Features
Israel-Iran alliance: Jerusalem’s arm sales to the Islamic Republic during Iran-Iraq War

Clandestine Israeli sales of military equipment helped turn the tide of the war and prevent Iran from falling to Saddam’s forces.

More than three decades after his death, the shadow of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini is still cast into the deepest corners of Iran. The man who founded the Islamic Republic of Iran after the overthrow of Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi in 1979 led the country for its first decade, transforming a 1,300-year-old monarchy into a country ruled by Sharia law, the ayatollahs, and a formidable military – the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.

After the Shah fled into exile, the fledgling republic turned its back on the Western-leaning outlook of its former monarch, and Khomeini oversaw the descent into a fiercely religious society, and the evolution of a personality cult that exists to this day.
“Israel viewed its security in the region as being one in which you needed to build alliances with a non-Arab state, in the periphery of the Middle East, in order to balance the immediate neighborhood of Arab states,” said Trita Parsi, founder and former president of the National Iranian American Council and author of Treacherous Alliance: The Secret Dealings of Israel, Iran, and the United States.
“Iran was the most important peripheral state, not just because of its military might but also because it had access to oil, which Israel of course was in dire need of, since the Arab states wouldn’t sell it” to them, he told the Magazine. “From the Shah’s perspective, it was always very strategic, but it wasn’t as permanent as the Israelis thought it would be. The Israelis had this perception that the enmity with the Arabs would essentially be eternal – and the thought that Arab-Persian tensions were of the same nature and, as a result, Iran would more or less be a permanent ally.”
Most of Khomeini’s decade in power was spent beating the anti-imperialist drum, possibly being the first one who referred to the United States as the “Great Satan” and Israel as the “Little Satan.” It was also spent battling the forces of Saddam Hussein after Iraq invaded Iran in September 1980, a mere 18 months after the revolution.
The Iran-Iraq War began due to a mix of historical, political, and territorial disputes. Central to these disputes was the Shatt al-Arab waterway, a crucial economic and strategic boundary between the two nations. After the Iranian revolution, Hussein saw an opportunity to capitalize on Iran’s internal socio-political turmoil. He aimed to weaken his larger eastern neighbor and settle the territorial disputes to Iraq’s advantage. Additionally, the ideological clash between Iran’s new Shi’ite Islamic theocracy and Iraq’s secular Ba’athist regime further intensified the animosity between the two countries.
The Iran-Iraq War
HUSSEIN’S AMBITIONS to establish Iraq as the dominant regional power and prevent the spread of Iran’s revolutionary ideology, which threatened to inspire Shi’ite uprisings in Iraq, also played a crucial role. Historical Arab-Persian rivalries added to the tensions. The involvement of external powers, with both superpowers and regional allies providing varying degrees of support, further fueled the conflict.
These factors culminated in Iraq’s invasion of Iran on September 22, 1980, starting a protracted and devastating war that lasted eight years, resulting in a significant loss of life and economic damage for both nations.
Despite the fierce anti-Western feeling that permeated Iran at this time, as the revolutionary fervor grew and grew, military help was on hand for the fledgling Islamic Republic from an unlikely source – Israel.
Clandestine Israeli sales of military equipment helped turn the tide of the war and prevent Iran from falling to Saddam’s forces, which was of huge concern to Israel at the time.
Despite the apparent ideological chasm between the Islamic Republic of Iran and the Jewish state, Israel became one of its primary suppliers of military equipment. This relationship extended beyond mere arms sales: Jerusalem also sent military instructors to Iran and, in return, received vital intelligence that proved instrumental in its own military operations. One notable instance was the Iranian intelligence that aided Israel in executing Operation Opera, the 1981 airstrike that destroyed Iraq’s Osirak nuclear reactor – a cornerstone of Iraq’s nuclear ambitions.
