Latest News
OTHERS' VIEWS
![[OPINION] What next shall we name after Tinubu? - Etim Etim](/media/k2/items/cache/32e29251cae26ae4e44e31e51c68e9bc_L.jpg)
FCT Minister Nyesome Wike spent a whopping N39 billion to renovate the International Conference Centre in Abuja and renamed it Bola Tinubu International Conference Center in continuation of the administration’s craze to name everything after the president. The facility was built in 1991 by the Babangida military régime at only N240 million, but after three decades, the cost of renovating it has gone up to N39 billion. Even with all the inflation and devaluation of the past 30 years, this is a humungous amount of money to spend on only a renovation. If this is how he managed the finances of Rivers State for eight years, I can understand why he owns a Rolls Royce and private jet. Not even a UK Prime Minister would dare!
In only two years in office, President Tinubu has had several institutions and monuments named after him, sparking controversies and debates about his motivations. There’s Bola Ahmed International Airport, Minna, Niger State, formerly known as Abubakar Imam International Airport; Bola Ahmed Tinubu Barracks, a newly army barracks in Asokoro, Abuja; Bola Ahmed Tinubu Polytechnic, located in Gwarimpa, Abuja; Bola Ahmed Tinubu National Assembly Library and Resource Center, inaugurated in May 2024 and Bola Ahmed Tinubu Immigration Service Technology Complex at the agency’s Abuja headquarters. In addition to these, the Deputy Speaker of the House of Reps, Mr. Ben Kalu, has sponsored a bill for the establishment of Bola Ahmed Tinubu University in Abia State. The university aims to promote learning of Nigerian languages. I am sure more are coming.
But why is President Tinubu so obsessed with having everything in the country named after him? What does it say about his motivations, morality, personality and priorities? As governor of Lagos for eight years, Tinubu did not name a single facility or infrastructure after himself. He even exhibited an admirable magnanimity in 2006 when he renamed Western Avenue after Funsho Williams, a PDP governorship aspirant soon after he was murdered in his Dolphin Estate home.
There are many reasons for Tinubu’s new fascination – some obvious and others requiring further studies and research by psychologists and psychoanalysts. By seeking to have buildings named after him, the president is exhibiting a strong desire for recognition and commemoration which clearly suggests a strong sense of self-importance or ego. Tinubu was widely advertised as a man of supernatural abilities in politics, governance and human resource management. But his performance in the last two years has not elicited the widely anticipated applause. Rather, the reviews have been a mix of condemnation and subdued acceptance. Many in the Northern part of the country are very critical of him and have vowed to vote for another person in 2027. Facing such a widespread disapproval, the president is resorting to self-praise by stamping his name on buildings. It’s a kind of narcissism!
Renaming long established landmarks after oneself reflects a lack of humility and portrays a tendency to authoritarianism. In a way, Tinubu is seeking to establish a sense of omnipresence and a strong desire for control and excessive arrogance – the very idea of ‘’I am who I am’’. Some critics blame his ministers and National Assembly leaders for indulging in excessive sycophancy and dragging the president into this self-praise just to curry his favours. Some go to the ridiculous extent of converting Christian songs to political anthems, replacing God with Tinubu in the lyrics. The Senate President recently led such a chorus in an Abuja event where the president was present. Tinubu may not be familiar with these songs since he is not a Christian, but he has become a participant in a distasteful situation in which he’s being compared with God! Not only does it convey serious psychological weaknesses, it also implies a sense of omnipotence, omniscience or divine authority which smack of arrogance and delusion.
But Nigerians are bemused. Citizens facing worsening insecurity, deepening economic challenges and cost of living crisis are too cynical of the president’s fixation with vainglory. Our former leaders, some of whom built these facilities that are being renamed, are embarrassed. Take Gen. Babangida for example. He built the International Conference Center. In his memoire, A journey in Service, IBB explains how his régime worked round the clock to build the facility in a very short period of time to host the 27th OAU summit which had earlier been scheduled for June 1991 in Addis Ababa, but had to be suddenly moved to Abuja because of insecurity in Addis. Three decades after, the retired general, and indeed our former leaders would be wondering why another man who had nothing to do with the iconic facility is now appropriating it to his name. It’s the height of vainglory.
I urge the president to respect his reputation, legacy and the dignity of the office and order the ICC to revert to its original name.
![[OPINION] Democracy and the Assassins - Olusegun Adeniyi](/media/k2/items/cache/876cf93572b7ea6311892f42e7e6bff4_L.jpg)
As we mark another ‘Democracy Day’, it is important for those in authority at all levels to address the existential challenges faced by most Nigerians, the clear and present dangers to the communal faith in our country and the security threats posed by sundry cartels of criminals. But on a day such as this, it is also important to recognise the gains that have been made on our democratic journey. One stands out. We seem to have put behind us the kind of high-profile political assassinations that dominated the first decade of the current dispensation. Perhaps so we may remember, and it is important in a nation noted for collective amnesia, I have decided to excerpt from a chapter in my unpublished book, ’25 Defining Issues in 25 Years of Democracy in Nigeria’. It is a reminder of where we are coming from and the road that we should never travel again…
=====================================================
…On 23 December 2001, then Attorney General and Justice Minister, Chief Bola Ige, was shot dead at his home in Ibadan. In the days preceding the murder, Ige had a well-publicised altercation at the palace of then Ooni of Ife, the late Oba Sijuwade Okunade during the conferment of chieftaincy title on some individuals. The Second Republic Governor of the old Oyo State (now Oyo and Osun)was attacked by an angry crowd who stripped him of his cap and necklace and destroyed his pair of glasses. The group was led by one ‘Fryo’, a supporter of Chief Iyiola Omisore, who had by then just been impeached as Osun State Deputy Governor in controversial circumstances.
At that period, the acrimonious relationship between Omisore and Governor Bisi Akande (who later became foundation chairman of the APC) had caused a fracas at the state assembly, leading to the death of a prominent member representing Ife Central Local Government area, Odunayo Olagbaju. That Ige sided with Akande in the crisis perhaps explained the reaction of the mob. A day after the assault, Omisore granted an abusive interview to TEMPO magazine. “…Bola Ige came on radio to insult me and my family. That is his last one. He was beaten yesterday; the people of Ife beat him up and he was crying like a baby as they removed his cap and his glasses,” Omisore said.
With Ige’s death coming before that interview was published, Omisore became a prime suspect in the murder that elicited sharp divisions within Afenifere, the Yoruba socio-political group to which he (Ige) was deputy leader at the time. Ige’s killing also occurred at a period there were fractures within the group, and it all had to do with his (Ige’s) presidential aspiration that had been scuttled two years earlier. Following the restoration of democracy in 1999, Ige had sought the presidential ticket of the Alliance for Democracy (AD). While many imagined it would be a mere formality, Ige lost to a former Secretary to the Federal Government, Chief Olu Falae in a contest decided by 23 Yoruba elders who swore to an oath of secrecy before voting in Ibadan. Ige got nine votes to Falae’s 14. Despite the secrecy of the exercise, there were reports of who voted for whom and this created a lot of bitterness and divisions among the top echelon of Afenifere.
Following Ige’s death, Omisore was arrested and eventually arraigned before an Oyo State High Court along with other people. They were later released for lack of evidence. Till today, nobody has been held accountable for the death of Ige. The irony of it, as many people say, is that if the Justice Minister of a country could be killed and there is no justice for his family, that is very telling of the rule of law in Nigeria.
But if Ige’s murder was shocking, the gruesome assassination of Mr Barnabas Igwe, the Nigeria Bar Association (NBA) Onitsha branch chairman and wife, Abigael, a few months later was even more confounding. The couple, both lawyers, were returning home from the NBA conference in Ibadan on 1st September 2002 when a group of assailants attacked and shot them several times. Nothing was taken from their vehicle. Since Igwe had been an outspoken critic of the government in Anambra State, accusing fingers were immediately pointed at then Governor ChinwokeMbadinuju (now late).
In the days preceding the killings, the Onitsha NBA had given Mbadinuju a 21-day ultimatum to pay the salary arrears of workers in the state or resign. Igwe also claimed at the time that he had received direct threats from some unnamed government officials through telephone calls on his personal mobile phones. The governor of course denied any involvement in the death of the couple. Instead, he first blamed the death on armed robbers and later that Igwe and wife may have been targeted by people from their local community. Mbadinuju instituted a panel of inquiry into the murder for which nobody was ever arrested. And till today, there is no clue as to who killed the Igwes.
The assassination of Alfred Aminasaori Kala (known by the initials A.K.) Dikibo on 6 February 2004 also jolted the country. Dikibo was on his way to Asaba, Delta state capital, to attend a meeting of the South-South governors and political leaders when he ran into a hail of bullets at about 7.30pm. Eight months earlier, Harry Marshal, whom Dikibo succeeded as PDP Deputy National Chairman (South South), had also been assassinated. A prominent member of the PDP in Rivers State, Harry Marshal was suspended for ‘anti-party’ activities in 2001 and the following year, he resigned from the party to join the ANPP where he assumed the same office he held in PDP. Six weeks to the 2003 general election, four gunmen invaded his house, tied up the security guard, broke into his daughter’s room and forced her to lead them to Harry Marshal’s bedroom where they shot him dead. Following the murder, some armed robbers were paraded at the Force Headquarters in Abuja as the killers. But Harry Marshal’s daughter insisted it was a political assassination claiming that before her father was shot one of the assailants mocked him by saying, ‘You said Buhari for President. A Joke.’ Nobody was ever brought to justice on account of the murder.
According to a publication by the United States Military Academy (USMA), West Point, political assassinations have been part of social reality from time immemorial. But in the first decade of the current democratic dispensation in Nigeria, there were far too many killings. Titled, ‘The Causes and Impact of Political Assassinations’, the West Point journal publication referenced the Combating Terrorism Centre (CTC) with the definition as “an action that directly or indirectly leads to the death of an intentionally targeted individual who is active in the political sphere, in order to promote or prevent specific policies, values, practices or norms pertaining to the collective.”
On 27 July 2006, Mr Funsho Williams, an engineer and prominent politician, was murdered in Lagos in a most gruesome way. Williams had contested the AD gubernatorial primaries with Asiwaju Bola Tinubu (who is now our President) in 1999 and had been defeated by the latter. Williams eventually left the AD to join then ruling PDP where he secured the gubernatorial ticket for the 2003 general election. Again, he was defeated by then incumbent Governor Tinubu. Willliams was preparing to run again at the 2007 general election when he was murdered. A fellow gubernatorial aspirant in the PDP, Senator AdeseyeOgunlewe, whose supporters had clashed with that of the late Williams at a campaign rally the previous weekend, was arrested. Another aspirant, Musiliu Obanikoro was also arrested. Both were later released for want of evidence. In July 2020, the remaining six suspects arrested over the murder were released on grounds that the prosecution had not established a prima facie case against them.
Meanwhile, a month after the death of Williams, in the early hours of 14 August 2006, Dr Ayo Daramola was assassinated at his Ijan-Ekiti country home in Ekiti State. Prior to his death, Daramola reportedly told his family that there were threats to his life from people who wanted him to drop his gubernatorial ambition on the platform of the PDP. Although an aide to Governor Ayo Fayose during his first tenure, Goke Olatunji, and a former House of Representatives member, Thaddeus Aina were arraigned at an Ado Ekiti High Court over the murder of Daramola and then Holland-based Tunde Omojola (who was killed around the same period) the case has died with the victims.
However, in 2014, when Fayose was again contesting for the governorship of Ekiti State (which he won), the Onijan of Ijan Ekiti, Oba Samuel Fadahunsi, spoke on Daramola’s death. “We know the killers of Daramola because their identities were revealed through the ritual we performed. Fayose is innocent,” the monarch declared. “The ritual we performed was thorough, it exonerated Fayose. Therefore. those linking Fayose to Daramola’s death are doing so for mischief and political reason. As far as I am concerned as the monarch, Fayose has no hand in the death of our son.”
