzeogwu coup d’état of January 1966 also came up for mention here two months ago. Part of the submission then was the counter coup that came some six months after Nzeogwu’s unfortunate intervention embodied the worst forms of thoughtless, state-sanctioned misconduct with impunity. We are living with its aftermath today. The initial coup, and the subsequent ‘retaliatory’ one, banished the nation’s true leaders from the political and leadership playing field”. They lived in silent protest for over a decade.

“The ‘replacement generation’ for the founding fathers and leaders of Nigeria, whom they were grooming along ideological lines for the propagation of specific ideological norms, stagnated for 12 years, until 1979. Zik, Awo and Aminu Kano would since have given way to the likes of Tafawa Balewa, Michael Okpara, Bola Ige and others before 1979.

The backlog of two generations of leaders, who were left unfulfilled by the military interventions, did not exercise and fulfil their calling. The petulant idealism and uninformed exuberance of the groups of coup makers trampled upon traditional rulers, traditional values, and almost every other thing that was generally respected as instruments for social control”. So, it has all been series of voiced and unvoiced and unclear protests at every turn.

The many institutional, sociopolitical and axiological problems plaguing the nation today, and which have plagued it for over 50 years now, got all the fillip they needed from the actions and inactions of the past. We got a deluge of prematurely retired military officers within a span of 20 years, precisely because of the negative dynamics of coup making in Nigeria. Many such retired military personnel became frustrated and unfulfilled professionals because of the new character of the Nigerian state after the 1966 military coups. Without intending it, many of them ended up being pushed into areas they would never have contemplated. And their new trajectories naturally elicited protests”.

The point was also made here that: “Our nascent 25 years old democracy has thrown up leaders with sudden stupendous wealth from questionable sources. Their wealth has mostly impacted their immediate and extended families, of less than 15 persons, and a few friends. Their local communities, members of their religious congregations, most of their friends and even members of their extended families know how poor or rich they were a few years before they went into politics. The priests, traditional rulers and other supposed custodians of public conscience ask no questions”.

Before the next protest, let the aspiring protesters be clear about what they want, what lines of action they wish to take and what specific positive outcomes they hope to achieve thereby. The protests will not be accompanied by riots if they are well structured. The government should have made some mileage for itself in discussions and negotiations after the last protests. But, but has it? The issues raised back them seem to still be on the front burner.

Many protesters are driven by poverty and lack of survival skills. That is why the Federal Government should look hard at the hunger in the land, revisit the impact of the measures it has so far taken to address the problems and make some preemptive interventions while it can still do that before October 1.

The efforts of the government need to be better contextualized for wider citizens buy-in and understanding. Protesters must be aware that their protests can only be meaningful if, in protesting, they remain fully conscious of the fact that the nation must exist before they can continue to carry out any protest in it. The president’s cabinet has not performed in such a way that it can be said to have impressed anyone, including itself. some ministries have done a lot, but the ministers themselves are dumb about it.

Quote

The efforts of the government need to be better contextualized for better understanding. Protesters must be aware that their protests can only be meaningful if, in protesting, they do not forget that the nation must remain in existence for them to carry out their protests successfully live to enjoy its “dividends”. The president’s cabinet has not performed in such a way that it can be said to have impressed anyone, including itself. Some ministries have done a lot, but the ministers are dumb about it. Mr. President, Biko, think more of capacity as you shoo out the non-performing ministers in your cabinet.

Several faithful readers of this column who have followed it from the mid-2000s in the Weekly Trust have asked me to spice up my columns with occasional commentaries on American politics and culture, which was the column’s dominant thematic preoccupation in its earliest incarnation.

This year’s presidential election offers an opportunity to do that. This week I want to explore a phenomenon called the “October Surprise” in American presidential elections about which I had written 16 years ago when Barack Obama and John McCain squared off.

An “October Surprise” is any dramatic last-minute event, typically in October but occasionally a little later than October, that swings the election to the disadvantage of a leading candidate. Such dramatic events are believed to have the potential to influence the outcome of the election by swaying public opinion or shifting the narrative around the candidates.