In 1979, “The [Iranian] revolutionaries come in, and they have a very, very hostile view of Israel, seeing it as an imperialist outpost to American imperialism, as well as [seeing] an ideological religious dimension to it,” Parsi told the Magazine. “But the actual geopolitical circumstances that had given birth to the relationship, which was the common threat from the Arab states and the Soviet Union, had not changed. In fact, from the Iranians’ perspective, it had [become] amplified because Iran was now at odds with the US – even though its military was entirely dependent on US spare parts.
“Israel quickly found out that it had this trump card with Iran because it was one of the few states to have access to American spare parts and was willing to sell them to Iran, in violation of US sanctions. The revolutionaries viewed Israel as the lesser of [two] evils in the context of the war with Saddam.”
THE MOTIVATIONS behind Israel’s support for Iran were multifaceted. Strategically, Israel sought to counterbalance Iraq, which was considered a significant regional threat. By strengthening Tehran, Jerusalem aimed to create a bulwark against Iraqi power and influence. Furthermore, Israel hoped to re-establish a foothold in Iran, a connection that had been severed with the 1979 overthrow of the Shah, one of its key allies.
One important byproduct of this clandestine relationship was the facilitation of Jewish emigration from Iran and the protection of the Jews who remained there. The covert support helped ensure the safe passage of Persian Jews to Israel and the United States, securing their freedom from potential persecution.
“What happened back then was that the Israelis played the military card, reaching out to high-ranking people in the Iranian military who they, of course, had contact with during the Shah’s reign,” Parsi explained. “They tried to find ways to sell weapons and show strategic utility with the new regime, [but] it wasn’t particularly successful. The point was, though, that the Israelis were trying, even before the Iraq war started.
“Israel was trying to show that in a world in which the Iranians were turning against the United States – which meant they had bad relations with both superpowers [the US and the Soviet Union] – Israel could still help Iran,” he said. “It was trying to signal that message to the Iranians. I don’t think it was particularly successful at the time, and I don’t think the Iranians were really focusing on arms that much at that moment. But it is what later brought about the Iran Contra scandal.”
The sales
Despite the secrecy, the logistics of these operations were extensive and complex. The first major arms deal occurred in early 1980, when Israel sold a large number of F-4 Phantom fighter jet tires to Iran. This initial transaction was negotiated through back channels, as the Iranian government sought military equipment it could no longer obtain from the US due to sanctions imposed after the 1979 hostage crisis, when Iranian students seized the American embassy and detained more than 50 Americans. The net profit from these sales contributed to a significant slush fund within the Israeli intelligence community, which grew over the years.
The onset of the war saw Iraq launching a full-scale invasion of Iran. Under immense pressure, Tehran desperately needed military supplies, particularly American and British-made equipment, which formed the backbone of its arsenal from the Shah’s era.
In response, Israel increased its support. Following the first mission in early 1980, a second one took place in October, resulting in additional arms deals. On October 24, 1980, shipments of Scorpion tank parts and 250 F-4 jet tires were dispatched to Iran. Concurrently, other military supplies stored in Europe were clandestinely shipped to Iranian ports like Chabahar, Bandar Abbas, and Bushehr. These shipments included spare parts for F-4 jets, helicopters, and missile systems.
AND HOW did Iran’s new leader – the ayatollah who lived a simple life on a simple diet on garlic, yogurt, and onions – view his dealings with the “Little Satan”?
