Opinion
Gov. Masari’s inconvenient truth and the angry cows (2)
BY Chris Gyang
And ye shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free (John 8:32)
However, Governor Masari soon realised that mouthing such banalities to conceal the deteriorating security situation in his state was becoming more and more counterproductive. So, on August 17, he stirred the hornet’s nest when he gave citizens this advice: “We must all rise up to counter the insecurity challenge, we must not sit and watch people buying guns attacking our houses, we too should buy the guns and protect ourselves.”
He argued that it was morally repugnant for citizens to submit meekly to hoodlums without attempting to defend themselves as security was everybody’s business.
This was not the first time a Nigerian leader would be issuing this sort of advice. In March 2018, the well-respected General T.Y Danjuma (a former defence minister) advised Nigerians to defend themselves against Fulani herdsmen’s attacks or be annihilated.
He warned: “You must rise to defend yourselves from these people, if you depend on the Armed Forces to protect you, you will all die. This ethnic cleansing must stop in Taraba [State], it must stop in Nigeria. These killers have been protected by the military, they cover them and you should be watchful to guide and protect yourselves because you have no any other place to go. The ethnic cleansing must stop now otherwise Somalia will be a child’s play.”
In fact, Lamido Sanusi, former Emir of Kano (2014), Governor Samuel Ortom (2018), Governor Nyesome Wike (2018) and Pastor Paul Enenche (2018), among others, have canvassed similar positions. But what was uniquely surprising about Governor Masari’s case was that he was a sitting governor in a core Northern state and himself a Fulani man.
But he was speaking based on his bitter experiences in the hands of these murderous, double-dealing Fulani herdsmen. He personally met them in 2019 to broker peace, which failed, and still went on to grant four of their leaders and their followers who renounced violence amnesty in April 2021.
According to pulse.ng, the Secretary to the Katsina State Government “revealed in July [2020] that the government [had] spent N30 million on the failed amnesty programme. The fund was used to buy surrendered weapons from repentant bandits.”
Later, an understandably exasperated Governor Masari would declare: “I have instructed the security operatives to deal ruthlessly with the bandits until they are rendered permanently ineffective. We are no more going to negotiate with them. But if on their own volition they decide to renounce their violent criminal ways and embrace peace, we are ready to listen to them.”
Apparently, his robust engagements with the Fulani criminals to negotiate peace for his people had woefully failed.
It was against this background that he made that startling revelation on September 6. Observers suggest that the governor may have realised the futility of building peace on the shaky foundations of existing lies and falsehoods.
Governor Masari, in that same Channels Television interview, also offered very revealing insights into an extremely volatile and vexatious issue that has become a bugbear to majority of Nigerians, especially in the last six years of Mr. Buhari’s administration – open grazing of cattle by Fulani herdsmen.
His views on this matter have been described by most Nigerians as extraordinary for a Muslim and a serving governor who is supposed to support the president who is an indigene of his state. While maintaining that the movement of herders with their cattle from one part of the country was wrong, he stated: “Herdsmen should stay in one place. Roaming about should not be encouraged. In fact, for us, it is un-Islamic. Why do you have animals that you cannot feed and you have to go to other people’s land and farm and you say that is right? I don’t think it is right….”
He explained that Katsina State had set in motion the machinery to build ranches for its herders. “The Federal Government has given us N6.2 billion and as a state government, we are also investing N6.2 billion. The objective is to have Fulanis stay in one place,” he said.
Although most citizens continue to reject using government revenue to build ranches for the Fulani (because it is a private business), the governor’s position against open grazing has received widespread applause from a broad spectrum of Nigerians. They view open grazing with great suspicion. They consider it a ploy by the Fulani to take over their ancestral lands, foist Islam on them and push through the Fulanisation agenda.
Governor Masari was likewise severely criticized by some core northern elites and the umbrella herders organisation, Miyetti Allah Cattle Breeders Association of Nigeria (MACBA), because his stance further strengthened the decision of most Nigerian states to ban open grazing. With the exception of the Buhari administration, Plateau and the core northern states, the general consensus among most state governors is that open grazing should be banned and the Fulani herdsmen made to acquire land and build their own private ranches.
