Connect with us

Opinion

The Oracle: Nigeria’s Dire Need for Restructuring: The Urgency of Now (Pt. 1)

Published

on

By Chief Mike Ozekhome

INTRODUCTION

It is evidently true that those who ignore history, like the Bourbons of European history, do so at their own peril. The challenges bedeviling us as a nation did not start today, or in the recent past. The urgency of understanding this phenomenon that has made peace elusive to us has become a sine qua non. It is the urgency of now.

You are going to have to be patient with me over the next few weeks, to enable me articulate my thesis which leads me to the inexorable conclusion that Nigeria will continue to wobble, fumble, stumble, bumble (but God forbid, crumble), until it is restructured. Restructuring Nigeria demands the urgency of now.

THE GENESIS OF THE PRESENT CHALLENGES

Zillions of articles by pontificators have stated the obvious over and over again: Nigeria is standing on a shifting ground, on a precarious precipice, on weak structural clay foundation, such that if we fail to make conscious and deliberate efforts to rearrange the present fundamentally flawed structure in this nation for the better, we only may be extending our doomsday for the latter. It is that serious. I write these series as a Nigerian patriot who believes that Nigeria should remain one indivisible country, enjoying her numerical strength. But, the mere saying so as in section 1(1) of the 1999 Constitution to the effect that Nigeria is one “indivisible and indissoluble Country” is simply not enough. Great empires and countries have crumbled under the ponderous weight of social injustice, inequity, ethno – religious conflicts and barefaced, brazen and flagrant display of marginalization and repression by some groups against others.

The present country we have was a product of sleaze and underhand.  It was the granting of the Royal Niger Company a trading monopoly in the North, which, in return, agreed to advance British interests, economic and political, to the detriment of our collective future.

Without mincing words, this entity called Nigeria was therefore ill conceived, fraudulently delivered and brazen foisted on all, against the collective wish of her inhabitants, who mostly had nothing in common to establish a viable bond or union. Till date, vengeful hostility, palpable hate, animosity and intolerance of one group by another, that becloud a harmonious and prosperous nation regrettably thrive amongst us. Our leaders who led Nigeria before and after independence did not help matters at all. In words, deeds, body language and postures, they put on a knife through an already fragile bond, and sowed seeds of discord and recriminations that still hunt us till date. Nigeria, we hail thee!

THE CONTINUOUS SEARCH FOR NATIONHOOD AS VIEWED BY THE FOUNDING FATHERS

Since Nigeria was cobbled together on January 1, 1914, by Lord Lugard, Nigerians have laboured ceaselessly to weld it in to a harmonious whole. The reason for this ever widening disparity and mutual suspicion is not farfetched. Before 1914, Nigeria was a pot-pouri of self autonomous communities, empires, republics, kingdoms, emirates, nationalities and chiefdoms. Each was separate, distinct and independent of the other. There was mutual respect, even with the existence of expansionist and irredentist conquests within and without. There were separatist wars and all – inclusive alliances, depending on where their interests lay.

The Supreme Court of Nigeria, even as politically detached from the day to day hubris of Nigeria, as it is, has taken judicial notice of Nigeria’s ethical and linguistic diversities and independence of one nationality from another. This was in the 2002 case of Attorney General of the Federation vs. Attorney General of Abia State and 35 others. This celebrated case was between the Federal Government of Nigeria and Nigeria’s coastal states, over ownership of Nigeria’s continental shelf. Said the apex court, with great erudition and expository dilation:

“Until the advent of the British Colonial rule in what is now known as the Federal Republic of Nigeria (Nigeria, for short), there existed at various times sovereign states known as emirates, kingdoms and empires made up of ethnic groups in Nigeria. Each was independent of the other with its mode of Government indigenous to it. At one time or another, these sovereign states were either making wars with each other or making alliances, on equal terms. This position existed throughout the land now known as Nigeria. In the Niger-Delta area, for instance, there were the Okrikas, the Ijaws, the Kalabaris, the Efiks, the Ibibos, the Urhobos, the Itsekiris, etc. indeed certain of these communities (e.gCalabar) asserted exclusive rights over the narrow waters in their area. And because of the terrain of their area, they made use of the rivers and the sea for their economic advancement in fishing and trade – in making wars too! The rivers and the sea were their only means of transportation. Trade then was not only among themselves but with foreign nations particularly the European nations who sailed to their shores for palm oil, kernel and slaves.”

