Tag: Azu Ishiekwene

  • Amidst chaos, 13-year-old boy vows to rebuild broken bridge of hope – By Azu Ishiekwene

    Amidst chaos, 13-year-old boy vows to rebuild broken bridge of hope – By Azu Ishiekwene

    If he could, he might have built a highway to Sharm el-Sheikh where the world’s great and mighty gathered between November 6 and 18 at COP27 to discuss climate change. But who knows, he might yet do so. Thirteen-year-old Musa Sani, who has already taken infant steps in civil engineering, might live a bigger dream someday.

    At an age when his mates are dodging bullets and running scared with nothing on their backs in the midst of the chaos that Borno, a Boko Haram hotbed in Nigeria’s North East has been for nearly two decades, Musa is building things, literally, with his bare hands.

    After the state government built its first flyover, as part of its effort to rebuild infrastructure ruined following years of violent Boko Haram insurgency, Musa, who was at the time in a Quranic school in Borno’s capital, Maiduguri, asked himself what he could also do for his community.

    Even though his family had just been resettled around the Gwange area of Maiduguri from one of the numerous internally-displaced-persons camps in the state, Musa was still occasionally haunted by the fear of an uncertain future.

    “We lived in fear. Fear of Boko Haram,” Musa said. “Fear of being attacked and killed. Fear that something bad could happen to us at any time. At such times, I often ask myself, ‘What can I do with my life?’”

    The first hint of an answer came to Musa when the Borno State government opened the state’s first flyover at Customs Roundabout, Gwange, a filthy, congested commercial spot in the capital, not far from Musa’s house. In a state pockmarked by years of violent extremism and broken infrastructure, beauty remains a rare thing. Imagining it, even rarer.

    “Scenes of the opening of the flyover and the beautification of the Customs Roundabout touched me,” enthused Musa, who snuck out of the house to take it all in after the opening ceremonies. “I immediately started asking myself what I could do to beautify the environment.”

    That was how he came about constructing his own prototype Roundabout – not with asphalt or steel, but with a mixture of cement, clay and stones! He sourced the materials locally, with little money provided by his mother, a food seller. To the discomfort of his eight other siblings, he quickly converted a portion of the verandah inside their three-room bungalow into his construction site!

    He said building the model bridge with locally sourced materials was “an important win for conservation” and that it also opened his eyes to what he could do to improve his environment which, apart from insurgency, is also severely threatened by desert encroachment.

    “I used my clay model to test my creative ability and also to show the world my talent,” he said.

    The model bridge is a mishmash of clay, cement, and oil painting done in six days of July this year. Musa worked at it whenever he had time off Quranic school, hoping that it would take him closer to his dream of becoming a civil engineer one day. That day may not be too far away.

    In the six days that it took to complete the biblical story of creation, Musa’s model clay bridge was ready. It may be a far cry from the model that guided the concrete Roundabout in his community, but for the 13-year-old, it’s an engineering wonder that may have changed the course of his life for good.

    Did neighbours and friends think he was just mucking about with clay and paint when he started out?

    “At first,” Musa said, “people were wondering what I actually intended to do. A few were even laughing. But when the work got fully under way, more and more people took me seriously. They saw that I was not joking.”

    He still bears the scars on his hands and knees from wounds sustained while he mucked about on the floor with cement, stones and a water paint brush. But the joy of his finished work and the fame that it has brought have wiped off the pain.

    His mother, Hafsat, said she knew her son was not joking. “He’s been like that since he was three,” she said. “He’s always loved doing things with his hands, especially things from nature. I’m not surprised.”

    And that means a lot in a region of the country with an estimated 20 million out-of-school children, who are also potential recruits for Boko Haram and violent extremism.

    Musa’s clay model bridge has become a museum of sorts. State governor, Babagana Zulum, visited Musa’s Gwange home in July to see for himself, with scores of state officials in tow. Apart from a cash gift of N5 million to Musa, the governor also withdrew him from the Quranic school and enrolled him, on a scholarship, in Primary Four at Golden Olives Academy, where he has a far better chance to turn out well.

    Musa hopes to go on to the university to study architecture or civil engineering and, beyond clay models, build greater things to beautify his community.

    “The little that I have done,” he said, “has brought recognition and positive attention to my community. My success will encourage me and others to do more, instead of being idle.”

    And just when he thought he might be starting a mini-museum, misfortune struck! The model Roundabout that he had carefully laid on the verandah, making his parents’ house a tourist centre of sorts, was destroyed!

    “There was insufficient space in the house,” he said in an interview this week. “Also, people were trooping to see the work, causing chaos in our compound. Some boys even fought before they could come through to see the Roundabout.”

    Alas, the same talisman that brought Musa a small fortune and considerable fame, including a personal visit by the governor, now lies in ruins! Has his magic become his misery? He is taking it all in his stride, blaming the lack of space at home for this misfortune.

    “The destruction could have been prevented if we had enough space at home,” he said.

    Is he planning a re-make or would another project almost amount to a re-invention of the wheel? Musa is not fazed. The talent that produced the crushed prototype appears ready to rebuild or even produce a bigger surprise. For now, though, he is occupied by the challenges in his new school environment and is relishing the opportunities and competitive spirit.

    An immediate concern for him appears to be plans by his family to relocate to old Maiduguri, in Jere Local Government, about three kilometres away from his new school. If he cannot find a place or family to stay with in town, he’ll have to commute this distance to school daily and live with the uncertainty that his parents would be able to provide daily transport fare.

    “I have so many things on my mind to construct in the future. These would include houses, cars and even airplanes,” he said.

    By the time the world is ready for Cop28 in Dubai, who knows if Musa might have built more than a clay bridge to connect not just his community, but perhaps his country, to the big stage?

     

    Ishiekwene is Editor-In-Chief of LEADERSHIP

  • A letter to Sam – By Azu Ishiekwene

    A letter to Sam – By Azu Ishiekwene

    Dear Chairman,

    It was about this time eight years ago, wasn’t it? I’m talking of course of when you took what was perhaps the most audacious, some may even say, most controversial political decision of your career at the time to run for the Presidency.

    You had talked and written about what was possible for over 20 years. Now, it was time to just get in there and do it! To show that Big Ideas was not a pipedream but a possibility.

    I don’t know which was more difficult: the decision to run or the decision – when you finally made it – to tell your mentor of several decades, General Muhammadu Buhari (as he then was), that you were going to run against him. 

    Do you still remember when we first talked about the latter in my office around early 2014 before the APC presidential primaries in December of that year? 

    “O-o-o-f course, now!”, I can almost hear you say, rocking with laughter and a mocking glare.

    I’m sure you do. And I remember, too, what you said happened when, after a long period of consultations and meetings, you finally visited the General in his Abuja lair, to tell him you would be running against him.

    You told me, as you set your trademark red cap on my office table that harmattan afternoon, that the discussion started with your usual jokes and laughter. And when you finally told him you had something very important to say, the atmosphere changed. 

    He invited you into his inner room where you both sat down to talk. He probably knew what it was – you both knew – because the rumour was rife. But you both pretended neither knew. And I still remember what you said his response was, after you finally told him you were going to run against him in the party primary for the presidential ticket.

    “That’s OK, Nda. I wish you the best.” And then, a cold chill descended on the room. That chill was to later spill out of the room, spreading to Buhari’s inner political circle where some who could not accept the courage of your conviction made heavy-weather of it, and even weaponised it afterwards.

    It didn’t matter that you said at your remarkable speech in Minna when you launched your campaign that it was not a do-or-die affair. That anyone of the five of you who emerged APC’s presidential candidate would be far, far better than the incumbent. The rest, of course, is history.  

    What that history will say about your mentor, Buhari, who is rounding up his eight years in office is still being written. You saw and read a bit of it before Friday, December 11, 2020 when you crossed to the other side. You were already becoming visibly uncomfortable discussing Buhari’s government. That was clear to people who knew you.

    With less than six months before your mentor leaves office, I wonder how much time you spend these days following the media thread on his administration? Inflation, according to the National Bureau of Statistics is 19 percent; but food inflation is worse. Groundnut, your favourite snack, for example, which was around N800 a bottle when you passed two years ago, is now N1,200. 

    The number of out-of-school children has nearly doubled from 11million in 2020 to 22million as of this year. And as if that is not bad enough, university teachers, on the watch of your very good friend Malam Adamu Adamu, just returned from an eight-month-long strike – one of the longest in the country’s history with enough blame to go round for the teachers and the government, but without any hint that it might be the last time it would happen.

