Category: Opinion

By Comr. Farmer. Ezeh C.J.

The concept of betrayal in politics is complex, especially when viewed through the lenses of political party loyalty, power struggle, blackmail, and conscience. In Enugu State, Nigeria, this dynamic plays out in various forms, particularly among the youth and political leaders.

Recent controversies surrounding the resignation of the former Minister of Innovation, Science and Technology, the defection of Governor Peter Mbah to the All Progressives Congress (APC), and the dissolution of state executive councils have sparked debates about party loyalty, betrayal, and blackmail.

The youths are divided on the issue of political party loyalty, betrayal, and realignment, with some prioritizing party loyalty and others emphasizing personal interests for the sake of realignment.

The call for zoning the presidency to the South-East zone has been a contentious issue, with some leaders advocating for this arrangement to ensure equity and fairness in Nigerian politics.

Power Dynamics:
The struggle for power and influence has led to accusations of betrayal among Igbo politicians. Some leaders have been accused of prioritizing personal interests over regional unity and progress.

Conscience and Political Decision-Making

Role of Conscience:
Conscience plays a crucial role in guiding politicians’ decisions, particularly when faced with moral dilemmas. However, the prioritization of power and personal gain often clouds judgment, leading to questionable decisions.

Accountability:
There is a need for accountability in politics, ensuring that leaders prioritize the interests of their constituents and adhere to ethical standards.

Perspectives on Betrayal in Enugu State Politics

Cultural and Historical Context:
The legacy of marginalization and exclusion has contributed to the politics of betrayal in Enugu State. Leaders often feel compelled to prioritize personal interests over regional interests.

Personal Ambition:
Personal ambition and the pursuit of power can lead to betrayal, as individuals prioritize their interests over collective goals.

Key Issues:

Loyalty and Betrayal: Politicians often prioritize personal interests over party loyalty, leading to defections and accusations of betrayal.

Power Struggle: Different factions within the party vie for control, resulting in internal conflicts and power struggles that can lead to blackmail and mole hunting.

Blackmail and Moles: Politicians may use sensitive information to blackmail opponents or identify moles within their ranks to gain an upper hand.

Consequences:

Loss of Trust: Betrayal can erode trust among party members and the youths, making it challenging to work toward common goals.

Internal Conflicts: Power struggles and betrayal can lead to internal conflicts, weakening the party and undermining its chances of success.

Electoral Consequences: Betrayal can also have electoral consequences, as voters may lose faith in the party’s ability to deliver on its promises.

Examples from Other Contexts:

In William Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar, Brutus’s betrayal of Caesar is a classic example of the tension between personal loyalty and public duty. Brutus’s actions are driven by a desire to protect Rome but ultimately lead to his downfall.

Similarly, in Nigerian politics, the struggle for power and loyalty can lead to betrayal and internal conflicts within parties.

The Way Forward:

To mitigate the effects of the politics of betrayal, the APC in Enugu State must prioritize building trust, promoting transparency, and fostering a culture of loyalty and integrity.

This can be achieved through:

Inclusive Leadership: Ensuring that leadership positions are based on merit and not just loyalty.

Transparency: Promoting transparency in decision-making processes and ensuring that information is accessible to all stakeholders.

Youth Engagement: Encouraging youth participation in politics and governance to promote a sense of ownership and responsibility.

By adopting these strategies, the APC can build trust, promote transparency, and foster a culture of loyalty and integrity, ultimately reducing the impact of the politics of betrayal, power struggle, and blackmail.

Partisan politics does not sit well with me. I prefer to prevent pathetic pettiness in the pursuit of political power. Alas, politics is our way of life. Life itself is about the politics of ideas, survival, and development.

I am no stranger to Nigeria’s fourth republic. I played a part in opposing the dictatorship of Abacha. I believed that the worst democracy is better than the most benevolent dictatorship. Debatable! My principal position remains that Nigeria is not sustainable as-is: Dysfunctional components do not make a viable whole.

Early 1999, I met with ex-Governor Abubakar Rimi in Marriot Hotel by Newark International Airport, USA. He looked more handsome in person. He was expecting me. Ekwueme and Obasanjo were set to jostle in Jos. We hatched a strategy: announce him as VP to Ekwueme. It did not pan out. Obasanjo announced Atiku and won.