“I interviewed one of Khomeini’s close advisers in regard to the arms sales that Israel provided,” Parsi recounted. “One of the generals had approached Khomeini – because of the arms embargo, it was very difficult to get hold of weapons – and he declared to Khomeini that they had actually managed to secure a significant arms shipment. But there was just one problem – the sellers were Israeli. Khomeini was quiet for a couple of seconds, and then he said, ‘If you find these weapons, do you have to ask who the seller is?’ and the general said no. And Khomeini said, ‘Well, problem solved.’”
Jimmy Carter was the American president at the time. A New York Times article from August 1981 discussing the October transactions stated: “Carter officials and diplomatic sources familiar with the Israeli-American discussions the previous year [1980] said that the Israelis yielded to American pressure to not continue their military relationship with Iran until the hostages were freed.
“Diplomatic sources, in discussing Israel’s motivations, said that prime minister Menachem Begin was willing to provide spare parts to Iran because of an overwhelming Israeli desire not to see Iraq win the war that began last September,” the Times article said.
“The other reason for Mr. Begin’s actions, despite Iran’s fierce anti-Israeli policy, is his concern about the 60,000 Jews living in Iran,” it said. “The Israelis fear that they could be subject to repression at any time and that contact between Israel and Iran helps the Jews in Iran.”
Nachman Shai, the spokesman for the Israeli embassy in the US at the time, told the Times: “Our position is that Israel does not provide information on purchases of sales of weapons.”
THE US position during the early years of the Khomeini regime was largely influenced by the 1979 hostage crisis and Carter’s presidency. On November 4, 1979, Iranian students seized the American embassy and detained more than 50 Americans as hostages, many of them diplomats. They were held for 14 and a half months (444 days) until January 20, 1981. The Iran hostage crisis undermined Carter’s ability to conduct foreign policy and was one of the factors contributing to his election defeat to Ronald Reagan in November 1980.
Upon discovering the Israel-Iranian transactions, the Carter administration exerted pressure on Israel to halt future sales while the United States was negotiating for the release of the hostages. However, with Reagan’s ascendancy to the presidency in 1981, the dynamic shifted. Israel sought and received covert consent to continue supplying Iran with American-made military equipment despite the Reagan administration’s public opposition to such sales.
The Carter administration “opposed the sales very strongly: “I think at one point, Carter publicly warned Israel about it,” Parsi stated. “Carter imposed an arms embargo, including on spare parts. What happened was that Reagan came in and kind of turned a blind eye to what the Israelis were doing.
“In 1982, [then-Israeli defense minister] Ariel Sharon on NBC News openly stated that Israel was providing weapons or selling weapons to Iran because it was important to try to bring Iran back into the West[ern sphere of influence], so openly admitting it on American TV kind of indicated the Israeli leaders’ knowing that they were violating the embargo while knowing that there wouldn’t be much of the consequences from the Reagan administration,” the National Iranian American Council founder said.
“What the Americans were driven by was anger because of the hostage crisis. Iran had humiliated the United States and had turned it into an enemy.”
IN THE first year of large-scale arms sales in 1981, Israel sold $75 million worth of arms under Operation Seashell, including anti-tank guns and shells. This operation involved using Cyprus as a transit point, with Argentine airline Transporte Aéreo Rioplatense initially transporting the arms by air – and later, following a mid-air collision incident, by ship. Additionally, Yaakov Nimrodi, Israel’s military attaché in Tehran from 1955 to 1979, signed a $136 million arms deal with Iran’s Ministry of National Defense that year, which included advanced weaponry such as Lance and Hawk missiles.
Maj.-Gen. Avraham Tamir, who worked in the Israeli Defense Ministry, told The New York Times in 1991 that “Every month, we gave a list of American weapons and American spare parts we’d like to sell to Iran.