    And, oh, was the Japa wave the social currency of migration before you passed? I’m not sure it was. But believe me, Chairman, the wave is so big today that friends in the financial services sector tell me that “proof of funds” – the evidence of financial sufficiency required of intending japa-rers by embassies – is the largest stream of income for a number of finance houses in the country today. 

    About 727 medical doctors trained in Nigeria relocated to the UK in the last one year alone. Data from the registry of the Nursing and Midwifery Council of the UK reported that the number of Nigeria-trained nurses increased by 68.4 percent from 2,790 in March 2017 to 7,256 in March 2022.  

    In the 2022 brochure of graduating students of the University of Hertfordshire, UK, for example, out of the 131 students graduating in Nursing alone, 79 are Nigerians.

    A current subject of UK public interest, for example, was a report that the number of dependents accompanying our students is 40 percent of all dependents accompanying UK-based students.

    Perhaps I should say a word, at this time, about our relationship with China, a relationship which you contributed your quota in nurturing as a private sector citizen who believed it was both the prudent and practical thing to do, especially in light of the shenanigans of the West. 

    Our love of China is waxing cold. That has nothing to do with the extraordinary efforts of the current ambassador, Cui Jian Chun, to model a relationship rooted in the core value of “harmony”. 

    Apart from COVID-19, which created its own global supply chain problems, I think the Chino-Nigerian relationship is overdosed on low-interest loans from China. We currently owe China about $10billion, which is about 12 percent of Nigeria’s debt stock. 

    Although the government insists that the Chinese loans are tied largely to infrastructure, there have been concerns that we’re not just owing, but that, in fact, our children may have also borrowed from China.  

    While the hairsplitting continues over whether Nigeria is facing a debt crisis – or whether, as the Ministry of Finance insists, we’re facing a “revenue problem” – there’s no controversy over the massive vandalism and stealing of crude oil. 

    When you were still threatening to take a cane to Aso Rock, Nigeria was losing $1.63 billion yearly from the theft of 200,000 bpd. Between January and July this year alone, we have lost $10billion! Which means, to use your words, “We have been stolen with the oil.”

    It’s the sort of absurdity over which you used to famously describe a former President as “utterly clueless” and yet, lacking in grace to accept his incompetence. 

    “Azu, what is this now…w—h—a—t is this?”, I can almost hear you stammer in embarrassed agitation.

    Yet, if you were here, writing these closing chapters of Buhari’s story as you wrote those of President Goodluck Jonathan and President Umaru Musa Yar’Adua so eloquently and so unsparingly, I sometimes wonder what you would be saying. 

    Of course, you stopped writing shortly before you threw your hat in the ring, but your heart did not stop beating for Nigeria, for the unfinished work of making Nigeria great again, and for the belief that with the right leadership in one united country, we can show the world the way.

    What was it you used to call them – I mean your friends in high places who occasionally let the country down so badly, you didn’t just know what to do? 

    Ah, I remember! “My S-O-B….Ha!ha!ha!” That’s what you used to say. But believe me, Chairman, if they were few two years ago, they’re quite a community these days and growing strong!

    Of course, the government has not been without its reasons, chief among which have been COVID-19, the fluctuation in oil prices and, the latest of which has been the Russian-Ukraine war, which has lasted 10 months now.  

    By the way, I’m sure you know your party’s candidate for the February 2023 election and how your party’s primaries went this time. For days before, and later, weeks after the primaries, I couldn’t help thinking what you would have done this time. 

    Your party presented a most interesting list indeed, one that included a few of your very close allies. At one point, in fact, I was nearly certain it would also include former President Jonathan! 

    Every party primary, as you know, has its dramatic moments and this one was no exception. 

    I don’t know how it would have ended if you had been around. But looking back at your party’s primary in May, it seemed to me that perhaps that was exactly the moment you were preparing for eight years ago. How it was not to be, only God knows. 

    But the sheer lack of content, depth and thoroughness this time was so evident it made the outcome an anti-climax and your absence even more painful.

    But as they say, it is what it is….

     

    Ishiekwene is the Editor-In-Chief of LEADERSHIP

  • America, watch your back! – By Azu Ishiekwene

    America, watch your back! – By Azu Ishiekwene

    Former US President Donald Trump didn’t just happen to the United States. He hit the world like the climax of a horror movie. 

    Scene after scene, act after act left the thoughtful in bewilderment, the reserved in shame, and even the incorrigible in doubt. Only the fantasts and ultra-right wing extremists were impressed by Trump’s macabre dance.

    It was a phase like no other when he freely abused the expression, “To make America great again”.

    Apart from his British double and ally, Boris Johnson, only clips from Uganda’s past, without their bloody trail, throw up a shadow of semblance in contemporary history. 

    If Idi Amin, Uganda’s maximum ruler and self-styled conqueror of the British Empire, was alive, Trump would have had a living black effigy, a master of doublespeak. He shifts grounds from subject to subject, changing the narrative before the audience had time to think, and then closing the story with a conclusion neither relevant to the beginning, nor logical in its summation.

    Although Amin declared himself Field Marshal and life president, he only lasted between 1971 and 1979 – roughly the same eight years Trump aspires to rule the US. Amin’s cleverer latter-day successor, Yoweri Museveni, has been, paradoxically, the one to live Amin’s dream of a life presidency. 

    Museveni, who led a guerilla warfare to “liberate Uganda from Amin”, has been in office for 38 years and still counting. Now the whole world is worried about liberating Uganda from him.

    With Trump, facts don’t have to be factual. Any line makes a syllogism so long as it justifies his ends. His presidency reduced the most powerful country in the world to a theatre of absurdities, an endless circus of drama where Trump was the scripter, its director, lead actor, hero, critic and more. 

    It was under Trump that the world really doubted for the first time in many decades the primacy of the US in global affairs – whether it involved the climate debate, migration (legal or otherwise), the pandemic or even the nuclear arms challenge.

    With skin tougher than a reptile’s, Trump drove through scandals, not batting an eyelid. He rigged the Supreme Court with conservative justices, trampled over Congress and bullied the press. Trump was not just a master of the alternative universe, he also sustained it with hysteria that left normal folks doubting their own sanity.

    A darling of the Christian right, he may as well have borrowed his moral compass from the Crusaders, an earlier generation of Christians, who lacked the grace to accommodate what they could not change, but did not lack the courage to undermine or destroy them. 

    Trump was never wrong as long as he called the shots. He must have thought Nixon was foolish to have resigned at the mere triviality that was Watergate.

    Coming on the heels of the remarkable era of Barack Obama, Trump had the very effect of that bull inside a China shop. Frequently seeking judicial reinterpretation of his indiscretions, America lost its sense of outrage under him! With brazen incorrigibility, he simply blew out one scandal with another. 

    When, after four difficult years Americans had the chance to choose again, the confused, frightened world prayed that American voters would find the courage to escort DJT out of the White House and back to his Towers. That’s where his alternative facts and self-serving narratives move mountains and form the operational blueprint. 

    But he didn’t only resist by stirring an insurrection on the Capitol, he would go on to ask the courts and whoever cared not to accept or confirm Joe Biden’s electoral victory. Sounds like a tale from a thriller, but we lived through it.

    To be fair to American voters, the majority of them didn’t elect Trump. He was the product of the Electoral College – a warped and archaic electoral system which sometimes allows the majority to have their say, but the minority to have their way.  

    If that system was meant to provide some balance and comfort in America’s complex federation – and possibly stop the emergence of demagogues, as some argue – well, it failed to deliver in 2016. 

    The Electoral College, that 230-year-old political contraption, became the very vehicle that took Trump to the presidency. Hilary Clinton had trounced him with a margin of 2.8 million popular votes, but the counter-democratic wisdom of the electoral college overrode the popular will of Americans.

    In the words of one of the founding leaders of the US, James Madison, the Electoral College was meant to ensure that the president is elected “by men most capable of analysing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favourable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice.” Trump possessed anything but these qualities.

    His Democratic opponent warned and admonished most prophetically, about the man lacking the temperament and wisdom befitting of the job. The electorate heard, and adhered, but the “College” did the reverse. The world felt the impact of that mistake, and America bore this burden for four long years. 

    And he stunned the world even more. He wouldn’t leave the White House without a fight and attempted a coup. He wouldn’t concede defeat or congratulate the man who beat him at the polls. He sulked, balked and bluffed. But in the end, he had to slink away like a bully humiliated by an underdog.