Rimi recounted the genesis of PDP, the People’s Democratic Party. The anti-Abacha group started small and morphed into G-18. The group enlarged to G-34, with former VP Alex Ekwueme leading strong statesmen to become the founding fathers of PDP on August 31, 1998: Tony Anenih, Jerry Gana, Solomon Lar, Abubakar Rimi, Bola Ige, Sule Lamido, Adamu Ciroma, Iyorchia Ayu, Bamanga Tukur, etc.

In the southeast, we knew PDP as the party of Ekwueme. It also triumphed in the BRACED states (Bayelsa, Rivers, Akwa Ibom, Cross River, Edo, Delta). The setup was dented when Peter Obi came in on the wings of Ikemba’s APGA. PDP lost Anambra and Imo. By 2015, Buhari-Tinubu APC amalgam dealt a devastating blow to PDP. Ten years later, the gust of grab and run is almost complete. We should not worry, as longer as the “dividends of democracy” are delivered and elections are free, right? Wrong!

The dividends of democracy, the enduring slogan of Dr. Chimaroke Nnamani, were damaged by internal dysfunctions and triggered by the lack of a focused and organized opposition.

PDP policy is flawed ab initio: “Power to the people.” If we are practicing a modicum of decent democracy, power must come from the people—not given by deluded dictators masquerading as democrats.

Whatever happens after brandishing brooms and flying flags in Enugu, the PDP umbrella must not fold in opposition. Party believers could bring back the spirit of Ekwueme and Ikemba into a reformed ADC-PDP platform.

Governor Peter Mbah’s scripted exit from PDP and the glitzy entry into APC mark the end of an era. PDP was bad in opposition; hence, it got itself a good grinding in the anvil of Nyesom Wike’s money power and Atiku’s ceaseless pursuit of power.

Bottom line, we need a policy-driven political movement to ponder and project policies that will secure and safeguard the Southeast while moving Nigeria to the next level. ADC-PDP can lead the movement to restructure Nigeria, one nation at a time. The space is open in the Southeast.

Kudos to Governor Peter Mbah and company. May history judge them kindly.

@OkaaMoe
Tuesday, October 14, 2025

By Sebastine Chukwuebuka Okafor Ph.D

Certificate or document forgery can be defined as the act of making a false document, knowing it is false, and intending that it will be accepted as genuine to harm another person. According to Section 465 of the Criminal Code (Southern Nigeria), “A person who makes a false document or writing knowing it to be false, and with intent that it may in any way be used or acted upon as genuine, whether in Nigeria or elsewhere, to the prejudice of any person, is said to forge the document or writing.” In the same way, Section 362 of the Penal Code (Northern Nigeria) says forgery is making any false document with the intent to cause damage or injury, or to support any claim or title. Both laws clearly state that forgery is a serious crime that can lead to imprisonment.

Certificate or document forgery can be divided into different areas. These include the act committed (false making or altering a real document), the intention behind it (knowing it is false and planning to deceive), the nature of the document (public, private, or legal), the legal effect (whether the forgery itself causes harm or is used to commit another offence), and the stage of use (whether the document is made, kept, or presented).

To start with, forgery can be grouped based on the act carried out. This covers false making, which means creating a fake document, and alteration, which means changing a real document without permission. For example, someone may print a fake certificate or change dates and names on a real one to deceive others.

It can also be grouped by intention. For a document to be seen as forged, the person must know it is false and intend to deceive. If someone uses a fake document without knowing, it is not forgery. But if they know and still use it to get a job, power, or other benefits, it is forgery.

Another way to group it is by the type of document. There are public documents like government certificates, ID cards, and official letters; private documents like personal agreements and receipts; and legal documents like cheques, wills, and deeds. Forging public or legal documents attracts heavier punishment because they affect the public and involve legal rights or money.

In the same vein, forgery can be grouped by legal effect. Substantive forgery happens when the fake document itself causes harm or creates a false impression. Instrumental forgery happens when a forged document is used to commit another offence, like using a fake ID to collect a loan.

Moreso, forgery can be grouped by the stage of the act. It may happen during the making or changing of the document, when someone keeps a forged document knowing it is fake, or when it is presented or used as if it is real. All these stages are treated seriously under Nigerian law.

Going from the above, it is rare to come across an average Nigerian that is not involved in one form of certificate forgery or another. This is because, aside from the educational certificates such as First School Leaving Certificate, WASCE, NECO, NABTEB, BSc, MSc, and PhD, there are other documents that Nigerians forge such as NEPA bill, voter’s card, international passport, vehicle particulars, driver’s license, tax clearance, local government certificate of origin, tinted permit, police extracts, court affidavits, amongst others. These documents are forged with different intentions for different purposes such as to cut cost, evade checks, solve urgent needs, do financial transactions, impersonate someone, and so on.