“In the years 1981 and 1982, weapons with US components were sold to Iran based on an understanding with [then-US secretary of state Alexander] Haig,” he said: “Then it was stopped.”
Israeli intelligence established a covert operation in New York to facilitate these transactions. However, when it became apparent that Israel was also selling sophisticated American military equipment without explicit consent, the operation had to be relocated to London by 1983.
A New York Times article from March 1982 stated that “According to documents – telex messages, contracts and bills of lading – $100 million to $200 million in arms, spare parts, and ammunition were delivered to Iran from Western Europe in the last 18 months. The intelligence sources said the documents indicated that about half of this was being supplied or arranged by Israel, and the rest by freelance arms merchants, some of whom may also have connections with Israeli intelligence.”
The article further mentioned that “Non-American sources supplied the initial information about the flow of arms from Israel to Iran. It appears that their principal motive was to discredit the government of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini by showing that his war effort against Iraq was being helped by Israel. Along with the United States, Israel is a prime target of Iranian antagonism.”
BY 1982, Israel’s sales to Iran included sophisticated weapons systems, prompting complaints from international observers. West German chancellor Helmut Kohl raised concerns about Israeli arms sales worth $500 million to Iran. Despite the official stance of the Reagan administration, which rescinded its consent for arms sales following evidence of violations, Jerusalem continued to sell arms to Tehran. These sales were facilitated through a global network managed from London, involving private arms dealers and shell companies.
Arms were also supplied to Iran by Libya, Syria, and North Korea, and were of Soviet origin. The US hoped to counter the Russian influence in the region as the Cold War played out in the early years of the Reagan administration.
Throughout the early 1980s, Israel’s arms sales to Iran were substantial. Estimates from the Jaffe Institute for Strategic Studies at Tel Aviv University suggested that Israel sold around $500 million worth of arms annually, including aircraft spare parts, artillery, and ammunition. These sales were predominantly financed by Iranian oil. Arms dealer Ahmad Haidari claimed that a significant portion of Iran’s weaponry early in the war came from Israel, which enabled the Iranian air force to conduct sorties and strategic strikes against Iraq.
Despite the newspaper articles, media coverage, and TV appearances by Israeli officials, the dealings between the Jewish state and Iran were seemingly kept largely under wraps in the Islamic Republic.
“It was really largely hushed up,” Parsi told the Magazine. “One of the people who apparently had leaked it was executed. And, you know, the pragmatism of having to do whatever they needed to do to be able to win the war was there in the background, but it wasn’t really acknowledged that this actually had happened. There wasn’t much of a conversation publicly, and they controlled the media and ways in which they could just essentially shut them down.”
The Iran Contra Affair
From 1985 to 1986, Israel’s role in the Iran-Contra Affair highlighted the complexity of its involvement with Iran. High-level discussions between Israeli and Iranian representatives sought to open an arms channel with the United States.
The affair was a significant political scandal during the Reagan administration. It involved the secret sale of arms to Iran, despite the arms embargo, with the aim of securing the release of American hostages held by Hezbollah in Lebanon. Proceeds from these sales were then illegally diverted to support the Contra rebels in Nicaragua, who were fighting the Left-wing socialist Sandinista government (which also came to power in 1979, some six months after the Iranian Revolution). This was in direct violation of the Boland Amendment, which prohibited US aid to the Contras.