Till today, the identities of the killers of Daramola are known only to Oba Fadahunsi and his palace ritualists and he has refused to reveal them to the relevant authorities so that they can be brought to justice…
ENDNOTE:
What the foregoing excerpts from an unpublished manuscript suggest is that the first decade of the current dispensation witnessed many political assassinations. That may be no surprise. As they mature, democracies tend to outgrow the use of summary violence in obtaining political outcomes. That is a positive sign that democracy is becoming more of a cultural force. However, the deployment of violence to effectuate democratic outcomes does not end with assassinations. The ballot process can also be marred by intimidation and threats of violence. Security agencies can assume partisan roles using violence. All these remain present in our political culture. But the fact that our politicians are learning not to settle scores with violence is making our democracy less dangerous. I hope and pray it continues this way as I wish Nigerians happy democracy day!
Muhammed Lawal Uwais (1936-2025)
It is undeniable that the late former Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), Muhammed Lawal Uwais excelled in his assignment as Chairman of the electoral reform panel established by thelate President Umaru Musa Yar’Adua. That most of the fundamental recommendations by the panel have not been implemented is an indictment on the authorities in our country. But to reduce his entire life and careerto this one role, as being done by some commentators—even if well-meaning—is unfair to the 27 years Uwais dedicated to the Supreme Court and his several contributions to Nigeria’s legal system.
It is indeed most fitting that THISDAY LAWYERpublication devoted its latest edition on Tuesday to Uwais, who was called to the Bar at the Middle Temple, London in 1963 and held the position of CJN for 11 years from 1995 until retirement in 2006 at age 70. In his tribute, Olisa Agbakoba, SAN, not only reminded readers that Uwais as CJN returned N5 billion to the treasury at the end of the 2005 budget year but also that Uwaiswas a member of the old generation of Supreme Court Justices who remain Gold Standard in the estimation of most Nigerians: Chukwudifu Oputa, Kayode Esho, Andrews Obaseki, Anthony Aniagolu and others.
It is indeed on record that as a relatively new Supreme Court Justice in 1979,the exceptional qualities of Uwais were quickly recognized by then CJNAtanda Fatayi-Williams, who included him (Uwais) on the panel overseeing the high-profile political case filed bythe late Chief Obafemi Awolowo against Alhaji Shehu Shagari, following the 1979 presidential election. I believe the experience Uwais gained from that panel ofjudicial giants must have significantly influenced his development into the distinguished judge he later became.
Throughout his career on the bench, Uwais’ jurisprudence was marked by firm reinforcement of constitutional supremacy and federal balance, expansion of fundamental rights, liberal approach to constitutional interpretation, clarification of judicial and court jurisdictions, and advocacy for robust electoral and institutional reforms. Those were the fundamental kernels on which his judgements rested, and I can cite a few. While affirming the nullification of the gubernatorial in Kebbi State in 2003, Uwais came up with the doctrine of ‘Substantial Compliance’ with the electoral act by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) which has become the standard for judges on elections. The ruling emphasized that minor irregularities may not void an election, but “Where an election is conducted in substantial non-compliance with the Electoral Act, the results cannot stand, and a fresh election must be ordered.”
In the case between Abia State and the federal government, following the signing into law of the Revenue Monitoring Act (2005) by President Olusegun Obasanjo, Uwais’ judgment affirmed fiscal federalism. The issue centred on the constitutionality of the legislation which required states to remit internally generated revenues (IGR) to the Federation Account for redistribution. The argument of the 36 states led by Abia, Lagos and Ogun was that the Act encroached on the autonomy of the states regarding the management of their IGR (e.g., taxes, fees). They argued further that only federally collected revenues (e.g., oil taxes, customs) should be shared under Section 162 of the 1999 Constitution.
In dismissing the argument of the federal government that the Act was aimed at ensuring equity by redistributing all revenues, including state IGR, Uwais held that “The Constitution clearly demarcates federal and state revenues. The National Assembly lacks power to confiscate states’ IGR under the guise of ‘monitoring.” On Residual Powers, Uwais said “States are not appendages of the federation. Their autonomy over IGR is sacrosanct under S. 4(7) of the Constitution.” And on constitutional interpretation: “Where the Constitution is clear, as in S. 162, the court must give effect to its plain meaning without legislative overreach.”
From the case between the late Chief Gani Fawehinmi against the Inspector General of Police over his detention to that of the late Chief Emeka Ojukwu against the Lagos State government, Uwais upheld the fundamental rights of citizens against official arbitrariness. In the case of the latter over the seized property under the Abandoned Properties Act after the civil war, it was the intervention by Uwais at the Court of Appeal(where he was at the period) that saved the day.“A citizen cannot be deprived of his property without due process, even under wartime regulations. The government must follow the rule of law, not arbitrary force,” according to Uwais who ruled in favour of Ojukwu.
Perhaps the most notable of Uwais jurisprudence was his ruling in the case between the late Senator Abraham Adesanya and the federal governmentwhich has become a pivotal reference for ‘Locus Standi’ in Nigeria today. This isacknowledged by Professor Taiwo Oshipitan in his article titled,‘Constitutional Law’ in a journal on Uwais’ work edited by the late Justice Niki Tobi. This case involved a member of the Second RepublicNational Assembly (Adesanya) attempting to block President Shagari from appointing Justice Ovie Whiskey as Chairman of the Federal Electoral Commission (FEDECO), the electoral body now known as INEC.
While underscoring the need for access to justice, the late Uwais highlighted the importance of deterring intrusive interlopers, meddlesome individuals, and professional litigants from filing cases on matters that do not directly relate to them. His creativity in deriving ideas from administrative law to establish the essential criteria for locus standi has since become an established principle. Despite several deferred opinions, the principle enunciated by Uwais endures as access to court still essentiallydepends on whether one’s civil rights are infracted upon or not.
Of course, most people remember that the Uwais Panel recommended an electoral offences commission, independent constituency-resizing and party-regulation bodies, shifting the appointment of INEC chairman to the judiciary, adopting proportional representation for legislatures among others. These were based on his understanding that credible elections are important to the survival of any democracy.
In THISDAY LAWYER on Tuesday, several serving and retired Judges as well as prominent legal practitioners paid glowing tributes to Uwais. But it is the current CJN, Justice Kudirat Kekere-Ekun, who wrote something that I found most touching because I could attest to it. “…But, perhaps, what we will miss most is his quiet dignity—his ability to inspire without demanding attention, to lead without pretence, and to mentor without fanfare,” Kekere-Ekun wrote.
That indeed summed up the essence of the Uwais I knew and with whom I enjoyed a good relationship for almost two decades.Until two years ago when his health started to deteriorate, I used to be a constant in his house for Iftar during every Ramadan.But what I can never forget was his visit to my house in October 2019, following the death of my younger brother, Agboola.Although he was quiet for most of the period he spent with us, his mere presence in our house was comforting at a most difficult period for me. May God comfort the family he left behind.
![[OPINION] A Tribute to Uncle Sam at 90 - Azu Ishiekwene](/media/k2/items/cache/eb0e4a487e27618ebee3fd669e3102f6_M.jpg)
I encountered the relic of his presence long before I met Sam Amuka, known as Uncle Sam. Inside a room in the far corner of the old Kudeti PUNCH building, predominantly constructed of plywood and steel frames, there was a wooden armchair that had been a fixture in Uncle Sam’s office when he served as managing editor.
When I joined PUNCH as a staff writer eight years after his departure in 1981, this piece of furniture was in my first office, sitting like a totem in a shrine, while stories about Uncle Sam floated in whispers.
The stories could not be told freely in PUNCH at the time because of the bitter dispute between Uncle Sam and his friend and Publisher, Olu Aboderin, which would later end in an out-of-court settlement.
So, if one were looking for stories about Uncle Sam’s early professional life, particularly his works, the Daily Times would have been a good place to find them.
In the 1990s, however, the Times started having its own problems, leading to frequent changes at the top, and a dramatic sale that imperilled not only access to the records of the newspaper’s leading lights like Uncle Sam, but even the history of the newspaper which, in its heyday, was Nigeria’s most prosperous, authoritative and vibrant brand.
From ‘Offbeat Sam’ to ‘Sad Sam’
Uncle Sam made his name at the Daily Times, but his journalism career did not start there. According to Ben Lawrence, in an article entitled “An artiste and a builder,” published in Voices from Within, a collection of articles edited by Lanre Idowu to mark Uncle Sam’s 70th birthday, he made his first call at the Sunday Express, where John Pepper Clark was features editor.
J.P. Clark nurtured him, but it was at the Times that his talent blossomed. He started with “Offbeat Sam,” which, as the name suggested, was an unconventional, straight-from-the-heart weekly column that stripped many social and political issues of their cloak of hypocrisy.
Like many elites in the 90s who criticised gossip magazines as street rags but never missed reading them behind closed doors, “Offbeat Sam” made politicians and government officials uncomfortable. But it was a foretaste of what was to come.
When Uncle Sam moved from the Sunday Express to become editor of Spear magazine (he later edited the Sunday Times), a Daily Times publication set up to rival Drum of South Africa, he started the “Sad Sam” column. His entry expanded a vibrant and robust field of punditry that included the likes of Hadj Alade Odunewu, Peter Enahoro (Peter Pan), Clarkson Majomi, Gbolabo Ogunsanwo, Haroun Adamu, and Uche Chukwumerije, amongst others.
Writing for a living
“Sad Sam” was not interested in the news. He exploited the foibles and follies of politicians and those in authority to entertain, provoke emotions, or instigate deeper thinking about who we are.
An article by Gbemiga Ogunleye, “The columnist’s power,” quoting Sad Sam in the Sunday PUNCH of August 12, 1973, said, “I (Sad Sam) write for the same reason that a houseboy cleans the house or a secretary-typist takes shorthand and types or a taxi driver rides the street, touting for fares…or an executive in business or government goes to the office or a professional burglar steals. For a living, that’s all. It’s none of my business to correct the ills or save this country!”
I’m a bit like Sad Sam these days, chastened by the years and weary of making any fuss about changing the world by writing. However, one area in which I could never be like Uncle Sam is his management style.
Be ‘a little mad’
In an industry where he once admitted in a sticker on the wall of the PUNCH newsroom, “You don’t have to be mad to work here, but a little madness helps,” how did he manage a steely coolness in his small body frame amidst the turmoil of the newsroom, never mind the many tempests of a life forged in the vicissitudes of the streets of Oguanja in Sapele?
Was his stoicism partly shaped in his formative years, including his time as a left-winger for the Government College, Ughelli football team and his education at the Nigerian College of Arts, Science and Technology, Enugu, where he studied architecture?
As Odunewu wrote, the intensity of the newsroom creates more of the likes of Lord Beaverbrook, the publisher of the Daily Express or MKO Abiola of the Concord – or even Sam Nda-Isaiah of LEADERSHIP – a breathless and restless stock in whose corner I find myself, than the likes of Uncle Sam who would rather go to the office with a peace offering than drag the office to their presence by the scruff of the neck.
An eye for talent
Eric Teniola, who worked with Uncle Sam in PUNCH between 1977 and 1981, as Oyo State Editor, Constituent Assembly Editor and Lagos City Editor, told me that one of Uncle Sam’s greatest gifts is his capacity to always look on the bright side, the opposite of the essence of a Sad Sam.
“He knew how to spot a talent and to bring out the best in the people who worked with him,” Teniola said. “From Muyiwa Adetiba to Toye Akiode and Frank Aigbogun, he identified some of the most remarkable talents in the newsroom and created the environment that inspired them to work. He was always informal, unpretentious and spontaneous, looking for a reporter to give a big break or a miserable bloke to give a free lunch.”
Ademola Osinubi, former MD/Editor-in-Chief of PUNCH, who started as a reporter in 1976, and later became the chief reporter under Uncle Sam, said, “With Uncle Sam, you couldn’t be sure your script would pass the test until it’s been published. He was an editor’s editor.”
Gene vs. lifestyle
As for his longevity, that is a different story. It’s probably part hereditary. Uncle Sam’s mother died at 109. Apart from his older brother, Oritsedere, who passed in 2002, the other three from the same mother are still alive, and the youngest is a woman, Amanaghan, 76. Uncle Sam’s daughter, Omasan Dudu, told me he is a good swimmer and, until recently, maintained a personal yoga coach.
“He still goes to the office every Monday and takes his exercises seriously,” she said. “I remember he fought against the attempt to convert the open space in his community in Lagos, Anthony Village, where he exercised. But most of all, his longevity is down to his generosity of spirit and God’s grace. That’s how he has managed multiple ulcer surgeries and other big challenges in life. It’s grace.”