In all these, people who do it see it as a normal thing that shouldn’t be taken too seriously. What has kept this act seen as trivial is that most of the people involved are from agencies or establishments charged with fighting it, such as the police, army, civil defense, and vehicle traffic officers. They are always in possession of either, depending on the purpose or usage. It is also worthy to note that forging any of these documents comes with other legal implications, as it involves forging someone’s signature aside from the document itself.

This brings us to another angle, which is why it is still rampant as well as why there is a lack of sensitization about the dangers it poses. These acts are rampant because the agencies involved in checkmating them do not have the needed facilities, whereas others doing this are not legally authorized to do so. For example, a police officer checking a driver’s license cannot detect a fake one and can always be maneuvered, unlike when Federal Road Safety Corps members do that. The same also goes with vehicle particulars when the police and VIOs are involved. Because of the abuse of job description, it has become almost impossible to curb or circumvent. Someone has to know the original before identifying the fake, and that is why, when the perpetrators see those who can detect it, they tend to avoid any form of encounter with them.

Forging these documents has been seen as a normal thing, and thus the sensitization is usually seen as insignificant. It is also important to know that medical records forgery is very rampant, as most of the documents presented to gain certain favors in offices are either forged at business centres or originally faked by a medical practitioner who issues them to solve a particular problem.

However, when some begin to raise questions such as, can this issue be curtailed? If not, what are the dangers ahead? It can only be curtailed when the investigating agencies start being transparent with the issuance processes. This is because, when someone looks at the process of getting a driver’s license, it is always clear that the intent is to collect money and not to teach or correct any driving anomaly, because FRSC does not have the capacity to fulfill judiciously all the requirements such as manpower and equipment, because being in possession of a driver’s license in Nigeria does not actually make someone a good driver but rather provides a legal ground for an amateur to carry vehicles around. What about police extracts that do not have a verification code, and also do not provide any verification channel for those demanding for it; the same with other documents? This brings us to the need to digitize the issuance of these documents to identify the fake ones. This also goes for identity cards. But why would a firm or agency demand for a document that does not have the powers or access to verify its authenticity?

Moving ahead on the solutions, one major solution is to strengthen the verification process of documents through the use of modern technology. Digitizing all forms of document issuance and linking them to a central database will make it difficult for forged copies to pass through security checks. If agencies can access a shared system in real time, it will reduce the loopholes currently exploited by offenders, but this appears to be practically impossible in Nigeria of today.

Another way forward is for government agencies to improve staff training and equip personnel with tools to detect fake documents easily. Sensitization campaigns should also be intensified to educate the public on the legal consequences of forgery. It is also very important to make the process and intention of their acquisition more transparent and accessible so that people will have fewer reasons to resort to forgery, and offenders will find it harder to succeed.

By Dr. Buchi Nnaji

Recently, Nigerians watched on national television, as some prominent southeast politicians visited the Aspanda Market in the former Trade Fair Complex in Lagos, over recent demolitions in that vicinity by Lagos State authorities. The visit spoke of the high-octane nature of an increasingly contentious issue, fraught with allegations of bigotry and recriminations. I watched too, with bemused skepticism.

I have no sympathy for those whose buildings get demolished because they built out of zone, and in violation of extant building and land codes. That is as it should be. I say so, as a technocrat and erstwhile policymaker and administrator. Laws are made to be respected. That’s what rule of law is all about. Such persons should not complain about the consequences of their greed and stupidity.

Such things happen, because the Nigerian society is now so unapologetically transactional and imbued with impunity that some affluent people believe that they can subjugate rules and regulations, violate statutory laws and still buy their way out of attendant reprisals. Nowhere is such an attitude more rampant than with acquisition of landed property in major cities. Green areas, public parks, golf courses and playgrounds have been carved up and sold to rich speculators. The same fate has befallen, water causeways, and even lands, earmarked for special public projects. Invariably, the master plans of major cities, including Abuja have been at risk.

Nevertheless, there comes a point when discretionary authority and powers needs to apply in law enforcement matters. That’s what adaptive leaders do. That’s what good governance does. Buildings should be demolished when they are unfit for habitation and pose clear and present danger to the general public. But buildings should not always be demolished simply because they violate zoning laws. And that’s not to say that zoning laws should be disrespected; or impunity not be punished.