The scandal came to light in November 1986, leading to extensive media coverage and congressional hearings. The hearings revealed the depth of the administration’s involvement in the covert operations and resulted in several indictments and convictions, although many were later overturned or those guilty were pardoned.
Just as the Iran hostage crisis hurt the Carter administration, the Iran-Contra Affair had significant political repercussions for the Reagan administration, damaging its reputation and raising questions about presidential oversight and the conduct of foreign policy.
Even as the Iran-Contra scandal unfolded, Israeli arms shipments to Tehran continued, including a high-profile case in 1986 where individuals with ties to Israel were arrested for attempting to sell $2.6 billion worth of arms to the Islamic Republic. Despite these controversies, Israel’s support for Iran during the Iran-Iraq War remained a critical and complex aspect of its foreign policy, driven by strategic, economic, and humanitarian considerations.
“There was a very fierce fear [on the Israeli side] that as soon as US-Iran relations would be patched up, the Iranians would cut them out and deal directly with the US,” Parsi explained. “It became clear to them that their only utility was to be able to bring relations to the United States. This, of course, was the beginning of Israeli opposition to any US-Iranian relations.”
The Iran-Contra Affair led to changes in how covert operations were conducted and increased oversight mechanisms. The scandal remains a critical example of the complexities and potential abuses in US foreign policy.
The end of the war
The Iran-Iraq War dominated much of Khomeini’s decade in power. It was a bloody conflict, marked by the use of chemical weapons, other weapons of mass destruction, the use of child soldiers, and war crimes. About half a million people are thought to have died in the conflict, and relations between Iran and Iraq did not really warm until the fall of Saddam Hussein in 2003, although the US presence in the region was not welcomed by the Islamic Republic.
Khomeini died in 1989, but his successor, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, continued his policy of subverting the Jewish state in support of the Palestinians. Rhetoric from Iran regularly states how Israel should be “wiped off the map.”
“In 1989, when Khomeini died, there were comments in Israel that this may be an opportunity for the Israelis and the Iranians to re-establish a relationship,” Parsi said. “In the Israeli mindset, the belief was that Iran was a critical state, and if we could just have relations, it would be much better for Israel’s geopolitical situation – which made sense at the time, as Saddam Hussein was still very powerful. That was a different geopolitical reality than today.
“The Israeli position changed dramatically in 1991-1992 when Saddam was defeated [in the Gulf War], the Soviet Union collapsed, and the geopolitical factors that had pushed Israel and Iran together throughout all those years had suddenly evaporated,” Parsi said. “Now the effort has become to make peace with the surrounding Arab states and resolve the Israeli-Palestinian issue.”
AS THE dust settled on the Iran-Iraq War, the arms sales between Israel and Iran highlighted a pragmatic but ultimately unsuccessful attempt at diplomacy. Today, the legacy of these secret dealings lingers, with the two nations on the brink of open conflict. The missed opportunity for a more stable relationship continues to cast a shadow over the region’s future.
Instead, Iran found itself going down the path of Islamism that it continues to spread and fund to this day – coming to a head just a few weeks ago on April 13, when Tehran launched a direct attack on the Jewish state. It launched around 170 drones, over 30 cruise missiles, and more than 120 ballistic missiles toward Israel in response to the alleged Israeli assassination of an Iranian general in Damascus.
The Israeli sales of weapons to the Islamic Republic during the Iran-Iraq War could be viewed in hindsight as Iran doing whatever it must do to secure victory and Israeli attempts to broker diplomatic relations with a newfound enemy. It should also be viewed, perhaps, as a missed opportunity because now, some 30 years later, the two countries are closer to war than they have ever been.
Culled from Jerusalem Post

