Category: Opinion

Quite often, when a nation is dire straits, it is resistance groups that rally to save that nation. Just as the “partagiani,” the diverse coalition of Italian resistance fought fascist leader Benito Mussolini, NADECO, a diverse coalition of Nigerian partisans, fought the Abacha regime in order to restore democracy. In Italy, it was a populist working class movement of political and military elements that eventually freed Italy from fascism in the early parts of the 1940s. Despite NADECO’s efforts, the propitious end of the Abacha regime in 1998 followed a distinctively different trajectory. But NADECO’s role remains indisputable.

Since often life tends to mimics art, this may well be satirical essay that grapples with some rude realities of Nigeria’s realpolitik. Then again, it may not be.

For the third time in over six decades, Nigeria’s nationhood and democracy are once again under severe threat, this time from unfettered illiberalism, and orchestrated drift toward monocracy and one-party state. This much is beyond debate. The sustaining tenets of viable democracies are all under assault in Nigeria. There is gross diminution of ordered liberties. Separation and balance of power is vividly absent. The responsibility to protect has become a mere cliché. So, besides the civil war years and the absolutionist Abacha era, Nigerians are once again, asking under President Bola Tinubu’s leadership: Which way Nigeria?

If Nigeria were to be a Fortune 500 company, she would have a Board of Trustees or Board of Directors. These would be persons of high integrity and irreproachable credentials; who though not directly responsible for the day-to-day running of the nation, will do whatever heavy lifting that is required of them, to keep the nation secure and functional. Two indistinct groups fit this bill: the so-called owners of Nigeria, and Nigeria’s Legitimisers. Some would readily discount the existence of any such groups; or that at best; attest to their being an amorphous group of individuals that selfishly arrogate to themselves, undue influence in national affairs. That unfortunately is neither their bona fides nor forte.

Owners of Nigeria are by no means the Legitimisers in Nigeria. Members of both cadres cross-fertilize and they are respectively and distinctly involved in the multidisciplinary efforts at nation-building. Often, they operate remotely. A commonality shared by both groups, is the informal and unstructured nature of the two cadres. Both also exist and operate outside formal government structures, even as some might have served in government in one capacity of the other, either as civilian or military officials. As unstructured and informal as both bodies are, they play a critical role in the political and development trajectory of Nigeria. The owners of Nigeria are mostly those, who as young men, fought to keep Nigeria intact. They are now aged patriots, but a concerted bunch that is averse to seeing the Nigerian nation disintegrate.

The Legitimisers are fewer in numbers. They are also subsumed in the larger nucleus consisting of owners of Nigeria. Whereas the owners of Nigeria are the custodians and titular successors of the founding fathers, and thus represent in the main, those who fought hard to keep Nigeria whole; the Legitimisers are the national sentinels, who are frequently consulted on vital national eldership issues. It is they, who validate national decisions, including those who are presumably fit to lead Nigeria. They will readily disavow meddling in governance matters, but are rarely shy of individually or collectively acknowledging or wielding their superlative influence. Hence, prospective, presumptive and incumbent Nigerian leaders are tacitly beholden to their imprimatur. They informally authentic candidates considered prima-facie qualified to run for the Nigerian presidency, before such candidates are presented to the voting electorate.

When two or three of the Legitimisers speak up openly, on any national issues, things begin to happen; the policy and practical wheels begin to churn. Some are so influential, they hardly grant press interviews. Reportedly, in mid-November 1993, when some critical national stakeholders gathered at the Flag Staff House on Marina, Lagos, to decide the composition of the Abacha regime after the ousting of Interim National Government (ING), a handful of the Legitimisers were present; they would, in the national interest, largely validate the end of the ING and the return of the military to power after six months. It was they, who supposedly sanctioned some trenchant opposition and NADECO activists joining the Abacha regime.

Ahead of return to participatory democracy in 1999, it was the Legitimisers that proffered the qualifier of “a safe hand” to guide Nigeria. When late President Umaru Yar’Adua was on his deathbed, and the “Doctrine of Necessity” was being bandied around, it was the Legitimisers that gave the non-existent notion their nod, thus allowing it to gain traction and become a redemptive national policy.

In 2015, it was the Legitimisers that tacitly gave a nod to the formation of APC, as a means of strengthening Nigeria’s democracy and getting eclectic politicians with otherwise divergent styles, beliefs, means and modalities, to rally to a consensus as an alliance opposition party. The subterranean consideration was to ensure that the North-South leadership balance, which was intermittently disturbed by natural attrition and the death of Umaru Yar’Adua, was redressed. There are indications, that the Legitimisers are favourably disposed to endorse another political alliance going into 2027.

It is believed, that the Legitimisers, in the national interest, also looked the other way, by tacitly acquiescing to the emergence of Bola Tinubu, despite the very flawed 2023 presidential elections, in order to sustain the merits of foundational policy of rotating presidency between the North and the South. In this sense, they made the tactical decision that played down a credible electoral outcome, in favour of sustainable and unbroken democracy, since 1999. By 2023, the Legitimisers were seemingly acquainted with Peter Obi, but not sufficiently to grant him a carte blanche to the Nigerian presidency. They needed to study him more, grasp the diversity and credentials of those around him, and ensure also that he would stick to his political undertakings, well beyond what his Manifesto or slogans promised.