Unfortunately for MACBAN, Masari’s landmark declarations were coming at the time governors of the 17 southern states were ramping up efforts to pass legislation banning open grazing based on a collective decision they took in Asaba, Delta State, in May. Only on August 31, Governor Rotimi Akeredolu signed Ondo State’s law banning open grazing and on September 6, the anti- open grazing bill passed second reading in the Lagos State House of Assembly. Coincidentally, that was also the same day Governor Masari made those remarks that have since upturned the apple cart.
On September 9, the Lagos State House of Assembly unanimously passed the bill banning open cattle grazing in the state. The next step is for the governor to finally sign it into law.
Expectedly, MACBAN would not be deterred. It had realised that the lies, subterfuge and innuendoes it had spun, with the active connivance of Buhari’s Federal Government, to obfuscate the true nature of Fulani herdsmen’s terrorism, land-grabbing in Central Nigeria, the dangers of open grazing, etc, were being gradually erased by sound, practical, historical, Islamic and constitutional logic.
It is instructive to note that both the Ogun and Lagos state governors are staunch APC members who have been very loyal supporters of President Buhari in the last six years. But, unlike their Plateau State counterpart, they have not allowed neither party loyalties nor personal interests overshadow their resolve to protect and enhance the security and well-being of their citizens.
They have clearly demonstrated that, whenever Mr. Buhari’s position contravenes the constitution and threatens the corporate existence of their peoples, they are willing to challenge him using due processes of the law. That is the beauty of democracy.
But MACBAN, which has worked hand in glove with the Buhari Presidency in the last six years pursuing the Fulanisation plan, would not allow these novel, positive, developments derail their overarching ambition. So, like angry cows, they have continued to kick ever since.
They launched a puerile attack on the person of Governor Masari, calling him a drunk and tired man. They simply want to demonize and belittle him in order to diminish his profound statements of truth.
Has confusion set into their camp? Have they started speaking in discordant tones?
On September 6, an obviously distraught MACBAN told Mr. Buhari and the National Assembly to order the state governors to halt enacting anti-open grazing laws. The Buhari Presidency had surreptitiously deployed our country’s security, political and economic wherewhithal to aid the herdsmen in freely plundering indigenous lands and decimating their inhabitants to such an extent that MACBAN has completely become used to impunity and arm-twisting.
The herdsmen have failed to realise that, even in our flawed democracy, there are certain critical matters of state that are off-limits to the president, even if, as we have consistently seen in the case of Mr. Buhari, he possesses dictatorial tendencies.
Constitutionally, issues pertaining land rights are the sole prerogative of state governors. But MACBAN has resorted to threatening both the Lagos and Ondo states governments over their enactments of those laws.
In a scathing, defiant response to MACBAN’s intransigence on September 8, Governor Akeredolu (SAN) described the threats by the pastoralists as “unacceptable in a lawful society.” Because his statement captures the thinking of most Nigerians and exposes the malignant shinanigans of the Fulani herdsmen and their main driving force, Mr. Buhari, we crave the indulgence of readers to copiously quote from it.
It reads: “The Ondo State Government is in possession of a video clip of the press statement issued by a so-called association of cattle breeders through its secretary. This uncouth, uncultured and, evidently deracinated vagrant, left no one in doubt as regards the level of support certain criminal elements, like he, enjoy, deplorably.
“Any ethnic group, truly indigenous to the geo-political space known as Nigeria, should not be desperate to appropriate other people’s lands to assuage banditry, rape and robbery. Modernity imposes certain obligations on any social group which claims a membership of the human race.
“…. It is disingenuous and fraudulent for any band of stragglers, certified felons, to paint a highly resourceful people, with the same indolent and retrogressive brush, a befitting epitaph for characters of Saleh Hassan’s felonious hue.
“No part of our land will be given to foreigners who cling to a dubious regional protocol as an instrument validating dispossession. Let him practice his cultural practices on his father’s land. His likes will not be permitted to operate with impunity in Ondo State. We will defend our land.
