Connect with us

Headline

Pendulum: The Lions Won’t Let You, A Review of Fighting Lions

Published

on

By Abiodun Adeniyi

He has never hidden his reverence for the 13th Aare Ona Kakanfo of Yorubaland, Bashorun Moshood Abiola. He has severally celebrated the legendary multi-tasking ability of the late politician, just as he has nearly waxed songs about Abiola’s phenomenal energy, his native intelligence, his prowess with proverbs and his networking skills.

Abiola’s expertise in combining the past  and the modern, the present and the absent, all in the pursuit of opening up the mind for better understanding of situations have not also been lost on him. As if a genetic protégé, he has been faithful to Abiola’s epistemic disposition, as he has been to his political and business philosophies.
It has been the path of foremost journalist, entrepreneur, writer and columnist, Dele Momodu, while bestriding the Shakespearean “straight and narrow path(s)” of existence.
The highlighted Abiola traits are interestingly coterminous with Momodu’s effervescent nature, his philosophic approaches and his apostolic drive for social change.
Check him out as well: He is at home with proverbs, especially of the Yoruba genre, just as he is naturally enlivening, besides penchants to radiate a positive verve, capable of melting even the hardest of the stones, just like Moshood Abiola.
Excited in the open, and at once humble at a closer range, Momodu exemplifies the textbook difference between the person in the public face and the one in the private face. Public impressions are constructed based on media portrayals, representations and posturing. They are moderated by closer contacts disproving or affirming presumptions, in the subtle back and forth world of the definition and discerning of reputation. While some may misunderstand Momodu in the distance as disinterested, he comes personable, witty, friendly, and humorous on closer approach.
Obviously experimental in nature and confident of the multiple traits he bears, just like his mentor Abiola, Momodu would no doubt go some more length in his strides. Also a Bashorun (of Oke-Ila), like Abiola (who was of Ibadan), he soon stepped onto the political space, angling for the topmost position in the land-the nation’s presidency; and again, like his mentor remarkably did.
The story of his foray into presidential politics is one capable of evoking mixed feelings. Was it audacious, well meaning, or adventurous? That seems some of the questions that Ohimai Godwin Amaize seeks to answer in the book “Fighting Lions: The Untold Story of Dele Momodu’s Presidential Campaign”
Amaize wrote from a vantage position. He was manager of Momodu’s presidential campaign when he ran for president in 2011. Technically a participant observer therefore, Amaize chronicled their campaign travels, tours and detours, from the point of view of an insider, and a witness to bravery, appointments and disappointments, pleasures and pains, downs and lows, aside the Janus face of man, coming after the Greek idol, with its especial temporality in  gazing forward and backwards.
Himself a writer, journalist and new media enthusiast, Amaize did not just embark on a teleological rendition of the campaign experiences, but attempted to give meanings to their experiences, making deductions, doing reflections and reflexions, in a bid to situate the character of man within time and space, through the prism of the rambunctious Momodu.
In setting out from his “If not us…Who?”, as the first chapter is titled, Amaize underlined the thinking in town that political contestation is just for the other person-not for me! It should not be so in the ideal sense, which justifies the courage to come against the “lions” as Momodu did.
The writer in Momodu has countlessly made him to tell his own story of how he grew from Ife to Lagos, how he mutated from a budding writer to a celebrated editor and columnist and how he has extended his paths to pro-democracy activism, to exilic exploits, and then to the mission to serve. Momodu is ordinarily expressive and volunteering, believing that his experiences are good enough to motivate and to inspire, and that there is no price without process, no gains without losses, and no advantage without disadvantages.
It explains why Amaize did not dwell too much on “The Dele Momodu Story” and racing quickly to the question of “Who Says the Youth Can’t Lead”, where he challenged subtle narratives about the unpreparedness of the Nigerian youths to lead.  The youth is often derided, albeit in hush, covert tongues, as a reluctant set, which cannot be trusted just yet. Even though there is no evidence for this, the impression is real, and evening up to a perception of neglect.
