Features
Understanding the friendly enemies of Nigeria
By Mon-Charles Egbo
“The first law of nature is self-preservation. Cut off that which may harm you. But if it is worth preserving, and is meaningful, nourish it and have no regrets. Ultimately, this is true living and love of self…from within.” ― T.F. Hodge.
“The people that do us most harm are the people who shield us from reality” –Agatha Christie.
Nigeria manifests every index of an ailing state. By every standard of assessment, the country is distressed and at the lowest ebb of its socio-economic and political development.
And though this complicated circumstance is self-inflicted, the most culpable of all the factors are the elites. These are the compatriots who by priviledged exposures and opportunities acquired certain advantages over the rest. They lack the numbers yet they shape the outcomes in all aspects of our national life, notably politics and economy. This they achieve sequel to their unbridled access to the media and other state resources.
Majorly, they cut across every segment of the economy and politics. The arrowhead of their agenda is to always remain relevant and influential to keep the masses on the line. In this ideology, they are united except when, once in a while, their partisan interests clash which mostly do not last long.
The two quotes above aptly describe their guiding philosophy and strategy. To achieve and sustain “self-preservation”, they must constantly “shield us from reality”.
Hence, they wilfully and skilfully take advantage of the vulnerable to advance their agenda. They exploit the desperation of the poor and ignorant to propagate divisive tendencies.
Once again, they know the truth but choose to ignore it. They have the solutions but deliberately compound the problems. They preach the truth only when their interests conflict. Then, they resort to sermonizing and telling the people things that soothe the ears even when all the while they have been acting the opposite.
For example and as highlighted earlier, Nigeria’s present predicament is worrisome to every well-meaning citizen. Even the government of the day is agitated. The masses are increasingly overwhelmed by despair. And of course, the elites are not spared. How can they be, when despite their relative advantages, they have less-privileged dependants, neighbours and associates around them?
And so except for ignorance or mischief, Nigeria’s economic woes predate the present national assembly. The high cost of governance has since been identified as the major opening for economic wastage in the country. Manifesting as over-bloated public service, poor budgetary system and weak institutions which are all being driven by corruption, these cumulatively weigh down on the economy and derail every effort at revitalization. Next to them are also the effects of the military incursion in Nigeria’s politics before 1999. That inglorious era, just like the civil war, eroded every semblance of democratic norms and tenets as well as greatly undermined senses of nationalism and patriotism among the citizenry. These have constituted a clog in the wheels of Nigeria’s journey to nationhood.
However, successive federal governments, including legislatures, have initiated and implemented a series of interventions to stem the tide. There have been governance policy thrusts and legislative agenda serially targeted at the economy. There have been laws made and agencies established with the sole aim of rescuing, stabilizing and growing the economy and politics of the country.
But in all these, no specific attempt has even been made in the area of holistic reduction of the cost of governance. The salaries and allowances of public officials are still at an all-time high. Nigeria today finds it expedient to borrow to pay the salaries of its workers. Also pathetically, the country still borrows to service existing debts and even until recently, it borrowed to pay for petroleum subsidies. Maintenance of the elected and appointed public officials gulp the highest chunk of annual budgets. In short, politics is now the only viable industry in the country where public offices have become so attractive that it is now a culture to pay one’s way to positions of authority.
And quite painfully amidst all these, it is only the elites that are benefitting. They are always conscious that it is to their eternal advantage that the masses are suffering and looking up to the elites for survival.
To further illustrate these assertions, it is common knowledge that in the evolving democracies, the legislature is as powerless as it is at the mercy of the executive. The powers of the president and the state governors are so enormous that they determine the dimension and direction of legislative outputs. Financial dependence is the greatest albatross of the legislature. Without operational funds and logistics, the legislature is as toothless as it cannot even bark. In practical terms, the legislature does not possess the ability to protect itself from executive dominance, ridicule and exploitation. Just recently, the Senate and the House of Representatives were begging cap-in-hand for President Bola Tinubu to make his appointees honour legislative summons particularly relative to budget passage. More than anyone else, the elites know this but choose to downplay it in their commentaries. After all, to attain and sustain self-preservation, the people must always be shielded from reality.
Again, the laws of the land are utterly obsolete and faulty. By the constitution, there is nothing practically that the legislature can do to stop the executive from achieving whatever it desires, including borrowing and or spending without approval as well as engaging any number of appointees. And until these laws are repackaged, meaningful developments will continue to elude Nigeria. The elite are aware of these but they cannot allow it to form parts of topical issues for national discourse. Even organized labour cannot lead protests against the outdated constitution.