Lately, there has been a spate of demolitions in Lagos state. Some suggest such demolitions are punitively targeted. The contention is debatable. Yet, as policy, demolitions cannot be used for the purposes of gerrymandering or disenfranchisement. But that is not the kernel of this write up. The point here is that in a nation with over 75 million housing deficit, of which 17 million of the shortfall is in Lagos, demolishing an already completed buildings, is defeatist and not the best policy option or punishment. Such practice is also not in the best interest of the larger society. It is myopic, except there are ulterior motives. As a social scientist, I favour without apologies, the use of history in present and future decision making, especially, in governance matters. That use of history may be applicable to ongoing demolitions.

Many years back, in the late 1980s, there was an interesting and celebrated case in New York City that speaks to the zoning, building code enforcement, respect for the rule of law and discretionary authority. It also speaks to arbitration and legal adjudication of such matters. In the New York case, a luxury high-rise building was approved for construction on the Upper East Side of Manhattan. The building’s structure, height, floors, air rights and related codes, were all sorted out and the approvals and permits granted. The highbrow building was mixed commercial and residential. This meant that the ground and lower floors could house high-end stores and the rest of the 30-floor building would house various sized apartments.

As it happened, the builder made a subjective internal adjustment to accommodate the then fashionable high ceilings in all the residential apartments. This meant additional three feet per floor outside the approved plan. This did not seem like a big deal. But the additional three feet per floor resulted cumulatively to an extra 75 feet being added to the height of the building. Technically, this equated with adding an additional 5 floors to the original design. The high-rise building was still the stipulated 30 floors, but the height was far in excess of what was statutorily approved.

Consequentially, the additional height of the building violated the air rights of some neighboring buildings. It was also at variance with the approved design. The owners and occupants of the contiguous buildings filed complaints. The City’s housing authorities that issue construction permits, investigated and found that the complaints were meritorious. There were deviations from the approved plan and therefore violations. What to do?

The high-rise building could not be certified for occupancy. The developers were losing money. The City was also losing money from property taxes via sales of the apartments. Litigation seemed likely, but would be time consuming and financially costly for both sides. The parties submitted to arbitration. At mediation, it was determined that the only practical remediation required to meet compliance, would be to knock off the equivalent of five floors in order to bring the building in line with extant codes and the approved building plan. That solution itself would be also costly for the developer. So, there was need to find common ground; a win-win solution, for the developer, the City authorities and potential investors/owners of the condominium apartments.

While the unapproved and uncertified building stood vacant for several months, arbitration commenced aimed at protecting public and private interests by allowing the law to adapt to some discretionary flexibility, away from rigid enforcement that would be totally punitive. In a city that badly needed more houses in order to meet growing demands and existing shortfalls, demolition, though an option, would be the final resort; and only if all else failed.

Two issues were critical to agreeing to arbitration. Both the developer and city supervisors were respectively found not to have been willfully negligent of the law. Nonetheless, the developers took some architectural and structural liberties; and the city building supervisors were lax in their due diligence, and thus, had failed to catch the additional three feet-per-floor adjustment at the foundational level, where it could have been stopped or the building plan revised accordingly. Thus, the City did not meet its remit obligations fully. While the developer met the approved floors specifications, it failed to comply with the overall building height specifications.

Rather than pursue demolition, which would have resulted in obliterating about 50 apartment units of various sizes and configurations, the City decided to allow the building to stand. For consequences, the developer would allocate three contiguous floors out of the thirty floors to the city, as low income houses, for subsidized rents over a thirty-year period. The developer would still collect rent for those three floors of about thirty units, but not at premium market rental rate. It was also agreed that a separate entrance would be created for the city-assigned floors, thus segregating that section from the remaining twenty-seven luxury stores and luxury home floors. Contextually, the building would still be designated a luxury high-rise, but with some intrinsic conditionalities.

In essence, the errant developer was sanctioned and punished, as required by law, but not by way of punitive demolition, in which the developer, investors and the City would all be losers. The mutually accepted outcome was, the essence of decision making at its best. The non-exculpatory resolution also served as deterrent for future developers.

As Nigerians continue to witness completed buildings, some costing billions, being demolished in parts of Lagos State especially, as well as in other parts of the federation, I often wonder if the intent of such demolitions are not conceptually punitive. If so, the rule of law has gone awry. Everyone loses; even as it may seem that the developer or owner incurs the greatest loss.

