Connect with us

Strictly Personal

On campaign gaffes, missiles and banters by Simon Kolawole

Published

on

The best way to enjoy electioneering seasons is to be emotionally detached. The moment you are a player — or you are emotionally invested — you cannot have fun to the fullest. There will be too much tension and excitement racing through your blood. Too much prejudice will block your sight. You will cry when you should be laughing and laugh when you should be crying. Although I can bet that everybody (including myself) has a soft spot for one presidential candidate or the other, everybody’s emotions are not on the same wavelength. There are levels to these things. Less than 10 weeks to the presidential election, I can bet that most people already know where they belong.

The campaign season has given us plenty entertainment and worries. Asiwaju Bola Ahmed Tinubu, the APC presidential candidate, has been under the spotlight for his gaffes. And there are plenty of them, the chief being his closing prayer at the flag-off of his campaign in Jos, Plateau state, on November 15. He was saying “God bless PD…” before changing his supplication to “God bless APC”. This was particularly strange. He has been an opponent of PDP since 1999, so I would not expect him to invoke God’s blessings on them, not when he is the APC candidate. Except, of course, he meant to say “PDM” which his political associates in 1991/92 formed ahead of joining the PDP in 1998.

One of those associates was Alhaji Atiku Abubakar, the vice-president from 1999 to 2007 and the presidential flagbearer of the PDP in the 2023 elections. Atiku was the brain behind PDM (Peoples Democratic Movement) made up of several political associates of the late Maj-Gen Shehu Musa Yar’Adua, the former chief of staff, supreme headquarters who was second-in-command to Gen Olusegun Obasanjo as military head of state (1976-1979). PDM was the strongest faction of the PDP from 1999 to 2003 before Obasanjo, now civilian president, dealt a fatal blow on it while disrupting Atiku’s plan to unseat him. Obasanjo went on to make sure Atiku did not succeed him in 2007.

Why would Tinubu want God to bless PDP or PDM, no matter how close he was, or is, to Atiku? They are now political rivals, for crying out loud! Well, one good turn deserves another. Atiku repaid Tinubu’s friendship with his own prayer on December 13 — also in Jos! There must be something about Jos. In his remarks at the rally, Atiku was shouting “God bless A…” before saying “I mean PDP!” Nigerians are making much of the fact that both gaffes happened on a Tuesday, but I am not aware that Tuesdays carry any significance in superstition. I know of Mondays, which foretell how the week would go. Caution: I am not an expert on superstitions, so don’t trust my analysis.

One gaffe that did not trend was committed by Mr Peter Obi, the presidential candidate of the Labour Party, in nearby Lafia, Nasarawa state, on October 13. This preceded the “God bless” syndrome. Speaking at his rally, Obi said: “Nasarawa is big… it is a great country.” His supporters said he meant Nasarawa can be a great country if it were on its own, since Israel is not as big. Nice one! After all, Nasarawa, like Israel, is rich in agriculture. And Israel is a great country. Don’t you just love the Obi-dients! But, seriously, given that Nasarawa was created out of Plateau in 1996, are there demons of gaffe in that axis that we need to cast out? Hint: some pastors can make money from it.

Another interesting thing this season is the townhall meetings and TV debates. The trailblazing THISDAY/Arise group is organising a series. I hereby confess that I love debates. I enjoyed the 1993 face-off between Chief MKO Abiola and Alhaji Bashir Tofa. However, Tinubu has ignored invitations by THISDAY/Arise — and the group has in turn accused him of trying to undermine free speech. A full-blown war has now ensued between both camps. Tinubu’s media managers have maintained that their principal has his own media engagement plan and excluding THISDAY/Arise is not the same as excluding the entire Nigerian media. That is the matter we have been trying to settle since.

But why do favourite presidential candidates shun debates? Ahead of the 1999 presidential election, a TV debate was organised between Obasanjo, the PDP flagbearer, and Chief Olu Falae, the joint candidate of the Alliance for Democracy (AD)/All Peoples Party (APP) which you can easily call the APC of today. Obasanjo, who was generally believed to be the candidate of the establishment, did not turn up for the scheduled two-hour debate. A disappointed Falae said: “It is an understatement to say I am embarrassed to sit alone and be debating with myself.” It had to be reduced to one hour, more like a TV interview. Obasanjo’s handlers said he was not aware of the well-publicised event.