In my obsession to live a long, healthy life, only God knows how many things I have given up. I can’t remember when I last used a sweetener or milk, even gluten-free ones, for my tea or pap. Last year, when I visited him, Uncle Sam had his tea with plenty of honey and topped his tea with several spoonsful of sachet Cowbell milk. Packets of Kemp’s crackers biscuits littered the cane table.
Daddy DJ!
To create the perfect ambience for his refreshment, he turned on music stored on a flash drive. “You don’t know I’m called Daddy DJ?” he joked in response to my puzzled look. That was new to me from a man I consider Nigeria’s answer to Jimmy Breslin.
In a tribute to Breslin after his death, The Guardian wrote that he was the champion of the trials and troubles of the ordinary people in New York. “He filled his columns with gangsters and thieves, whom he knew first-hand from drinking in the same bars. He told stories that smacked of blarney behind their anger.”
That could have been Sad Sam, a man punctual as the clock, passionate about press freedom and sustained by righteous rage.
Live and let live
Three years ago, he had a fracture. He had undergone a back surgery and was on his way to an appointment for an acupuncture procedure. Instead of walking over a plank in front of the place, he tried to jump over the gutter and fractured his leg. I asked the editor of Vanguard, Eze Anaba, how the Vanguard publisher, who was then 87 years old, had survived the fall.
“He believes that life has a NAFDAC number,” Anaba said. “Nothing can take you out if your number has not expired.”
I asked Osinubi how he would describe this man he has known for 49 years. “He lives life on his terms,” he said. “Live and let live.”
Here’s to another 20, Uncle Sam!
Ishiekwene, Editor-In-Chief of LEADERSHIP, is the author of the new book Writing for Media and Monetising It.
![[OPINION] The Enduring Significance Of June 12 - Mike Ozekhome, SAN](/media/k2/items/cache/dce112b131c7755a8461f0d60588666f_M.jpg?t=20250611_225522)
June 12 holds an indelible place in Nigeria's political consciousness, a date now officially designated as the nation's “Democracy Day”. More than just a public holiday, it serves as a sad reminder of a defining moment in Nigeria's quest for democratic governance, intricately linked to the struggles of Chief Moshood Kashimawo Olawale Abiola. His electoral victory in the 1993 presidential election, widely acclaimed as the freest and fairest in Nigeria's history even as at today, and its subsequent annulment, unleashed a torrent of political and legal crises that profoundly shaped the trajectory of the nation. Understanding June 12 therefore requires delving into the idealism it represents, the betrayal it embodied, and its enduring political and legal importance.
THE GENESIS OF HOPE: THE JUNE 12, 1993 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION
By the early 1990s, Nigeria was tired of protracted military rule. Decades of coups, counter-coups, and authoritarian regimes had subdued political development, entrenched corruption, and fostered deep-seated distrust between the populace and the government. General Ibrahim Babangida's military regime, having promised a transition to civilian rule, had embarked on a seemingly elaborate program. Some people dubbed it “transfixion programme” This program culminated in the presidential election of June 12, 1993.
The election itself was unique. Unlike previous multi-party contests, the Babangida regime had streamlined the political landscape to just two government-sanctioned parties: the Social Democratic Party (SDP) (“a little-to-the-left”) and the National Republican Convention (NRC) (“a little-to-the-right”). This binary choice forced a broader alignment across Nigeria's often-fractious ethnic and religious lines. The SDP presented an unusual ticket: Chief M.K.O. Abiola, a wealthy Yoruba businessman and philanthropist from the South-West, as its presidential candidate, paired with Ambassador Babagana Kingibe, a Muslim from the North-East, as his running mate. This Muslim-Muslim ticket was unprecedented and signaled a potential shift from Nigeria's traditional ethno-religious political divisions.
The NRC fielded Alhaji Bashir Tofa (a Kanuri) and Sylvester Ugoh (an Igbo). The electoral process on June 12, 1993, unfolded remarkably smoothly. Despite initial logistical challenges, Nigerians turned out in large numbers to vote, demonstrating an undeniable enthusiasm for democracy. The results, though never fully announced by the National Electoral Commission (NEC), began to seep in, indicating a clear and decisive victory for MKO Abiola. Independent observers, both domestic and international, hailed the election as exceptionally free and fair, devoid of the widespread rigging and irregularities that had plagued previous Nigerian elections. It was a moment of genuine national unity and optimism, a powerful affirmation of the Nigerian people's desire for self-governance. Abiola ostensibly won across Nigeria, beating Bashir Tofa even in his Gyadi-Gyadi, Albassa ward in Kano.
THE ANNULMENT: A BETRAYAL AND THE DAWN OF NATIONAL CRISIS
The ecstasy of the June 12 election was tragically short-lived. In a move that shocked the nation and the international community, the Babangida regime, on June 23, 1993, unilaterally annulled the results of the presidential election. The reasons cited were vague, ranging from "irregularities" to the need to "save the Judiciary." This annulment was widely perceived as a direct affront to the democratic will of the Nigerian people and a cynical betrayal of the transition program.
The annulment ignited a profound political crisis. Protests erupted across the country, particularly in the South-West, Abuja and other major cities across Nigeria. Civil society organizations, human rights activists, pro-democracy groups (such as the National Democratic Coalition - NADECO), CLO, UDD and student unions galvanized public opposition. The country was plunged into a period of intense civil unrest, strikes, and widespread condemnation from international bodies and foreign governments. The annulment not only shattered public trust, but also deepened existing ethnic and regional fault lines, as many viewed the action as a deliberate attempt by the military-Northern establishment to deny the South-West its legitimate turn at the presidency.
THE STRUGGLE FOR VALIDATION AND THE FIGHT FOR DEMOCRACY
The annulment of the June 12 election led to a prolonged period of agitation and repression. MKO Abiola declared himself the rightful president and was eventually arrested and detained in 1994 after declaring his intention to reclaim his mandate. He remained in detention for four years and died in custody on July 7, 1998, under suspicious circumstances that had the finger of the government, even as the country was transitioning to another civilian government.
The June 12 movement inspired a generation of pro-democracy activists, journalists, students, and labour leaders who risked their lives to challenge military dictatorship. It became a rallying point for advocating civil liberties, electoral justice, and the return to democratic governance. I was, with all humility, one of the frontline torch bearers of our fight against military dictatorship.
MKO ABIOLA'S STRUGGLE: A SYMBOL OF RESISTANCE
At the heart of the June 12 struggle was Chief M.K.O. Abiola himself. Having clearly won the election, he rightly refused to accept the annulment. He embarked on a courageous and ultimately self-sacrificing campaign to reclaim his mandate. On June 11, 1994, exactly one year after the election, Abiola declared himself president-elect in the Epetedo area of Lagos Island, asserting his rightful claim to the presidency. This act of defiance was a direct challenge to the authority of the military regime, which by now was headed by General Sani Abacha.
Abiola was subsequently arrested on June 23, 1994, on charges of treason. His incarceration became a central focus of the pro-democracy struggle. Despite immense national and international pressure, Abiola remained resolute, refusing to renounce his mandate in exchange for his freedom. His continued detention and unwavering stance served as a powerful symbol of resistance against military tyranny and a constant reminder of the unfinished democratic business. His wife, Kudirat Abiola, also became a prominent voice in the struggle, actively campaigning for her husband's release and the revalidation of the June 12 mandate. She was tragically assassinated in 1996 in broad daylight.
Abiola's prolonged struggle ended tragically with his death in detention on July 7, 1998, just weeks after the sudden death of General Abacha in equally sinister circumstances in Aso villa. His death, under suspicious circumstances extinguished the immediate hope for the revalidation of his mandate but solidified his place as a martyr for democracy in Nigeria who paid the ultimate supreme price for redemptive messiahnism.
THE POLITICAL IMPORTANCE OF JUNE 12
The political importance of June 12 in Nigeria cannot therefore be overstated. Symbol of Democratic Will: June 12 stands as the most potent symbol of the Nigerian people's unequivocal desire for democratic governance. It demonstrated that Nigerians, across ethnic and religious divides, could unite and vote freely, rejecting the imposition of leadership.
1. Symbol of Electoral Integrity
June 12, 1993, remains a benchmark for free and fair elections in Nigeria. The transparency and credibility of that election are often cited as the gold standard against which future elections are measured.
2. National Unity
MKO Abiola’s victory cut across ethnic, religious, gender, status and regional divisions, proving that national unity and collective political will were possible in Nigeria. It challenged the long-standing narrative that Nigeria could not overcome its deep-seated ethno-religious differences.
Catalyst for Sustained Pro-Democracy Struggle: The annulment fueled a sustained and relentless pro-democracy movement. Groups such as NADECO, CLO, UDD, DA, other civil society organizations and various activists relentlessly agitated against military rule, sacrificing personal liberty and, in some cases, their lives. This pressure, both internal and external, played a significant role in ultimately forcing the military to hurriedly relinquish power in 1999.
Exposure of Military's Ills: The June 12 saga laid bare the inherent contradictions and self-serving nature of military rule. It exposed the military's disdain for popular will and its willingness to undermine the very transition it claimed to oversee.
Shaping the Fourth Republic: The experiences of June 12 profoundly influenced the design and character of Nigeria's Fourth Republic, which began in 1999. The framers of the new constitution and the political elite were keenly aware of the need to prevent a repeat of such an annulment.
National Healing and Recognition: For decades, June 12 remained a contentious issue, primarily celebrated in the South-West as a "Democracy Day." However, in a significant move towards national healing and historical recognition, President Muhammadu Buhari, on June 6, 2018, officially declared June 12 as Nigeria's Democracy Day, replacing May 29. This act posthumously honored MKO Abiola with the Grand Commander of the Federal Republic (GCFR), Nigeria's highest national honour reserved only for Presidents and Heads of State. This official recognition was a crucial step in acknowledging the historical injustice and unifying the country around a shared democratic ideal.
4. Rejection of Military Rule
June 12 represents the collective will of Nigerians to reject military dictatorship. The years following the annulment saw increased pressure on the military, culminating in the return to civilian rule in 1999 after the death of General Sani Abacha.
5. Restoration of Democratic Values
The recognition of June 12 as Democracy Day affirms Nigeria’s commitment to democratic governance, civil liberties, the rule of law, and the right of the people to choose their leaders.
FROM MAY 29 TO JUNE 12: A SHIFT IN NATIONAL NARRATIVE
Before 2018, Nigeria’s Democracy Day was celebrated on May 29—the day the military handed over power to a civilian government in 1999. I argued repeatedly like many Nigerians that May 29 was merely symbolic of military benevolence rather than popular sovereignty. In contrast, June 12 embodied the people’s struggle, sacrifice, and demand for democracy. Its restoration was therefore a long held dream.
LEGAL IMPORTANCE OF JUNE 12
Beyond its political ramifications, June 12 also carries significant legal importance.
Judicial Independence and Integrity Tested: The annulment of the election, supposedly to "save the Judiciary," ironically exposed the Judiciary's vulnerabilities under military rule. The Judiciary was drawn into the political fracas, with conflicting court orders and legal battles that ultimately highlighted the limitations of the legal system when confronted by raw military power. The Judiciary infamously failed the country during the crisis.
Questions of Sovereign Will vs. Military Decrees: The annulment raised fundamental legal questions about the supremacy of the people's sovereign will, expressed through a free and fair election, versus the arbitrary power of military Decrees and Edicts. The military junta argued its Decrees were supreme, but the legal community largely condemned the annulment as an illegal act, devoid of any legitimate legal basis.
Focus on Electoral Reforms: The flaws and vulnerabilities exposed by the June 12 experience spurred subsequent efforts at electoral reforms in Nigeria. There was a clear understanding of the need for robust electoral laws, transparent processes, and an independent electoral commission capable of withstanding political pressure.
Reinforcement of Constitutionalism: The struggle underscored the importance of constitutionalism and the rule of law. The arbitrary nature of the annulment reinforced the argument for a return to civilian rule governed by a written constitution that guarantees rights and limits arbitrary power.