“Ondo State has a law that prohibits open grazing. The government has a responsibility to implement the law for the benefit of the people of the state and those who may share in their aspiration for the development of their God-given space. The people of Ondo are hospitable. They will, however, be unable to tolerate and condone the invasion of their lands.
“No bandit will operate in Ondo State under any dubious guise.”
Governor Masari will go down in history as a leader who refused to follow the crowd and continue living in denial so as to further a clannish plot aimed at making other Nigerians subjects to ethnic and religious supremacists. He will be remembered as a man who had the courage to tell the truth so as to be liberated and find solace in its awesome redeeming power.
(GYANG is the Chairman of the N.G.O, Journalists Coalition for Citizens’ Rights Initiative – JCCRI. Email: info@jccri-online.org)U
By Abiodun KOMOLAFE
The concepts of power, privilege and governance are complex and multifaceted. Power refers to the ability to influence others, while privilege denotes unearned advantages.
Governance encompasses institutions, structures and processes that regulate these dynamics. Together, these concepts raise fundamental questions about justice, equality and resource distribution.
It emphasizes the importance of considering marginalized groups’ experiences and perspectives. The main problem in Nigeria today is its political economy, which is rooted in rent-seeking and fosters a mindset that prioritizes patronage over production.
The country’s politics are characterized by a patron-client relationship, where everything revolves around government handouts rather than effective governance. This has led to a situation where “politics” in Nigeria is essentially a scramble for resources in a country with severely limited opportunities for self-improvement.
When French agronomist René Dumont wrote ‘False Starts in Africa’ in 1962, he inadvertently described Nigeria’s current state in 2025. Nigeria’s missteps have magnified themselves in the theatre of the absurd, such as the construction of a new vice presidential residence and Governor Chukwuemeka Soludo’s boasts about the lavish official residence for the governor of Anambra State, currently under construction.
It is to be noted in contradistinction that the newly sworn-in Prime Minister of Canada, Mark Carney, is looking for somewhere to live. The official residence of the prime minister, 24 Sussex Drive, the Canadian equivalent of 10 Downing Street, is in disrepair and uninhabitable. No Canadian government can dare ask the parliament to appropriate the $40m needed to refurbish the residence.
Canada’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP) exceeds $2 trillion, while Nigeria’s GDP is less than $400 billion. Still, Nigeria claims to be a giant! With an electricity generation capacity of less than 6,000 megawatts, Nigeria’s proclamation seems absurd, especially when compared to cities like Johannesburg, Singapore, Hong Kong and Mumbai. Even Lagos State alone should be generating, transmitting and distributing at least 15,000 megawatts, which would be a basic expectation rather than an achievement.
Nigeria today needs a comprehensive overhaul of its governance crisis to build a new political economy and social services that are fit for purpose. Although the government is on the right path in some ways, a root-and-branch transformation is still necessary.
A notable breakthrough is the decision to recapitalize development finance institutions, such as the Bank of Industry and, crucially, the Bank of Agriculture. This move is significant in a rent-seeking state, as it addresses the need for long-term capital – a prerequisite for achieving meaningful progress.
The development finance institutions require annual recapitalization of at least N500 billion, ideally N1 trillion. Achieving this necessitates a thorough cost evaluation of the government’s machinery, starting with the full implementation of the Oronsaye Committee’s recommendations.
The resulting cost savings can then be redirected to development finance institutions and essential social services like primary healthcare. Furthermore, the government should be bolder, if it can afford to be so, especially since there’s no discernible opposition on offer At the moment, the Nigerian political establishment across the board appears to be enamored by the position put forward by the leader of the Russian revolution, Vladimir Lenin, after the failed putsch. Lenin wrote the classic, ‘What is to be done?’
His observation is that revolutions do not take place at times of grinding poverty. They do so during periods of relatively rising prosperity. Significant sections of the Nigerian establishment believe that relatively rising prosperity could trigger off social discontent.