Because the Legitimisers will not implicitly or explicitly endorse Nigeria’s return to military rule under any guise, the Nigerian military has essentially remained subservient to elected civilian authorities, since 1999.

The Legitimisers are detribalized patriots, who may have political sympathies, but are hardly ever partisans. They don’t carry party cards. Yet their exulted positions make them an asset to any party in power; and also grant them unfettered access to any incumbent Nigerian leader. When they speak, wise leaders listen. Their public remarks, when uttered, elicit prompt policy responses. Recently, when two Legitimisers spoke openly about the spiraling killings in Nigeria by armed bandits, the policy response wheels immediately began to churn. Insiders believe that it was the Legitimisers that persuaded President Bola Tinubu to put the leadership of the Ministry of Defence back into the hands of an experienced military officer and that more changes can be expected in that context.

Two tasks presently preoccupy the Legitimisers. First, is the expeditious retracting of secular Nigeria from crag of being categorized as the fulcrum for religiously induced genocide, a situation that is already eliciting international attention. Second, is to determine, Nigeria’s next leader, cognizant that Nigerians are fed up with the lackluster performance of the Tinubu administration. This consideration assumes greater impetus with emerging evidence that the 2023 elections were exceedingly rigged. The underlying thrust of any action in this direction will be predicated largely on national interest and more importantly, with a sole focus of keeping corporate Nigeria whole.

The Legitimisers may have witnessed various aspects of Nigeria’ socio-economic and developmental fabric damaged irreparably by transactional politicians; but they will definitely not stand and be witnesses to the destruction and implosion of Nigeria. For this reason, while the Legitimisers will discernibly not be seen as taking sides; they will, like puppeteers, ensure that Nigeria’s ongoing political kabuki, does not default to uncontrollable tremors and chasms. Their focus will be to ensure that the 2027 elections are as transparent and credible as possible, in order to keep our democracy on an even keel and the chain that started in 1999, unbroken. To that end, the balance of power will be constitutionally orchestrated to remain in the south for the remaining four years. But who will be at the helm for those four years is still up for debate and consideration. Noting can be taken for granted.

While the Legitimisers talk to each other routinely, of late, from the various power centres in the North, South, East and West, they have intensified their consultative role. They are constructively engaged with owners of Nigeria. They understand the urgency. They are visibly perturbed. Daily, they have watched and heard Nigerians vent their anguish. They have also seen the gory photos of Nigerians being slaughtered in peace time. They have witnessed Nigeria’s lost glory as a respected global player. So, can Nigeria’s Legitimisers save Nigeria from perdition? Perhaps! They know they must act decisively before it is too late. And I suspect they are doing so. We pray, in the national interest that they will succeed as they have always done. God bless the Legitimisers; and God bless and save Nigeria.

———-

Obaze is MD/CEO, Selonnes Consult – a policy, governance and management consulting firm in Awka.

-By Abdul Mahmud

The news from Advocates Sans Frontieres France should trouble every conscience. Eighty two Nigerian women now sit on death row in different correctional centres. Their stories never for once told hide behind the walls. Their names rarely appear in public conversations. Their lives only exist in the long shadow of a criminal justice system that refuses to see women as full persons. The Country Director of ASF France, Angela Uzoma Iwuchukwu, spoke in Abuja this week. Her words opened a window into a crisis long ignored, even by advocates of civil liberties. Nigeria now has one of the highest female death row populations in sub Saharan Africa, she said. These women face the death penalty, a punishment that many scholars describe as gendered violence orchestrated by the state. How sad that the law turns its back on these women. Courts ignore the years of suffering that often precede the moment that leads to criminal charge.

Many women on death row reacted to prolonged abuse. Some faced domestic violence. Some faced forced marriages. Some endured sexual assault. Some lived for years with controlling partners who ruled their bodies. When violence reached a breaking point, they pushed back. When that moment produced death, the law moved against them with speed. Prosecutors treated them as aggressors. Courts stripped their stories of context. The feminist legal theorist Carol Smart warned that the law often behaves like a male language. It speaks in the tongue of power, or what Judith Butler, the author of Bodies That Matter, described as the logic of the masculine symbolic order that decides which bodies are recognised and which bodies can be ignored. It excludes women from its moral universe. The Nigerian experience proves both Smart and Butler right. When abused women stand before courts, the law reads their acts as rebellion against social order. Courts punish them not only for the offence but for refusing to remain silent victims.

This is what Uzoma Iwuchukwu described as the double punishment that women face. First for the act that leads to conviction. Second for daring to act at all. Nigerian judges rarely apply doctrines like the battered woman syndrome. Nigerian prosecutors rarely present the social conditions that shaped the accused. Nigerian investigators rarely ask why a woman acted in the way she did. A leading scholar of domestic violence whose name I cannot recall now once argued that law often refuses to see coercive control as a continuous process. It treats violence as single events. It ignores the history of abuse. That blindness appears again and again in Nigerian courtrooms.