    The mid-term elections in November in the US provided Trump with another opportunity to show-up in the ring again, hoping for a Red wave, which thankfully, did not happen. He still wants to make America great, to “save” America. 

    His fanatical crowds are unrelenting, cheering him at the podium like nothing happened before. And just like before, too, the world risks the mistake of under-estimating Trump, thinking he is going nowhere.  

    Whether Trump will succeed or not depends on the Republican Party, a party so beholden to Trump that it answers twice, even when he calls once. If he overcomes the loop, his brand of entrepreneurial politics and personality cult could generate a bandwagon effect that may be hard to stop.

    As America approaches the 2024 elections, chances of a Trump on the ballot are a possibility not to be dismissed, considering how he pushed through the Republican primaries to the presidency in 2016. He feels even more surefooted now, despite the outcome of the midterm elections. 

    He claims he wants to save America. But America desperately needs to save itself from him. He’s never been short of this messianic complex. And he knows when and how to deploy it to devastating effect.

    Trump 2.0 is a possibility and the man is seriously looking forward to it. He has the capacity of a brigand; he fights – fair or foul – he just fights, anyway. The end justifies the means. With Trump, the world should never say never until he has been retired by consent or by force. 

    Trump is not done, yet. And anyone who thinks otherwise should remember what his cousin, Mary, told The Guardian about him in January 2021: “He’s never had a legitimate win in his life. All that matters is getting the win, no matter if there’s an asterisk next to it.” 

    Why? Because asterisks are to a demagogue what the red flag is to the bull. America, watch your back!

     

    Ishiekwene is the Editor-In-Chief of LEADERSHIP

  • The letter, the spirit, and The Letterman – By Azu Ishiekwene

    The letter, the spirit, and The Letterman – By Azu Ishiekwene

    If there was a prize for Nigeria’s number one letter writer, journalist-turned-lawyer and one-time minister, Tony Momoh, would appear to be the undisputed champion.

    The late Momoh performed the difficult task of making sense of General Ibrahim Babangida’s largely messy and convoluted political and economic programmes by writing regular letters to “fellow countrymen”. His extensive and elaborate undertaking later packaged as a book entitled, Letters to my Countrymen, was, to put it mildly, a labour of misery. It was a thoroughly thankless job.

    But how can Momoh’s letters ever hope to compete with those of former President Olusegun Obasanjo? It’s not about differences in the audiences alone. There are also significant differences in approach, temperament, style, context, message and, of course, potency. 

    Momoh may get the prize for the most consistent cabinet minister who tried to endear a largely despised government to the public through regular correspondences later codified. 

    But the record of the most controversial, most volatile — and some might even add, most annoyingly pontifical epistles — may deservedly go to Obasanjo, a medal that only his daughter, Iyabo, attempted in vain to snatch in just one devastating piece of literary ambush. 

    It would seem that this was a latter-day hobby, cultivated in the last one and a half decades or so after Obasanjo was accused of behaving as if he left something behind in office. But a new book by Nigeria’s foremost investigative journalist, multiple award-winner, and Editor-In-Chief of Premium Times, Musikilu Mojeed, suggests very clearly that Obasanjo’s love of letter-writing has been a life-long indulgence.

    Mojeed’s new book, The Letterman, an enthralling narrative in presidential history, provides rare access into the literary closet of a man loved and despised almost in equal measure, but who remains – like him or not – perhaps the most consequential leader in Nigeria’s turbulent 62-year history.

    As far as good occasionally comes from bad, it is gratifying that the Obasanjo Presidential Library, which was built with over N6 billion largely from cronies rounded up in Obasanjo’s last days in office in defiance of public criticisms, is turning out to be a treasure trove of extremely valuable historical stuff.   

    Until I read The Letterman, I wasn’t quite sure who the real letterman was — whether it was Mojeed, a journalist with well over two and a half decades of extraordinary variety of stories — or Obasanjo whom most might be forgiven to think used Babangida as first target-practice at letter-writing.

    From the account in The Letterman, however, by the time Obasanjo took on Babangida in the public arena around the mid-1990s, the former president was already an accomplished author of sorts, with a fairly large and even dangerously vitriolic collection to show for his long-standing talent. 

    Apart from letters written to him by his parents 70 years ago, he started cultivating his love of correspondences as far back as over five decades ago. In Mojeed’s words, “Obasanjo’s records show that he has been writing to almost every key person who played important roles in the affairs of Nigeria, Africa and the world since 1969.”

    From head of State Yakubu Gowon to President Shehu Shagari and from Babangida to Sani Abacha and even first premier of the Western Region, Obafemi Awolowo, and a number of foreign leaders, Obasanjo never shied away from telling them, in writing, exactly what he thought, sometimes even at considerable personal risk.

    His letter to his superior officer, Brigadier Eyo Okon Ekpo at the height of the Nigerian civil war in 1969, for example, made me wonder if many officers who were compelled to fight Boko Haram with bare hands at some point during the insurgency, would have dared to think of, much less compose, such a letter. 

    And what did Obasanjo have against his superior? While the war raged, Brigadier Ekpo had managed to enroll as a part-time law student of the University of Lagos. Obasanjo found out. 

    Instead of enriching the rumour mill with his own version of gossip, he wrote his boss questioning the propriety of his decision in war time, when other officers who could also squeeze out spare time for a past-time sacrificed it for the country. 

    Yet, credit must also go to Brigadier Ekpo who, instead of taking offence (Major General Mamman Vatsa was executed for reasons that remain unclear), took the criticism in his stride, saying, “I will continue with my reading, and any officer or individual who does not like it may please himself.”

    There’s no indication what Obasanjo did after that.

    But that encounter certainly did not impair his appetite for throwing punches above his weight. He landed a literary blow against his army chief, Brigadier Hassan Katsina, who had expressed concern about some changes he was making in his Division. Obasanjo said, in writing, to his boss, that he was “disappointed and disturbed” that his boss should express apprehension based on a suspicion of tribalism.

    Obasanjo did not spare his commander-in-chief, Gowon. During the war, for example, he wrote “at least four unsparing letters”, accusing the military authorities of tempting defeat by sleepwalking over his request for vital war equipment supplies, a charge that, if the shoe had been on the other foot, Obasanjo would hardly have taken with the calmness with which Gowon treated it.

    But Obasanjo being Obasanjo, neither personal safety nor sense of danger matters when national unity, reputation — or as it sometimes turns out, personal ego — is at issue. In about 130 published and previously unpublished letters and mimeographs, with a collection of a few rare photos of the former president laid out in 462 pages of 25 chapters, The Letterman is a story of Obasanjo’s odyssey through his personal letters.

    Hardly a man of few words when he chooses to write, perhaps the longest of the letters in the book was Obasanjo’s response to Major James Oluleye, who upon the outbreak of the civil war decided to voluntarily forgo his scheduled staff course in India and requested, instead, to be posted to the warfront. 

    The erstwhile National Chairman of the People’s Democratic Party (PDP), Audu Ogbeh, had his fair share of Obasanjo’s lengthy epistolary attack too, which eventually ended in his removal; but Oluleye’s letter beats Ogbeh’s for length, though not for vitriol.

    A disagreement over strategy between him and Obasanjo led to an incredible literary crossfire, in which Obasanjo reminded Oluleye (the operations officer of the Nigerian Army at the time), in one of the most ponderous pieces in the collection, that he (Obasanjo) read his battle more “on the ground, rather than on the map”, a sarcastic reference to the former’s background role during the war.

    If the letterman’s missile to Oluleye stood out for its length and sarcasm, the cache of letters to Babangida in this collection was remarkable for both length and sarcasm, not to mention their frequency, intensity and, well, damning wit. Yet, given Babangida’s gift for taking Nigeria for a ride at the time, not a few thought he was eminently deserving of Obasanjo’s bitter tongue. 

    Just like he would do to Presidents Goodluck Jonathan and Muhammadu Buhari many years later, although under different circumstances, Obasanjo told Babangida to stop playing games with the country. “Just pack and go,” he said in a letter that summed up the country’s mood at the time. 

    In six years of painstaking work rendered with significant restraint, Mojeed curated letters that captured Obasanjo’s domestic wars (the face-off with Lt. Col. Godwin Alabi-Isama raged for years, spilling into their post-service era). If Obasanjo was a prophet without honour at home, the book doesn’t leave out his clout on the foreign stage, where he is without question, one of the continent’s most durable, respected and accomplished figures. 