While I’m unsympathetic to law breakers, the ongoing policy of outright demolition, is without doubt, hare-brained. Lagos state still has a high 17 million housing deficit. And most buildings targeted for demolition could have been stopped at the foundational level, but for obvious complicity, when approvals are granted by a criminal cartel of local government and state officials, bereft of any moral compass, who take advantage of very greedy and stupid rich persons.

Besides outright demolition, several policy options exist for resolving these matters. There ought to be some compartmentalization of the problems and solutions. State governors have statutory authority to revoke Right of Occupancy on any land in the public interest. So, rights to a house or structure built on a water causeway, green area, or access road, rather than being demolished could be rendered a state property, with a statutory revocation. The city, local government or state authorities and the owner of the structure can then negotiate a settlement that might save the property built at great cost from demolition. The property could also e placed o high-luxury property tax bracket. Such decision will avert outright demolition, and help in reducing the national housing deficit.

Demolitions might seem the only way out, when the rule of law goes awry. But they are not since demolitions also have unintended binary consequences. They stultify housing development. They also disincentivize and chase investors and developers away. The greatest danger, however, especially in the case of Lagos state, is the contention that such demolitions target certain ethnicities. That policy choice is dangerous, whether such allegations are myth or reality. Since various policy options still exist for addressing thorny zoning questions, political leaders must explore every option before embarking on a lineal policy of outright demolition that might backfire or in the long run, hurt public interest.

———-

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

After deep reflection and consultations with family, associates, and well-meaning Nigerians, I have today [yesterday] tendered my resignation as the Honourable Minister of Innovation, Science and Technology to President Bola Ahmed Tinubu, GCFR.

This decision did not come lightly. Over the past week, an orchestrated sustained campaign of falsehood, politically motivated, and malicious attacks have been waged against my person, integrity, and office across print, electronic, and social media platforms. These unfounded allegations and media distortions have not only caused personal distress but have also begun to distract from the vital work of the Ministry and the Renewed Hope Agenda of Mr. President.

As someone who has spent more than five decades building a reputation anchored on hard work, honour, and service to humanity, I cannot in good conscience allow these distractions to cast a shadow over the noble objectives of this administration. My decision to step aside is therefore a personal choice — not an admission of guilt, but rather a principled decision to respect the sanctity of due process and to preserve the integrity of the judicial proceedings currently before the court. In the end,Justice will prevail, and history will vindicate the just.

I remain deeply grateful to His Excellency, President Bola Ahmed Tinubu, GCFR, for the confidence he reposed in me and for the privilege to serve in his cabinet. His vision for a renewed, innovative, and technologically driven Nigeria is one I continue to hold dear, and I pledge my unflinching support to his administration and its transformative goals.

Chief Uche Geoffrey Nnaji
Former Honourable Minister of Innovation, Science and Technology
Federal Republic of Nigeria

By Sebastine Chukwuebuka Okafor, Ph.D

Few days ago, one of the human friendly gestures was exhibited by the wife of the Governor, Mrs Nkechinyere Iheoma Mbah at Amaechara Ovoko, Igboeze South Local Government Area of Enugu State, when she gifted a fully furnished house to the family of Mr. Chisom Odoh whose wife gave birth to Quintuplets in June 2025 at a hospital in Enugu.

When the information about this birth circulated, especially with the sad news of the man’s incapability to care for the “blessings from God”, the Local Government Chairman of Igboeze South, Hon Barr Ugochukwu Ferdinand Ukwueze, paid a visit to the hospital and drew the attention of the wife of the Governor to the issue.

Mrs Mbah was impressed by the miracle God did to the family and intervened but, seeing how poor the family is, decided to do what even myself did not think of. She began to erect a house for the family whose level of poverty was sequel to that encountered by Job during his trial period in the Bible. When she made the promise and instructed Barr Ukwueze to swing into action immediately, many thought it was a normal trick and the more you look the less you see strategy that is associated with Tomorrow is Here administration in Enugu State since 2023 and ignored the said instructions.

Fast forward to October 3rd, that is less than four months after the directive was given, the fully furnished house was commissioned by the First Lady. That is what is called humanity in governance. When I was watching the live video of the event, I was emotional because I saw the joy on the face of this family, who never knew such a day would come. They were tenants in their own village till that day.