It is thus clear that Nigerians are different and distinct in every imaginable way, including their religions, customs, cultures, traditions, languages, aspirations and even their thought processes, in the same way that the Russians, Americans, English, Turkey, Germans, French, are different. Some people have called this “unity in diversity”. But, what Nigeria really requires is “diversity in unity”, as no one can plausibly change us from what God in His unchangeable wisdom, has made us. He is the creator who was not Himself created; the unmoved mover, the beginning and the end; the first and the last; the alpha and omega. Praise Him with full adoration forever.

It is little wonder then, that SirTafawa Balewa, who later became Nigeria’s first Prime minister, while addressing the Northern House of Assembly in 1952, argued that: “Nigeria existed as one only on paper. It is still far from being united. Nigerian unity is only a British intention for the country”. What the brilliant and erudite politician said in 1952 (64 years ago), remains true till date.

Max Siollum, a famous historian and commentator on Nigerian politics and government issues, wrote in his Book ‘Oil, Politics and Violence’, that: “the British carved the country into three regions (according to the three major ethnic groups) broadly corresponding to the location of these largest ethnic groups. Hemmed in between them were approximately another 250 disparate ethnicities. Some were millions strong and others had only a few hundred members. Most of these groups had nothing in common with each other outside of their mutual suspicion and hostility”. He went further to observe that “the general outlook of the people in the north and south is so different as to give them practically nothing in common and to make physical confrontation between them a virtual certainty.” How true and correct, till date!

According to historical records, luminous Sir Ahmadu Bello, the Sardauna Sokoto and Premier of the Northern region, while commenting on the amalgamation of southern and northern protectorates, was said to have once referred to Nigeria as “a piece of historical mistake”, or “the mistake of 1914”. It is doubtful if the colourful politician was wrong, going by happenings till date.

The late ideologue and Sage, Chief Obafemi Awolowo, in his 1947 treatise, in “Path to Nigerian Freedom” while advocating the concept of true federalism as the only basis for equitable national integration, pontificated thus:

“Nigeria is not a nation. It is a mere geographical expression. There are no ‘Nigerians’ in the same sense as there are ‘English’, ‘Welsh’, or ‘French’. The word ‘Nigerian’ is merely a distinctive appellation to distinguish those who live within the boundaries of Nigeria from those who do not.

There are various national or ethnical groups in the country. Ten such main groups were recorded during the 1931 census as follows: (1) Hausa, (2) Ibo, (3) Yoruba, (4) Fulani, (5) Kanuri, (6) Ibibio, (7) Munshi or Tiv, (8) Edo, (9) Nupe, and (10 Ijaw “.

Prof Onigu Otite, in his study of Nigeria’s demographic and ethical stratifications, discovered 374 ethnic groups that speak 350 languages.

According to Nigerian Handbook, eleventh edition, “there are also a great number of other small tribes too numerous to enumerate separately, whose combined total population amounts to 4,683,044. It is a mistake to designate them ‘tribes’. Each of them is a nation by itself with many tribes and clans. There is as much difference between them as there is between Germans, English, Russians and Turks, for instance. The fact that they have a common overlord does not destroy this fundamental difference. The languages differ. The readiest means of communication between them now is English. Their cultural backgrounds and social outlooks differ widely; and their indigenous political institutions have little in common. Their present stages of development vary.” For example, we have the Binis, the Urhobos, the Isokos, the Kalabaris, the Igarras, the Tivs, the Birons, the Itsekiris, the Andonis, the Nupes, the Fulanis, the Kanuris, the Jukuns, the Yorubas, the Ibos, the Ukwuanis, the Efiks, the Ibibios, Esans, the Afemais, the Hausas, etc.  (To be continued…)

FUN TIMES

There are two sides to every coin. Life itself contains not only the good, but also the bad and the ugly. Let us now explore these.

“Am asking you out and you are asking me if I have a girlfriend. Have you ever seen someone going to buy a new shoe barefooted?” – Anonymous.

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Opinion

The Stockholm Syndrome in the Delta

Published

on

By

By Boma Lilian Braide Esq.