    The Letterman also portrays the little-talked-about side of the man — his sense of gratitude and loyalty to his friends (he cherished and preserved his relationship with Chukwuma Nzeogwu beyond the latter’s death and never forgot, to the last person, those who stood by him when Abacha imprisoned him). 

    Obasanjo gave as much as he took. Yet, in over five decades of his epistolary odyssey, two responses to his letters shed important light on his psychology. 

    One was Obafemi Awolowo’s response to Obasanjo’s letter of December 13, 1979. In an attempt to set the records straight, and possibly absolve his government of favouring Shagari in 1979, Obasanjo had taken exception to Awolowo’s damning address at his party’s congress. 

    Within two days, Awolowo replied in detail, with logic, argument, facts and language that would seem to condemn the retired military head of state to a place in hell and yet make him feel obliged to look forward to the trip. 

    It was one of the few responses in the book for which Obasanjo had nothing to say in reply. But more importantly, it also said something about the letterman’s psychology: in spite of his extraordinary appetite for literary pugilism, he knows when to throw in the towel!

    Yet, there was another famous reply, omitted in the book, which the letterman will not forget in hurry: the July 18, 2003 reply of Nobel Laureate, Professor Wole Soyinka. 

    The letter, released after Soyinka insisted that there was “a nest of killers” in Obasanjo’s government following the murder of the Attorney General and Minister of Justice, Bola Ige, was in response to Obasanjo’s letter of July 14, saying Soyinka was harsh with his government because he did not give the laureate’s nominees government positions.

    After Soyinka’s reply in which he described Obasanjo as a “Rambo on the loose” and the former president’s letter as “the low watermark of his correspondence career”, nothing more was heard from the letterman for a very, very long time.

    But The Letterman is not a psychoanalysis of the bully complex. It’s a story of Obasanjo’s patriotism and his opportunism, his heroics and his hubris, his courage and his conceitedness. 

    It might be harsh to liken the letters to the Picture of Dorian Gray, Oscar Wilde’s Gothic fiction of how our obsessions reflect our inner turmoil however we might try to disguise or deny them. But the truth is, in those letters, we see Obasanjo, not as fiction, but as he really is.

    He is, after all, human.

     

    Ishiekwene is Editor-In-Chief LEADERSHIP

  • In Love, As in Football, Size Does Not Matter. Here’s Why – By Azu Ishiekwene

    In Love, As in Football, Size Does Not Matter. Here’s Why – By Azu Ishiekwene

    It’s a great time to be a football lover. It might not feel exactly so if your country is not one of the 32 taking part in the 22nd edition of the World Cup in Doha, Qatar. But being a fan means managing to love the game without having your dog in the fight.

    For example, Nigeria’s national team, the Super Eagles, won’t be in Qatar – the second time in eight years. But since the team crashed out to Ghana in February, fans have managed to reconcile with their misery, especially with forthcoming elections which essentially foist a choice between Tweedledee and Tweedledum.

    One month of jousting over which striker should have played in what position and who should have been benched is more useful for fans than listening to politicians promising heaven on earth without the remotest idea of how they plan to make it happen.

    With national pride at stake for some, big money and career for a few, a chance to stake a political claim for others, and yet others with nothing but the ephemeral joy of the moment to lose, Doha is the world’s most valuable, and for the price of $220 billion, perhaps the most expensive one-month distraction.

    At times like these, for Africans, either at home or in the Diaspora, the trend is to gravitate their passion and support to the participating countries representing the continent. Senegal, Ghana, Morocco, Tunisia and Cameroon would carry the continent’s flag, after favourites, Egypt and Nigeria had failed to qualify.

    In the history of the competition, only three African countries have made it to the quarter finals stage: Cameroon (Italia ’90), Senegal (Korea/Japan 2002), and Ghana (South Africa 2010), and only South Africa has been able to muster the resources to host the World Cup.

    No surprises, here though. Hosting the tournament has never been for the fainthearted. The 29-day tournament is costing the Kingdom of Qatar about 15 times the amount of Nigeria’s proposed 2023 budget and more than six times the proposed expenditure of N20.51 trillion.

    Only deep pocket economies like Qatar and others like it can fund the huge infrastructural developments and building of eight stadiums. One of them, the 60,000 capacity Al Bayt Stadium, is modelled on the traditional Arabian tent with a retractable roof.

    With the third highest human development index in the Arab world and the third highest gas reserves in the world, this tiny country of less than three million people is proving that some great things can be achieved not by size.

    And to think that its size is one the reasons former FIFA president Sepp Blatter feels Qatar doesn’t qualify as a World Cup host.

    But even if physical size is at issue, fiscal ability is the name of the game. And the young Arab sitting over this treasure trove has got more than enough cash to splash, host and entertain the rest of the world, represented by 32 national teams, many times over.

    Born in 1980, Qatari king, Sheikh Tamim ibn Hamad Al Thani, has built a reputation of attracting high profile global sporting events to the Arabian Peninsula state even before he ascended the throne in 2013, as part of his strategies to raise Qatar’s international profile.

    He also chaired the 2006 organising committee of the Asian Games.

    Due partly to his contributions, Qatar had also hosted the Asian Handball Championships in 2004, Asian Basketball Championships in 2005, and the UCI (Union Cycliste Internationale) World Cycling Championships in 2016. A bid to host the 2020 Summer Olympics had failed as Doha lost out to Tokyo, Japan.

    Coming after the world cup, are the 2024 Aquatic Championship in Doha and the Asian Games in 2030, also in Doha.

    The sheikhs are not only interested in developing a vibrant sports economy, their investments are spreading into the major football leagues of Europe as Qatar Sports Investments’ Nasser Al-Khelaifi owns Paris Saint Germain (PSG) – leading French club side and one of the richest clubs in football – with a net worth of $3.2billion, according to Forbes’ Soccer Team Valuations List.

    They reportedly own substantial shares in Portuguese and Belgian club sides as well. They also have substantial investments in what is arguably the world’s deadliest club side, Manchester City, and the latest sensation of the Premier League, New Castle.

    Qatar 2022 is the first time the senior World Cup will be held in the Middle East since its inception. The Qatari Kingdom had to face up to giant neighbours Saudi Arabi, alongside UAE, Egypt and Bahrain imposing an economic blockade that cost the tiny Gulf nation $43billion in losses, according to Al-Jazeera.

    In June 2017, the four states cut all diplomatic and trade ties with Qatar, accusing it of supporting “terrorism” and destabilising the region – allegations Doha denied. Qatar ramped up local production and established diplomatic relations with Iran to not only overcome the challenges of the siege, but manage declining oil revenues.

    In January 2021, Saudi Foreign Ministry announced that Egypt, Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates had resumed ties with Doha, during the 41st Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) summit, a reconciliation mediated by Kuwait.

    Blatter says Qatar 2022 was a “mistake”. Qatar was graded as having “high operational risk”, and generated much criticism as being part of the FIFA corruption scandals. Blatter’s “confessions” indicate that there was pressure from the French government under Nicholas Sarkozy and the connivance of former UEFA president, Michel Platini, to award hosting rights to Qatar.

    But the travails the world has gone through in the past few years are indicative that the choice of Qatar was probably right. Most rich Arab Gulf nations have been significantly insulated from the global economic shocks and the ravages of COVID-19.

    The global economic depression and the COVID-19 pandemic had left even the financial powerhouses of Europe gasping for air, with the Russian-Ukraine war delivering yet another power punch on the world’s cereals and grains powerhouse.

    Rising food and energy costs which have caused domestic unrest in many countries would have made the high costs of hosting the World Cup at this time a very difficult task for the United States, which, according to the former FIFA boss, should have been the host of the 2022 tournament, after Russia hosted the 2018 edition.

    Football pundits and insiders have always alleged insider manipulations and boardroom politics in the running of the international football federation, and it appears Blatter is bent on confirming it.

    These considerations may well be behind the reasons Africa, with 54 member states in FIFA, gets only five qualification slots for the World Cup.

    Yet, going by Blatter’s words, Europe which is comparatively smaller than Asia, Africa, north and south America has 13 slots for Qatar 2022.

    Blatter may be talking about hosting rights and not participation in the world cup, but the goose and gander deserve a fair shot at one of the world’s most popular sports.

    It doesn’t make sense that Europe with 55 members in FIFA, gets 13 slots, more than double that of Africa, which has only one number less in FIFA’s membership.

    As the games begin on Sunday, about 200,000 fans will be travelling to match venues in Qatar, while an estimated five billion fans would be watching around the world, including fans in Russia and Ukraine separated by a totally needless war.