However, there was a scoop in the event. Another man received a house as a gift courtesy of the Local Government Chairman, Barr Ukwueze. The man was said to have donated his inheritance to the wife of the Governor for the said building to be erected as Mr Chisom had no land in view to call his own. But in order to balance the happiness and avoid future family land crisis, the land donor’s house was renovated and furnished too by the council chairman, an act that depicts humanity in governance.

The development became a major talking point among residents of the area. Many community members described the gesture as a clear example of leadership that focuses on the welfare of the people. They noted that such actions give a sense of belonging to the less privileged and restore faith in governance at the grassroots level. The atmosphere in Amaechara Ovoko remained lively days after the event as people continued to celebrate the good news.

Observers at the commissioning expressed joy that a promise of this nature was delivered within a short time. According to them, it is uncommon to see leaders act swiftly and deliver tangible results without delays. They pointed out that this project has set a new pace in community-oriented governance and serves as encouragement to other leaders to take similar steps in supporting vulnerable families.

Religious and traditional leaders at the event offered words of appreciation to the wife of the Governor and the council chairman. They prayed for more strength and grace upon their lives, noting that this intervention has brought relief to a family that had lost hope. Songs of praise filled the air as both the beneficiaries and members of the community expressed gratitude for a gesture they described as life-changing.

More so, as a show of appreciation for this humanity act, the council of traditional rulers in Enugu North Senatorial zone (Ndị Ìgwè Nsukka cultural zone niile) gave her a title named “Ifekaugo – Enugu.”

Let me use this opportunity to thank Ifekaugo Enugu, nwunye Nwoke-Owo, for this gesture. Let me also praise Barr Ukwueze for having human conscience and allowing God to use him to remember that family. With this type of exhibition, one can actually see and feel that the tomorrow of the Odo’s is actually here.

That evening, after devouring a shawarma that was generously peppery, I found myself in what I can only call a kind of post-shawarma clarity, that acute awareness that settles like dust when the pleasure fades and the price reveals itself. A noble man of this bullying capitalism, I sat with a mental calculator, the one that adulthood sharpens in us early, computing transport fares, food expenses, the thousand little emergencies that adulthood insists on. I inhaled deeply and muttered, almost involuntarily, “Oru oyibo.” The white-collar job.

And yet, that shawarma, in hindsight, wasn’t even that sweet.

I paused. I remembered our parents, mostly traders, people who made just enough and were proud of it, how they still dreamed aloud of the prestige of office jobs, how they romanticized shirts tucked into trousers, air-conditioned offices, and a salary at the end of the month. Maybe the world has changed. Maybe it hasn’t.

My phone buzzed. I looked down.

“Guy, I fit get 90k from you?”

It was a message from a friend. Ninety thousand naira kee, Chim. Before I could respond, another message came. This one from someone I had only just begun speaking to: “Bro, please help me with small 10k. I need to buy drugs. I’m sick.”

The phone became heavy in my hand. I placed it face down and inhaled again.

And then I remembered, as I often do these days.

I was maybe five. I was in our family home in Enugu. I had just finished washing the dishes, my hands still wet, soap drying white on my fingers. My eldest brother, eighteen years older, sent me to fetch something from his room. On my way, another sibling redirected me, and then another. I stood in the middle of the parlour, tiny and tired, and screamed in frustration, “I just want to grow up and leave this house!”

They laughed. The loud, unbothered laughter of adults who understood something that I, in my smallness, did not.

Back then, my sister Ogochukwu would “police” my afternoons, forcing me into siestas I detested. I wanted only to play. But now, as a grown man, in a world where capitalism does not let you nap, I am beginning to feel the water, once on my feet, grow up to my belly and come to my chest. I find myself longing for those silenced afternoons. I want to sleep in the middle of the day. But I cannot.

Adulthood has hands. Adulthood is grabbing.

Just last week, I was talking with my sister about how everything now costs too much, how every day feels like a negotiation with hunger, with hope. She laughed, not cruelly, but knowingly.

“Do you remember Mr. Kay?”

“Yes,” I replied.

“Remember how we used to call him ‘Brother Aka-gum’ because he never gave us money?”

We burst into the kind of laughter that carries both memory and apology.

Back then, Mr. Kay was just another adult who, in our childish minds, was stingy. We did not know that he was still finding his feet, still figuring out how to be an adult. But now we know better. Now, he’s doing well. Life has been kind to him. I smiled that deep, understanding smile that adulthood teaches you, the smile of hindsight.