The water remembers. It remembers when we were queens and kings of the creeks, when our voices carried across the rivers like thunder, and when no external force could dictate the terms of our existence.

Today, as a daughter of the Ijaw nation, I look at our political landscape and my heart breaks into a thousand pieces. The recent withdrawal of Pastor Tonye Cole from the political race reopened a wound that never properly healed. I immediately texted him a single, urgent question: “Why?” His response was a resigned, familiar phrase; “It is well.” At that exact moment, my thoughts were screaming so loudly inside my head, “Not again!” It felt like a brutal repetition of an old script. Every single time, without fail, they treat the Ijaw man badly, pushing him out of the room where decisions are made.

This leadership class continually trades our birthright for political crumbs, leaving me with a profound sadness I cannot shake. Every four years, we are forced to watch the same exhausting, predictable cycle play out. We have become the laughing stock of the Nigerian politics. We roar like lions in the morning, only to allow ourselves to be led like sheep to the slaughter house by nightfall. This pattern is not merely a string of tactical errors. It is a structural and psychological condition that has calcified into our political culture. We begin every election season with unparalleled bravery, massive energy, clarity, and a list of demands. We mobilise, we protest, we declare our rights. Yet at the decisive moment we fold. We trade collective power for personal gain. We accept crumbs while the harvest is taken from our lands allowing our leaders to be used as mere pawns, chess pieces, and foot soldiers on a board completely controlled by outsiders.

Call it what it is, a political Stockholm syndrome. When a people are held hostage by extractive systems for generations, they can begin to see the captor as a provider. When political actors poison our rivers, burn our gas, and extract our wealth, then return during elections with token gifts, the damaged political imagination can mistake those gifts for benevolence. A motorcycle, a solar lamp, a bag of rice, or a ten thousand naira note becomes a substitute for structural justice. We applaud the giver and forget the theft.

This is not a partisan indictment. The major parties have all participated in this system. From the coastal edges of Ondo and Edo, through Rivers and Bayelsa, to the riverine communities of Delta and Akwa Ibom, the script is the same. Political machines arrive with cash and spectacle. They leave with votes. They do not stay to build roads, to clean oil spills, to fund health care, or to restore fisheries. They do not invest in education or in the infrastructure that would make our communities resilient. They know they do not have to. They know that the combination of poverty, fragmentation, and short-term survival instincts will deliver the votes they need.

The spectacle in Rivers State is instructive. The conflict between an incumbent and a predecessor is not only a personal rivalry. It is a mirror of a deeper structural problem. An Ijaw son may occupy the governor’s office, but the expectation of loyalty to an external power broker remains. When disagreements arise, the Ijaw polity does not close ranks. Instead, it fractures. Elders, youth groups, and political actors align with different external centres of power. We tear ourselves apart while the larger system remains intact.

Delta State offers another painful example. The region produces a disproportionate share of the oil wealth that sustains the state and the nation. Yet Ijaw communities are routinely relegated to secondary roles in governance. The highest offices are often out of reach. When an Ijaw candidate shows real ambition, the pressure to step down, to accept a consolation prize, or to be bought off intensifies at the last minute. The result is a steady stream of symbolic representation and token appointments that do not translate into structural change.

Even Bayelsa State, our most homogenous political home, has not been immune. The state has been turned into a dependent outpost. Political life there is often conducted under the shadow of Abuja. During elections, communities are militarized. Young people are paid paltry sums to snatch ballot boxes and intimidate their neighbours. The leaders who emerge from such processes rarely prioritize environmental remediation, health care, or education. They prioritize survival within the national political economy.

Why do we accept this? Part of the answer lies in a minority complex that has been cultivated over generations. We have been taught to believe that because we are numerically small and geographically dispersed across several states, we cannot set national terms. That belief is false. Our geographic position along the southern maritime border gives us leverage. Nigeria’s economy cannot function without the peace of our creeks. Yet we negotiate from a position of weakness because we lack a unified, non-partisan political command structure.

Other major ethnic blocs in Nigeria have developed cultural mechanisms that protect collective interests across party lines. They maintain consensus on key strategic questions and punish those who betray the collective. The Ijaw political house, by contrast, is fragmented. We are divided into Western, Central, and Eastern blocs. Internal jealousy and rivalry consume us. When an Ijaw son or daughter rises to prominence, it is sometimes their own people who are recruited to pull them down. This internal sabotage is a major reason we are treated as expendable by national political machines.