Precedent for Popular Mandate: While the mandate was not revalidated, the June 12 experience set a powerful precedent: a free and fair election outcome, reflecting the will of the people, holds immense moral and legal weight that cannot be easily dismissed without significant repercussions. It became a benchmark against which future elections would be measured.
CONCLUSION:
June 12 is far more than just a date on the calendar; it is a national narrative woven with threads of hope, betrayal, struggle, and eventual recognition. It stands as a powerful testament to the resilience of the Nigerian people and their unwavering commitment to democratic ideals. The MKO Abiola struggle, characterized by his electoral victory, the subsequent annulment of the freest election in Nigeria's history, and his ultimate sacrifice, served as a catalyst for a sustained pro-democracy movement that eventually led to the end of military rule.
Its political importance lies in its role as a unifying symbol of democratic will, a catalyst for political transition, and a critical lesson in the perils of authoritarianism. Legally, June 12 exposed the fragility of institutions under military rule, underscored the imperative of robust electoral laws, and reinforced the sanctity of the popular mandate. By designating June 12 as Democracy Day, Nigeria has officially acknowledged this painful yet pivotal chapter of its history, honoring the sacrifices made and reaffirming its commitment to the principles of freedom, justice, and democratic governance. The echoes of June 12 continue to echo, serving as a constant reminder that the voice of the people, expressed through the ballot box, must always be respected and upheld. Whether Nigerians have imbibed or exhibited lessons learnt from June 12 is another matter altogether.
![[OPINION] Tinubu, June 12 and anatomy of a phantom coup plotter - Stanley Ojah](/media/k2/items/cache/3a172846ae351c8f54ce22eb6fc5e0a0_M.jpg)
The humid night air hung heavy over Kaduna as Colonel Olusegun Oloruntoba was roused from sleep by an urgent pounding on his door. Before he could fully comprehend the situation, armed soldiers burst in, their faces obscured by the shadows of their berets.
The date was March 1995, marking the beginning of a 1,460-day nightmare for one of Nigeria's most distinguished military engineers.
No warrant. No explanation. Just the cold, metallic click of handcuffs snapping shut around Oloruntoba's wrists.
"You are under arrest for treason."
Treason? The word echoed in his mind. As they roughly handcuffed him, Oloruntoba's mind raced through his 23 years of impeccable service. Hadn't he just received a commendation weeks before for his work on indigenous weapons systems? How could a man who dedicated his life to strengthening Nigeria's defence capabilities suddenly become an enemy of the state? What followed was a nightmare of torture, solitary confinement, and a death sentence—all for "a coup that never existed."
This is his story. This is where President Bola Tinubu comes in.
Olusegun Oloruntoba's journey began in the modest town of Okoro-Gbedde, Kogi State, where he was born on June 15, 1951. The son of a civil servant and a teacher, young Olusegun demonstrated exceptional academic prowess at the Provincial Secondary School in Okene. His physics teacher, Mr. Adebayo, often remarked, "This boy will either become a great scientist or a great soldier." As fate would have it, he would become both.
The Nigeria-Biafra civil war (1967-1970) left an indelible mark on the teenage Olusegun. While he was too young to enlist, the conflict ignited his patriotic fervour and convinced him that Nigeria needed not just warriors but technically competent officers who could develop indigenous military solutions.
Oloruntoba's military career began in January 1972 when he was admitted into the Nigerian Defence Academy's Regular Combatant Course 11. His exceptional performance earned him early recognition, with Commandant Major General E.O. Ekpo noting in his evaluation: "Cadet Oloruntoba combines rare analytical skills with physical endurance - a complete officer material."
After commissioning, the young officer pursued a degree in mechanical engineering at Ahmadu Bello University, Zaria, graduating with honours in 1978. His superior officers quickly recognised his technical acumen, posting him to the Army School of Electrical and Mechanical Engineering.
The British government soon took notice of this brilliant Nigerian officer, offering him a scholarship to Cranfield Institute of Technology (now Cranfield University), where he earned a Master's in Industrial Engineering and Production Management (1981-1983). During this period, he became one of the first Nigerian officers to be registered as a Chartered Engineer by the British Engineering Council.
Returning to Nigeria, Major Oloruntoba (as he was then) embarked on what would become his most significant contribution to Nigeria's military: the indigenisation of weapons production. His crowning achievement came in 2004 when he led the team that produced Nigeria's first locally manufactured 60mm mortar tubes, 81mm mortar tubes and rocket-propelled grenade launchers (RPG7)
For this feat, he received the Defence Industries Corporation of Nigeria's Merit Award. Colonel D.J. Abdullahi (retd.), who worked with him on the project, recalls, "Oloruntoba would work 20-hour days, often sleeping in the workshop. His dedication was unmatched."
Simultaneously, he excelled in military training, serving as Directing Staff at the prestigious Command and Staff College, Jaji. His lectures on military engineering became required reading for up-and-coming officers.
The annulment of the June 12, 1993, elections proved to be the turning point in Oloruntoba's military career. At a commanders' meeting convened by his GOC, Brigadier General Ahmed Baku, Oloruntoba voiced what many junior officers feared to say: "With all due respect, sir, if the Head of State has genuine reasons for annulling this election, he owes Nigerians an explanation. If not, Professor Nwosu should be allowed to announce the results."
The room fell silent. Colonel Jibril (retd.), who was present, later recounted: "We all agreed with Oloruntoba, but he was the only one brave enough to say it openly. That was the day I knew his military career was in jeopardy."
True to form, Oloruntoba was quietly reassigned to teaching duties at the Staff College - a move considered a demotion in military circles. Unknown to him, this was merely the prelude to a more sinister plot.
The "coup" allegations emerged in March 1995. General Sani Abacha's regime claimed to have uncovered a plot involving over 40 military officers and civilians. Oloruntoba's name appeared on the list, with the allegation that he was to lead the assault on Aso Rock.
"They claimed I was to capture Abacha," said Oloruntoba. "Me? A man who had never even been to Abuja?"
Retired Colonel P.N. Okeke, who served on the investigative panel, revealed in a 2018 interview: "There was no concrete evidence against most of the accused, especially Oloruntoba. But the atmosphere was such that anyone who had ever questioned the regime was suspect."
What followed was an unspeakable descent into the abyss.
Oloruntoba said he was subjected to sensory deprivation in solitary confinement, suspension torture (hung by limbs for hours), sleep deprivation, and psychological torture, including mock executions. He was suspended like a slaughtered animal, his left hand tied to his left leg, hanging for hours. Beaten, starved, psychologically broken, all to force a false confession.
Dr. Femi Odekunle, who later served on the Oputa Panel, documented that Oloruntoba's medical reports showed "severe ligament damage in wrists and ankles consistent with suspension torture."
Yet through it all, the colonel maintained his defiance. Captain Y. Bello (retd.), a prison guard at the time, remembers: "Even after torture sessions, Colonel Oloruntoba would walk back to his cell singing. He became a symbol of resistance for other detainees."
Sentenced to death alongside Obasanjo, Yar’Adua, and others. Yet, he never broke.
"When they lowered me, I walked out singing—‘Who go suffer? Na dem go suffer!’"
The special military tribunal was a foregone conclusion. Without access to proper legal defence, all accused were found guilty. Oloruntoba received a death sentence alongside General Olusegun Obasanjo, General Shehu Musa Yar'Adua, Major General Abdulkarim Adisa and 35 others. International outcry followed, with Amnesty International declaring the trial "a gross miscarriage of justice." The UK Engineering Council petitioned the Nigerian government, highlighting Oloruntoba's significant contributions to the field of engineering.
For four years, Oloruntoba languished in detention. The turning point came with Abacha's sudden death in June 1998. General Abdulsalami Abubakar, recognising the grave injustice, ordered the immediate release of all phantom coup detainees, restoration of their military ranks, payment of all withheld entitlements and counting detention years as active service.
The Human Rights Violations Investigation Commission (Oputa Panel) conclusively established that the 1995 coup was fabricated. Its recommendations included an official apology from the Federal Government, monetary compensation for victims, and institutional reforms to prevent recurrence.
Despite these recommendations and personal assurances from President Obasanjo, no concrete action was taken. Oloruntoba reflects bitterly: "The same man who suffered with us became president and forgot us. That betrayal hurt more than the torture."
Post-retirement, Oloruntoba channelled his intellect into academia, serving as Lecturer I at the University of Ilorin's Mechanical Engineering Department and as Lecturer I at the Nigerian Defence Academy, as well as a consultant to the Defence Industries Corporation.
Today, Oloruntoba wears a different crown, HRM Oba (Col.) Olusegun Oloruntoba is the Olugbede of the Gbede Kingdom, a first-class traditional ruler. His palace is a sanctuary of wisdom, where he blends military discipline with royal diplomacy. He was crowned in 2010. As monarch, he has established vocational training centres, pioneered community policing initiatives and advocated for educational reforms. Yet, the past lingers.
Now in his 70s, Oloruntoba continues to seek redress, including the full implementation of the Oputa Panel recommendations, official exoneration in military records, and compensation for years of wrongful detention. His legal team, led by Chief Mike Ozekhome (SAN), has filed multiple petitions to successive governments, all of which have been ignored. "Nigeria owes us. Not just money, but a recognition that we were wronged," said Oloruntoba. Oloruntoba believes the incumbent president can excel where others excuse themselves. Is this June 12, the phantom coup plotters' final redemption day?
Stanley is a writer and an analyst based in Lagos, Nigeria. He can be reached via This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
![[OPINION] Is this the next VC of the University of Uyo? - Etim Etim](/media/k2/items/cache/c783e08e5c747f93b60526fe7cc412fa_M.jpg)
With just six months to the end of the tenure of the current Vice Chancellor of the University of Uyo, Prof. Nyaudo Ndaeyo, the race for the selection of his successor has commenced in earnest. One of the leading candidates is Prof. Chris Ekong, Dean of Faculty of Social Sciences. If he’s picked, he would be the second alumnus of the institution and the second professor of economics to head the institution in its 44-year history. The incumbent is also an alumnus who became VC in December 2020. A renowned economist, the well-known Prof Akpan Ekpo, was VC between 2000 and 2005.
Vice chancellors are appointed by the Governing Council of the university after a rigorous selection process that includes interview with the Council. At the end of the process, Council members vote for their preferred candidates and typically one of the top three candidates is typically announced as the winner. Unlike in the past, the President, who is the Visitor to the University, does not play overt role in the selection process. Each Council tries as much as possible to insulate the process from external influences, but in many cases, interested national political leaders still play some roles in the background. That’s where Prof Ekong has advantage over others in this race. I understand that the Senate President, Godswill Akpabio, is in full support of Ekong’s ambition and is willing to do the much he can to assist. In this dispensation, Akpabio holds a considerable sway.
At the birthday party of Mrs Ekaette Unoma Akpabio, wife of the Senate President, at the banquette hall of their palatial country home in Ukana, Akwa Ibom State, on Monday, June 9, Senator Akpabio introduced Ekong as ‘’one of the professors who want to be VC’’. But when the microphone got to Mrs Akpabio for her remarks, she announced him as ‘’the next Vice Chancellor of the University of Uyo’’. It was a high octane event with Aliko Dangote; three senators – Aniekan Bassey of Akwa Ibom North East and Onyekachi Nwebonyi (Ebonyi North Central) and Ms Usoro Akpabio, the MD of South-South Development Commission, in attendance. After the lavish event, many rallied around Ekong, congratulating him.
President Tinubu has just appointed an APC chieftain and eminent lawyer, Mr. Muiz Banire, SAN, as the Chairman of Council of the university after retired general Ike Nwachukwu has turned down the appointment for ‘’personal reasons’’. Banire was a senior lecturer at the University of Lagos (1991 – 2010); commissioner for Special Duties, Transportation and Environment in Lagos under Governors Tinubu and Raji Fashola. In the Buhari administration, he was Chairman of AMCON. He’s been a member of NJC since 2017. Banire is a dyed-in-the-wool APC chieftain.
Professor Chris Ekong himself is also an APC chieftain from Uyo LGA of Akwa Ibom State. But in a recent event, he announced that he’d be withdrawing from political activities going forward to concentrate on his job. Ekong was a commissioner in the administrations of Obong Victor Attah and Godswill Akapbio. Popularly known as HOTRICO by friends and associates, Ekong has been Head of Department of Economics at the university and has also held many other positions within and outside the university. He graduated with a B.Sc. (Hon) Economics from the University of Uyo in 1988 (then known as the University of Cross River State; M.Sc. Economics, University of Port Harcourt (1991) and Ph.D. Economics, University of Uyo (2002).