Poverty deepens this crisis. Many women on death row had no legal representation during investigation. Some had lawyers who lacked training in gender sensitive defence. Some had no money to secure independent medical reports. Some could not speak English. Some could not read their own statements. These failures carry the mark of what gender activists call intersectionality. Women suffer from overlapping layers of marginalisation. Gender. Class. Poverty. Culture. The law punishes those layers with a cold indifference. The situation in northern states under Sharia law raises further questions. The 2002 Katsina case of Amina Lawal offers a painful example. A young woman was sentenced to death by stoning for becoming pregnant outside marriage. The sentence which violated international human rights standards, conflicted with the African Charter, and contradicts the principle of human dignity, was eventually set aside by the Sharia Court of Appeal. As I have consistently argued, punishments that destroy the body cannot stand in a modern legal order. Nigeria continues to apply them. These women do not receive proper legal aid. They do not receive counsel trained in Sharia procedural rights. They stand before courts that see pregnancy as proof of wrongdoing. They carry the full weight of perverse judgements. But, it takes two to tango. Their partners escape accountability. The culture of silence protects the men. The full force of the law falls on the women. Alone.

The Nigerian Correctional Centres hide the daily struggles of these women. Many live with untreated trauma. Many carry injuries from past abuse. Many raise children in prison. Scholars like Julia Sudbury describe this as the prison industrial punishment of women who are already victims. Nigeria mirrors this pattern. The system treats their pains as irrelevant. The system measures only their offence. The death penalty itself raises moral and constitutional problems. Nigeria continues to retain it. Nigeria continues to sentence people under laws inherited from colonial rule. The United Nations has urged countries to restrict the death penalty for the most serious crimes. For women charged with murder arising from domestic violence, the law ignores international standards that call for mitigation based on personal history. Hannah Arendt wrote that violence flourishes when the state loses moral authority. The state gains no moral authority when it kills women who acted to save their own lives. The criminal justice system claims to defend social order. It ends up defending patriarchy. It creates a cycle in which women face violence in the home and violence in the courtroom.

The 16 Days of Activism Against Gender Based Violence should move Nigeria to reflection. This country cannot talk about ending violence against women while sentencing women who once fought for their own survival to the death row. Gender based violence does not end with awareness campaigns. It ends when the law listens. It ends when judges understand trauma. It ends when police treat abuse as a crime. It ends when prosecutors recognise the role of coercive control. Reform must begin with investigation. Police officers need training in interviewing survivors of domestic violence. Prosecutors need guidelines that demand full inquiry into the background of female defendants. Courts need sentencing frameworks that recognise the role of prolonged abuse. Legal aid must reach every woman. Civil society organisations must have access to women on death row. Sharia courts require urgent review, if not abolition. Punishments that destroy the body belong to an age that no longer exists. Nigeria must bring those courts in line with constitutional guarantees of dignity. Women must not face death by stoning. Pregnancy must not function as evidence of guilt. Nigeria must also confront the culture that keeps women silent. Violence inside homes continues because society treats it as a private matter. Domestic violence is a crime. Survivor stories must shape public policy. Scholars like bell hooks (the scholar who prefers her name in lower case) remind us that patriarchy survives through silence. Breaking that silence remains the first step to freedom.

The eighty two women on death row represent a national failure. They represent the refusal of the state to protect the vulnerable. They represent a justice system that sees women through a distorted lens. Their continued imprisonment exposes the gap between constitutional promises and lived reality. Our country must not turn away from them. Their stories deserve attention. Their lives deserve compassion. Their trials deserve review. Justice must mean more than the mechanical application of law. Justice must reflect the human condition. Justice must listen to the voices that society has long pushed to the margins. Our country cannot claim progress while women wait for death in forgotten cells. Their freedom begins with truth. Their protection begins with reform. Their survival begins with a criminal justice system that treats them as human beings.

Thank you, Angela Uzoma Iwuchukwu, for drawing our country’s attention to the plight of the forgotten women on death row.

Finally, the chicken has come home to roost. That which we were forewarned about has come upon us. As the late Ghanaian poet and literary icon, Koofi Awoonor, says in “Songs of Sorrow,” “Death has made war upon our house.” Kidnappers, terrorists, extremists, and all manner of criminal cartels, who dared not lift their heads to look in our faces in time past, have come out as men. Criminals, who rape our women, murder our citizens in cold blood, abduct our children (including nursery and primary school pupils), task us on ransoms as though they loaned money to us.

We are paying the price of the obstinate refusal of successive administrations since the fall of the First Republic to allow Nigeria to run like a federation. The introduction of the highly misplaced Decree 34 of 1966 by the General Aguiyi Ironsi Administration, which put Nigeria on the path of unitary form of government as opposed to the federalism adopted after various painstaking conferences in Nigeria and London by our founding fathers set the state for our sorry state. The Ironsi Regime set up a body look at the desirability of unifying the Nigeria Police and Local Government Police. The irony is that the General Yakubu Gowon Regime, populated by those who overthrew Ironsi and made him pay the supreme price for his unitary tendencies supposedly aimed to pocket the rest of the country, and quickly nullified the contentious Decree 34 of 1966, still went ahead to foist a unitary police system on the country. This is as opposed to a decentralised police system with various layers of police services that subsisted until the coming of the military.

That was not all. From 1966 till the last military regime quit in May 1999, a lot of harm was done to the federal structure that birthed Nigeria’s golden era. The result is the Nigeria we have today – a nation beset by security and economic woes. While the introduction of unitary police gradually made the nation vulnerable to insecurity, the destruction of fiscal federalism and subsequent introduction of what former Deputy President of the Senate, Senator Ike Ekweremadu, christened “Feeding Bottle Federalism,” destroyed the creativity, self-reliance, and competitive growth that gave rise to the economic successes recorded before the 1966 coups.