The conclusion in the AD/APP camp then was that Falae, an economist trained at the University of Ibadan and Yale University, was going to tear Obasanjo to pieces. There were a few people who believed that the Abiola/Tofa debate played a major role in the way Nigerians voted on June 12, 1993 and Obasanjo did not want to be outshined. I don’t know how true. All these were conjectures. Whatever the case was, Obasanjo did not attend the 2003 debate either. That one could be explained this way: he was the sitting president and his record was going to be savaged by his opponents, including Maj-Gen Muhammadu Buhari, Dim Emeka Ojukwu and Pastor Chris Okotie.

While what Obasanjo did in 2003 was basically an interview with a panel of journalists, Alhaji Umaru Musa Yar’Adua, the PDP candidate, did not even make media appearances in 2007. I remembered he only visited Mr Nduka Obaigbena, THISDAY chairman, at his Ikoyi home and granted something like an interview. He fell ill during the campaign and some rallies went on without him. When rumours started circulating on the internet and via SMS (there was no WhatsApp then) that Yar’Adua was dead, Obasanjo had to call him on live TV to ask, rather hilariously, “Umoru, are you dead?” Yar’Adua went on to win the election which, even in his own opinion, was a shambles.

The conclusion of many analysts was that Yar’Adua would still have won without the performance-enhancing drugs administered by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) under the leadership of the inimitable Prof Maurice Iwu. Sadly, Yar’Adua was not alive to run for a second term. Dr Goodluck Jonathan, his deputy, took over. He too did not participate in the 2011 TV debate. At least he had a PhD, so the Falae scenario could not have been his worry. And he had only been in office for one year, so there was not much to criticise him for. The NTA finally organised what was really an interview for him. He still won the election, like Obasanjo and Yar’Adua did before him.

Ironically, Jonathan badly wanted a debate with Buhari in 2015. Even though his own five-year record as president risked coming under attack, including issues of corruption and Boko Haram insurgency, Jonathan was obviously finally confident that Buhari would not outperform him in a debate, so he wanted it. Buhari, who debated Prof Pat Utomi in 2007, declined. Jonathan, instead, had to debate with Mr Godson Okoye of the United Democratic Party (UDP), Mrs Remi Soniaya of the Kowa Party, Chief Chekwas Okorie of the United Progressive Party (UPP), and Mr Martin Onovo of the National Conscience Party (NCP). Need I remind us that Buhari went on to win the election?

In 2019, Buhari copied Jonathan by refusing to turn up for the debate. His record was going to be under attack, obviously, with Atiku tipped to do better in a televised debate. That Buhari went on to win the election without debating might have strengthened the unwanted tradition in our presidential electioneering where sitting presidents or bookmakers’ favourites do not turn up. Tinubu’s media managers have made it clear that he would not attend the THISDAY/Arise series because there is a plot to embarrass him. I do not see Tinubu participating in any debate either — if history is anything to go by. Should we, therefore, conclude that presidential debates are jinxed?

My sense is that those rated as favourites do not want to debate because, while there is a consensus that debates don’t determine how most Nigerians vote, a slip of tongue may have a negative effect on them. It is more about not wanting to surrender the advantage so as not to lose the momentum. This has been recurring. Also, all the other candidates will be focusing on attacking the so-called front-runners. In the process, their opponents may say something really damaging that will cost them some votes. Some

would prefer to be attacked in absentia than being embarrassed on air by their opponents. From where I am watching proceedings, that is my usual reading of the reluctance.

Putting all the brickbats and missiles aside, we are faced with the reality that there is no Nigerian law compelling candidates to debate. It is more of a tradition. I love debates particularly because you can gauge the level of knowledge and composure among the candidates. However, I cannot vouch that debates will determine the outcome of elections. Just like the issue of vote-buying, my understanding of the Nigerian electorate is that elections are won more based on political networks, affinities, and primordial sentiments rather than academic credentials such as PhD and ability to debate. More so, you may speak smooth English during debates and still be a disaster in office.

All said, though, I am enjoying this campaign season without tears. The cheeky rascal in me is loving some of the missiles being exchanged between Tinubu and Atiku. They are comical. I love the Dubai digs and the Chatham House taunts. I am not enjoying much of the Obi vs Tinubu jibes because I feel they are too deep. Not surprisingly, there is little or nothing in the Atiku vs Obi axis, probably because until a few months ago, Obi was a PDP member. He was Atiku’s running mate in 2019. The affinity is too fresh to be discarded just like that. I can understand. But that would not stop me from enjoying all the drama this electioneering has to offer. I need another bag of popcorn, please.