Our representatives in national assemblies and federal boards are often the most silent and compliant. They vote for policies that harm our region because they want to protect their personal seats and committee positions. We have forgotten the intellectual foundation of our struggle. Our fathers did not rely on muscle alone. They fought with logic and strategy.

Harold Dappa Biriye used constitutional arguments to demand minority rights during the pre-independence conferences. Isaac Adaka Boro presented a detailed economic manifesto during the twelve-day revolution, exposing the systematic underdevelopment of the Delta. The Kaiama Declaration of 1998 linked environmental justice with true federalism in a way that remains a model for strategic political thinking. Today, that intellectual tradition has been eroded by a culture of thuggery, praise singing, and the pursuit of quick money.

The social and economic costs of our political submission are visible everywhere. Schools sink into the mud. Primary health centres lack basic medicines. Women die in childbirth because there are no functional boats to transport them to urban hospitals. Rivers that once sustained us are coated with crude oil. Gas flares burn day and night, releasing toxins that cause cancers and respiratory diseases. In any functioning democracy, such environmental devastation would provoke electoral punishment. But our people accept ten-thousand naira, wear party uniforms, and return the same leaders to office.

This pattern is not only morally wrong. It is strategically suicidal. The global energy transition is underway. The world is moving away from fossil fuels. In a few decades, crude oil will no longer be the primary driver of the global economy. When that happens, the Nigerian state’s willingness to distribute minor rents, amnesty stipends, and pipeline contracts will evaporate. If we remain politically domesticated and economically dependent, we will be discarded once our resources lose value. We will be left with a ruined environment and a population unprepared for the modern economy.

Breaking this cycle requires a radical transformation of our political behaviour. It requires both immediate reforms and long-term institution building.
First, we must refuse to sell our votes for temporary relief. If politicians bring money during elections, take it because it is a fraction of your stolen wealth, but enter the voting booth and vote fiercely against them if they have not delivered real, systemic progress. The act of taking money and voting against the giver is not a moral ideal. It is a pragmatic tactic that recognizes the reality of survival while asserting political agency.

Second, we must create a culture of community accountability. Any Ijaw politician, elder, or youth leader who sells out the collective interest for personal gain must face social consequences. They should be stripped of traditional honours, excluded from community gatherings, and greeted with public disapproval rather than celebration. The cost of betrayal must be made higher than the reward offered by external actors.

We must also institutionalize our collective strength. The Ijaw nation needs a permanent, non-partisan political and economic council composed of our finest minds. This council should include intellectuals, legal experts, economists, and community builders from across the globe. Its mandate would be to define a multi decade Ijaw National Agenda that transcends party lines. Any Ijaw person entering politics should be bound by that agenda. Any external political force seeking our cooperation should be required to commit to its verifiable execution.

Again, we must build strategic alliances with other coastal minority groups. From Calabar to Badagry, the coastal communities share common interests in environmental protection, maritime economies, and regional development. A unified coastal voting bloc would create a political force that no national party can ignore. Such an alliance would also strengthen bargaining power for federal resource allocation and environmental remediation.

Fifth, we must shift our economic focus from pipelines to the blue marine economy. Our future lies in the ocean. We must invest in community owned industrial fishing fleets, deep sea shipping logistics, local shipbuilding yards, and aquaculture networks. We must develop port infrastructure and maritime training centres. Economic independence is the foundation of political courage. When our communities can fund their own schools, hospitals, and water systems through independent marine enterprises, we will no longer beg for crumbs.

Sixth, we must invest in education and leadership training. Political courage is not loud rhetoric. It is disciplined strategy. We must train a new generation of leaders who understand constitutional law, public finance, environmental science, and international trade. We must teach negotiation skills, coalition building, and institutional design. The Ijaw struggle must be intellectualized and professionalized.

Seventh, we must reclaim our narrative. For too long our story has been told by others. We must document our history, our legal claims, and our environmental evidence. We must use the courts, the media, and international forums to hold polluters and complicit officials accountable. We must turn our lived experience into verifiable claims that can be litigated and publicized.