However, as far as I am concerned, the military is no longer to blame, as 26 unbroken years of democracy are more than enough to right the wrongs we felt the military had done to Nigeria. I recall that Ekweremadu pushed for the decentralisation of policing since the Sixth National Assembly until the Ninth National Assembly. When hapless Nigerians were massacred in Barkin Ladi, Plateau State, in 2018, an already frustrated Ekweremadu forewarned that the most painful part was not just that many hapless citizens were massacred, but also that more people would be killed and more villages overrun. In his words, “there is no way you will have a big federation like Nigeria with all the diversities, and continue to operate a centralised policing.” Sadly, people who should know were more interested politics and narrow interests.

Working closely with the Senate Committee on Constitution Review as Ekweremadu’s media aide afforded one the privilege of understanding the underpinning ethnic and regional politics as well as unfounded fears, claims and sentiments that have torpedoed every attempt to introduce state police over several Assemblies. But perhaps, the greatest enemy of state police, in my opinion, is the selfish belief by successive presidents that it is in their best interest to have a total control of all legitimate instruments of coercion in their firm grips – an assumption that have severally boomeranged in their faces. They only see the need for state police after leaving. This is where President bola Tinubu is different.

It is therefore heartwarming seeing the consensus that now flow in favour of state police – even from the unlikeliest quarters. Only a few days ago, the top echelon of the northern political leadership and intelligentsia – governors, top traditional rulers led by the revered Sultan Sa’ad Abubakar III, top security chiefs, among others – all gathered at the Kashim Iman House to unanimously endorse state police. As former Chairman of the Senate Committee on Rules and Business and one of the critics of Ekweremadu’s State Police Bill, Senator Ita Enang, once confessed on Channels TV’s “Politics Today,” “state police is an idea, which time has come.” It is an emergency and he was no longer interested in what the governors could do with it, so long as they protect the people.

Quite significantly – and also ironically – support for this paradigm shift has equally come from former President Goodluck Jonathan and former Head of State, General Abdulsalami Abubakar (Retd.). Of course, the recent meeting of the Southern Governors Forum and the Southern Nigerian Traditional Rulers Council in Ogun also came up with the same verdict.

However, beside the harsh realities in the form of a worrisome wave of insecurity, the credit to the momentum and consensus state police now enjoys should go to President Tinubu for body language, statements, and federalist dispositions, including the devolving of more powers to the states. The president also gave a new kick to the push for state police during his recent declaration of emergency on insecurity. The president declared that “Our administration will support state governments, which have set up security outfits to safeguard their people from the terrorists bent on disrupting our national peace.” He also asked the National Assembly to “begin reviewing our laws to allow states that require state police to establish them.”

Indeed, in the face of rising insecurity in recent times, the president has shown uncommon courage and the political will to navigate Nigeria away from doom. From changing the service chiefs across the military services to the appointment of former Chief of the General Staff, General Christopher Musa as new Minister of Defence, to the directive for the mass recruitment across the military services and the police as well as the recent approval by the National Economic Council, the sum of N100 billion proposed by the Governor Peter Mbah-led Committee for the Revamp of Police and other Security Training Institutions, President Tinubu has displayed a strong will to fix the nation’s security lapses.

However, of particular commendation is his recognition of the fact that security is local. Thus, he went ahead to not only show the political will to see state policing through, but to also support local security initiatives by governors. Talking about local initiatives, what Governor Mbah is doing with security in Enugu State clearly demonstrates how far a purposeful state government can go to secure a state. In less than three years as governor, he has changed the Enugu security story. He has invested heavily in the construction of a state-of-the-art Command and Control Centre matched with AI-enabled cameras mounted across Enugu State for full surveillance. He set up the Distress Response Squad, a special police unit powered by over 150 security vehicles fixed with AI-embedded cameras for effective patrol of the state to mitigate crimes and also ensure a quick response to crime situations. Just recently, he launched hitech equipments like high-impact drones and patrol vehicles to strengthen the war against insecurity in his state. We have also seen how he dusted up Enugu’s dormant law to demolish several properties used for kidnapping in the state to send a warning to the criminals that crime does not pay. It could therefore be imagined what Mbah would do when additionally armed by the constitution to set up a state police for Enugu State.

Now that the president has accorded the National Assembly the desired political support to amend our constitution to birth state police, the onus is now on the apex legislative body to get cracking. One of the legacies of the Ekweremadu leadership of the constitution review processes of the National Assembly is the introduction of an incremental approach. Unlike in previous Assemblies where all the proposed amendments were lumped into one bill and the failure of one (such as the tenure elongation proposal) meant the failure of every other amendment, including popular ones, the Ekweremadu-led approach ensured that proposals were broken into different bills. That way, they succeed or fail independent of the rest.

The point here is that the Tenth National Assembly does not need to wait for the rest of the proposed amendments to be ready before proceeding with the amendment to create state police. That would be time-wasting. They should emulate the example of the Sixth National Assembly following the controversies and near constitutional crisis that arose over non-transmission of power to the then Vice President Goodluck Jonathan during the late President Umaru Musa Yar’Adua illness in 2010. Once the constitutional order was salved via the Doctrine of Necessity and Jonathan ascended the presidential seat, that Assembly quickly proposed and processed a single bill that led to the amendment of Section 145 and 190 of the Constitution. Consequently, once the president or governor is absent for more than 21 days, the vice president or deputy governor automatically assumes office in acting capacity, letter or no letter.