Professor Ekong has published extensively in local and international journals.
So far, no fewer than five professors have expressed interest in the job. They include Idara Akpan; Enoidem Usoro and Daniel Offiong. Offiong is the Deputy Vice Chancellor (Administration) whom the incumbent VC is rooting for as a successor. In fact, a controversial clause in the press advertisement for the job which specifies that candidates must have published 10 journal articles in two years is said to have been inserted to favour Offiong. The requirement has, however, been widely disputed by older professors. ‘’Unless you are publishing in a roadside journal, it is practically impossible to have 10 publications in reputable journals in two years’’, a former VC of UniUyo told me.
![[OPINION] BETRAYAL: Betrayal A Contextual Issue In Yoruba Musical Interludes - Taiye Olaniyi](/media/k2/items/cache/443ca8e36ac8c3bc16c26bfccacbf2b4_S.jpg)
Amongst the Yorubas, “Betrayal”is regarded as very inimical, unethical, and antisocial in society.
Even from the metaphysical perspective, in Ifa divination, the betrayal meted by Okete was highly detested in the song: “Okete bayi ni iwa re, Okete ooo, bayi ni iwa re, o ba Ifa mu ile o da Ifa”.
Ifa and Okete once had a secret pact but to heart dismay, Okete reneged and thus betrayed.
Similarly, in another musical interlude, Ebenezer Obey reiterates Yoruba frowns against betrayal: ” Ma ma gbara le won Omo ara aye ko daa, eni ti ani ko fe ni loju, ata niyen fi senu Eni ani ko kin ni Leyin, egun lo-fi sowo”.
In whom we pitched confidence to help blow dust from one’s eyes ended blowing pepper into the eyes, and the one asked to massage, ended in scratching with thorns.
Even in one’s marital life, Yoruba sounds a note of warning that the idea a woman has children for one does not mean she wouldn’t snuff life out of one.
“Obinrin bi Omo fun ni ko ni ko ma pani”.
In religion when mouths are kept ajar because of betrayal, misbehavior, or acts of hypocrisy, then the impression,” Abori ma bo iwa,” “Efin ni iwa”, and then the conclusion, ” Orunmila, Orun lo mo eni ti yo la”.
Only in the afterlife that one would be truly judged as to who goes to heaven or hell fire.
When things go upside down,when the unbecoming becomes, when things no longer go according to dictates, rituals, customs, and norms associated with the Yoruba tradition, it then becomes obvious the glaring reality of betrayal and waywardness of those in charge of the traditional institution, the Obas and the Ijoyes of the Yoruba communities.
In Yorubaland of today, “Eye ko ke bi eye mo, be ni eku ko dun bi eku mo”. Many crowns are now like beggars’ bowls being pushed around like the Almajiris begging for money and food.
In politics, and amongst the Yorubas we replicate the onetime, ” Ori owo mi, o rinu mi , demo ni mo wa and allied, “Operation wetie”.
In Yorubaland of today, our politicians are much more of the “Jegudu jera”, than those of Awo’s time when the concern was more of building virile nationhood and a towering tribe of people in places where sanity, educational excellence, economic development, social infrastructure and cultural excellence of a sane people within virile sovereignty was envisaged.
Being a politician in Yorubaland today is synonymous with the fragrance of money at all costs be noble, but mostly through ignoble means.” kinsa ti lowo…”.
Money at all cost, posh vehicles, masterpiece mansions, extending frontiers of influence, and spheres of economic influence.
In all these are the betrayals of trust, the “Oaths of Allegiance” and meeting with the “Social Contract” with the people merely a ruse, and phantom lies everywhere.
Yorubas are now living in an era of “Bo ba ko pa, bo ba ko bu ni ese.”
Hmmm according to our beloved music maestro and doyen of creative drama, late Chief Hubert Ogunde in his ” Yoruba Ronu”, “Yoruba ti so ara won di bolu fun araye GBA, ti won ba GBA won soke won a tun GBA won si sale”.
A tribe once towering now an underdog in everything sane and developmental to even God’s glory.
Anyway, time is now to think and ever remain thinking noting that ” Olowo oni, le di Olosi bo di ola…” as J.F Odunjo posits and that when being praised today, tomorrow humans in their ever betrayal tendencies would say crucify him.
That is normal but let’s all equally incline to the admonition of Idowu Animashaun when he reminded us of the awesomeness of God that God may spill a storm to destroy a rich man’s house and leaves those of the poor untouched.”
Ojo to ro to wo ile olowo to fi ti talika sile, a bi e ko ri aye lode”.
He equally concluded in an appeal that Yorubaland must not be left to scatter and shatter, hoping the elders of our land would hearken and mend fences where there are pebbles of betrayal and, / or “Afi emi, AFI emi” syndromes here and there.
As your one and only Son of Man, Oosa Ibeji ponbele, I join Ata wewe Egungun masquerade who in song once called for the unity of Offa indigenes in the late 60s by advising in song:” Ti Ogun ba ja wa Aaya Omo Ale, ogun ko ja wa a ya Omo Offa”.
This goes for all and sundry in Yorubaland as we unite in building a virile nation Nigeria.
Oduduwa a gbe wa o.
God bless Nigeria.
Taiye Olaniyi, a public commentator writes from Lagos
![[OPINION] Defections: Ini Ememobong’s shining example - Bola Bolawole](/media/k2/items/cache/ac54787749b52d1a9e92343b78881236_S.jpg)
Recently I watched an interview that former President Olusegun Obasanjo granted on the floodgate of defections of governors and other top politicians from across the country’s political spectrum into the then ruling party, the People’s Democratic Party (PDP) when OBJ was in power. PDP was the party that took over power from the retreating military dictators headed by gemial Gen. Abdulsalami Abubakar, and which ruled from 1999 until it was booted out of office in 2015 by the first successful alliance/coalition of Nigerian politicians to contest and win elections.
Remember, the PDP was so firmly rooted in power that it prided itself as the biggest political party in Africa; it also boasted that it would rule for an uninterrupted 60 years! But it ended up ruling for only 16 years! Someone said the oracle that the PDP bigwigs consulted actually predicted correctly, but it was the politicians that were hard of hearing, mistaking 16 years for 60 years, either because they both sound alike or because 60 years was sweeter to their hearing than 16!
President Obasanjo was asked whether the gale of defections into PDP, the then ruling party, was not a sign that Nigeria was turning into a one-party state and that he, as the sitting president, was complicit in it. As is characteristic of him, OBJ was bombastic in his response. Did he write a letter to invite anyone to defect into his party? Did he compel anyone to do so? What is wrong if his party was doing well and others appreciated that and wanted to team up with it to further move the country forward? Should he wield a whip and drive away people wanting to join his party? Was the interviewer not aware that the Nigerian constitution guarantees to every Nigerian freedom of association and freedom of movement?
At that time, there were complaints that OBJ was not moving the country in the right direction and that people were suffering needlessly. Remember, in the election of 1999, Obasanjo lost in his home region of the South-west, whose preferred candidate was Chief Olu Falae. That election was believed to have been compromised by the so-called “owners of Nigeria”, the military cabals, retired and serving, and their civilian collaborators whose preferred candidate was Obasanjo.
If that election was tainted, the one that followed in 2003 when Obasanjo himself was the sitting president was no-less a daylight robbery. Obasanjo deployed the ubiquitous “federal might” to make that election a walk-over for him. By guile, subtlety and naked arm-twisting tactics, he ensured he erased the “shame” of 1999 in his home base of the South-west, sweeping away the Alliance for Democracy governors that had held sway in the region, save only for Asiwaju Bola Ahmend Tinubu, the then governor of Lagos state.
Against the groundswell of opposition to his personality and government, Obasanjo was asked if he thought he could win his re-election in 2003. To him, the question was out-of-place. How on earth could you expect a party that controlled 31 state governors and an overwhelming majority in the National Assembly to lose an election to a motley crowd of opposition parties controlling, among themselves only five (5) states? It should be clear to everyone that the results of that election - though yet to be held - were a foregone conclusion.
And, truly, they were! But the interesting thing to me is that the same person - and people - who relished their party’s control of 31 over 36 states are the same that are shouting from the rooftop today that the All Progressives Congress (APC) that is yet to attain that threshold has already turned the country into a one-party state!
Is the threat of a one-party state more latent today than it was under PDP in the OBJ era? If there was nothing wrong with the PDP controlling 31 out of 36 states; if that control did not translate into the country becoming a one-party state; if the same PDP went ahead to lose the 2015 presidential election to the opposition, why the cry - and from the same people who perpetrated the PDP blitzkrieg - that APC with just about 23 state governors has turned or is turning Nigeria into a one-party state?
Is this, then, the proverbial case of someone who kills with the sword, who will never allow anyone with a sword to come near him! I said “just about” because the tornado of defections is yet to cease but is gathering momentum in many other states of the federation as we speak; which could be why the opposition is jittery. Judging by Obasanjo’s logic, how can a vastly diminished opposition withstand and overcome APC and Tinubu in 2027 if the ruling party and sitting president control an overwhelming number of state governors and National Assembly members all over the country?
Another angle that must frighten the opposition is the way Nigeria’s business moguls are lining up behind Tinubu, saluting his economic reforms. If anything, the example of the United States teaches that money plays a big role in election matters. The financial support of Elon Musk was pivotal in Donald Trump winning the last US presidential election. Both men have publicly admitted to that.
With the country’s billionaires filing behind Tinubu and the opposition being depleted of cash-cow states where resources to finance its election could come from, what are the chances of the opposition in 2027? Where will the funds come from? How will they cope with the deep pockets of Tinubu who, as a private citizen, reportedly single-handedly financed his own election, not to talk of now that he has limitless financial resources at his beck-and-call? If, despite all the obstacles strewn his path as an aspirant and the “Federal might” deployed against him, Tinubu still scaled through in 2023, what do we make of now that he himself wields the “federal might”, which he can deploy against anyone as he deems fit?
As far as human eyes can see and political permutations are concerned, the prognosis for the opposition as we move towards 2027 does not look good at all. But with God all things are possible! In soccer, there is also something that is described as “against the run of play” where a team that has its back to the wall becomes the one that manages to score first and goes on to win the game. At a point like we are in today, PDP looked impregnable, but see what has become of it!
APC is just 10 years in power - six more years before it, too, reaches the “magical” year where PDP unravelled. Anything is possible. Even if Tinubu gets a second term, after him, what next? What do we think can happen to the presidential election of 2031? Politics is not static; it evolves. And when you think everyone sleeps with all heads pointing in the same direction is when you find dissenters. May their tribe grow!
Which brings me to Ini Ememobong, the young, amiable, and, above all, politically-conscious Akwa Ibom state politician, Ini Ememobong. Ini recently resigned his appointment as a commissioner in the cabinet of the governor of the state, Pastor Umo Eno, rather than follow the governor to defect from PDP to APC. Umo, the latest defector into the ruling party, had asked everyone he appointed to either follow him into his new party or resign.
Comrade Ini, as he is fondly called, declined to do “follow-follow”, like Fela crooned in Mr. Follow Follow! “Some dey follow-follow dem close them eye/Close dem pin-pin-pin/Some they follow-follow dem close them mouth/Close them pam-pam-pam…” According to Fela, they close their ears and senses as well, to do follow-follow! That was what Ini refused to do last week when his boss the governor, after speaking in parables and in tongues for a while, eventually came into the open to dump PDP for APC. We have said a lot about why politicians defect and that need not detain us here again save, to say, that it is usually for their own selfish interests.
Ini did the honourable thing; he resigned his appointment. Not everyone can be bought! Not everyone has a price! Not everyone has their eye fixed on the pie! In Nigeria’s aridity of conscience-less politicians, there still can be found an oasis of principle and honour. When the Delta State governor defected some weeks back from PDP into APC, all his appointees and the entire PDP political structure in the state - past and present - went with him. Not a single Ini Ememobong was found in their midst.