October surprises symbolize the unpredictable nature of the final stretch of the presidential campaign and the high stakes involved in influencing the electorate. 

Before talking about what this presidential election year’s October Surprise will be, I want to reference previous notable “October Surprises” and how they influenced the outcome of past elections.

The term “October Surprise" was coined during the 1980 presidential election between Ronald Reagan and Jimmy Carter (the only president my state of Georgia has produced). A year before Election Day, radical Iranian students had invaded the U.S. Embassy in Tehran, Iran, and held the Americans they found there hostage.

President Carter worked throughout the campaign to secure the release of the American hostages during which eight American servicemen were killed.

According to the Associated Press, “Critics say the Reagan team was so concerned that Carter would gain a boost by winning their release just before the election, that his campaign manager and others negotiated privately with the Iranians to ensure that did not happen.” This cost Carter the 1980 election.

But before October Surprise became entrenched in America’s political lexicon beginning in 1980, it happened eight years earlier. In 1972, according to American presidential historians, President Richard Nixon’s administration announced a potential breakthrough in the Vietnam peace talks, which bolstered Nixon’s re-election prospects. The war was a sticking point in the country.

During the 2000 presidential election, the October Surprise was a damning revelation that George W. Bush had been arrested for driving while he was drunk. It’s called DUI (i.e., driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs) here. It negatively impacted his image among voters, which probably caused him to lose the popular vote—and only narrowly win the Electoral College vote.

Bush became president only because of America’s strange, archaic, and convoluted system of electing presidents, which deprives voters of the opportunity to directly elect their presidents. He was declared president because he won the then battleground state of Florida by 537 votes out of nearly six million cast, which gave him the state’s Electoral College votes.

 In the final weeks of the 2004 election, all the major polls predicted that John Kerry would defeat Bush. He was a bumbling, incompetent president who was very unpopular. 

Then Osama bin Laden allegedly issued a videotape that criticized Bush and warned U.S. voters that "your security is in your own hands" in the election.

"It changed the entire dynamic of the last five days," Kerry told newsmen in 2008. "We saw it in the polling. There was no other intervening event. We saw the polls freeze and then we saw them drop a point, because all the security moms, it agitated people over 9/11."

There was also an October Surprise in the 2008 presidential election that nearly torpedoed Obama’s lead and punctured his campaign’s overweening confidence. On October 30, 2008, conservative British newspaper TimesOnline broke the news of Obama’s late father’s half-sister, identified as Zeituni Oyango, living in the United States illegally and that she first came to the U.S. on the invitation of Obama.

The woman was mentioned in Obama’s best-selling autobiography Dreams From My Father.

She was invited by Obama to the United States to witness his swearing-in as a U.S. senator. She returned to Kenya after Obama’s inauguration and came back again on her own. She applied for asylum, but her application was rejected and was ordered to be deported back to Kenya.

But she somehow escaped and had been living in the slums of Boston. The TimesOnline story initially did not gain traction in the United States until the Associated Press pounced on it and added a fresh dimension: that Obama’s aunt was not only here illegally but had contributed money to the Obama campaign, which violates America’s campaign laws, which stipulate that only U.S. citizens and legal permanent residents can contribute to political campaigns.

The news dramatized Obama’s “otherness” in more concrete ways than the McCain camp had tried vainly to do. Because AP’s reporting showed that the woman contributed up to $265 to the Obama campaign even though she was neither a U.S. citizen nor a lawful permanent resident, she helped to feed the Republican Party-inspired allegations that Obama’s unprecedented financial buoyancy was consequent on his receiving illegal donations from non-Americans.

What saved Obama was that Sarah Palin, McCain’s running mate, fell for a cheap prank by two well-known Canadian comedians by the names of Marc-Antoine Audette and Sebastien Trudel who go by the stage name “the Masked Avengers.”