Again, given the extensive work that went into Ekweremadu’s Bill for the Creation of State Police, the National Assembly has a brilliant document to dust up and work with. The special thing about the Ekweremadu bill is that it consciously and meticulously addresses the critical issues of structure, standardisation, control, armament, disciplining, co-existence with federal police, and, importantly, the fears of abuse by state governors. The bill benefits from best practices around the world, especially federal climes like the US, Canada, and Brazil.

Now, with national momentum and presidential willpower in favour of state police, plus a ready document to work with, the ball is now in the court of the National Assembly. Let the amendment begin.

Anichukwu is Media aide to Enugu State Governor, Peter Mbah.

By Oseloka H. Obaze

To insiders, the proverbial glass is neither hardly ever half full nor half empty. Insiders, who also know where the proverbial corpses are buried, can always tell if a glass was half-filled, or full, and drank down to half. In our present national circumstances, only outsiders who are not within the realm and orbit of critical decision-making would presume a glass to be half full or half empty, more so in moments of heady decision making pertaining to national security issues confronting Nigeria.

There are inherent dangers in deploying expedient semantics into national security matters.  For national security policies to be efficacious, the situations, issues, actors, scenarios, assessments and decisions must each be explicitly characterized; and those characterizations, must be commonly shared, without any ambiguities. Failure to do so has dire consequences. Consequently, lack of clarity in the identification, definition and assessment of prevalent challenges, risks eliciting inadequate or wrong policy responses. This is a risk presently comforting Nigeria. History can be instructive. In 1991, Iraq invaded Kuwait, months after an American envoy, reportedly offered a politically correct, but offer-hand response to Saddam Hussein that was laden with semantic ambiguity. The consequences were dire, for Kuwait and for Iraq.

Whereas diplomats can and do have the professional prerogative of deploying obfuscating words when conveying variants of messages; in tactical, intelligence, military and security matters, wordings and language pertaining to policies, command, control and communication, has to be clear, precise, unfettered and disambiguated. There is clear and present danger inherent in the ensuing controversy over the semantics on the prevailing insecurity in Nigeria, and whether the conduct, actions and results of the ongoing visceral violence, bloodletting and killings, are tantamount to genocide or not.

Genocide has very clear definition, global examples and thresholds.  Genocide is not a one-off event, but a progressive gruesome pogrom that manifests fully, if left unchecked.  By definition, “Genocide is the deliberate, systematic destruction of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group.”   And here is the crux of the issue; has Nigeria reached the applicable threshold? Are the globally applicable benchmarks for determining genocide, now prevalent in Nigeria?

Put in its proper context, Raphael Lemkin, the coiner of that terminology, did state that “genocide does not necessarily mean the immediate destruction of a nation. It is intended rather to signify a coordinated plan of different actions aiming at the destruction of essential foundations of the life of national groups, with the aim of annihilating the groups themselves.”  Coordinated plan.  Different actions. Destruction of essential foundations. Aim of annihilating groups.  These are critical component of the genocide mosaic. Horrible things happen when a series of small unchecked actions converge.

In 1948, by virtue of the U.N. Genocide Convention, any form of linguistic ambiguities arising from semantics, was removed, and the legal definitional basis of measuring acts of genocide was expanded to include, “acts like killing, causing serious harm, imposing conditions of life that lead to destruction, preventing births, and forcibly transferring children of the group.”   The common variables of genocide are the perpetrators, the intent, the act, and the victims.

Nigerians are acutely aware that numerous Nigerians have been and are still being killed.  Most are targeted and killed as a collective:  in their farms, homesteads, communities or in their churches. Nigerians know also of the pervasive insecurity nationwide, as well as killings arising from herders-farmers conflict, and those from Boko Haram insurgency.  Above all, Nigerians know of the rise in banditry, the ungoverned spaces, and undoubtedly, the fact that indigenous communities were being sacked and Christian churches were being razed, and their congregations brazenly killed in cold bold.   Names of communities like Owo, Basa, Oturkpo, Akpanta, Guma, Yelunta, Wanunne,  Gwoza, Tsafe, Giedam and Mangu,  gradually crept into the national consciousness and lexicon, as places where massacres took place.  These were places and silos where genocidal acts might have been committed.

Across the nation, the number of killings has risen progressively. And beyond doubt, the key variables remain ever present in every instance:  the intent, the act, the victims, and the perpetrators. Because the perpetrators were extremist groups, notably Boko Haram and the Islamic State in West Africa Province (ISWAP), it matters little, if you term their activities Jihadist or Genocide.  The enormity and consistency of the killings cannot be ignored or diluted by labels and definitions. In 2024, well over 2,194 people were killed by Fulani armed bandits. In the first quarter of 2025 alone, 2,266 people were killed.  These represent a high fraction of the over 600,000 deaths arising from insecurity nationwide between 2024 and first half of 2025.

The irony was and remains that those who obliquely and conveniently favoured or tacitly deferred to a jihadist intent and mission, were mute as their compatriots were being slaughtered. Once the acts were characterized as genocide, the same people turned defensive promptly.  As it turned out, the nation itself was in utter denial, more so, the leadership and the ruling APC government.  It took U.S. President Donald Trump to utter the defining G-word on 31 October, 2025 and declare Nigeria a “Country of Particular Concern” for the national leadership to awake from its pathetic slumber.