These days, when I bill my older siblings, I imagine how often they must have given me their last card, without grumbling, without letting me see the hole it burned in their pockets. That kind of love, Ife erika.

With each step I take now, I find myself revisiting the past, matching names and faces to emotions I finally understand. Was this what he was going through? Was that why she was always tired?

Adulthood is not a straight road. Sometimes it’s a loop, or a wave. Sometimes, it is simply a mirror held up to your childhood. There is no rest. If it’s not money, it’s illness. If it’s not heartbreak, it’s death. If it’s not your own pain, it’s your friend’s, your cousin’s, your country’s. Rejection letters multiply. Businesses crumble. Lovers leave. Rent is due. The world tightens.

And still, we wake up. We find small joys in ordinary things, in conversations, in bread and tea, in the sound of rain on zinc, in a meme that makes us laugh hard enough to forget, just for a moment. In all, Ndubuisi. Life is the most important.

Wherever you find yourself, whether on the mountain of abundance or the valley of dry bones, remember: your chi will not hand you a cross too heavy. Grace may not always shout, but it is there, quiet, enduring, present.

By Oseloka H. Obaze

Nigeria is 65. She struggled for her independence, but never fought for it.  That has made all the difference in her appreciation of her nationalism, unity and democracy.  Also, Nigeria fought a civil war to stay united, but because the agonizing consequences of that war were not equally felt, the appreciation of the war’s underpinning value varies.

The choice of Nigeria becoming a democracy was not one made by Nigerians. It was a convenient and not-so-hard choice made on their behalf by colonial masters.  As surmised by one writer, “Nigeria is a nation that insists on playing in the theater of democracy, while the script is being written elsewhere.” Nigeria’s present ethnic composition, defaults respectively to the feudal, monarchical, and republican system. If Nigeria was predicated purely on linguistic and ethnic considerations, there would have been, perhaps, five nations: Hausa, Igbo, Yoruba, Ijaw, and Fulani.  Other smaller ethnicities might have also qualified as confederations. Efik-Ibibio would be one such nomenclature.

Because some things only happen in Nigeria, the nation is what it is, by expedient experimental foreign design.  That is the stark reality. A corollary, is that in Nigeria, the defense of democracy or lack thereof, is quite often driven her fractured nature, systemic ethnic biases and by the ever-present irony of ignorance. Oftentimes, these ironies border on political idiocy.  Nigeria is a perfect case study of a nation that has experienced colonial rule, self rule, authoritarianism, military anti-politics and a dual subset of participatory democracy; as a parliamentary system and now, a presidential system.

The debate about Nigeria’s trajectory as a united nation has always been animated. Historically, Nigeria has tethered on the brink, but hardly ever reaching the tipping point. The presumptive basis for consolidated nation building has been dissected in all forms and manner, usually under the rubric of restructuring.  Not even the Aristotelian dictate that emphasizes equality amongst equals and proportionality amongst the unequal seems to have helped.

As a nation of over 250 languages, with many ethnic groups and a surfeit of minorities, the dominant Yoruba, Hausa and Igbo tribes (WAZOBIA), have held the leadership sway since her independence in 1960. Yet, as unlikely as it seemed, by a twist of natural attrition and constitutional fiat, a member of a minority tribe, Goodluck Ebele Jonathan, fortuitously led the nation as president in the Fourth Republic.

Yet, discussing past, present, and future of democracy in Nigeria inevitably yields mixed results. Why? Because Nigerians covet democracy, but seem incapable of living up to its ideals. Some now even consider the military era, as more constructive, productive and cost-effective in developmental terms. Perhaps, democracy in Nigeria calls for putting new eyes on old ideas and controversies that hobble the nation.

The practice of democracy in Nigeria tends to negate the concept “of government predicated on the principle that power should be vested in the people.” Also, democracy for Nigerians is no longer predicated on political beliefs as much as it’s driven by ethnic and social identities. Such identity paradox creates unending dissonance in democratic politics and governance. By extension, it amplifies Nigeria’s “growing distrust of and frustration with democracy.”  But then, Nigeria is not by any means the only nation where democracy has caused hyper-divisions in her political landscape.

A recent op-ed I wrote, elicited the following rebuttal from an octogenarian, who was born in pre-independent Nigeria, lived in Biafra and served in her army, and consequently served as a career Nigerian Foreign Service Officer, rising to the rank of ambassador.  His words:  “If this Nigeria doesn’t die, a rebirth of a new Nigeria might be a hoax.”  His perspective is Biblical and Botanical.