They put a call through to Sarah Palin, which she picked. One of the comedians pretended to be then French president Nicholas Sarkosky. Palin believed him. And she went on for over 5 minutes discussing inane issues with the “ French president.” The conversation further betrayed her shallowness and ignorance of foreign policy issues.

This dominated the news cycle days before the election.  Sarah Palin’s inability to detect that she was being tricked even in the face of so many red flags during the conversation had the effect of canceling out the scandal of Obama’s aunt living illegally in the US and making illegal donations to Obama’s campaign. (Obama’s aunt later became a legal permanent resident in 2010 but died  four years later).

Finally, in the 2016 presidential election, FBI Director James Comey announced that a renewed investigation had been launched into Hillary Clinton’s email practices. This became a major talking point just 11 days before the election, which some argued influenced the final vote. Although she defeated Donald Trump by three million votes, America’s Electoral College system caused her to lose the presidency.

So what might be the October Surprise in this year’s presidential election? It’s hard to tell, particularly because Donald Trump is not a conventional candidate. He is the most morally flawed, most openly racist, and most explicitly psychologically damaged presidential candidate America has had in recent memory. Yet nothing seems to stick to him.

He once boasted that he could murder someone in broad daylight in the streets of New York and nothing would happen to him. He is what Americans call a “Teflon candidate.” Teflon is a substance used to cover the surface of cooking utensils, etc. in order to prevent extraneous substances from sticking to them).   

If any candidate should be fearful of an October Surprise, it should be Vice President Kamala Harris, whom polls favor to win both the popular vote and the Electoral College vote and make history as the first woman to be president of the United States. 

Had the attempt on Trump’s life taken place in October, that would have been the October Surprise that would hand him the presidency. Some people think it may happen again next month. 

Are Nigerians hungry because they’ve been drinking too much free beer and now the brewery is bankrupt? I ask because President Bola Ahmed Tinubu waxed rhetorical Thursday last week as he dissected the very bad hunger wracking his country and its more than 200 million people. “I understand we are hungry, but no free beer parlour anymore,” he said. Except the president is suggesting that we are a nation of drunkards, I am tempted to wonder what shred of meaning connects “hunger” and “beer” here.

What the president said was a rhetorical gaffe that deserves a rebuke. When a person says what he said and in the context he said it, the Yoruba would look at him and wonder why he is talking ìrù (tail) when we are talking irú (locust beans). What are we saying, what are they saying? We are begging for bread; they are belching beer. The old man saw liquid when his people cried solid. The president’s ‘learned’ supporters will insist that ‘beer’ is the president’s metaphorical substitute for ‘food’. That will be interesting. We’ve always suspected that metaphor serves as a ready refuge for the flawed – especially in the very slippery terrain of politics. But the Emilokan rationalists should remember to tell the president that a successful metaphor is one that is apt. When the vehicle and the topic cohere in semantic peace, we congratulate the metaphor birther for a successful delivery.

His preference for “beer parlour” where ‘food bank’ should be was a tragic subversion of aptness in metaphorical deployment. A mandatory credit pass in Literature is recommended for whoever would be president after this one. ‘Beer’ does not collocate with ‘hunger’.

The beer-parlour talk of the president may be one of his lasting contributions to language and the field of political rhetoric. You never can tell. He already, during the 2023 campaigns, dropped ‘balablu’ as one of his hit singles. Sometimes, what the enemy thinks is blemish ends up embellishing one’s memory. We call it èébú d’olá in Yoruba. William Archibald Spooner lived between July 1844 and August 1930. Between those years, he served as a clergyman, author and professor of ancient history, divinity and philosophy at the University of Oxford. He was described as “a well-liked, respected, genial, kindly, hospitable man” but blessed with “a head too large for his body.” Spooner was brilliant but was equally very absent-minded, and he got famous for it. He, in 1879, from the pulpit, famously gave out the first line of a popular hymn as “Kinkering Kongs their titles take” (instead of ‘Conquering Kings Their Titles Take’). And he did it, not intentionally.