Finally, we must practice disciplined solidarity. Political unity does not mean uniformity of opinion. It means a shared commitment to core strategic objectives. It means agreeing on red lines that cannot be crossed. It means supporting candidates who commit to the Ijaw National Agenda and sanctioning those who betray it.

The hour is late. The cost of our political naivety is visible in every polluted river, every jobless youth, and every broken promise. We cannot enter another election cycle with the same broken playbook. We must reject transactional politics and demand structural change. We must hold our leaders accountable and refuse to celebrate personal appointments that bring no collective benefit.

We must heal ourselves of this political Stockholm syndrome. We must stop loving the systems that destroy us and begin the difficult work of building lasting political infrastructure. The future of the Ijaw nation depends on our ability to transform our pain into strategic power. The water is watching. The spirits of our ancestors who resisted colonial domination are watching. We must rise, cleanse our minds of dependency, and stand with dignity. The era of last minute surrender must end. The time for strategic, sovereign Ijaw political courage has arrived.

Continue Reading

Opinion

Leadership in Africa: Forging a New Era of Self-Reliance, Unity and Global Relevance (Pt. 3)

Published

on

By

By Tolulope A. Adegoke

“True leadership in Africa is not the pursuit of power, but the courage to serve — to turn the pain of yesterday into the promise of tomorrow, to bind broken hearts into one destiny, and to raise a continent where every son and daughter can stand tall, not by pulling others down, but by lifting one another higher.” – Tolulope A. Adegoke, PhD

Building upon the foundational principles and practical pathways discussed in Parts 1 and 2, this continuation explores the deeper implementation strategies, institutional reforms, cultural shifts, and long-term vision required to translate African leadership into tangible, sustainable transformation. It addresses the realities on the ground while offering forward-looking, actionable recommendations that can help Africa move from potential to performance on both regional and global stages.

Institutional Reforms as the Backbone of Transformative Leadership

Visionary leadership without strong institutions is like a beautiful dream without a foundation. Africa’s progress depends on building institutions that are resilient, transparent, and people-centred.

Leaders must prioritise civil service reform, judicial independence, and anti-corruption mechanisms that are not only punitive but preventive. For example, Rwanda’s use of performance contracts (imihigo) for public officials has created a culture of accountability and results. Similarly, Ghana’s strong electoral commission and relatively independent judiciary have helped sustain democratic stability. These models show that when institutions are strengthened, leadership becomes less about individual charisma and more about systemic effectiveness.

Regional institutions such as the African Union, ECOWAS, SADC, and the East African Community must also be reformed. They need greater financial autonomy, faster decision-making processes, and clearer enforcement mechanisms. The African Union’s current efforts to reform its Peace and Security Council and operationalise the African Standby Force are steps in the right direction, but they require consistent political will and adequate funding from member states.

Cultural and Mindset Transformation

Leadership that builds Africa must also transform mindsets. Many of the continent’s challenges are rooted in colonial-era thinking, dependency syndromes, and a culture of short-termism.

Progressive leaders should invest in cultural renewal programmes that celebrate African excellence, innovation, and resilience. This includes supporting the creative industries — Nollywood in Nigeria, Afrobeats music, and contemporary African literature — which are already projecting positive African narratives globally. Educational systems must move beyond rote learning to foster critical thinking, ethical reasoning, and entrepreneurial spirit.

Youth leadership development is particularly crucial. With over 60% of Africa’s population under the age of 25, the continent’s future depends on preparing young people not just for jobs, but for leadership. Initiatives like the African Union’s Youth Agenda and national youth service programmes should be expanded and made more impactful.

Economic Transformation and Self-Reliance in Practice

True self-reliance requires deliberate economic restructuring. Leaders must champion value addition in agriculture, mining, and natural resources. Instead of exporting raw cocoa, cotton, or crude oil, African countries should invest in processing facilities that create jobs and capture more value domestically.

The African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA) offers a historic opportunity. When fully implemented, it can boost intra-African trade, reduce dependence on external markets, and create new industries. Leaders who actively remove non-tariff barriers, harmonise standards, and invest in cross-border infrastructure will be remembered as the architects of Africa’s economic renaissance.

Public-private partnerships (PPPs) should be strengthened, with clear frameworks that protect national interests while attracting responsible investment. Countries like Morocco and Ethiopia have shown how strategic industrial policies can attract foreign direct investment while building local capacity.