    Football is a tribal game. Though money and politics have often competed to spoil and corrupt it, just as they have sometimes proved indispensable in its improvement, when all is said and done, the kindred spirit of the true fans prevails.

    And that is the promise of Qatar.

     

    Ishiekwene is Editor-In-Chief of LEADERSHIP

  • Briturkey, Britaly and fear of Britainistan – By Azu Ishiekwene

    Briturkey, Britaly and fear of Britainistan – By Azu Ishiekwene

    In a widely shared story last week, The Economist likened the political carnage in Britain to the situation in Italy in the 1940s. Italy was a major theatre of the First World War at the end of which the country was in ruins. 

    It is so unstable that in spite of the tenuous hold of the Christian Democrats on power for much of the time, the country has produced 69 governments since 1945, an average of one and a half governments every two years. Italy’s instability is the joke of Europe.

    Britain is not doing badly. With three prime ministers in 50 days, not to mention the execution of four chancellors of the exchequer already, with the fifth barely finding his feet, the UK is the new butt of European jokes, its modern-day Italy – or if you like, Britaly – however much Italians may dislike the comparison.

    But before Britaly there was Briturkey. At the peak of its powers, Turkey, or what was then the Ottoman Empire, controlled much of Southeast Europe, Western Asia and North Africa, stretching to the borders of Egypt.

    Decline set in around the 18th and 19th century as the empire was soon consumed by corruption, inefficiency and instability. Turkey, under the Sultan, became not just an embarrassment to itself but also a huge joke among the powers at the time.

    Russian Czar Nicholas I, fed up with the hubris of the Turkish Empire, famously described Turkey as “the sick man of Europe.” He may well have been speaking of Britain, or if you like, Briturkey – today’s sick man of Europe.

    Perhaps the emergence on Tuesday of Rishi Sunak as Britain’s third Prime Minister would halt the slide into chaos. But before Sunak, let’s go back to Brexit, the moment when the chaos gathered pace and finally unravelled. 

    Nigel Farage, Michael Gove and Boris Johnson led the campaign. They cashed in on the growing right-wing sentiment in the country at the time and converted it into a liveried Brexit bus, fuelled with lies, hysteria and empty promises. 

    They forged numbers, exaggerated differences and painted a false picture of the El Dorado that the UK would become if only the country threw off the yoke of Brussels and took back control of its borders and politics again. Freedom was the buzz word. With the rise of Donald Trump and the events in the US at the time, the Bo-Jo frenzy was red meat for the right wing.

    It’s true that Britain, a largely food-importing country, has always been at the receiving end of Europe’s poor trade practices, especially its obsession with farm subsidies and shambolic regulations.

    But the 27 other members of the union, who valued Britain’s membership, were not willing to negotiate, especially in a hugely interdependent and globalised world. Even after Britain’s exit, the benefits of membership have still not been fully dismantled in the tangled mess that the Irish sea border has become. 

    Britain has always been ambivalent about Europe, which was why it formed the spectacularly unsuccessful rival European Free Trade Association (EFTA) in 1959.

    The French, often impatient, but unfailingly contemptuous of British coyness, kept the UK out of the Common Market (a precursor of the EU) until after the death of General De Gaulle in 1970. After a referendum, the UK joined the EU in 1973. But the same demons which always kept it out, only now compounded by its discovery of oil (the counterweight against the European farm subsidies) and nationalism, stoked its eventual departure in 2020.

    Two years down the road, the return of £350 million on the NHS alone which Boris Johnson and co promised on the Brexit campaign bus is turning out worse than a fantasy: it’s con-artistry! Johnson got Brexit done alright, but he has left British politics in chaos and its economic rating slightly better than junk bonds. Its political reputation has taken a beating reminiscent of Dardanelles and the Suez Canal. 

    Sure, Britain has better flexibility to manage its affairs and its way of life. It is free from the shambolic regulations of Brussels and, let’s face it, managed COVID-19 far better than most European countries, including its traditional ally on the other side of the pond. It even has an unemployment figure lower than that of most countries in Europe and an independent Central Bank.

    But this modest achievement has come at a very high price. European workers have shunned the UK with devastating consequences for services, especially the fishing, agriculture and the health sectors. 

    Britain is broken. Inflation is at a record high, with basic food prices going through the roof and about 33 percent of the population outside fixed mortgage contracts now struggling to pay. 

    Savings have been damaged, pensions are tanking and public services stretched to breaking point. The British economy, which was 90 percent of the German economy six years ago, has shrunken to 70 percent, and could shrink further as another recession looms.

    On top of all of this, the Russia-Ukraine war which has destabilised global supply chains, has also exposed Britain to energy shocks significantly worse than might have been the case in the comfort of the EU zone. 

    This is the difficult job that Sunak has taken. He steps up weeks after the Tory Party nearly exhausted its cardboard list of potential leaders that turned up Liz Truss who will now be remembered for her dizzying flip-flops and disastrous mini-budget.

    Former Lib-Dem-turned-Tory, former Abolitionist-turned-pro-Monarchist, former Remainer-turned-Brexiteer and former Wage-cutter-turned-Spendthrift, the lady, Truss, was always for the turning. And this time, she didn’t disappoint. Yet, as the Tory party rank-and-file contemplates their current misery, “otherness”, in this case the migrant, whether British-born or not, will be the scapegoat.

    There were two main reasons why Tory MPs didn’t want Sunak, and both have little to do with his competence. The first, of course, was his rebellion against Johnson, which opened the floodgates.

    The second, which Britain squirms to discuss, but which nonetheless is rearing its head in radio phone-in programmes, is his race. Having Sadiq Khan, London Mayor of Asian origin was difficult enough, especially at a time when Duchess of Sussex Meghan Markle is causing some discomfort in the chemistry of the royal heritage.

    By some accounts, the UK has had at least 11 non-English prime ministers. But never in its over 220-year history as a union has a non-Caucasian, a 42-year-old Hindu of Indian origin, occupied Number 10. 

    The reality of a UK variety of the Obama-moment will spook the conservative base, raising the spectre of Britainistan. But MPs who figured that what the Tory party needed the most to retain power was competence over race, strategically blocked the decision of the new party leader from going back to the base.

    MPs knew that Sunak, a grafter, was their last card. They also knew that he would have lost at a general party conference, which might have thrown up a worse choice whose precipitous exit would have hastened the call for election – an election at which Labour would have been sure to decimate them.  

    But just like it happened in the US after Obama’s election, the UK will likely have its own Tea Party moment, too. A rash of right-wingers who think their country is being stolen from them by “otherness” will push back, perhaps even violently.

    France has struggled to keep this dangerous fringe at bay. As the recent election of Italy’s President, Giorgia Meloni, showed, however, right-wingers who are once again stirring in Europe, may now find their cousins in the UK.

    Yet, if Sunak manages to re-unite his party, calm the markets and stabilise the country – as I believe he can from his COVID-19 record – he might well be poised for the historic role of being more than just a placeholder for the Tory Party; and who knows, get his own mandate.

    It’s Sunak’s moment and I think he will seize it, even though his road will be rough.

     

    Ishiekwene is Editor-In-Chief of LEADERSHIP

  • A professor’s pay-slip and lessons from ASUU strike – By Azu Ishiekwene

    A professor’s pay-slip and lessons from ASUU strike – By Azu Ishiekwene

    After eight months’ strike, one of the longest in the country’s history, university teachers finally returned, at gunpoint, to the classrooms on Monday.

    It was the 16th time university teachers would be striking in 23 years. Frustrated parents and distraught students just couldn’t wait to hear that the strike had been suspended and schools reopened.

    It does appear, however, that if all we’re interested in is to tick the box, it won’t be long before we’re back to square one. There is a clear and present danger that we’re kicking the can, with the teachers, down the road. And this bad sign, which was always there even while teachers were being bullied to return to class, was full blown on the first day of return.

    This may sound like Greek, but Good Samaritan and House Speaker Femi Gbajabiamila, understands what I’m talking about. He was among the last ranking public-spirited individuals to intervene to end the strike.

    Parties familiar with the dispute told me on Monday that up till then, the two sticking points were 1) an acceptable IPPIS, the integrated payroll system which manages university teachers’ pay and allowances and 2) the no-work-no-pay rule which, according to the law, meant potentially that the teachers would not be paid for the eight months they were on strike.

    The Speaker assured them, however, that there would be “a political solution”, meaning that he had secured the understanding of the government of President Muhammadu Buhari to 1) allow a more flexible and competitive payroll system which, for example, would capture all allowances and accommodate payments by host schools during sabbaticals and 2) pay them in two tranches for the period of the strike.