Features
Bruno Fernandes: Mikel Arteta credits ‘smart’ Man Utd captain for free-kick as Gary Neville says wall ‘too far back’

Mikel Arteta says Bruno Fernandes was “smarter” than referee Anthony Taylor over his free-kick that gave Manchester United the lead against Arsenal in 1-1 draw on Sunday; referee moved defensive wall 11.2 yards back; Gary Neville criticised Arsenal over incident

Mikel Arteta refused to criticise Anthony Taylor for sending Arsenal’s defensive wall too far back for Bruno Fernandes’ free-kick in their 1-1 draw but said the Manchester United captain had been “smarter” than the referee in taking advantage to net his fine strike.

Broadcast technology found Taylor marched the Arsenal defensive line 11.2 yards back, further than the minimum 10 yards required in the Laws of the Game, before Fernandes curled a dead ball inside the near post shortly before half-time.
“At the end of the day the referee is pushing them back too far, which is a mistake, but ordinarily you would sense you’re too far away and creep forward,” said Gary Neville on the Gary Neville Podcast.
“They didn’t do that and it ends up that Bruno Fernandes has the ability to play it over the wall.”
The United captain’s technique was superb but, like Neville, the Super Sunday pundits questioned whether his goal would have been possible had Arsenal’s five-player wall been closer.
Arteta refused to be drawn over the incident, only to congratulate Fernandes for making the most of the advantage he had been given.
“He’s been smart and he took advantage, that is football,” he told Sky Sports. “He’s been smarter than the ref. That’s OK, they allowed him to do it.”
Player of the match Declan Rice, who netted Arsenal’s equaliser after half-time, took the blame for the goal on himself and the other members of the Gunners wall, though he also felt it had been pushed too far back.
“It felt like a couple of us jumped and some of us didn’t, but I’ve not seen it back,” he told Sky Sports. “It felt like the ball flew over us at quite a low height so, from the wall’s perspective, we could have done a lot better.
“The wall did feel far back. Even on our free-kick, when Martin [Odegaard] took it, they felt far back as well, more than usual. But the referee makes that decision.”
After half-time, another free-kick from Martin Odegaard was being lined up when Taylor again appeared to exceed 10 yards when marking out where Man Utd’s defensive wall could stand.
As Neville had suggested Arsenal should do, Noussair Mazraoui questioned Taylor over the distance, while the wall itself crept forward before Odegaard’s strike – and did its job when his effort rebounded away to safety.
Manchester United head coach Ruben Amorim told Sky Sports he had noticed the issues with both free-kicks but had no intention of helping Arsenal out ahead of Fernandes’ opener.
He said: “It was clear, both free-kicks. So when it’s your free kick, you don’t say anything. When it’s the opponent, you try to push because it’s a big difference.
“It was fair, one for us, one for them. We had Bruno and he solved the problem.”
Man Utd midfielder Christian Eriksen, who has scored eight Premier League free-kicks, explained after the game the sizeable difference even 1.2 yards extra would make for a dead-ball specialist.
“It makes a very big difference,” he told Sky Sports. “When the ball is over the wall you don’t need to hit it as high – going down to statistics and how far they are back and how many metres and how they jump. So it’s easier and it gives Bruno a bit more space to put it over the wall.
“It was very good. It helped that the wall was about 15 metres away, so it was perfect for him to put it over.
“I saw it early [that the wall was a fair way back]. Even before the kick you could see how far back they were, and it was the same when they had it in the second half – obviously we were a bit angry with the ref [at that point] for putting us so far back after we saw that Bruno scored.
“But I think it was just beneficial to us.”

Features
Sule Lamido: Statesman, bridge builder

Alhaji Sule Lamido was born August 30, 1948. He is a native of Bamaina village, Jigawa State, and is known for his wide-level exposure in leadership. He attended Birnin Kudu school, for his primary education in 1955 and proceeded for his secondary education at the prestigious Barewa College, Zaria, Kaduna State.

Lamido embarked on a course in Railway engineering at the Permanent way training school, Zaria, Kaduna where he gained knowledge on the rail transport operations. Upon graduation from the Permanent Way Training School, Lamido started his career as a Quality Control officer at the Nigeria Tobacco Company in Zaria. He also worked in Bamaina Holding Company, amongst other companies in the country.

He also worked in Bamaina Holding Company, amongst other companies in the country. In 1992, Lamido ventured into politics, first in the second republic as a member of the Peoples Redemption Party (PRP) where he was an active member. Lamido was also active in the third republic, as a member of the Social Democratic Party (SDP), and played a key role as the National Secretary in the party. The seasoned politician was also a delegate of the 1995 National Constitutional Conference in Abuja the Federal Capital Territory (FCT).
During the military regime of the late Gen Sani Abacha, Lamido was a member of the G-34 political movement which was a notable and powerful opposition group that shaped Nigeria’s fourth republic. After several years of the Military junta in Nigeria, Sule Lamido returned back to active politics in the fourth republic under the platform of the People’s Democratic Party.
He was appointed the Foreign Affairs Minister in the first four years of President Olusegun Obasanjo (1999-2003) at a time Nigeria had to reposition and redeem its image in the international community. As Foreign Minister he travelled with Former President Obasanjo across the globe, restoring broken relationships with the western bloc nations and opening new frontiers with countries like Japan, Russia, Brazil, China and Australia.
Other roles he played as foreign minister was representing Nigeria in the United Nations, G77 bloc of nations, Commonwealth of nations, Organization of African Unity and Economic Community of West Africa States. In November 2001, at the United Nations , Lamido described the corrosive impact of corruption on new democracies such as Nigeria, and called for “an international instrument” against transfer of looted funds abroad.
As Governor of Jigawa, Sule Lamido put the State on national scale with significant investments in infrastructure, healthcare, agriculture, housing & urban development, empowerment programmes, education, rural development and industrial projects. The elder statesman is also known for his capacity to build consensus across the nation.