Ini was a fire-brand and principled student union leader in his days. That activism, radicalism, and commitment to principles, the readiness to make sacrifices, must still be burning fiercely in him. I worked closely with Ini during the short-lived campaign of the immediate past governor of Akwa Ibom state, Udom Gabriel Emmanuel, for the PDP presidential flag (2022/2023). Ini was Udom’s Commissioner for Information while I was the National Director, Media and Publicity for the campaign. At home in Uyo and at work, Ini was a delight to work and associate with.
My prayers: Ini's departure from Gov. Umo Eno’s government shall be unto sunshine and not unto twilight! Seven “Gboosas” for Comrade Ini Ememobong!
Former editor of PUNCH newspapers, Chairman of its Editorial Board and Deputy Editor-in-chief, BOLAWOLE was also the Managing Director/Editor-in-chief of The Westerner news magazine. He
![[OPINION] Uncle Sam the Nonagenarian - Kayode Komolafe](/media/k2/items/cache/26b64f13f046b33522127c27e92d7b9b_S.jpg)
Americans sometimes refer to their national government amusingly as Uncle Sam. The origins of the two words have been traced to the abbreviation of the United States, U.S.
But in the world of Nigerian journalism the name Uncle Sam is exclusively reserved for the accomplished journalist, Prince Sam Amuka Pemu, who would turn 90 on Friday. The old and young in the media industry fondly call Amuka Uncle Sam.
However, septuagenarians and older persons would most likely call the nonagenarian “Sad Sam” in a nostalgic reference to his celebrated column of the 1960s and 1970s focusing on the troubles in the land. In the column, Amuka explored substantial issues of the society and polity in his inimitable style laced with humour.
The trajectory of Amuka’s career has provided ample lessons from his days as an editor in the old Daily Times to his position as the founder of the Vanguard Newspapers. These are profound lessons of professional commitment, patriotism, infectious humility and exemplary modesty in personal life.
In a way, journalism has been Amuka’s life. He belongs to the vanishing breed of those in their youth who forgot other things of life in their devotion to journalism.
To secularise a Biblical passage, when two or more people are gathered to discuss journalism or matters related to it Amuka would be one of them even at 90. Amuka shares this passion for journalism with his professional brother, Chief Olusegun Osoba, former Ogun State governor. The word “doyen” is often misused in the media. You can only have the doyen of a profession and not a doyen or doyens. In other words, there can only be the doyen at a time! Indisputably, Uncle Sam is today the doyen of the journalism profession. As the Chairman of the THISDAY/ARISE Media Group, Prince Nduka Obaigbena, often acknowledges publicly, Amuka is the oldest and most revered personality in the Nigerian media. And there is no indication yet that Amuka is tired despite the inescapable biological realities of old age.
In any situation, Amuka would instinctively be on the side of an independent media and free expression. He has a network of friends within the Nigerian establishment cultivated for decades. Yet in the event of any dispute between a media house or a journalist and those in power, you would find Amuka on the side of the media working for the resolution of the issues. He fiercely defends journalists and their media organisations against persecution by oppressors. Amuka is a personification of solidarity in the media.
On a larger note, the veteran journalist’s sympathy is understandably for the underdog and his philosophical outlook is unmistakably anti-injustice. Without a combative mien, he exudes a passion for social justice and fair play.
Simultaneously, he is also concerned about the quality of output and ethics in the media. He is always at home when discussing the enhancement of professionalism in the media. While Amuka applauds reportorial excellence and notes with admiration diligent editing, he frowns at sloppy newspaper production. Amuka’s role in the evolution of tabloid journalism seems not be adequately acknowledged. Ever before the founding of VANGUARD, Amuka’s practice of journalism in the Daily Times Group and later the role in the development of THE PUNCH would be evidence of his flair for the tabloid genre. It is a veritable theme for media studies.
A quintessential patriot, Amuka’s quest for free speech is never in contradiction of his working towards the national interest. Of course, in his many decades in the media industry, he might have found out that the national interest sometimes would be at variance with the pursuits of regimes in power at different periods in history. Amuka has doubtless been a witness to history at those different periods with a knowledge of what is called in the newsroom “the inside story.” Amuka has succeeded in balancing journalistic integrity with his patriotic duty. And this is no mean achievement. Indeed, there is an organising principle to Amuka’s media practice. This is not a common virtue.
Amuka’s life is devoid of undue ego. His idea of competition is remarkably healthy. This much is illustrated in his unique relationship with Obaigbena. In ordinary terms, VANGUARD and THISDAY are competitors in the increasingly difficult newspaper business. So, conventional morality would probably not permit effusive compliments being paid to THISDAY’s owner by the publisher of VANGUARD. Not so for Amuka, who calls Obaigbena “the star.” On many occasions, Amuka has praised Obaigbena’s creativity, resourcefulness and resilience in the media industry. The camaraderie exhibited by the duo is instructive in the industry. In reciprocation, whenever he has the opportunity to say it, Obaigbena refers to Amuka as “a leading light of our profession.” Their relationship is like that of a father and his son. It is, therefore, a welcome proposition that Obaigbena is working on the establishment of the Sam Amuka College of Media Studies at the Western Delta University, Oghara, Delta State. It’s a project that is estimated to cost hundreds of millions. When it is done, it would be a fitting tribute to the nonagenarian for his immense contributions to the development of the profession of journalism and the media industry.
A man of a small physical size with a towering professional and societal stature, Amuka’s life is also defined by unmistaken modesty. You can call him Mr. Modesty, if you like. His personality is devoid of vanity. Here is a media owner who is shy of publicity. He seems to sometimes crave anonymity. He had “escaped” days before the celebrations organised to mark his previous milestones. Everyone earnestly hopes that this year’s own would be different!
Amuka’s humility will make the most supercilious person to be humble. He maintains a friendly disposition with the high and the low. His sense of humour would electrify any occasion. This reporter can bear a personal testimony with immense gratitude to this aspect of Amuka’s huge personality. My wife, Funmi, was on the editorial team of VANGUARD. Uncle Sam humorously calls her “the wife of a big man.” The old man has visited us on occasions spending hours with the family and sharing his rich experience.
He is indeed a jolly good fellow.
Happy Birthday to the only uncle in the Nigerian media!
![[OPINION] For the regulator, little things that matter - Okoh Aihe](/media/k2/items/cache/c83489b42a74e6b6b7b0f81de0995027_S.jpg)
There is something they say about digging yourself into a hole. It usually takes more time to claw your way back. That is, if you ever want to see light again.
The Nigerian Communications Commission, NCC, did not intentionally dig itself into a hole. Some people, given the responsibility to curate the day-to-day operations of the regulatory authority, dug the system into a hole. The Commission has been trying to fight its way back ever since, although it will take a longer time because of the absence of a board.
I was recently informed that the regulator will institute the Telecom Identity Risk Management Platform, TIRMP, by the last quarter of this year, to streamline the activities of churned numbers in the industry. That may not seem much but it’s one of the several actions the regulator is taking to fight its way out of the abyss. I am pretty sure that, at the end, people will be happy that such a step was ever taken. In the meantime, let’s do a little flashback to prove that, also in the last quarter of last year, the Commission executed some actions to demonstrate a seriousness that was more positive than pretentious. I will state just two.
One: Early last year, the regulator revised its telecommunications statistics to reflect Nigeria’s updated population estimates of 216,781,381, as projected by the Nigerian Population Commission, NPC, in 2022. The adjustment replaced the previously used 2017 population estimates of 190m.
There was only going to be one sure outcome. The teledensity dropped from 115.63 per cent to 102.30 per cent as the subscriber base also plummeted to 154.6m. It was a bold decision that jolted the industry into reality, an action that could hardly be contemplated previously when it was needed most.
Two: And this is connected to the foregoing. At the conclusion of the NIN-SIM regulation exercise, a much criticised programme, jointly executed by the NCC and the National Identity Management Commission, NIMC, the number of lines on the mobile networks dropped to 154m, with one operator losing as much as 40m lines. The announcement was made in October. It caused a lot of discomfort and business reimagining.
One would say that such an industry would have a lot of churned numbers. But it is much more than that. There are other reasons. At the dawn of the mobile industry, it was a thing of prestige for one subscriber to carry as many phones as the pouch can accommodate, those who wanted to enjoy the full expression of conspicuous consumption, although it was more of the limitations of the networks that were having a lot of headache in rolling out services after being jilted by a government that had promised so much.
The story has changed. Growth has plateaued and the economy has not been any kinder. For over a decade now, there are so many people slipping into multi-dimensional poverty for whom telephony means very little. For these people, it is a matter of the stomach first, the art of the mastery of survival in challenging times, while for the rest of us who had luxuriated in class, the economy has levelled everybody. Without seeking economic lessons, a number of subscribers have resorted to using one phone. So, there are more reasons for churn numbers in the industry; which is why it is salutary that the regulator has taken a decision to sanitise their use.
For more understanding of the churning process, the regulator explained that “when a phone number (MSISDN) has not carried out any Revenue Generating Event, RGE – outgoing or incoming calls or SMS, charged USSD sessions, data use, or any other activity on the line that generates income for the operator – for over 180 days, the MSISDN is deemed as inactive. If this inactivity continues for another 180 days, that is a total of 360 days, the line becomes eligible for churning, and recycling”.
Literally, the number has gone into a recycling bin where it can be retrieved by the operator and reassigned to a new subscriber, according to the QoS Regulation and Business Rules 2024.
But that’s just the beginning of a new journey as the dangers are embedded in the old number which could be harmful to the previous owner or be put to some unsavoury use by the new owner.
According to the regulator, the recycling of lines presents challenges, particularly when the previous owners of the reassigned numbers still have those numbers linked to services they used before the numbers were recycled. It presents issues of security and integrity of phone number ownership.
This is the reason the TIRMP is being put in place, to serve as some kind of clearing house for those numbers, help maintain their integrity and prevent innocent phone users from being harmed.
An NCC source gave further understanding. Any time a number is recycled, sensitive details of the previous user, like bank details, including balances, fintech details and even health, could still be in the number that can be manipulated by unscrupulous individuals. The Commission, according to the source, is therefore working with all the stakeholders, including the security agencies, the Central Bank, banks, fintechs and telecoms service providers, to ensure that every churned number will go to the platform which will automatically notify all the stakeholders. Is that what they call flagging?
The NCC is only acting within its regulatory powers to ensure that industry phone users are protected. For instance, in the UK, Ofcom, the communications regulator, is responsible for overseeing the recycling of mobile phone numbers.
In the UK, an MNO is allowed to deactivate an unused number, which is given a dormancy period of between 30 to 90 days, depending upon the carrier, before the number is reassigned. Although the operator is allowed to reset or erase data linked to the number, it is generally accepted that traces of its history can still be present, especially with online services that use SMS-based two-factor authentication.
Numbers are a limited resource which are strictly managed by the regulator and assigned to the operator. As it is in Nigeria, so it is in the UK where Ofcom ensures the reassignment of numbers by operators after the dormancy period due to the limited pool of available numbers.
But the Federation of Communications Services, FCS, of the UK has published procedures for mobile phone recycling that aims to discourage fraudulent activities and provide a clear defence against charges of handling of goods. A feature of such procedures is to ensure “that operators will place blocks on the records of devices for a wider variety of reasons.”
A clear point here, however, is to ensure that subscribers are preserved and that operators do the right thing by going through the platform which the regulator is putting in place. It portends a win-win for all stakeholders, including the subscribers.
“It will reduce fraud risks and improve our digital and financial services by enabling service providers to proactively detect and act, particularly to high-risk numbers, while updating customer KYC details where applicable,” the regulator said.
It is a good step in the right direction to checkmate the little demons that usually coalesce into giant forces to trouble the wider ecosystem. Much like the journey of a thousand miles beginning with one step. The challenge is to take the step at all, and that’s what the NCC has done.
More...
![[OPINION] 32 years after June 12, how’s democracy in Nigeria? - Jide Ojo](/media/k2/items/cache/5c90ec4028cd826d7d74a9ac1cca4a60_XS.jpg)
It’s 65 years of Nigeria’s independence and 32 years after the watershed and epochal June 12 presidential election. The landmark election was won by Bashorun MKO Abiola, who was also the Aare-Ona-Kakanfo of Yorubaland. Unfortunately, that election was annulled by the military junta of Ibrahim Babangida. Tomorrow, June 12, has been declared Democracy Day in Nigeria and will be observed as a public holiday. The winner of that election has been posthumously conferred with the highest title of Grand Commander of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. For the benefit of Millennials and Genzs, who were not born at that time, the events leading to and after that election are worth recalling the same way I did on this page on June 12, 2024.