In their own interest, they had better be right. The caveat is that Lenin wrote ‘What’s to be Done’ in 1905. The world has moved on and changed since the conditions that led to the failure of the attempted takeover of government in Russia in 1905. Therefore, the Nigerian political establishment, for reasons of self-preservation, had better put on its thinking cap. Addressing power and privilege in governance requires collective action, institutional reforms and a commitment to promoting social justice. Nigeria currently lacks a leadership recruitment process, which can only be established if political parties are willing to develop a cadre. Unfortunately, the country is dealing with Special Purpose Vehicles (SPVs) instead. It’s rare to find leadership in Nigeria operating political boot camps to recruit and groom youths for future leadership roles.
This might be why many young people have a misguided understanding of politics, viewing it as merely a means of sharing the nation’s commonwealth. Mhairi Black was elected to the British House of Commons at 20 years old.
However, the key point is that Black had started becoming involved in politics at a young age. By the time she was elected, she had already gained significant experience, effectively becoming a veteran in the field. In Nigeria, politics is often seen as one of the few avenues for self-fulfillment. However, the economy is stagnant, with few jobs created in the public sector and limited investment opportunities.
This is a far cry from the 1950s and 1960s, when political parties were more substantial. Today, it’s worth asking how many Nigerian political parties have functional Research Departments. Besides, what socialization into any philosophy or ideology do our politicians have? Similarly to former Governor Rotimi Amaechi, many of those who currently hold power are motivated to stay in politics due to concerns about economic stability.
Of course, that’s why the Lagos State House of Assembly has had to revert itself. It is the same challenge that has reduced the traditional institution to victims of Nigeria’s ever-changing political temperature. It is the reason an Ogbomoso indigene is not interested in what happened between Obafemi Awolowo and Ladoke Akintola.
It is also the reason an Ijebuman sees an Ogbomoso man as his enemy without bothering to dig up the bitter politics that ultimately succeeded in putting the two families on the path of permanent acrimony. Of course, that’s why we have crises all over the place! May the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world, grant us peace in Nigeria!
KOMOLAFE wrote from Ijebu-Jesa, Osun State, Nigeria (ijebujesa@yahoo.co.uk; 08033614419)
Byabiodun KOMOLAFE
Rivers State is now under emergency rule, and it’s likely to remain so for the next six months, unless a drastic change occurs.
If not managed carefully, this could mark the beginning of a prolonged crisis.
In situations like this, opinions tend to be divergent. For instance, some people hold the notion that the security situation and the need to protect the law and public order justified President Bola Tinubu’s proclamation of a state of emergency in, and the appointment of a sole administrator for Rivers State.
However, others view this act as ‘unconstitutional’, ‘reckless’, ‘an affront on democracy’, and ‘a political tool to intimidate the opposition’. When we criticize governments for unmet expectations, we often rely on our own perspectives and biases.
Our individual identities and prejudices shape our criticism. However, it’s essential to recognize that not all criticism is equal. Protesting within the law is fundamentally different from protests that descend into illegality. Once illegality creeps in, the legitimacy of the protest is lost.
As John Donne wrote in ‘Devotions Upon Emergent Occasions’, “Never send to know for whom the bell tolls.” A protest is legitimate when it aligns with societal norms, values and laws. But when protests are marred by violence or sabotage, they lose credibility. Without credibility, protests become ineffective.
Regarding the validity or otherwise of the emergency rule in Rivers State, it is imperative that the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) governors approach the Supreme Court immediately. They should seek a definitive clarification on whether the proclamation is ultra vires or constitutional.
For whatever it’s worth, they owe Nigerians that responsibility!May the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world, grant us peace in Nigeria!
Abiodun KOMOLAFE,ijebujesa@yahoo.co.uk; 08033614419 – SMS only.
Abba Dukawa
The political crisis began in December 2023, when Governor Fubara ordered the demolition of the state House of Assembly complex, which remains unrebuilt to this day. This act has effectively paralyzed the legislative arm, disrupting the state’s system of checks and balances.