Strictly Personal

African Union must ensure Sudan civilians are protected, By Joyce Banda

Published

on

The war in Sudan presents the world – and Africa – with a test. This far, we have scored miserably. The international community has failed the people of Sudan. Collectively, we have chosen to systematically ignore and sacrifice the Sudanese people’s suffering in preference of our interests.

For 18 months, the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) and the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) have fought a pitiless conflict that has killed thousands, displaced millions, and triggered the world’s largest hunger crisis.

Crimes against humanity and war crimes have been committed by both parties to the conflict. Sexual and gender-based violence are at epidemic levels. The RSF has perpetrated a wave of ethnically motivated violence in Darfur. Starvation has been used as a weapon of war: The SAF has carried out airstrikes that deliberately target civilians and civilian infrastructure.

The plight of children is of deep concern to me. They have been killed, maimed, and forced to serve as soldiers. More than 14 million have been displaced, the world’s largest displacement of children. Millions more haven’t gone to school since the fighting broke out. Girls are at the highest risk of child marriage and gender-based violence. We are looking at a child protection crisis of frightful proportions.

In many of my international engagements, the women of Sudan have raised their concerns about the world’s non-commitment to bring about peace in Sudan.

I write with a simple message. We cannot delay any longer. The suffering cannot be allowed to continue or to become a secondary concern to the frustrating search for a political solution between the belligerents. The international community must come together and adopt urgent measures to protect Sudanese civilians.

Last month, the UN’s Independent International Fact-Finding Mission for Sudan released a report that described a horrific range of crimes committed by the RSF and SAF. The report makes for chilling reading. The UN investigators concluded that the gravity of its findings required a concerted plan to safeguard the lives of Sudanese people in the line of fire.

“Given the failure of the warring parties to spare civilians, an independent and impartial force with a mandate to safeguard civilians must be deployed without delay,” said Mohamed Chande Othman, chair of the Fact-Finding Mission and former Chief Justice of Tanzania.

We must respond to this call with urgency.

A special responsibility resides with the African Union, in particular the AU Commission, which received a request on June 21 from the AU Peace and Security Council (PSC) “to investigate and make recommendations to the PSC on practical measures to be undertaken for the protection of civilians.”

So far, we have heard nothing.

The time is now for the AU to act boldly and swiftly, even in the absence of a ceasefire, to advance robust civilian protection measures.

A physical protective presence, even one with a limited mandate, must be proposed, in line with the recommendation of the UN Fact-Finding Mission. The AU should press the parties to the conflict, particularly the Sudanese government, to invite the protective mission to enter Sudan to do its work free from interference.

The AU can recommend that the protection mission adopt targeted strategies operations, demarcated safe zones, and humanitarian corridors – to protect civilians and ensure safe, unhindered, and adequate access to humanitarian aid.

The protection mission mandate can include data gathering, monitoring, and early warning systems. It can play a role in ending the telecom blackout that has been a troubling feature of the war. The mission can support community-led efforts for self-protection, working closely with Sudan’s inspiring mutual-aid network of Emergency Response Rooms. It can engage and support localised peace efforts, contributing to community-level ceasefire and peacebuilding work.

I do not pretend that establishing a protection mission in Sudan will be easy. But the scale of Sudan’s crisis, the intransigence of the warring parties, and the clear and consistent demands from Sudanese civilians and civil society demand that we take action.

Many will be dismissive. It is true that numerous bureaucratic, institutional, and political obstacles stand in our way. But we must not be deterred.

Will we stand by as Sudan suffers mass atrocities, disease, famine, rape, mass displacement, and societal disintegration? Will we watch as the crisis in Africa’s third largest country spills outside of its borders and sets back the entire region?

Africa and the world have been given a test. I pray that we pass it.

Dr Joyce Banda is a former president of the Republic of Malawi.

Continue Reading

Strictly Personal

Economic policies must be local, By Lekan Sote

Published

on

With 32.70 per cent headline inflation, 40.20 per cent food inflation, and bread inflation of 45 per cent, all caused by the removal of subsidies from petrol and electricity, and the government’s policy of allowing market forces to determine the value of the Naira, Nigerians are reeling under high cost of living.