On August 27, 1985, General Ibrahim Babangida overthrew the Head of State, General Muhammadu Buhari. Instead of answering Head of State, he decided to call himself Military President, which is an aberration. Soon after seizing power, he inaugurated a Dr Samuel Cookey-led 17-member Nigerian Political Bureau on January 13, 1986. According to Wikipedia, the bureau was set up to conduct a national debate on the political future of Nigeria and was charged, among other things, to “review Nigeria’s political history and identify the basic problems which have led to our failure in the past and suggest ways of resolving and coping with these problems”.
He thereafter released an elongated transition to a civil rule timetable. Initially, the transition was supposed to end in October 1990, but IBB, as Babangida was fondly called, shifted it to 1993. He banned old politicians and called for a new breed. He established the Centre for Democratic Studies and made Prof. Omo Omoruyi the pioneer chairman. The centre was to train politicians in a democratic ethos. He set up the National Electoral Commission, headed by Prof. Humphrey Nwosu. IBB established a two-party system for Nigeria. He formed the National Republican Convention and the Social Democratic Party. The NRC elected Chief Tom Ikimi as its national chairman, while the SDP elected Chief Tony Anineh as its national chairman. Both chairmen are from Edo State. Babangida did not just establish the political parties; he built party secretariats for them across the country and provided grants to run the parties.
Elections for local governments, state Houses of Assembly and governorship positions were held at different times between 1991 and 1992. The transition was to end with the presidential election on June 12, 1993. However, events leading up to that day were ominous. A group called the Association for Better Nigeria, led by Abimbola Davies with Chief Arthur Nzeribe as a promoter, went to court to stop the election from holding. On June 10, 1993, a Federal Capital Territory High Court Judge, Justice Bassey Ikpeme, ordered NEC not to conduct the June 12, 1993 election based on the prayers of Nzeribe. However, the election was held as there was already a decree which resulted in the ouster of any court ruling stopping the poll.
There were some things which are novel in the June 12, 1993 poll. NEC used what it termed Option A4 voting technique (open ballot system, where members in a party primary queued behind the aspirants or their pictures). This was the method adopted by NEC for the presidential primaries of the two political parties. The election itself was, however, conducted with ballot papers in what was termed the modified open ballot system.
In a transcribed speech of IBB annulling the election, which was published by Daily Post on June 12, 2017, it stated inter alia, “Apart from the tremendous negative use of money during the party primaries and presidential election, there were moral issues which were also overlooked by the Defence and National Security Council. There were cases of documented and confirmed conflict of interest between the government and both presidential candidates, which would compromise their positions and responsibilities were they to become president….It is true that the presidential election was generally seen to be free, fair and peaceful. However, there was a huge array of electoral malpractices virtually in all the states of the federation before the actual voting began. There were authenticated reports of electoral malpractices against party agents, officials of NEC and also some members of the electorate. If all of these were clear violations of the electoral law, there were proofs of manipulations through offer and acceptance of money and other forms of inducement against officials of NEC and members of the electorate.”
I was an undergraduate student at the University of Lagos when the June 12, 1993 election was held and subsequently annulled. I participated in the civil protests to make the military junta rescind that decision. In fact, I wrote to air my view on OGBC FM Mailbag 2084, which was a popular programme on the Ogun State Broadcasting Corporation. The programme was then anchored by Busayo Olaifa, Babakura Abajato (he later became the Commissioner for Information in Borno State), Toun Sogbesan and the like. It used to be held at 6pm on Friday. Little wonder the programme was rested after the June 12 debacle.
The agitation to disannul the June 12 election led to the killing and maiming of many protesters. Indeed, most, if not all tertiary institutions in the six South-West states of Lagos, Ogun, Oyo, Ekiti, Osun and Ondo were shut down indefinitely. Workers under the Nigeria Labour Congress also embarked on an indefinite strike. Some newspapers, including The PUNCH and broadcast stations, were proscribed.
Some journalists were arrested and clamped into detention without trial, while others had to go into exile. The National Democratic Coalition, popularly called NADECO, was formed, and the incumbent President Bola Tinubu was a prominent member. Pro-democracy activists floated Radio Kudirat. The struggle eventually consumed the winner of the election, Chief MKO Abiola, who died in detention after he was arrested for declaring himself president at Epetedo in Lagos. His wife, Kudirat Abiola, was assassinated. Another person martyred by the June 12 struggle was Pa. Alfred Rewane.
This year marks the 32nd anniversary of the June 12, 1993 election. How have we fared in our democratic journey? Unfortunately, our electoral process seems not to be throwing up credible leaders due to the manipulative tendencies of the political class. Money and violence are the twin evils beleaguering our elections now. To contest elections in Nigeria, you must have a war chest (money in millions and billions). If you don’t have it, you either sell off your property to raise the gargantuan amount needed or look for a godfather to bankroll your political aspiration. Many of the godfathers are shylocks who will squeeze you dry. (If in doubt, ask former Governor of Anambra State, Dr Chris Ngige).
Because of the huge financial outlay needed to contest elections, contestants, therefore, don’t want to take chances and do not want to see politics as a sport. They go for broke. They want to win at all costs. Failure is not an option. Thus, they induce voters and unleash violence on the supporters of their opponents. Indeed, assassinating political opponents is a game for them. That was what happened in Enugu State ahead of the February 25, 2023 national elections when unknown gunmen killed the Labour Party senatorial candidate for Enugu East District, Oyibo Chukwu, alongside five supporters who were inside his vehicle. The killing took place three days before the senatorial election.
June 12, 1993, was symbolic because it was deemed the freest and fairest poll, though not without flaws. I beseech the Nigerian political elite to allow for credible elections which will see not only moneybags but people of ideas and integrity being voted into political offices. The politics of a winner-takes-all, zero-sum game is dangerous and counterproductive. It’s why elections have become a mere routine without delivering the dividends of democracy or good governance.
![[OPINION] Making petro-naira for real - Lekan Sote](/media/k2/items/cache/ec32429c9d26ef5cdfbaa241de755df6_XS.jpg)
President Bola Tinubu has flown with one wing of the naira-for-petroleum transaction bird by asking the Nigeria National Petroleum Company Limited to sell petroleum to local refineries, including Dangote Refinery, in naira. This may lead to the renaming of Nigeria’s currency as the petro-naira.
Of course, the deal is not properly implemented. Some saboteurs within the NNPCL and its ecosystem, who are working in the interest of foreign paymasters, have made sure that it will not be properly implemented so that the President will be forced to abandon it.
Even with the sabotage, Nigerians cannot deny the advantages of the policy as they have recently witnessed regular announcements of steady reductions in the price of petrol by Dangote Refinery, which is compelling NNPCL to reduce the price of its (albeit) imported petrol.
The other wing of the naira-for-petroleum deal, which is the real McCoy, is the sale of petroleum to foreign buyers who will be expected to first buy naira from the Central Bank of Nigeria, through approved protocols, and then use the acquired naira to buy petroleum from NNPCL.
By this novel payment protocol, which North American and West European economic interests will fight with weapons, including insurrection, Nigeria will still receive the convertible currencies, and the naira will also return to the Nigerian financial system.
So, Nigeria will still have the convertible currency in its foreign reserves, which can always be used to pay Nigeria’s foreign obligations and pay for goods imported by citizens and corporate organisations. You could say that Nigeria will be able to eat its cake and have it.
Soon after he was sworn in for his second term as President, Donald Trump openly threatened 100 per cent import tariffs if BRICS nations—Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa and five other associate countries—replace the US dollar with any other currency as the reserve currency.
His words: “We are going to require a commitment from these seemingly hostile countries that they will neither create a new BRICS currency, nor back any other currency to replace the mighty US dollar, or they will face 100 per cent tariffs.”
A video of an unidentified Kenyan that is making the rounds on the internet explains that the current international economic and financial architecture is made to serve the interests of the probably 50 or so nations that set it up. That is not surprising.
For sure, former colonial countries that were not part of the deliberations of the metropolitan powers should not expect the United Nations, the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund to serve their interests.
But the best way to go is for Nigeria to find a way to join BRICS as a full member, and not as an associate so that the acronym will change to BRINCS, as some had speculated in the past before some of Nigeria’s previous presidents chickened out.
What are the advantages of this move? The metropolitan economies, including Uncle Sam, will think very deeply before taking any steps against the economy of BRINCS. For their support for Ukraine in the war against Russia, Germany and Italy were compelled to pay for Russian gas with the Russian ruble.
The economies of the BRINCS nations should be on the north side of 40 per cent of the global economy, and their population, more than 55 per cent of the world’s population, cannot be disregarded by the International Monopoly Capital that is perennially looking for investment markets.
It will be a good win for Nigeria if the President can find the courage to implement this policy. But by far, its most important advantage is that as demand for the naira increases, the naira will gain strength. As every Economics 101 university student knows, the law of demand and supply promises to raise the price of a commodity when there is an increased demand for it.
Another advantage, albeit in the long term, can be achieved if the Minister for Industries, Trade and Investments joins “hardknocks” corporate players from the bricks-and-mortar sector of the economy with the intellectual PhDs economic advisers to devise a template to revitalise the comatose manufacturing factories of Nigeria.
The expected increase in local production of consumer goods will eliminate, or significantly reduce, the need for Nigerians to import such consumer goods and the need to procure foreign currencies to pay for the imports.
This reduction on foreign convertible needs will significantly reduce the pressure on the naira and make it even stronger. In any case, the current financial and payment structures of the world are not written in concrete. They were devised to serve the interests of the Western metropolitan economies.
If this structural pressure is removed, the prices of consumer goods will crash and the high cost of living will drastically fall, to the advantage of poor Nigerian citizens who are still struggling daily with the negative impacts of the removal of subsidy from petrol, electricity and the naira.
Also, if the manufacturing firms and the agricultural farms can be more productive, they will be able to pay higher tax revenues to the government and reduce Nigeria’s dependence on foreign loans and the sale of petroleum to finance its annual budgets.
The President, who has belled the cat by ordering the sale of petroleum by NNPCL to local refineries in naira, should go the whole hog and sell the commodity to foreign buyers for naira. He must seize the moment in the interest of Nigeria’s economy.
After all, American President Trump is already disrupting old landmarks of given economic assumptions and payment protocols of the world. Every country should be able to play the game of disruption. Who dares, wins, according to an old saw.
If the international monopoly capital responds with venom, as is to be expected, Nigeria should respond with bolder steps. You would have observed that when President Trump imposed a 145 per cent tariff on Chinese imports, China retaliated with a 125 per cent tariff on American goods.
Soon after, both nations, knowing that they need each other, were compelled to tone down their rhetoric and issue a joint statement declaring a 90-day suspension of the tariff war, to further explore a more sanguine approach to resolving their trade differences.
The suspension of hitherto uncharitable words against each other shows a degree of mutual respect and recognition of the strength of each other’s economy. Everyone knows that the two economies are intertwined, even if they do not openly acknowledge it.
Let no one lose sight of the fact that China Inc. and America’s Wall Street are opposite sides of the same coin, economic Siamese twins that have been in business even before the days of the anti-imperialist and anti-Christian Boxer Revolution in China between 1899 and 1901.
If these economic policy suggestions are diligently followed, Nigeria should have a steady inflow of convertible currencies, strengthen the naira, drive higher revenue into the government’s exchequer, reduce debts and make more consumer items available to Nigerians—in the medium to long-term.
Though Uncle Tom economic experts of Nigeria will argue vehemently for the given economic theories that serve the interest of the West only, President Tinubu and his economic team should look beyond them and do everything necessary to right the unilaterally given economic wrongs done by the West.
![[OPINION] ECOWAS and the Dangers of Placating Junta Leaders - Paul Ejime](/media/k2/items/cache/f4fea4f91d439ef97b243c78b79c51b3_XS.jpg)
As it struggles with the consequences of its poor handling of the rash of military coups in the West African region, the leadership of the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) appears to have run out of ideas and creativity in search of an effective solution.