The Supreme Court highlighted the severity of this situation on February 28, 2025, emphasizing the absence of a functional government in Rivers State and the executive’s role in collapsing the legislative arm, thereby creating a governance void
Additionally, recent reports indicate that militants have been vandalizing pipelines and issuing threats without any intervention from the state government, raising concerns about the state’s security and economic stability.Given Rivers State’s crucial role in the country’s economy, this situation necessitates urgent and cautious intervention from the federal government.Despite interventions from various stakeholders, including Tinubu himself, the crisis has persisted
.It’s worth noting that Tinubu is the third president to invoke Section 305 of the Constitution, after Ex-President Olusegun Obasanjo and Former President Goodluck Jonathan.
President Bola Tinubu’s declaration of a state of emergency in Rivers State has sparked intense debate about its necessity and potential motivations. During his nationwide speech, Tinubu warned that this decision could set off a chain of unpredictable events, potentially leading to radical ideologies and extremist tendencies.
Critics argue that Tinubu’s decision was unnecessary and politically motivated, particularly given his connection to Minister of the Federal Capital Territory Nyesom Wike, who is accused of being the “arrowhead” of the crisis. Some believe that Tinubu’s administration aims to remove Governor Fubara, perceived as hostile to the 2027 Tinubu/Wike project.Ultimately, the motivations behind Tinubu’s decision remain unclear, and its implications for Rivers State and Nigeria as a whole are yet to be fully seen.
Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) has strongly opposed President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s declaration of a state of emergency in Rivers State and his suspension of Governor Siminalayi Fubara, his deputy, and members of the Rivers State President Tinubu, in his national address, cited rising political tensions and recent acts of pipeline vandalism as justification for the emergency declaration.House of Assembly. President Tinubu, in his national address, cited rising political tensions and recent acts of pipeline vandalism as justification for the emergency declaration.
The NBA pointed to Section 305 of the 1999 Constitution, which governs the procedure for declaring a state of emergency. While this section grants the President emergency powers, it does not allow for the removal or suspension of elected officials. The NBA stressed that the only constitutional method for removing a governor or deputy governor is through impeachment as outlined in Section 188.
Furthermore, the removal of lawmakers must adhere to electoral laws and constitutional provisions insisted that a state of emergency does not equate to an automatic dissolution of an elected government, and any attempt to do so is an overreach of executive power.
Also Former Vice President Atiku Abubakar has strongly condemned President Bola Tinubu’s declaration of a state of emergency in Rivers State, calling it an “assault on democracy” that must be denounced in the strongest possible terms . Wazirin Adamawa argues that Tinubu’s administration is responsible for the chaos in Rivers State, either by enabling it or failing to prevent it. He emphasizes that the President should bear full responsibility for any compromise of federal infrastructure in the state, rather than punishing the people of Rivers State with a state of emergency.
Abubakar also accuses president Tinubu of being a partisan actor in the political turmoil in Rivers, and his refusal to prevent the escalation is seen as “disgraceful to the people of Rivers” The former Vice President believes that the destruction of national infrastructure in Rivers State is a direct result of the President’s failure to act, and punishing the people of Rivers State would be undemocratic.
In his statement, former vice president asserts that the declaration of a state of emergency “reeks of political manipulation and outright bad faith. He urges that the people of Rivers State should not be punished for the political gamesmanship between the governor and Tinubu’s enablers in the federal government. Other analyst believes that the situation in Rivers State, though politically tense, does not meet the constitutional threshold for the removal of elected officials.
For a state of emergency to be declared, Section 305(3) of the Constitution outlines specific conditions, including:
1. War or external aggression against Nigeria. Imminent danger of invasion or war. A breakdown of public order and safety to such an extent that ordinary legal measures are insufficient.
Other reasons for such decisions to be enforced are clear danger to Nigeria’s existence and Occurrence of any disaster or natural calamity affecting a state or a part of it. Where public danger constitutes a threat to the Federation.
Since the state of the emergency in Rivers state has been promulgation, political watchers questions whether the political crisis in Rivers State has reached the level of a complete breakdown of law that has warranting the removal of the Governor and his administration. Political disagreements, legislative conflicts, or executive-legislative tensions do not constitute a justification for emergency rule.