Features
Remembering Anthony Enahoro

By Abiodun Komolafe

It is a settled fact that Anthony Eromosele Enahoro (July 22, 1923 – December 15, 2010) was an outstanding product of Nigeria’s pre-independence era. Enahoro moved one of the motions for independence and there’s a lot for us to look at in the context of the life he lived and the political firmament that brought him up. Therefore, remembering this Father of Nigerian Nationalism is to reminisce about an era where courage and conviction were the
currencies of change.

As a pioneering journalist, politician and champion of independence, Enahoro’s unwavering commitment to Nigeria’s self-rule has left an enduring legacy that continues to inspire generations. His remarkable story is a testament to the transformative power of leadership, perseverance and the unrelenting pursuit of freedom.
Building on his legacy as a champion of independence, Enahoro went on to serve in various capacities, including as Minister of Information and Labour. He was later tried alongside Obafemi Awolowo and others for treasonable felony, a trial that became infamous in Nigerian history. Although convicted, Enahoro was later released and continued to play a significant role in shaping Nigeria’s political landscape.
Enahoro was an outstanding nationalist and a principled person, and this was evident in his involvement with the National Democratic Coalition (NADECO). Of course, there was no need for him and Alfred Rewane to have been involved in the struggle for the enthronement of democracy, particularly in the aftermath of the annulled June 12, 1993 presidential election won by MKO Abiola as they had too much to lose!. But they risked everything to fight for popular democracy, Although Rewane ultimately lost his life in the struggle, Enahoro was fortunate to have escaped the same fate.
Despite the risks and challenges, Enahoro remained unbending in his convictions, refusing to waver even in the face of adversity. As a gifted individual, he recognized that the issue at hand was not just about the violation of an individual's rights, but an affront to democracy and national sovereignty. He, along with Alfred Rewane and others fought for principles, not personalities. This commitment to principle was evident in their diverse backgrounds: Enahoro was a Christian from Uromi in Edo State, with Esan extraction; Rewane was a Christian of Urhobo descent from Delta State; and Abiola, whose rights they fought for, was a Muslim Yorubaman, from Ogun State. Unlike some NADECO members who howled with the wolves and bleated with the sheep for convenience, Enahoro was not
duplicitous. Unlike the crop of Janjaweeds who now populate our political landscape, he remained steadfast, refusing to compromise his values.
Olajumoke Ogunkeyede, a close ally of Enahoro, described him as “a man with a seriously fantastic sense of humour; Ogunkeyede, fondly called JMK, shared several instances of Enahoro’s ability to bring joy to those around him. His humorous takes on serious issues, such as the demons in Abuja, showcased his wit. Moreover, his clever commentaries, including his defence of now-President Bola Tinubu’s aspirations, and his ingenious use of allegories and analogies, like; Ogbuefi; and; Ogbueniyan’, collectively attested to the capacity of his wit and charm.
When writing about individuals like Enahoro, Rewane, Herbert Macaulay, Awolowo, Aminu Kano, Maitama Sule, and others, it’s essential to consider the context in which they lived. This context is bittersweet, as they represented an era where political activism was rooted in philosophical positions and guided by principles.
People during this time held strong convictions and were willing to make sacrifices for their beliefs. That’s why society was more orderly in their time, and it achieved proper sustainable development, unlike today where what we have is largely ‘growth without development’, to be polite, or, if we want to be impolite, ‘the development of underdevelopment’. Amidst this, our leaders continue to sing the same old, worn-out refrain while satiating a vacuous idolatry that elevates an ego bereft of substance, a hollow monolith that stands on feet of clay.