When Spooner died, his obituary in the 1 September, 1930 edition of Manchester Guardian contains this passage: “All sorts of stories, probable and improbable, were invented… Of the well-worn ones, the best are those which made Spooner declare that he was leaving Oxford by ‘the town drain,’ that some unauthorised person was ‘occupewing his pie,’ that at a marriage it was ‘kistomary to cuss the bride,’ and that he was tired of addressing ‘beery wenches.’ Much better authenticated and not even a Spoonerism is his famous reply to a young lady who asked him if he liked bananas. He is said to have retorted, ‘I’m afraid I always wear the old-fashioned nightshirt.’”

That Guardian obituary was not only how Spooner was remembered. Because he said all he said, before he died, the English Language got enriched with one more permanent word – spoonerism. The word proceeded to get a barge of honour as a rhetorical device in literature – and a mention in neuro science.

Who knows, courtesy of our president, ‘beer’ may enter the English Dictionary as a synonym for ‘food’ just as the president’s social media enemies, irreverent children of anger, use ‘agbadoan’ as a collective name for his long-suffering fans. Agbado is the Yoruba name for corn. The president, before his election, recommended it as a solution to the hunger on the streets.

Now, more seriously, let us ask the president and his defenders: Can beer replace dinner? Or could it be that we are hungry because our leaders have been taking too much freebies from our liquor bank? Or could it be that our president has been too far removed from the caked reality of the scorched earth for him to know that the world is about to end courtesy of his apocalyptic policies? When the president said what he said and ended it with a demand for patience from the hungry, I heard a loud applause from his fawning followers. The president enjoyed that applause. How I wish he would read Shakespeare in ‘Pericles: Prince of Tyre’. The playwright says: “They do abuse the king that flatter him.” He says again that “kings should let their ears hear their faults.” Clapping when the leader spoke beer when food was needed was distressing; it numbs the soul. But you would ask who made up that adulating audience? Former principal officers of the National Assembly. They are plaintive ex-eagles desirous of new feathers for fresh flights and feasts. They are men who are ready to kneel lower than their knees. A high-five for what the president said shames all – especially the eight million plus who elected him last year.

The president also spoke about “free bowl” which he said hungry Nigerians “cannot just take”. Then he spoke about the closure of Nigeria’s “free beer parlour”. The tone, texture and context of Tinubu’s beer-and-bowl statement trivialized the people’s travails. Who will help Nigerians tell their president that their hunger is not for beer and the inebriation it offers? That the starvation cries in town are not a craving for free meal. That Nigerians do not seek, and are not demanding indebtedness to charity. All they seek are policies with a human face, a government that cares.

The town writhes in agony because government has lost its meaning. Every citizen has a personal reason for voting in elections. One of those reasons is what English philosopher, Bernard Bosanquet (1848-1923) explains as the hope by the citizen that the government would help him to become “what he has in him to be.” Not all who voted for Tinubu last year did so for party, tribe or money. Some genuinely thought he would make a positive difference in their lives. Now, everyone is stranded because the government crashed the car.

The country is in deep trouble. What is broken in our economy is brittle beer bottle, not calabash. It cannot be mended. It doesn’t look like the government is worried as we are about the present darkness. Where leaders do not care, we would be right to inquire what they have where a heart ought to be. If there is a heart there, then it must be made of something very hard. William Bascom wrote of the Yoruba concepts of the wicked and the hard-hearted: “A hard-hearted person is bad-tempered, easily offended, willful and stubborn, doing what he likes and paying no attention to what others say. When an ordinary person in anger would throw a small lump of dirt, a hard hearted person throws a large stone. Worse than the hard-hearted person is one who is ‘wicked’ (ìkà). A wicked person loves no one but himself; he advises others to sell things for less than he knows they are worth; he injures others and destroys their property without cause…” I agree. The wicked counts the number of stars he shoots down.

Last week, US vice president, Kamala Harris, told talk show host, Oprah Winfrey, that a leader’s real strength lies in “who he lifts up, not who he brings down.” She said the same, and much more, in another interview in April this year, long before she became the Democratic Party’s presidential candidate:

“We need a protector”, the interviewer told Kamala Harris.