Biblically, we read about destroying the temple and rebuilding it in three days, which for believers, is epitomized by the consequent death and rise of Jesus Christ.  Botanically, seeds die in order to regenerate and germinate and bring forth new plants and growth.  Another interlocutor asked: “How will Nigeria not die or be saved when Nigerians are afraid to die or even make sacrifices for the sake of saving her.”  These observations are beyond rhetoric. The debate about Nigeria’s fate and future tends to be schizophrenic: blunt and dodgy at the same time. Nigerians covet democracy but are unwilling to make sacrifices that underpin its efficacy, robustness and survival.

The desirable quest for a New Nigeria is aimed at amplifying and consolidating her democracy, with its consequential rights, liberties and equality for all. The defense of democracy in Nigeria is all about finding common cause and equity in an egalitarian society.  Ironically, that quest is frequently subsumed and subjugated by the notion that democracy works well, only when a certain ethnicity is in charge. As such, various ethnicities are fixated on the notion that Nigeria only work well, if not better, under their leadership. Again, such ironical thoughts negate the fundamental notion that democracy is the government of the people by the people. Such ironies are born of ignorance or primordial considerations.

Meanwhile, governance experts have adduced three kinds of democracy: “Constitutional democracy – governed by a constitution. Defensive democracy – a democracy that limits some rights and freedoms in order to protect its existence. Deliberative democracy – in which authentic deliberation, not only voting, is central to legitimate decision making.”  Nigeria has dabbled, I believe, in the first two and now seeks to find her grounding in Deliberative democracy. General Ibrahim Babangida unwittingly, foisted a defensive democracy on Nigeria, with a restricted two-party system inclined “a little bit to the left, and a little bit to the right.” That system flopped, courtesy of its originating dubious intent.

Still, it should matter little, who leads a nation in a true and vibrant democracy, if the leaders abide strictly to the rule of law, and give primacy to respecting the Constitution, its dictates and legitimate decision making processes.  One of the beauties of democracy, is the holding of periodic, genuine and credible elections, in which the citizens decide who should rule them.  Voting and transparently electing who should rule in accordance with the extant laws, is a form of defense for any democracy.  Inherent in that process, is what ought to be the unfettered ability to vote out bad and underperforming leaders. Ironically, out of ignorance, miseducation, poor orientation, or blinkered bigotry, Nigeria’s voting population continue to default to ethnic considerations or financial inducement and other set of ironies predicated on ignorance.

A major challenge dogging Nigeria’s present day democracy is the seeming inability of her leaders to abide by constitutional dictates and legitimate decision making processes.  Not only are constitutional   rights eroded routinely, the pillars of any true democracy, the separation of powers are also holistically ignored. Above all, the core principle of making the people’s vote count has never been accorded priority, despite existing laws to that effect. It is this reality that has led to the endless quest for restructuring and electoral reform.  However, because the culture of impunity and sectionalism has eaten every reform and restructuring strategy (apologies to Peter Drucker), change has remained elusive. It is the culture eating strategy that has technically, emasculated political opposition and weakened national democratic institutions. Today, Nigeria is not only insecure, physically, fiscally and psychologically, the nation is progressively on a lawless boil. This is what makes Nigeria an “undemocratic democracy.”

Some Nigerians now advocate for a return to the parliamentary system. Their thesis is that the system ensures proportional representation in government based on votes won.  The objective is to overcome the prevailing myth of representation that is essentially lineal and skewed unapologetically in favour of the winning party. The attraction of this proposition, beyond its cost-effectiveness, is that it ensures opposition’s concerted role within and outside the government.  But it does not ensure the fealty of the system’s operators within and outside the corridors of power. It is this nexus between political idiocy and irony of ignorance, which quite often are fungible that compounds the lack of political will and shirking of sacrifices required for true nation building.

Whereas our democracy has advanced in numerical years, it is stultified in concrete terms and still operationally nascent.  As such, Nigeria’s unchangeable past will consequentially instruct and define her unknowable future. Meanwhile, democracy is hard work.  We have to work hard at it.  But we can’t do so with the present cadre of political leaders, who are not only short-sighted, but utterly indifferent to the fundamentals ethos that undergird any sustainable democracy. Happy Independence!

———-

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