Those who have argued that in Nigeria, Christian and Muslims alike were being killed may have a point, insofar as those killings were those resulting from farmers-herders and other resource-control induced conflicts.   But the ISWAP bandits and Fulani jihadists were and are still on a well-defined mission of annihilation.  We cannot gloss over this reality. Their audacity, scope, capacity, resources, are also indicative of broad internal or external support.   Nigeria’s combined national security apparatus seems by design or default, utterly incapable of interdicting and containing the bandits. As internal compromises are made, and infiltration becomes rife, Nigerian soldiers are being mercilessly slaughtered.  The fate of defenseless civilians is even more precarious and dire.

Besides the annihilation tendencies, when entire communities are sacked, their homesteads are frequently occupied and their natural resources coveted by the bandits and their paymasters.  So, if the goal is not genocide, then it must be economic and the appropriation of rare earth minerals domiciled in the environs of the sacked communities.  Either way, Nigeria is at grave risk.

While the inherent dangers of semantics in the national security orbit persists, secular Nigeria, certainly, does not want to join the  ranks of nations only remembered for being places where unfettered massacres took place and acts of genocide were perpetrated.  The trajectory to that dubious distinction, which is already afoot, starts with willful governmental indifference, denial and inaction.  Historically, there are striking similarities between the emergence of Fulani bandits in Nigeria and the emergence of the Al-Shabaab militia in Somalia and the Janjaweed militia in Sudan.  We know where Somalia and Sudan have been as war torn nations. We need not toe that path.

Nigeria is already a very polarized nation at war with itself.  Early warnings are indicative. So, whether the ongoing killings in Nigeria are sufficiently sectarian to qualify as jihad, genocide or not, is immaterial.  This is not the time for our leaders to be apologetic or to deploy exculpatory semantics.  Given Nigeria’s diversity, the dismembering of any ethnicity, religion, or indigenous community is not a circus. Put plainly, here is the inconvenient truth. There is an unfolding dissembling process in Nigeria.  These killings represent a precursor to more entrenched mayhem if left unchecked. If these acts seem, smell, sound, feel, or are coloured like genocide, then the process must be stopped before it is concretized, and Nigeria arrives a point of no return, where it will be confirmed that acts of genocide were indeed perpetrated, even if in silos.

Deploying semantics, apologies and negotiations as rationalizing ploys or policies is starkly defeatist. We are at war with the bandits.   Let’s fight that war in a full frontal manner or risk being consumed. Rule of law and the responsibility to protect Nigerians, compel immediate action, not apologia.  A stitch in time saves nine.

———-

Obaze is MD/CEO, Selonnes Consult – a policy, governance and management consulting firm in Awka.

By Uche Anichukwu

While discussing the 2025 edition of BudgIT’s State of the State Report, an annual publication that evaluates long-term fiscal performance and sustainability of Nigerian states, Arise News ace presenter and social activist, Rufai Oseni, described Enugu State’s emergence as the likeliest state to survive outside of the receipts from the Federation Account Allocation Committee, FAAC, as “The Enugu Miracle.”

His words: “All of a sudden, Enugu has become a haven for raising money. The Governor Mbah some people never gave a chance is doing so well. He is putting digitisation in place. Enugu is now part of the few states in the country that are actually viable; that is, if they do not get FAAC, they should be able to run… If Enugu can do it, if Enugu can create a miracle – the Enugu Miracle – then what are others doing?”

One cannot but agree with Oseni, especially given where the state is coming from. Indeed, Enugu’s surge under Governor Peter Mbah can be likened to the miracle of five loaves and two fish as recorded in Matthew 14: 14-21. Observing that the multitude that was with him since morning was hungry, Jesus’ disciples asked him to release them to go into the villages to find something to eat. But Jesus, instead, asked them to feed the multitude – to which they exclaimed in bewilderment that they had just five loaves of bread and two fish left. But Christ took that little, blessed it, and asked his disciples to serve it. 5,000 persons were fed. Yet, in the end, 12 baskets of leftovers were gathered.

According to BudgIT’s 2025 State of the States Report, Enugu State is the most probable state to finance its operating expenses exclusively from internally generated revenue (IGR) without relying on FAAC. The findings were based on Index A, which measures states’ ability to meet recurrent expenditure obligations relying only on IGR. The research methodology for Index A was the ratio of operating expenses to the state’s IGR.

According to BudgIT, states that rank higher on this index exhibit greater financial autonomy and long-term viability. “States that perform strongly on Index A have comparatively limited dependence on FAAC allocations and thus possess greater viability if they were to theoretically exist as independent entities,” the Report states.

The ranking in this regard shows that Enugu State scored 0.68, implying that 68 percent of the state’s IGR would have catered to its operating expenses. Enugu is trailed in the top five states by Lagos State (0.83), Abia State (1.56), Anambra State (1.66), and Kwara State (1.73).

On Index A1, which measures IGR growth, Enugu again leads the ranking, followed by Bayelsa, Abia, Osun, and Kano. These states recorded the strongest momentum in boosting internally generated revenues during the 2024 fiscal year. According to BudgIT, “While it may be too early to celebrate, as the uptick could partly reflect increased inflows from federation transfers, it is a much better performance than the previous year.”

In the meantime, whereas Enugu and Lagos lead in IGR ranking, fewer states meet the 50 per cent threshold, as BudgIT’s 2025 State of the States report shows that the number of states generating enough revenue to cover their operating expenses has reduced compared to 2024. Unfortunately, according to BudgIT, 28 states still depend significantly on federal transfers and other external inflows to fund their operations.