By their decision to use military force to restore constitutional order in Niger following the army takeover of government in that country on 26 July 2023, and the sweeping sanctions imposed on coup plotters in Mali, Guinea, Burkina Faso and Niger, including travel and flight bans, ECOWAS leaders should have known that they were on slippery grounds.
In its 50 years of existence, the regional bloc is better known for acquitting itself credibly in conflict prevention, management, and resolution, especially ending the civil wars in Liberia and Sierra Leone and effectively restoring constitutional order in member States after military coups.
While Article 45 of the Supplementary Protocol on Democracy and Good Governance 2001 permits the Mediation and Security Council to apply measures including sanctions in the event of an unconstitutional change of government, the Authority of Heads of State and Government had always maintained a principled stance in deploying a combination of tools/strategies - diplomacy and tough decisions, where necessary, in tackling conflicts.
Article 45.1 states: “In the event that democracy is abruptly brought to an end by any means or where there is massive violation of Human Rights in a member State, ECOWAS may impose sanctions on the State concerned.”
45.2. explains: “The sanctions which shall be decided by the Authority may take the following forms, in increasing order of severity:
• Refusal to support the candidates presented by the member State concerned for elective posts in international organisations
• Refusal to organise ECOWAS meetings in the Member State concerned
• Suspension of the member State concerned from all ECOWAS decision-making bodies. During the period of the suspension, the member State concerned shall be obliged to pay its dues for the period.
45.3. During the period of suspension, ECOWAS shall continue to monitor, encourage and support the efforts being made by the suspended member State to return to normalcy and constitutional order.
45.4. On the recommendation of the Mediation and Security Council, a decision may be taken at the appropriate time to proceed as stipulated in Article 45 of the Protocol Relating to the Mechanism for Conflict Prevention, Management, Resolution, Peace-Keeping and Security 1999.
On Restoration of Political Authority, this Article stipulates: “In situations where the authority of government is absent or has been seriously eroded, ECOWAS shall support processes towards the restoration of political authority. Such support may include the preparation, organisation, monitoring and management of the electoral process, with the cooperation of relevant regional and international organisations. The restoration of political authority shall be undertaken at the same time as the development of respect for human rights, enhancement of the rule of law and the judiciary.”
It should be noted that ECOWAS’ military interventions in Liberia and Sierra Leone, through its Ceasefire Monitoring Group, ECOMOG, in the 1990s, were under different circumstances and at the behest of the beleaguered governments. Also, in 2016/2017, the deployment of Nigerian air assets and the preparation by Senegalese troops to march on the Gambia only followed the uncompromising position of then-President Yahya Jammeh, who rejected ECOWAS’ mediation, claiming victory in the December 2016 election, which he lost. In the end, Jammeh was exiled to Equatorial Guinea without any military confrontations.
Also, under the 1999 and 2001 Protocols, there are provisions for the deployment of good office missions, including military chiefs, Council of the Wise/Elders or appointment of a Chief Mediator. But ECOWAS leaders did not exhaust these non-kinetic alternatives before going for an aborted military option in Niger. Also, the imposition of travel and flight bans effectively foreclosed the possibility of interactions or negotiations with the coup leaders.
Similarly, Nigeria’s cut of electricity supply to Niger did not derive from any ECOWAS instruments.
Article 52 of the 1999 Protocol states that: “In accordance with Chapters VII and VIII of the United Nations Charter, ECOWAS shall inform the United Nations of any military intervention undertaken in pursuit of the objectives of this Mechanism,” but this was not the case on Niger.
The embarrassment from an unprecedented and unpopular decision for kinetic option in Niger, which fell through, has forced ECOWAS leaders into an uncomfortable situation, and their bending over backwards to placate the junta leaders - a strategy fraught with potential uncertainties and unsavoury consequences.
Most critically, the implementation of some decisions taken by the ECOWAS Council of Ministers at its extraordinary meeting in Accra, Ghana 22-23 May 2025, on the contingency arrangements for the departure of Mali, Burkina Faso, and Niger (known as the Alliance of Sahel States, AES, could damage the integrity, unity and cohesion of the regional bloc irreparably, and hasten its further disintegration.
Article 91 of the ECOWAS Revised Treaty 1993 is unambiguous on the withdrawal of any member state from ECOWAS. Article 91.1 states clearly: “Any member State wishing to withdraw from the Community shall give to the Executive Secretary (President of the Commission) one year's notice in writing… At the expiration of this period, if such notice is not withdrawn, such a State shall cease to be a member of the Community.
91.2. During the period of one year… such a member State shall continue to comply with the provisions of this Treaty and shall remain bound to discharge its obligations under this Treaty.”
ECOWAS rules do not provide for “group withdrawal,” and following the precedent with Mauritania's withdrawal in 2000, there was no need for the ECOWAS Council of Ministers to reinvent the wheel, the way it did in Accra.
The junta leaders announced their countries’ withdrawal from ECOWAS “with immediate effect” in January 2024.
However, under the 1993 treaty, that withdrawal only became effective by January 2025, and acting on humanitarian grounds, ECOWAS granted its staff from the AES countries until September 2025 to leave with an additional three months’ pay until December 2025.
Yet, the Council at its Accra meeting decided to:
a. ”adopt a two-phase disengagement process for the affected staff. The first phase will involve staff in Senior Professional positions… and all G-Staff from the three countries that are working at ECOWAS institutions to be relocated and will take effect at the end of September, based on termination letters already sent to the staff concerned. The (ECOWAS), Commission is given until the end of December 2025 to recruit staff to fill the resulting vacant positions. The second phase will involve P4 Staff and below and will be carried out on a case-by-case basis, taking into account the specific circumstances of the staff concerned, including age and the priority needs of the institutions.”
“On regional market and economic integration, the Council underscored that Free Movement and Economic matters are at the core of regional integration and deserve particular attention in discussing separation modalities with the exiting countries.
In a needless move to accommodate the AES countries, “(The) Council noted the existence of various legal frameworks which are the foundation of regional economic integration and directly affect Community citizens… stressed the need to ensure a collective approach to negotiations as a regional bloc based on existing regional instruments such as the Protocol on free movement of persons, the ECOWAS Trade Liberalisation Scheme and the Common External Tariff.”
Additionally, while it “reiterates the clarity, in the relevant provisions of the ECOWAS staff Regulations, that only nationals of ECOWAS member States are eligible for employment as staff members,” the Council still called for a “Review of the Staff Regulations to reflect current circumstances.”
The Council further authorised the ECOWAS Bank for Investment and Development (EBID), ”to continue with its commitments under ongoing projects in Burkina Faso, Mali and Niger. Still, the Council decided that EBID disengage with staff from the three Countries.”
To many analysts, these concessions are not only too many, but unwarranted and may come back to haunt ECOWAS and its aspirations for regional integration. The junta leaders have been unrepentant in denouncing ECOWAS and all that it stands for while portraying themselves as populist power grabbers determined to perpetuate themselves in the saddle.
ECOWAS should assert itself as a rule-based organisation. However, its dilemma is that for the past 10 to 12 years, the bloc has ignored or tolerated “constitutional and electoral coups, and human rights violations” by some of its leaders in blatant breach of its own rules. There are also some fifth columnists within, working against ECOWAS.
The Constitutional Convergence Principles under Article 1 of the 2001 Protocol stress among others:
- Separation of powers by the Executive, Legislative and Judiciary.
- Empowerment and strengthening of parliaments and guarantee of parliamentary immunity.
- Independence of the Judiciary.
- Every accession to power must be made through free, fair and transparent elections.
- Zero tolerance for power obtained or maintained by unconstitutional means, and,
- Popular participation in decision-making, strict adherence to democratic principles and decentralisation of power at all levels of governance.
Yet, in their inordinate quest to obtain or retain power at all costs, some ECOWAS leaders have trampled on the regional principles, while the Authority of Heads of State has rendered dormant or ineffectual the ECOWAS Commission and its management, which are supposed to coordinate the programmes and activities of the regional institutions.
As ECOWAS celebrates the 50th anniversary of its formation through the 28th May 1975 Treaty of Lagos, its drastic problems require drastic solutions.
For a start, the ECOWAS Commission should undertake an urgent and transparent recruitment exercise to fill any vacant positions from the teeming army of qualified professionals among the 400 million community citizens and release staff from countries whose leaders despise the regional bloc.
Since the proud junta leaders believe that their landlocked poor countries are self-sufficient, ECOWAS should not reward their arrogance.
To regain its past glory, navigate emerging threats and bequeath an enduring legacy to the next generations, ECOWAS leaders at national and regional levels must change tact and lead by example with vision and dynamism, beginning with effective management of the lingering threats in member States such as Togo, Guinea Bissau, Sierra Leone, The Gambia and Cote d’Ivoire.
Paul Ejime is a Media/Communications Specialist and Global Affairs Analyst
![[OPINION] Reform with remorse: What PDP can learn from truth commissions - Ojo Maduekwe](/media/k2/items/cache/4ddbc1d7efce4d2c8c1977256143923e_XS.jpg)
Since losing power in 2015, the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) has shown little urgency in pursuing meaningful reform. Rebranding efforts have been scant, and there’s been no sincere attempt to convince Nigerians that its defeat was the result of 16 years of misrule and a widening disconnect from the people it once claimed to represent.
Only recently – following high-profile defections, including those of Delta State Governor Sheriff Oborevwori and his predecessor, Ifeanyi Okowa – did the PDP appear to grasp the gravity of its situation. As the party continues to lose more members, it has also begun trying to rebrand. While this signals a much-needed reawakening, it is far from enough.
In a previous article addressing this wave of defections, I argued that the PDP must rethink, regroup, and redefine its new role as Nigeria’s leading opposition. I outlined four reforms the party must pursue to rebuild trust and repair its damaged reputation among Nigerians.
First, the PDP must align its positions across national and grassroots levels. Second, it must end the imposition of candidates in favour of merit-based leadership. Third, the party should champion legal reforms to curb opportunistic defections. And fourth, it must invest in civic education campaigns that connect its values and governance vision with the aspirations of ordinary Nigerians. However, true reform must begin with sincere remorse.
Before embarking on these crucial reforms, the PDP must first acknowledge that it broke the trust of Nigerians, and failed the people during its 16 years in power. Without this, any reform would be seen as cosmetic, and driven by desperation, not accountability.
To navigate this critical moment, the party can take lessons from Africa’s various truth commissions such as South Africa’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission, Rwanda’s Gacaca courts, and Nigeria’s own Oputa Panel. One valuable insight they all share is this: real transformation begins with truth-telling and, where appropriate, an apology.
Apologies are not always spoken. Sometimes they are demonstrated through changed behaviour. Take the APC, for example. Ahead of the 2015 election, the party – aware that its candidate, Muhammadu Buhari, had the image of a former military dictator with a troubling human rights record – launched a rebranding campaign. It portrayed him as a “converted democrat.” This repositioning helped pave the way for the party’s eventual victory.
The PDP must understand that reform without remorse is simply branding. It should not assume that Nigerians, disillusioned by the APC’s many failures, will automatically return to the PDP by default. That would be a grave miscalculation by the party.
Indeed, the APC has proven to be far from the change it promised – and in many respects, arguably worse than the PDP. But this disappointment alone does not guarantee a PDP comeback. Not without reform. And certainly not without some form of atonement.
The PDP must be willing to engage in political truth-telling and demonstrate changed behaviour to Nigerians. This doesn’t require dramatic public confessions. What it does require is a clear, public acknowledgement that mistakes were made, that lessons have been learned, and that safeguards are now in place to ensure those mistakes are not repeated.
As I mentioned earlier, a reformed PDP must align its internal structures, end the imposition of candidates, champion anti-defection legislation, and invest in civic education that reflects a genuine commitment to Nigeria’s democratic aspirations.
Reputation, once lost, is difficult to regain – but not impossible. Truth commissions across Africa have shown us that forgiveness is possible when contrition is sincere. The PDP must embrace this lesson if it hopes to rebuild trust with Nigerians. Reform without contrition is just branding. What the PDP must offer is reform rooted in remorse, and not desperation.
● Maduekwe is the founder of Discussing Africa. He can be reached at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.