If we look at people like Enahoro and Adegoke Adelabu, their lives exemplified a paradox that underscored the tenuous relationship between knowledge and credentials. This was because, despite lacking university degrees, they possessed a profound intellectual depth that eluded many of their contemporaries who boasted an array of impressive certifications, forgetting that it is not the parchment that confers wisdom, but the depth of one's inquiry, the rigour of one's thought and the breadth of one’s understanding.
Enahoro became the youngest editor of Nnamdi Azikiwe's newspaper, the Southern Nigerian Defender, in 1944 at the age of 21 while Peter, his younger brother, became the editor of The Morning Star at the age of 23. The older Enahoro also worked with other publications, including Daily Comet and West African Pilot before parting ways with Azikiwe, whom he always referred to as his chairman, while Awolowo was his political leader. The reasons behind this preference are intriguing, but that’s a story for another time.
These early experiences laid the foundation for Enahoro’s later involvement with the Action Group (AG), a political party that shared his vision of ‘making life more abundant.’ Enahoro and the AG represented an understanding that the process of economic development must be structured and based on a philosophical thrust. In contrast, what is absurdly described as ‘politics’ today is terribly bad and basically transactional; and it’s driven by a cash-and-
carry mentality, where individuals seek to outdo one another in a chop-and-quench; political economy! No unity! No discipline! No structure! For them, any goose can cackle and any fly can find a sore place!
Looking at the plane, Enahoro’s life and career epitomized the complexities of Nigeria’s struggle for
independence and democracy. His life and work embodied the intersection of individual agency and structural forces that steered the trajectory of nations. As a prominent anti-colonial and pro- democracy activist, he played a pivotal role in the country’s transition from colonial rule to independence. The Adolor of Uromi and the Adolor of Onewa was a vocal critic of authoritarianism and a strong advocate for human rights. His perseverance in the face of resistance, setbacks and imprisonment demonstrates the dedication required to bring about
transformative change.
In moments of emotions and situations, we often discover our true strength and resilience. Enahoro has gone to the ages but his legacy continues to inspire, much like Abraham Lincolns. In simpler terms, he was a brave soul who dared to challenge the colonial powers. So, his legacy should serve as inspiration and role model for future generations, demonstrating the potential for excellence that exists within individuals and communities. In fairness to fate, Enahoro and his contemporaries were well-prepared for the liberation movement, thanks to their involvement in the West African Students Union (WASU) and their time at King’s College, Lagos. This institution, attended by Enahoro and Chukwuemeka Odumegwu Ojukwu, was a hotbed for political activism and discourse. To truly reboot, Nigerians must remember the personal histories of pioneers like Enahoro.
Today, we remember Enahoro, a pioneering figure who dared to dream of independence for Nigeria. We honour not only his significant contributions to Nigeria’s history but also his untiring commitment to democracy, self-determination and human rights. As we remember him and his dogged commitment to federalism and the quest for social justice, it is in our best interest to recreate the ethos and the spirit which created him and people like him.
May Anthony Enahoro’s spirit soar on the wings of eternal peace!
May his memory continue to serve as a testament to the enduring impact of individual agency
on the course of national history!
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)

-
Security3 days ago
New Commissioner of Police in Niger, Elleman sends strong warning to criminals
-
News2 days ago
Abia: LG Chairman, Iheke accused of using soldiers to detain IRS agent, claims Governor Otti’s support
-
News3 days ago
Kogi Governor, Ahmed Usman Ododo salutes Tinubu at 74
-
News3 days ago
Plateau LP stakeholders endorses Barr Gyang Zi’s defection to APC
-
News22 hours ago
Kogi government bans rallies ahead of Natasha’s homecoming slated for Tuesday
-
News3 days ago
Akpabio pays historic visit to office of SA to President on Senate Matters
-
Sports1 week ago
2026 World Cup Race: Ekong says Eagles feel great to be back in contention
-
News1 day ago
Iran may secure a deal before Trump’s deadline – or face Israeli strikes in Tehran – analysis