Global Relevance: Africa as a Solution Provider

Africa must stop seeing itself solely as a recipient of global solutions and begin positioning itself as a contributor. The continent’s vast renewable energy potential, youthful population, and rich biodiversity give it unique advantages in addressing global challenges such as climate change, food security, and digital innovation.

Leaders who understand this will invest in research and development, patent African innovations, and engage confidently in global forums. The success of African pharmaceutical companies during the COVID-19 pandemic and the growth of African tech unicorns demonstrate that the continent can compete and lead when given the right environment.

 

A Balanced and Hopeful Conclusion

Africa stands at a historic crossroads. The challenges — poverty, inequality, climate vulnerability, and governance gaps — are real and significant. Yet the opportunities — a youthful population, abundant natural resources, cultural richness, and growing regional integration — are even greater.

Leadership remains the decisive variable. When leaders rise above narrow interests to serve the collective good, Africa does not just survive — it thrives and offers the world new models of resilience, innovation, and inclusive growth.

The path forward requires a new covenant: between leaders and citizens, between nations and regions, and between Africa and the global community. This covenant must be rooted in trust, mutual accountability, and shared vision. With the right leadership — courageous, ethical, inclusive, and strategic — Africa can forge a new era of self-reliance, unity, and global relevance.

The question is not whether Africa can rise. The question is whether its leaders, supported by an awakened citizenry, will summon the will, wisdom, and courage to make that rise unstoppable. The world is watching, and history is waiting to record the choices made in this decisive decade.

Africa’s story is still being written. With visionary leadership, it can become one of triumph, dignity, and global excellence.

Dr. Tolulope A. Adegoke, AMBP-UN is a globally recognized scholar-practitioner and thought leader at the nexus of security, governance, and strategic leadership. His mission is dedicated to advancing ethical governance, strategic human capital development, resilient nation building, and global peace. He can be reached via: tolulopeadegoke01@gmail.comglobalstageimpacts@gmail.com

Continue Reading

Opinion

A Familiar Kind of Tragedy by Adeoye Inioluwa

Published

on

By

The recent attacks on school communities in Oyo and Borno states have once again forced the country into a familiar emotional cycle — shock, grief, statements, and questions that briefly dominate public attention before gradually fading into silence.
What makes this cycle more unsettling each time is not only the incident itself, but the growing sense that it no longer feels entirely unexpected.
No society is completely free of insecurity. That much is understood. But what often defines public confidence is not the absence of incidents; it is the clarity, consistency, and visibility of response over time.
People do not only want to hear that action will be taken. They want to understand what has changed since the last time similar words were spoken.
Schools are supposed to represent safety at its most basic level. They are meant to be spaces where children are temporarily removed from the uncertainties of the outside world, not exposed to them. So when violence reaches those spaces, it does more than disrupt learning — it disrupts trust.
In the immediate aftermath, responses are often swift in tone. Condemnation is expressed. Sympathy is extended. Assurances are made. These reactions are necessary, but the challenge lies in what follows after the statements are made.
Because for those directly affected, the consequences do not end when public attention moves on.
There is also a broader national concern that emerges in moments like this: the increasing difficulty of distinguishing isolated incidents from a pattern. When similar events recur across different locations and times, they begin to reshape how communities perceive safety itself.
At that point, the issue is no longer only about response, but about prevention — and more importantly, about whether prevention is visibly evolving in a way that matches the scale of concern.
Citizens are not only listening for reassurance. They are watching for evidence that lessons from previous incidents have been fully translated into action. This includes how vulnerable spaces are secured, how intelligence is applied, and how quickly gaps are identified before they are exploited again.
Without that visible progression, reassurance risks becoming routine, and routine reassurance gradually weakens public confidence.
There is also a quiet emotional cost that is rarely acknowledged. Each new incident does not erase the memory of the previous one; it adds to it. Over time, this accumulation creates a national fatigue — a troubling adaptation to repeated distress.
In such a climate, the most important responsibility is not only to respond after events, but to reduce the conditions that allow them to repeat.
Because ultimately, the measure of any serious response is not how firmly it is stated in moments of crisis, but how clearly it reshapes what happens next.
And if that shift is not visible, then the unanswered questions will continue. Not out of impatience, but out of necessity.

Continue Reading

Trending