Another dimension to this aspect of the elitist hypocrisy played out in the recent attempt at altering some sections of the Constitution. There were legislative public hearings across the geo-political zones. The thematic areas of interest and the schedules of the event were widely publicized earlier. It was expected that the elites would seize the opportunity to mobilize and sensitize the people towards a productive outcome. But in the end, the events were greeted with apathy and curiously also, no mention was made in any manner, of the overriding need to reposition the legislature for optimal performance. Meanwhile, the state governors had hoodwinked most state legislatures into undermining the national assembly concerning the items on the concurrent list. Yet we expect to make progress as a people. And once again, the elites, in the spirit of self-preservation, are not moved into positive actions by all these, simply because the citizens’ welfare is not the motive.
Furthermore, there is a monetization policy wherein public officials pay a valued sum, at the end of their tenures of office, to assume ownership of certain operational items such as furniture, stationery and vehicles, including in some cases, residential accommodations. The idea is to take the attendant maintenance costs off the shoulders of the public. It thus implies that at the inception of every dispensation, there are budgets for those used and disposed items. This has been the practice in the three arms and three tiers of government in the country. No doubt, it contributes to the unfortunate high cost of governance which ought to have been addressed before now. But the elites will feign ignorance only to politicize it at every four-year interval just to maximally exploit the general mood of the masses in maligning and vilifying the legislature. It bears repeating that since 1999, there has yet to be a specific campaign championed by the elites for a reduction of the cost of governance, across the board. Not even one! The issue of purchasing vehicles for public officials which incidentally is lawful has rather become a seasonal warfare surreptitiously targeted at engineering massive perception of the lawmakers as being insensitive and wasteful. The presidency, governors, local council chairmen, ministers, commissioners and heads of MDAs as well as other sundry appointees are immune to such public attacks and clamour for national sacrifice. Even some of the vocal elites have variously benefitted from this policy. So one can sense sufficient contradictions in most of the commentaries in the land. Otherwise, calls for national sacrifice should not be selective and seasonal.
Though there are several other key areas to underscore the fake bravados and skewed narratives supporting the warped ideologies of the elites, this intervention is a clarion call to the masses. They should see the urgent need to liberate themselves from the slavish allegiance to a moribund convention that has since mortgaged their future. People should realize that stupidity is knowing the truth and believing otherwise and also that doing the right at the wrong time smacks of hypocrisy. They should interrogate every offering of the elites to see if it supports good governance, inclusivity and political participation where citizens’ welfare defines every word and deed.
This is because the elites at every contact point are determined to advance their cause. As such they keep playing the ostrich and propagating diversionary narratives aimed at holding the masses down perpetually. And also, it is only when their partisan interests conflict that they resort to public commentaries which are veiled efforts at inciting the masses against the government, particularly the legislature. Their criticisms are merely impassioned rhetoric motivated by political expediency and self-preservation, especially about the last general election.
Otherwise, are they just realizing that fundamental issues have been crying for attention for a long in the country? Do they have a history of being the solutions beyond grandstanding? Why do insecurity, corruption, electoral fraud and social inequality still fester in the country, if truly the elites are altruistic? Where did the individual elites stand during the last general elections?
But in the interim fellow countrymen and women, may we always remember that “self-preservation is the first law of nature” while “the people that do us most harm are the people that shield us from reality”. For it is only in this that Nigeria can develop meaningfully.
Egbo is a parliamentary affairs analyst
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.”
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.
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)
-
News3 days agoBill to establish National Cashew Production and Research Institute in Kogi passes first reading in Senate
-
Security1 week agoNigerian Coast Guard: Citizens warned against extortion as passage of bill is being awaited
-
Politics1 week agoRetired military officer, colonel Gbenga Adegbola, joins APC with 13,000 supporters
-
Politics1 week agoCPDPL accuses Adeyanju of orchestrating smear campaign against FCT Minister Wike
-
News3 days agoShehu Sani debunks Governor Uba Sani’s alleged diversion of LG funds, challenges El-Rufai to publicly tender evidence
-
News3 days agoPlateau gov’t expresses concern over violence in Shendam LGA, calls for calm
-
News3 days agoReport of attack on Wike’s Port Harcourt residence false, misleading – Police
-
Sports4 days agoMerino gives Arsenal win over Chelsea