    In case the Speaker is still available, however, he might be interested to know that the ASUU-FG fire hasn’t been extinguished quite yet. The understanding collapsed even before the teachers reached the classrooms on Monday.

    On Day One of resumption at the University of Lagos teachers there and elsewhere told me they had been informed there was no going back on the full implementation of the vexatious payroll system and also that the no-work-no-pay rule still stands.

    In order words, while we felt a sense of relief, teachers returned to the classroom to confront the same fundamental problem that has dogged the agreement in the last two decades: bad faith. Teachers are, once again, left with the short end of the stick.

    Some would say deservedly. Half way through the strike voices of dissent were raising doubts about the usefulness of strikes and questioning how much effort the union itself was making to improve university funding. Why indulge the insanity of frequent strikes when everyone knows that this government treats serious issues as a sport?

    At its wit’s end, ASUU yielded to being kicked down the road with the can. At which point triumphant government officials were only too pleased to bury the hatchet right in the wounded back of the union. It’s no use going over the long list of the union’s grievances, which has often been summarised as poor funding for education.

    It might, however, be useful to see how the pay-slip of an associate professor, who has spent nearly 20 years in a first-rank federal university, tells the story.

    This professor earns N436,545 monthly. Of this amount, total deductions – including payments for NHF for which no forms were completed, and inexplicable sundry taxes – account for 205k. The professor’s net monthly salary is about 232k; that is, roughly N8,000 daily for teaching, research and community service!

    We can argue that in a country of generally low wages and poor productivity, misery is inevitably widespread. Yet, I think most might agree that if we want a truly great, secure and prosperous future, it is futile to pay peanuts and not expect monkeys in our classrooms. The question, however, is how do we deliver more value to the system.

    As long as course content and research are largely irrelevant to the needs of industry and society and delivery and feedback methods are even more irrelevant, schools will continue to find it difficult to attract donor funds, grants and endowments, which are the mainstay of universities elsewhere.

    Teachers will neither earn more respect nor money by behaving like shopfloor workers or comparing themselves with politicians sworn to a lifestyle of crookedness. The outrageous allowances that politicians in the National Assembly currently earn are proceeds of extortion. They are not a reflection of value and are therefore unsustainable.

    Schools will only get better by prioritising curriculum and research that focus on problem-solving. They must also encourage the academic culture of merit, curiosity and debate. Unfortunately, a number of academics have lost their way. Not a few are worse than the superstitious herd in our mushrooming faith centres.

    To fix the system students have to pay more. A statement by the Lagos State Commissioner for Education, Folashade Adefisayo, in September that the ratio of public to private schools in Lagos was 1:22 could be an indication that residents in the state, for example, may be willing to pay more for university education.

    The average tuition fees in the more stable private universities are more than twice those in state universities, especially in Southern states. And yet, in the more-in-demand federal universities, a student studying Economics, for example, will pay about N45,000 per session, while his counterpart studying the same course in a state university pays roughly 150 percent more!

    It also doesn’t make sense that teachers in state universities paid by state governments would join teachers at the federal level to strike when they have no pay dispute with the state. This nonsense of state teachers taking Panadol for the headache of federal teachers must stop.

    Long established systems are politically difficult to dismantle, but like has been the case with state policing, it won’t be long before economic circumstances teach us a lesson.

    The 43 federal universities should be dismantled, perhaps leaving only two per zone, with one in each zone focusing on Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM). The remaining 31 can be taken up either by state governments that wish to do so, or they are organised into autonomous units. Of course, not all of them will survive.

    A system of sponsorships, scholarships and loans should be reestablished.

    The reason for proposing two universities instead of one is that if only one university is established the system will gradually and eventually crowd out STEM, because our people seem to have difficulty coping with the rigour of science.

    It’s true that useless Federal bureaucracies – TETFUND, PTDF – are fattening themselves at the expense of the entire system. Yet, we have seen from the way the universities manage funds even from their own internal programmes, that unless the system becomes more competitive, intentional, transparent and accountable, funds or grants, even if they come, would be wasted.

    According to a Central Bank report in May, Nigerians paid about $11.6 billion as fees in foreign universities in the last three years, including schools in countries whose citizens used to come here for higher education. It’s not enough to wring our hands in lament. Already, the seed for the next strike has been sown by the government’s malicious compliance with its own agreement from the first day – a trend that we have seen in the last over two decades.

    Perhaps the only thing that will save us from this famished road sooner than later is for teachers, parents, students and the government to admit that the system is broken. It will cost everyone something more than just kicking the can down the road to fix it.

     

    Ishiekwene is Editor-In-Chief of LEADERSHIP

  • Pathetic stories washed up by floods – By Azu Ishiekwene

    Pathetic stories washed up by floods – By Azu Ishiekwene

    Back in the day, weather forecasts were a joke. And I mean literally. The weather forecast segment which used to come at the end of the news bulletin on Nigeria’s national broadcaster, NTA, was the butt of cruel jokes amongst folks.

    Often when the forecasters said it would rain, we said they meant the opposite. Seven out of 10 times, we were right; and the other three times, it drizzled on one side of the street and was stone dry on the other. That was in the early 1970s and 1980s when either as a result of poor predictive tools, limited knowledge or both, weather forecasters only did slightly better than the village rainmaker.

    Times have changed. Weather forecasters do not only have better tools today, they have also become more precise and dependable. The irony is that even now that we have more dependable weather warnings we can use, we seem far less prepared for the fallouts of adverse weather.

    Those who said the war foretold does not take the crippled by surprise would themselves be surprised by today’s augury. Foretold rains meet both the crippled and the whole in such an alarming state of unpreparedness that when the storm is over, neither is better off. And that is, in spite of the obvious advantages of early warning systems.

    After recent flood-related disasters left about 500 dead, 1.5 million (larger than the population of the Vatican City) displaced in 27 states and property worth billions of naira destroyed, the Nigerian Meteorological Agency (NiMet), is warning that the worst is yet to come.

    That is frightening. To think that after catastrophic floods left Koton-Karfe, Lokoja, in Nigeria’s North Central a miserable wretch, with scores of houses submerged and major roads impassable, that the worst is yet to come, is very, very serious.

    To think that floods that wrecked Olam Farm’s 52km long dykes and damaged an estimated $20million worth of assets at what is easily Nigeria’s largest private farming enterprise might not be the end of the wrecking weather ball, is truly frightening. And we’re not even talking about the damage to small-farm holders whose livelihoods have also been washed away!

    Yet, there’s a spooky sense in which it is true that neither the devastation already recorded nor NiMet’s warning may be the worst thing to happen. The real tragedy is the helplessness of millions of vulnerable people in communities that would be affected, their fate infinitely worsened by the indifference of a political elite too distracted by politics, to pay more than lip service to the looming disaster.

    It’s a distraction fed by a false sense of security, the opposite of enlightened self-interest. Nigeria’s elite doesn’t travel by road. They are too frightened by the poor state of inter-state roads, by insecurity or both, to dare.

    In a country ranked 37th in the world by landmass, yet with only 15 percent motorable road network, the phobia for road travel is worse in the rainy season. But it really doesn’t matter to the elite. Even if the whole country is flooded and the roads broken – as we saw in Lokoja last week – they would still build a helipad on Noah’s ark. The only thing possibly worse than NiMet’s warning is this out-of-touch elite.

    I know folks who spent two days last week travelling from Lagos to Abuja by road, a journey of 10 hours or so, even in the worst of times. In the afternoon when they managed to get to Lokoja (normally three hours to Abuja) they couldn’t find a way: They were stuck in a gridlock.

    After a listless four-hour wait, during which they weighed and ruled out the option of a two-hour ferry ride to the other side because of fear of banditry and scarcity of petrol, the travellers managed to find their way back to Ajaokuta and slept there. The trip to Abuja the next day was through Otukpo and other Benue villages to Nasarawa and then finally, to Abuja!

    That was only one of the many tales of misery from the current floods. A woman who lives in Mpape, an Abuja suburb, shared this story on a group platform this week: “I’ve always read about and watched people’s houses flooded…they lose their stuff and become homeless, but I never thought I could experience it.