And she replies:

“Yes. Sadly, over the last many years, there has been this kind of perverse approach to what strength looks like, which is to suggest that the measure of one’s strength is based on who you beat down instead of what we know that the true measure of your strength is based on who you lift up. You know, and if you ever want to measure, if you ever want some objective indication of your individual power, see what you can do to help other people, people in need. It could be some simple act, like just listening to how people are feeling and to sincerely, sincerely have some interest and concern about their well-being or their suffering. That’s what we want from leaders…That’s really what strength looks like and that’s the kind of strength that we want.”

That is the kind of strength Nigerians demand to see in their president. They do not desire a leader who sits somewhere far in the sky and speaks in tongues about hunger and patience; about beer, bowls and booze. A leader should not preen like a god while his people reel in pain.

We also read the president declaring last Friday that he was in government to work and not to make money. I read him and said great! A leader should take less and give more. “The less a man needs, the nearer he is to God who needs nothing,” said Socrates. But we read of our leaders’ stories of grasping and taking that leave us to wonder if some people’s needs have a limit.

About 50 years ago, Sakara music legend, Yusuf Olatunji, had cause to sing: “You said there is no food but your own children feed to satiation (E ní kò sí, kò sí, omo yín ńyó…).” Between the 1970s when the song was sung and now, what has changed is that things have grown worse. Our presidency is famed as the most powerful in the history of presidential democracy. It is also sadly, the most unfeeling. Ghanaian writer, Ayi Kwei Armah, asks: “Is it always true that it is impossible to have things strong and at the same time beautiful?” Our Federal Government is strong and powerful but so are wolves and lions in the jungle. We think our president should be king – or god – and we have him so invested. That should explain why a president says the wrong things and all palms turn zombie, clapping.

In a careless republic as ours, a president can easily become a virtual monarch, or even a god. We will soon be there – if we are not there already. It is possible some people have a shrine where they make offerings of kola and liquor to the Nigerian president. If they do, they would have several pages of history to guide them. One of them is in the West Africa magazine of March 3, 1945 which published a piece in celebration of the memory of an Alaafin who had just joined his ancestors. “The highest oath that an Oyo man could take was to swear by the head of the Alaafin,” the magazine wrote, and added that the people believed the late oba was divine. The oba himself thought himself so and he said so and acted so. How?

Eshugbayi Eleko was deposed as the Oba of Lagos in 1925 by the British. He was subsequently banished to Oyo town but he didn’t go quietly into the night; he went to court. During the ensuing celebrated case, evidence on some historical issues was needed in support of the deposed oba. It was to the Alaafin of Oyo that counsel to Oba Eshugbayi went.

The Alaafin was asked to swear before his evidence was taken.

Alaafin queried in anger:

“By whose name?”

“God’s name or by the name of your idol,” the lawyer told him.

“I myself am God!” the oba replied.

By calling himself god or God, the Alaafin of 1925 had not said what no one had ever said.  About 300 years earlier, King James I of England uttered something weighty about the king occupying a throne almost as powerful as God’s. King James told the English parliament on Wednesday, 21 March, 1609 that “kings sit upon God’s throne, but even by God himself they are called gods.” A king, he said, could make anyone “beggars or rich at his pleasure; restrain, or banish out of his presence…” And he used that power, and faced resistance – from the Catholic Church and from other churches. He fought and won. He enjoyed exercising that divine right, quashing opposition, bringing people up, casting people down. But his son, Charles I, who succeeded him didn’t have the grace he had. History says Charles was fought, defeated, arrested, tried by a parliamentary court and found guilty of charges which included devising “a wicked design to erect and uphold in himself an unlimited and tyrannical power to rule according to his will, and to overthrow the rights and liberties of the people”. At his execution at about 2 p.m. on Tuesday, 30 January, 1649, Charles insisted that he did no wrong, that the people were his subjects who should really have no “share in the government.” He stressed that “a subject and a sovereign are clean different things.” May God give Nigerians the sense to continue to have a share in their government.