Had been the president remain filmed Such conflicts should have been resolved through legal and constitutional mechanisms, including the judiciary, rather than executive fiat.
A state of emergency is an extraordinary measure that must be invoked strictly within constitutional limits. The removal of elected officials under the pretext of emergency rule is unconstitutional and unacceptable.Tinubu’s administration decision to declare a state of emergency has been met with mixed reactions. Some argue that it was necessary to restore sanity to the state and ensure the country’s stability. Others,, believe that it was an unnecessary decision that could have dire economic and security implications for the state and Nigeria at large.
Was declaration for Rivers state is necessary or political motivation? President Bola Amed Tinubu is fully aware that the declaration of State of Emergency in a prevalent democratic system is not the solution to the self-inflicted crisis bedeviling the State.
What Tinubu needed most was to call Wike, his Minister of FCT, to order. The former governor Wike is the arrowhead of the crisis bedeviling the State.
Now what the president Tinubu decision for the declaration of a state of emergency in Rivers State was an unnecessary decision” that could have dire economic and security implications for the state and Nigeria at large.
Other views whether president decisions of keeping his ally, Minister of the Federal Capital Territory Nyesom Wike, is worth jeopardizing Nigeria’s economy.The keen watcher of events regarded the decision as a display of unpardonable mediocrity and diabolic partisanship geared towards 2027.
Tinubu administration wants to use the excuse of the political instability and other security challenges in Rivers to remove Governor FUBURA from the POWER considered hostile to the minister of the Federal Capital Territory or TInubu/Wiki diabolic partisanship geared towards 2027 election.
During his speeches Mr. President, blaming only the state governor and House of Assembly for the crisis in Rivers State is like expecting one iron to make a loud sound – it’s unrealistic and ignores the roles of others, including the former governor and a cabinet member in your administration.
Let us not forget; The situation in Rivers state is indeed complex, with President Tinubu’s intervention aiming to restore order, but also raising important questions about the balance between federal intervention and state autonomy. Invoking a state of emergency to suspend elected officials is a drastic measure that may set a worrying precedent, especially if not handled carefully.
The appointment of a retired military officer as the state’s administrator also raises concerns about the militarization of a democratic government. This move may be perceived as an attempt to exert federal control over the state, rather than allowing democratic processes to unfold, the initial six-month period of emergency rule, with provisions for extension, could lead to prolonged federal control. This is why it’s essential to establish clear timelines and measurable objectives to ensure a timely return to democratic governance.
Some of the key concerns that need to be addressed include: The potential for abuse of power*: The suspension of elected officials and the appointment of a military administrator could be seen as an attempt to consolidate federal power.
– *The impact on democratic institutions*: The emergency rule could undermine the democratic institutions in Rivers state and set a precedent for future interventions.
– *The need for transparency and accountability*: The federal government must ensure that the emergency rule is transparent, accountable, and subject to regular review. Ultimately, finding a balance between restoring order and respecting democratic institutions is crucial. The federal government must tread carefully to avoid exacerbating the situation and ensure a peaceful resolution.
Dukawa public affairs commentator and can be reached at abbahydukawa@gmail.com
-
News1 week agoPlateau gov’t expresses concern over violence in Shendam LGA, calls for calm
-
Politics1 week agoOpposition leaders announce coalition to challenge Tinubu in 2027
-
Opinion1 week agoSule Lamido, PDP, and the politics of defection.
-
Foreign6 days agoHouthis declare Ben-Gurion Airport ‘no longer safe’ after renewed Gaza fighting
-
Politics1 week agoYahaya Bello deceptively arranging recall of Senator Natasha, desperate to replace her – Constituents
-
Politics1 week agoAtiku, El-rufai, Obi condemn Tinubu’s suspension of Rivers Governor, demand reversal
-
News7 days agoWhy Christ Embassy’s Pastor Chris holds Abuja mega crusade – Fisho
-
News6 days agoUmeh denies receiving $10,000 with other 42 Senators to support state of emergency in Rivers