 

The observation by Obi Alfred Achebe of Onitsha, that “The wellbeing of the people has declined more steeply in the last months,” leads to doubts about the “Renewed Hope” slogan of President Bola Tinubu’s government that is perceived as extravagant, whilst asking Nigerians to be patient and wait for its unfolding economic policies to mature.

 

It doesn’t look as if it will abate soon, Adebayo Adelabu, Minister of Power, who seems ready to hike electricity tariffs again, recently argued that the N225 per kilowatt hour of electricity that Discos charge Band A premium customers is lower than the N750 and N950 respective costs of running privately-owned petrol or diesel generators.

 

While noting that 129 million, or 56 per cent of Nigerians are trapped below poverty line, the World Bank revealed that real per capita Gross Domestic Product, which disregards the service industry component, is yet to recover from the pre-2016 economic depression under the government of Muhammadu Buhari.

 

This has led many to begin to doubt the government’s World Bank and International Monetary Fund-inspired neo-liberal economic policies that seem to have further impoverished poor Nigerians, practically eliminated the middle class, and is making the rich also cry.

 

Yet the World Bank, which is not letting up, recently pontificated that “previous domestic policy missteps (based mainly on its own advice) are compounding the shocks of rising inflation (that is) eroding the purchasing power of the people… and this policy is pushing many (citizens) into poverty.”

 

It zeroes in by asking Nigeria to stay the gruelling course, which Ibukun Omole thinks “is nothing more than a manifesto for exploitation… a blatant attempt to continue the cycle of exploitation… a tool of imperialism, promoting the same policies that have kept Nigeria under the thumb of… neocolonial agenda for decades.”

 

When Indermilt Gill, Senior Vice President of the World Bank, told the 30th Summit of Nigeria’s Economic Summit Group, in Abuja, Federal Capital Territory, that Nigerians may have to endure the harrowing economic conditions for another 10 to 15 years, attendees murmured but didn’t walk out on him because of Nigerian’s tradition of politeness to guests.

 

Governor Bala Muhammed of Bauchi State, who agrees with the World Bank that “purchasing power has dwindled,” also thinks that “these (World Bank-inspired) policies, usually handed down by arm-twisting compulsions, are not working.”

 

What seems to be trending now is the suggestion that because these neo-liberal policies do not seem to be helping the economy and the citizens of Nigeria, at least in the short term, it would be better to think up homegrown solutions to Nigeria’s economic problems.

 

Late Speaker of America’s House of Representatives, Tip O’Neill, is quoted to have quipped that, at the end of the day, “All politics is local.” He may have come to that conclusion after observing that it takes the locals in a community to know what is best for them.

 

This aphorism must apply to economics, a field of study that is derived from sociology, which is the study of the way of life of a people. Proof of this is in “The Wealth of Nations,” written by Adam Smith, who is regarded as the first scholar of economics.

 

In his Introduction to the Penguin Classics edition of “The Wealth of Nations,” Andrew Skinner observes: “Adam Smith was undoubtedly the remarkable product of a remarkable age and one whose writing clearly reflects the intellectual, social and economic conditions of the period.”

 

To drive the point home that Smith’s book was written for his people and his time, Skinner reiterated that “the general ‘philosophy,’ which it contained was so thoroughly in accord with the aspirations and circumstances of his age.”

 

In a Freudian slip of the Darwinist realities of the Industrial Revolution that birthed individualism, capitalism, and global trade, Smith averred that “How selfish soever man may be supposed, there are evidently some principle in his nature which interest him in the fortune of others, and render their happiness necessary to him, though he derives nothing from it, except the pleasures of seeing it.”

 

And, he let it slip that capitalism is for the advantage of Europe when he confessed that “Europe, by not leaving things at perfect liberty (the so-called Invisible Hand), occasions… inequities,” by “restraining the competition in some trades to a smaller number… increasing it in others beyond what it naturally would be… and… free circulation of labour (or expertise) and stocks (goods) both from employment to employment and from place to place!”