Meanwhile, whereas those who have expressed surprise at Enugu State’s ranking are in order, especially given where the state is coming from in terms of IGR, those who have keenly followed the state’s giant strides and redirection under Governor Peter Mbah, actually saw it coming.

For instance, Mbah has drastically reversed the state’s Recurrent Expenditure-heavy budget culture – which is actually a subsisting national tradition. Before his coming, the state’s Capital Expenditure hovered around figures not exceeding N30bn, which amounted to about a Capital Expenditure to budget ratio of about 25 to 35 per cent. But in the 2024 budget, Mbah tweaked things positively for the state. That budget consisted of N107.2 billion Recurrent Expenditure or 21 per cent of the record N521.5bn budget and a Capital Expenditure of N414.3 billion, representing 79 per cent of the budget.

While Nigerians thought that they had seen it, with the new order earning the Mbah Administration reviews by public analysts and editorial comments by several national dailies, he actually took it a notch higher in 2025 budget. The budget comprises N837.9 billion Capital Expenditure, representing 86 per cent of the N971 billion budget, and N133.1 billion Recurrent Expenditure, representing only 14 per cent of the entire budget.

However, of great significance is the state’s quantum leap in terms of IGR profile. Although Mbah met the state’s IGR at N30bn in May 2023, he ramped it up to N37bn by the close of that year and scaled it up to N180.05bn by the end of 2024, marking a nearly 400 per cent increase in the state’s IGR profile.

Expectedly, the question on the lips of many is: how was that possible? Basically, whatever has happened in the IGR space is rooted in the principles of transparency, traceability, and accountability of the Mbah Administration. The state’s IGR drive has benefitted so much from the technology to block leakages and also from widening the tax net to bring more people into the revenue stream without increasing the tax rate.

The Secretary to the State Government, SSG, Prof. Chidiebere Onyia, provided a deeper insight into the state’s IGR revolution in his keynote address at a recent high-level strategy retreat organised by the Governor’s Revenue Assurance Team. In the keynote speech at the retreat themed “From Silos to Synergy: Achieving Unified Revenue Targets Through Coordination and Accountability,” Prof. Onyia gave a participant-witness account of Enugu’s transformative journey, which has practically redefined governance, accountability, and fiscal performance in the state.

“When Governor Peter Mbah entrusted us with the mandate to reposition Enugu as a model of efficiency and innovation, we knew that business-as-usual would no longer suffice. We needed a bold shift from fragmented silos to a unified, data-driven, and performance-oriented revenue ecosystem. One of the most decisive reforms we undertook was the complete stoppage of cash collection across all MDAs. This was not merely a procedural change; it was a philosophical shift toward transparency and traceability,” he stated.

The result is that in Enugu State of today, every payment is now routed through digital platforms, ensuring real-time monitoring and eliminating leakages. This bold move has radically reduced opportunities for sharp practices and also enhanced public confidence in the revenue collection system. It has equally helped the administration to build a central revenue intelligence dashboard, allowing the government to monitor every transaction across the state.

Furthermore, the administration introduced a Performance Appraisal Framework for all Ministries, Departments, and Agencies, with each MDA now assigned clear revenue targets linked to their operational mandates. But it does not end with the targets. Monthly and quarterly reviews are conducted, with performance scorecards publicly shared. This enables the government to place underperforming agencies on corrective action plans, while high performers are recognized and rewarded. Importantly, this approach has promoted a culture of healthy competition, innovation, and ownership among public servants.

The administration has also prioritised capacity building for revenue officers, concentrating on ethics, digital tools, and customer service, thus not just improving revenue, but equally strengthening the social contract between government and governed.

In the same vein, sharp practices in the revenue collection space are no longer overlooked. As the governor often points out, accountability is not just about systems; it is about consequences. Thus, the administration has maintained a resolute stance against corruption, investigating and prosecuting several cases of fraudulent revenue diversion. The administration further set up a Revenue Compliance and Enforcement Unit, which works very closely with law enforcement and the judiciary, while whistle-blower channels have been activated, thus enabling citizens to report malpractices incognito.

Importantly, the Mbah Administration has earned the faith or confidence of the people that whatever taxes and other payments they make would be used to work for them. Although there were initial hesitations primarily spurred by old experiences, the people soon realised that with Mbah, it is business unusual. With over 2,000 verifiable completed and ongoing projects spread across the 260 wards of the state, it is a case of the Igbo saying that you may preach to the blind that there is oil in the soup, but not about salt. He can tell them, using his buds.

Again, the deployment of a real-time project management dashboard has, among others, visibly strengthened the link between revenue and results, as the citizens can now see how their taxes are transforming roads, schools, hospitals and water systems in real time.

Yet, Governor Mbah will always be credited with giving governance a human face, ensuring that revenue drive is not without an ample touch of humanity. For instance, in response to complaints received about taxes and the like, he recently inaugurated a committee to carry out a comprehensive review of tax policies, rates, levies, and fees under the control of the state. The committee, which draws its membership from interest groups, market associations, government, organised labour, and the civil society, among others, is to benchmark Enugu State’s revenue practices against Lagos, Abuja, and other South East states as they relate to Land Use Charge, Certificate of Occupancy (C-of-O) fees, market levies, and stall rents, business premises registration, signage and advertisement fees, among others, and recommend reforms.