    “I left home to see a friend who came (to Abuja) for her father-in-law’s funeral this afternoon only to be told by my neighbours that I should start rushing home. Met the house behind mine collapsed, our gate uprooted and my house and stuff flooded. Just finished getting what I could now. Please if you know someone who has a BQ to let in Abuja…”

    I do. Most of them live in Asokoro, Maitama, Guzappe, and such areas unlikely to experience floods in a million years. Not that it’s a bad thing to live in such leafy neighbourhoods if you can afford it. In Nigeria, however, these areas are crime scenes inhabited by elites who should do something with NiMet’s warning for the safety of the vast majority, but who choose to do absolutely nothing about it.

    Part of the reason for the scarcity of petrol in Abuja for most of last week was that tankers, laden with products for Abuja and parts of the North, were stranded in the Lokoja floods. But it wasn’t big news because the elite would pay for petrol whatever the cost or avoid road nuisance completely by flying.

    It wasn’t just petrol or farms that were impacted by the floods, which could have been better managed if NiMet’s warning sign meant anything to the government. The food supply chain was ruined, too.

    According to a report in LEADERSHIP on Sunday, a trailer driver, Ismail Mohammed, who had spent three days on the Bida-Lapai-Suleja Road, which is supposed to be an alternative to the Lokoja Road, said, “The situation is so bad…you can see me slaughtering my cow, the tenth one in three days.” This waste for a country already in the throes of climate and insecurity-induced shortages, was symptomatic of what happened up and down the food chain following the flood chaos.

    What was not in short supply, however, were condolence messages by government officials and promises of emergency relief, which if it arrives at all, would be late and depleted by theft. If you underestimate the capacity of government officials to profit from citizens’ misery, ask Saudi Arabia what happened to the 200 tonnes of dates that the kingdom supplied to Boko Haram victims in IDP camps to break their fast during the 2017 Ramadan.

    But that’s a story for another day. My concern here is: what is the use of NiMet’s early warning if vulnerable citizens would still suffer large-scale losses, some of them irrecoverable? NiMet warnings did not start today. In February, the service issued a warning of impending significant floods in North-Central states and also in the South-Eastern and South-Western regions of the country.

    The warnings fell on deaf ears. Not for the first time, of course. Before climate problems compounded the situation along the Niger-Benue River, the tug-of-war between Nigeria and Cameroon over the latter’s Lagdo Dam had been a clear and present danger.

    Whenever excess water is released from the dam as was the case in September, for example, Benue, Adamawa, Taraba, Anambra and Nasarawa States are seriously impacted. The damage in 2012, said to have been the worst in 40 years, was estimated by the National Emergency Management Agency (NEMA) at N2.6 trillion.

    Nigeria was supposed to build the Dasin Hausa Dam (more than double the size of Lagdo) in Adamawa State to absorb the overflow, generate 300megawatts of electricity and irrigate thousands of hectares of land. That was in 1982. As you read this article, the Dasin dam is still uncompleted – a failure of leadership that makes natural disasters a child’s play.

    It’s easy to say floods have receded and we can get on with our lives once again. Or to say, well, weather changes are now inevitable and we must learn to live with them, as if the predations of an incompetent government are the most natural thing.

    For hundreds whose lives and businesses have been ruined by the government’s malicious negligence, the floods are, I’m afraid, not over yet! We are not even talking about the unpredictable aftermath: possible outbreak of diseases like cholera and dysentery; polluted water sources; compromised infrastructure, and so on!

    Decades after we made fun of weather forecasters, the cruel joke is now on us: Between rising incidents of natural disasters and disasters in human form in the corridors of power, it’s hard to tell which is more devastating. And that, believe me, is not funny!

     

    Ishiekwene is Editor-In-Chief of LEADERSHIP

  • Anatomy of Wike’s endgame – By Azu Ishiekwene

    Anatomy of Wike’s endgame – By Azu Ishiekwene

    When the row between Rivers State Governor, Nyesom Wike, and his party, the People’s Democratic Party (PDP), spilled onto the streets after the party’s presidential primaries in May, I argued that to solve Wike, one had to first fix the candidate, Atiku Abubakar.

    In light of Wike’s no-holds-barred interview last Thursday, things may have fallen apart, irretrievably. That interview, perhaps only comparable in seismic scale and onomatopoetic resonance with Julian Assange’s WikiLeaks, has shaken the PDP to its foundations. 

    The fallouts may well remain the biggest threat to the PDP’s electoral chances next year.

    But what was the point, really? Was it to set the records straight? To take his pound of flesh? To avenge the betrayal of his ancestor – Peter Odili – sold down the river under similar circumstances? Or just to bring the roof down and, if possible, escape with the rubble as a trophy? 

    Wike is not done yet. Still, even in the midst of the wreckage left behind by his last interview, the inescapable question would be: what is his endgame?

    I’m not sure his interview would significantly damage either party Chairman Iyorchia Ayu or Atiku. Verbal attacks that would damage politicians will kill them first. And their gift for taking disasters in their stride gets even better during campaign sessions when, to use the title of Simon Kolawole’s imaginative new book, most people would simply say, “It’s all politics!”

    But even if Wike’s targets feel any discomfort at all, it still doesn’t answer the question: what is his endgame?

    My guess is that his objective is to severely damage both the candidate and the party that neither would be worth anything at next year’s poll. This might sound ridiculous, since the state PDP has fielded at least 48 candidates, believed to be his close allies, for next year’s election under the party’s flag.

    Wike is not a fool. If he thought he would be unable to survive and make something for himself or his supporters from the party – whole or in ruins – it’s unlikely that he would play hardball. 

    Since it’s too late to switch parties at this time, my guess is that he would secure his base in Rivers State where he appears to be very much in control at this time. After the elections, he might for his spectacular labours of sitting in and pissing in, then use his base to negotiate with the party at the centre. That, of course, is assuming the APC wins the presidency, otherwise he would be dead meat.

    We saw this arrangement work before when Bola Tinubu’s Action Congress of Nigeria (ACN) made a deal with Goodluck Jonathan in 2011 to turn a blind eye during the presidential election while securing Lagos during the state election. For parties not separated by ideology or principles, how Wike manages his post-election affairs, even if he succeeds, might yet leave him with a permanent label of “buyer beware.”

    The conversation has, of course, not been framed in the stark terms I have used here. Wike, who might have been an excellent opposition leader in a parliamentary system, has said that this is not about himself. 

    According to him, he feels obliged to compel the party to honour its constitution on zoning, particularly since Ayu (a Northerner) accepted that he would step down, if a northerner emerged presidential candidate.

    Those on the other side say that was not exactly how Ayu put it. According to them, he said he would step down if the party (meaning the NEC) asked him to do so. In any case, they argue, why is Wike complaining or, to use campaign spokesman Daniel Bwalya’s phrase, playing God? After all, not only did he bring former Chairman Uche Secondus and later also instigate his removal, he also brought Ayu!

    Now, that is where the story gets interesting. Inside sources informed me that Wike indeed brought Ayu, but it was an assignment executed for him by his ally and Benue State Governor, Samuel Ortom. A source familiar with what happened said Ayu had assured Wike at the meeting in his house in Abuja that not on his watch as chairman “will one Fulani succeed another”.

    At that point, well before the primaries of course, Wike had obviously told himself that he had the party exactly where he wanted it: he would be the inevitable PDP presidential candidate. But the last politician who kept his word was the one who never gave it. 

    When the sale of the party’s form started in March, it became an open sesame. To forestall a Northern coup, pro-Wike forces set up the Bala Mohammed committee which then took on a life of its own. It spent months looking for a secret in plain sight: that regardless of what the constitution said, it would be an “open contest!”. The rest, of course, is history.

    But was there a chance that Wike and Atiku may have patched things up, especially after the famous but highly secretive London meetings? Improbable. 

    Sources familiar with the outcome of the meetings said even though Atiku seemed disposed to ditch Ayu, he was concerned about a) the impact, especially so close to elections, and b) that he might be unable to get the NEC to do it. 

    Of course, Wike allegedly assured him it wouldn’t be a problem. He, Wike, had done it before and the head of Secondus on a platter was proof. In case there was any question about a viable replacement this time, however, former Ondo State Governor, Dr. Segun Mimiko, was on standby.

    But there was an elephant in the room – the disposition of the “owners” of the party. When Atiku returned to Abuja from the London meetings and broached the matter, the “owners” declined. They expressed the view that Wike had crossed the line. He would be tackled at the “appropriate time”. No deal. 

    Two credible sources said the “owners” in question were former military head of state, General Abdulsalami Abubakar; former National Security Adviser, General Aliyu Gusau; a former Director General of the State Security Services, suspected to be Lawal Daura; and a shadowy but immensely consequential figure at the Villa likely to be Mamman Daura (President Muhammadu Buhari’s relation). A media mogul in the PDP also lent his voice.