 

Policymakers, who think Bretton Woods institutions will advise policies to replicate the success of the Euro-American economy in Nigeria must be daydreaming. After advising elimination of subsidy, as global best practices that reflect market forces, they failed to suggest that Nigeria’s N70,000 monthly minimum wage, neither reflects the realities of the global marketplace, nor Section 16(2,d) of Nigeria’s Constitution, which suggests a “reasonable national minimum living wage… for all citizens.”

 

After Alex Sienart, World Bank’s lead economist in Nigeria, pointed out that the wage increase will directly affect the lives of only 4.1 per cent of Nigerians, he suggested that Nigeria needed more productive jobs to reduce poverty. But he neither explained “productive jobs,” nor suggested how to create them.

 

In admitting past wrong economic policies that the World Bank recommended for Nigeria, its former President, Jim Yong Kim, confessed, “I think the World Bank has to take responsibility for having emphasized hard infrastructure –roads, rails, energy– for a long time…

 

“There is still the bias that says we will invest in hard infrastructure, and then we grow rich, (and) we will have enough money to invest in health and education. (But) we are now saying that’s the wrong approach, that you’ve got to start investing in your people.”

 

Kim is a Korean-American physician, health expert, and anthropologist, whose Harvard University and Brown University Ivy League background shapes his decidedly “Pax American” worldview of America’s dominance of the world economy.

 

Despite his do-gooder posturing, his diagnoses and prescriptions still did not quite address the root cause of Nigeria’s economic woes, nor provide any solutions. They were mere diversions that stopped short of the way forward.

 

He should have advocated for the massive accumulation of capital and investments in the local production of manufacturing machinery, industrial spare parts, and raw materials—items that are currently imported, weakening Nigeria’s trade balance.

 

He should have pushed for the completion of Ajaokuta Steel Mill and helped to line up investors with managerial, technical, and financial competence to salvage Nigeria’s electricity sector, whose poor run has been described by Dr. Akinwumi Adesina, President of Africa Development Bank, as “killing Nigerian industries.”

 

He could have assembled consultants to accelerate the conversion of Nigeria’s commuter vehicles to Compressed Natural Gas and get banks of the metropolitan economies, that hold Nigeria’s foreign reserves in their vaults, to invest their low-interest funds into Nigeria’s agriculture— so that Nigeria will no longer import foodstuffs.

 

Nigerians need homegrown solutions to their economic woes.

Continue Reading

EDITOR’S PICK

Metro13 hours ago

EU launches initiative to reintegrate over 417,661 out-of-school children in Nigeria

The European Union (EU) has launched an initiative to reintegrate over 417,661 out-of-school children in Nigeria, particularly in the northwestern...

Metro1 day ago

World Bank pledges $3b to support Zambia’s development goals

The World Bank Group has pledged to avail Zambia with approximately $3 billion to support the country’s development goals under...

Sports1 day ago

Kenyan marathon legend Kipchoge advises young athletes to prioritize success over money

Kenyan marathon legend, Eliud Kipchoge, has advised young athletes to place success ahead of quick money and riches. The former...

Culture1 day ago

Tyla set to drop new single ‘Tears’ on November 20

South African “Ampiona” crooner, Tyla, is set to thrill her fans to her new single titled, “Tears’, which is set...

Uncategorized2 days ago

1,172 Nigerians killed, over 1,000 kidnapped in nine months— NHRC

The National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) has put the figures of Nigerians killed and kidnapped by non-state actors from January...

Tech2 days ago

Bolt invests $107m in Nigeria to boost safety standards

Ride-hailing platform, Bolt, has announced an investment of $107 million in its bid to boost safety and service quality in...

Sports2 days ago

South Africa’s FA president Danny Jordaan arrested on fraud, theft allegations

The President of South African Football Association (SAFA), Danny Jordaan, has been arrested on allegations of fraud and theft. Jordaan,...

Metro2 days ago

Chinese mining giant CNMC set for $1.6 billion investment in Zambia

A Chinese mining giant, China Nonferrous Metal Mining Company (CNMC), has announced the investment of over $1.6 billion in Zambia,...

Metro2 days ago

Mpox immunisation scarcity slows Kinshasa’s epidemic fight

A lack of mpox vaccine doses has prevented the Democratic Republic of the Congo from starting a campaign in the...

VenturesNow2 days ago

After decades of imports, Nigeria ends oil importation

The Nigerian National Petroleum Company Limited (NNPC) has declared that it has finally stopped the long-standing practice of importing petroleum...

Trending