Although there is still a long way to go, if Governor Mbah continues on this trajectory, then he is on his way to actualising his campaign promise to wean Enugu State off FAAC allocations and ensure they are saved for future generations, he will also be on the path to actualising his overarching vision to grow the state’s economy sevenfold from $4.4bn to $30bn, eradicate poverty and position it as the premier destination for investment, business, tourism, and for living may well become a fait accompli. It is only a matter of time.

Anichukwu writes from Enugu

By Dr. Jamezany James 

As a recipient of the Nelson Mandela Leadership Award for Excellence and Integrity, I carry forward Madiba’s dream of a united, prosperous Africa. That vision compels us today to align Nigeria’s powerhouse Nollywood with the dynamic film industries of South Africa (Mzansi), Zimbabwe, Botswana, Namibia and the broader Southern African region — creating a synergy that amplifies stories, markets, and opportunity across the continent.

This article outlines a concrete roadmap for leveraging Nollywood’s scale, distribution networks, and production expertise to strengthen Southern Africa’s film sector, while honoring the legacy of Nelson Mandela, a true father of Africa.

Why a Nollywood‑Southern Africa Partnership Makes Strategic Sense
Opportunity. What Southern Africa Gains. What Nollywood Gains.

-Co‑productions Larger budgets, access to world‑class equipment, and post‑production labs in Lagos/Kano

-Fresh, authentic narratives rooted in Southern African cultures and stunning landscapes

-Market Access & Distribution Entry to West African markets (180 million+ viewers) and diaspora platforms

-Diversified audience for multilingual films (English, Zulu, Shona, Afrikaans, French)

-Talent Exchange Skills transfer in script development, cinematography, digital marketing, and film finance

-Exposure to Southern African storytelling traditions and emerging talent pools

-Tourism Promotion Showcase iconic sites — Kruger National Park, Victoria Falls, Cape Town’s coastline — driving tourism revenue

-New, cost‑effective location options for blockbuster shoots

-Policy Advocacy Unified voice for tax incentives, reduced equipment tariffs, and stronger anti‑piracy frameworks across SADC and ECOWAS Strengthened bargaining power in continental forums such as AfCFTA and the AU Year of Arts, Culture and Heritage

Pillars of the Collaboration
1. Joint Production Fund
– Seed capital from the Nigerian Film Corporation, the South African Film and Television Authority (SAFTA), and Zimbabwe’s Film Commission, plus private investors and development partners.
– Prioritise projects that feature at least one Southern African location, a Nigerian crew member, and multilingual scripts (e.g., English, isiZulu, Shona).

2. Talent Pipeline & Capacity Building
-Mentorships: Emerging directors from Mzansi and Zimbabwe spend 3‑month residencies at Nollywood studios in Lagos or Enugu.
-Reverse Residencies: Nigerian producers and technical staff work at Cape Town Film Studios or Zimbabwe’s New Horizons Studio to learn about shooting in diverse climates and terrains.
-Workshops: Host joint training on film finance, intellectual property, and digital distribution, led by industry veterans.

3. Distribution & Exhibition Synergy
– Distribute curated Southern African films through Nollywood’s existing channels — YouTube, DSTV, Netflix, and emerging African streaming services like Showmax.
– Reciprocal premieres at flagship festivals:South Africa’s Durban International Film Festival and my brother Zindela’s UGU Film Festival, Zimfest,Nigeria’s KILAF, LIFF, Africa International Film Festival (AFRIFF).

4. Infrastructure Sharing
– Use Cape Town’s advanced post‑production labs for colour grading and VFX; leverage Lagos’ sound‑mixing suites for large‑scale productions.
– Establish equipment rental pools in Nairobi, Johannesburg, and Harare to lower costs for cross‑border shoots.

5. Cultural Promotion & Tourism Tie‑ins
– Embed authentic Southern African languages, music, and heritage sites into Nollywood narratives (e.g., a love story set against Victoria Falls).
– Joint marketing campaigns: “Film Your Vacation” showcasing diverse African backdrops, encouraging tourists and filmmakers alike.

A Call to Action
-To Governments & Regional Bodies:
-Fast‑track bilateral co‑production treaties with clear tax breaks, simplified permit processes, and anti‑piracy measures.
-Align film policies under the African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA) to remove barriers to cross‑border production and distribution.

-To Industry Stakeholders:
-Form a Pan‑African Film Integration Task Force comprising Azania Filmmakers Association, Nigerian Film Corporation, SAFTA, and Zimbabwe Film Commission.
-Draft a measurable roadmap for 2025‑2028 with targets for co‑productions, audience reach, and job creation.

-To Leaders and Honourables:
-Honor Nelson Mandela’s legacy by championing cultural integration as a pillar of economic diplomacy.
-Use platforms such as the AU Year of Arts, Culture and Heritage to spotlight this partnership.

Closing Thought
Nollywood’s scale, Mzansi’s production polish, and Zimbabwe’s emerging creative energy are not competing silos — they are complementary forces. When we combine resources, stories, and markets, we move from isolated film scenes to a resonant African cinema that speaks to the world.

_Let our screens become bridges, our stories become unity, and our industries become one._

Dr Jamezany James
cultural diplomat, head of Azania Filmmakers Association (Pan‑Africa), recipient of the Nelson Mandela Leadership Award for Excellence and Integrity,