    Ayu is saved for another day not only by the vital intervention of some of the “owners” of the party but also by his “old boys’” network, reinforced by the promise that either himself or former Senate President Bukola Saraki could become the next Secretary to the Government of the Federation, if the PDP wins.

    Now, back to the question: what is Wike’s endgame? To avenge his displacement from within while securing the positions of his allies who are already carrying the PDP flag into the next election. His destination – if not by words, but by conduct – is APC. Everything in-between is in translation.

    And my guess is that he might not be a total stranger there. Not only because the main parties are largely different only in name, but also because some members of his cabinet and allies are refugees from APC, a party that has downgraded its funder-in-chief of yesterday, Rotimi Amaechi, from Buhari’s campaign DG to Tinubu-Shettima’s “adviser on infrastructure.”

    Pundits may worry about the possible consequences of Wike’s actions on the fortunes of the PDP in Rivers State, and perhaps elsewhere that he may have clout. My guess is that the combined effect of Labour Party’s Peter Obi and Wike activities would prove quite daunting, especially in the South East and South South that have been the mainstay of the party in about two decades.

    If we have seen anything in Nigeria’s politics in the last 23 years, however, we know that in the end, feuding parties know where their interests lie, whatever pundits may think. And, as we say in my neck of the woods, they will be alright!

     

    Ishiekwene is Editor-In-Chief of LEADERSHIP

  • Do campaigns have to be bloody to win? – By Azu Ishiekwene

    Do campaigns have to be bloody to win? – By Azu Ishiekwene

    If this were a compulsory exam question, a number of politicians would simply answer: it depends. On what? On what is at stake. What the opponent does and how. And, of course, how far the resources of the one at the receiving end can go to exact revenge, sometimes in spite of the rules.

    As campaigns for the 2023 general elections in Nigeria begin, everything is at stake. From the office of representatives in state houses of assembly to the positions of 28 governors, 469 national lawmakers, and the president.

    In all, about 1,520 positions are up for election and for the first time, Muhammadu Buhari who has been president for nearly eight years and a contestant in all elections in the last nearly 20, would not be on the ballot for what is perhaps the most consequential office.

    The stakes to play for are not only high, they are dangerously seductive for two contenders – the All Progressives Congress (APC) presidential candidate, Asiwaju Bola Ahmed Tinubu and the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) candidate, former Vice President Atiku Abubakar – two deep pockets who may well be taking their last shot at the nation’s top job.

    The real world is not a periodic exam hall. Nowhere is the ferocity of contest keener than in political campaigns, such as we’re about to commence. It’s a grisly mess of interests, of wheeling and dealing, and continuous cloak and dagger entanglements worse than the binary choices often present in an examination.

    A 2018 report by Daily Trust quoted the INEC chairman, Professor Yakubu Mohmood, as saying that for N242 billion, the 2019 election was the most expensive ever. That is excluding expenses by candidates, parties and individuals. The next one might beat that record.

    If only it were possible to see the arsenal of Nigeria’s political parties – especially the major ones – on the eve of the commencement of campaigns for the 2023 general elections. I would not be surprised if they have stockpiled enough weapons to give either Russia or Ukraine a decisive advantage in the ongoing conflict in Europe.

    It’s not a laughing matter. If morning shows the day, the pre-flag off skirmishes among not just supporters but even the campaign team members of the APC, the PDP, and the Labour Party (LP) show that we could be in for a season of blood sport.

    Recent exhibits, of course, include the feisty exchanges between APC’s Femi Fani-Kayode and PDP’s Dino Melaye. Anyone with the heart to read either of their recent messages to the end risked exposure to post-traumatic stress.

    With PDP’s relentless Reno Omokri in the wings, the APC media team led by formidable warriors like Dele Alake, Bayo Onanuga and Festus Keyamo, among others, and the LP’s army of social media avatars at daggers drawn, we’ll have to double down on luck to have a normal campaign season.

    But what does history teach, really? Is all the talk about issues-based campaigns wishful thinking? With all to play for, is it realistic to expect bloodless campaigns? And in any case, if winning often matters more than anything else in politics, do normal campaigns win?

    Normal campaigns may be desirable. They may even have worked at some point in Athens or Ancient Rome. Yet, Shakespeare’s Julius Caesaris a constant reminder of the world’s long and futile journey to political amity.

    Mass communication tools and their widespread adoption have fuelled the flames and compounded the misery of pacifists hoping for a day of decency in political campaigns. Also, we have seen from the 2015 performance of Facebook and Cambridge Analytica, that social media can be both a facilitator and a big danger to elections.

    But perhaps there are exceptions, however imperfect, from which our politicians could take a leaf in the days ahead?

    Despite his disability, for example, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, the 32nd president of the US ran what presidential historians consider some of the most successful campaigns. In spite of the daunting odds of the Great Depression, FDR ran a campaign in 1932 that ended four decades of Republican dominance, a feat that he sustained and repeated back-to-back in three subsequent terms. His theme song, “Happy days are here again”, became his party’s anthem.

    How a man stricken with polio at 39 could have done it was in part a result of the genius of his message which offered despairing voters a “New Deal” after the famished years of Republican rule, and partly also as a result of the understanding of the press not to highlight his disability, which frankly, would be a miracle today.

    The point is that the only US President who ruled for an unprecedented four terms ran largely issues-based campaigns and won, in spite of his disability. And to think that he had in his corner, the warmonger and one of America’s most notorious publishers, Williams Randolph Hearst, whom he could have pressed to dishonorable ends!

    US Presidents John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan also showed how even in the age of the TV, focusing on issues and connecting with people can make a difference in election campaigns.

    And perhaps the most electrifying in the recent history of US campaigns has been Barack Obama, an extraordinary mobiliser and charming politician whose wife, Michelle, said in spite of all the garbage thrown at Obama by Hillary Clinton’s bullies in 2016, “when they go low, we go high.”

    Newly elected Kenyan President William Ruto also provides an example of how to run a difficult campaign without always being nasty. In spite of his supporters getting trashed and the few he recommended as cabinet members being targets of Uhuru Kenyatta witch hunt, Ruto harped on how the government’s anti-corruption war had lost its way.

    While his main opponent mocked and called him an “irresponsible young man deceiving Kenyans with fake promises”, Ruto’s campaign responded by providing a roadmap of how he would tackle the country’s 40 percent youth unemployment. He spun a legend that he was a “hustler”, just like the ordinary people, and not a member of the corrupt, grasping dynasty.

    MKO Abiola’s Hope ‘93 was also, in many respects, exemplary and a number of the current actors played important roles in it. In comparison with the National Republican Convention (NRC), Abiola’s Social Democratic Party (SDP) was imaginative, folksy and down-to-earth. Abiola showed a forlorn, divided country that it was possible to believe again.

    Since the military railroaded President Olusegun Obasanjo back to office in 1999, our political campaigns have been anything but inspiring. Obasanjo, both a creature and mastermind of this new era, poignantly described it as a “do-or-die” affair.

    As the blatant lies, fake promises and dark schemes of politicians have come back to haunt them, a number of them begotten of this season seem determined to return to their natural habitat – the mud.

    Yet, voters will have to decide whether or not to join them there. Voters who indulge the demagoguery of politicians, who choose to cheer them on as they kick the leg instead of the ball, cannot blame anyone when charlatans run their lives for another four years.

    President Muhammadu Buhari, like those before him, has repeatedly promised free and fair elections. But that, quite honestly, is not his job. It is the duty of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to see to it and the responsibility of citizens to hold the Commission’s feet to the fire.

    Civil society and the press can also help with the most important question of any election campaign – how? They can help not only to remind voters of what is important and insist that politicians play by the rules, but also by constantly demanding that the umpire, INEC, should monitor and enforce its own rules.

    Campaigns matter because they can help to activate voter interest and also underline the fundamental issues, which for Nigeria, includes security, the state of the economy or where partisan or group interests may lie.

    As Gary Jacobson said in his article, “How do campaigns matter?”, published in the May 2015 issue of the Annual Review of Political Science, “The question is not whether campaigns matter, but where, when, for what and for whom they matter.”

    The supply side has let us down badly, offering mostly transient amusement, vile abuse or downright bogus promises. It’s time to demand something more than empty promissory notes. Something we can hold onto the morning after this seasonal charm offensive has gone.

     

    Ishiekwene is the Editor-In-Chief of LEADERSHIP