Using Momodu’s case, he argued that the youth are more than ready to lead, especially for their depth, their energy and the new world of innovation, where the world is essentially technology driven, and where the youths are playing a critical role. Momodu, he maintains, exemplifies not just that kind of youth oriented leadership, but one that can galvanize the youth towards nation building, as partly shown in his decision to choose him as his campaign manager, irrespective of his age.
Amaize then noted the place of the voters in the electioneering process, especially against the background of suspected elite cynicism. The elites, he regretted would be reluctant in backing the youth, or one who is not a member of the establishment. They would prefer an old order, where patterns and particularities are predictable, and where change will regrettably not come from.
Amaize revealed how the campaign was not reckoned with despite the towering image of Momodu, and how elites wrote off their chances, apriori, in what  undermined the influence of the voters. They powered on, regardless, because “we were confident about one thing: it’s the voters who decide the outcome of elections, whether they vote or refuse to cast their votes” It is therefore a case of “It’s the Voters, Stupid”.
Other than elite cynicism were other shades of cynics, naysayers, and friends who felt the Momodu campaign was not a serious one. These set doubted he genuinely wanted to be president. They thought he was just out to shine, and to be counted. The more they tried to convince them the more they doubted them. Close friends left him to his cause. Mentors were circumspect, while fellow runners were suspicious. Rather than being discouraged, Momodu was rather encouraged.
He pushed and pushed, despite personalities, individuals, and parties’ betrayals, testifying to the thinking that you are what you want to be. Amaize captured this as much in use of the Charles Swindoll words: “The real tests of courage are much quieter. They are the inner tests, like remaining faithful when nobody’s looking, like enduring pain when the room is empty, like standing alone when you are misunderstood”
And determined to pull through the maze of doubts the campaigners knew they must deploy the tool of unity. They must be coordinated, integrated and inclusive. They were therefore concerned about ensuring supporters both at home and abroad spoke with a voice, moved in unison and assembled in as many centres as possible, towards the expression of their mission, vision and core objectives.
They no doubt did “Against All Odds” proving to the world that the campaign was not a joke, but a real interest in winning, in contributing to national growth and development. In the book, therefore, Amaize showed some of the downsides of the Nigerian system, revolving around the absence of belief, the nuance of faithlessness and the commodification of processes in a transactional arrangement that erodes values, virtues and a subscription to higher ideal.
He summed it thus: “It was an experience that forced our team to take a proper look at the critical factors that determine outcomes in Nigerian politics. We came to the disturbing conclusion that the very first factor was money. It was not policies, programmes or the people; it was money. The second factor was ethnicity; where you came from. The third factor was religion, and the fourth was popularity.”
Even so, Momodu was gratified that through the presidential contest, he became enriched, more informed and with a broader sense of perspective on things Nigeria. A practiced thinker on the Nigerian condition, he believes with the campaign experience, he is in a better stead to make quality, aposteriori submissions on the nation’s situations as seen through his columns, in interactions and in sundry media outings, consistent with his primary passion for social engineering.
Good book no doubt, Amaize has invited us to think along with them, in the manner the campaign did, but not before reading and digesting the thirteen-chapter text. Deserving of engagement, the literature is simply worth one’s time, even if the title “Fighting lions…” portrayed Momodu’s political travel as a combat, instead of the pursuit of a worthy cause. I will downplay that, anyway, and heartily recommend it to you. I hereby so do.

*Dr. Adeniyi, writer, public commentator and strategic and diasporic communication scholar, teaches Mass Communication at Baze University, Abuja.

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

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

Headline

Opposition Parties Reject 2026 Electoral Act, Demand Fresh Amendment

Published

on

By

Opposition political parties have rejected the 2026 Electoral Act recently passed by the National Assembly, which President Bola Tinubu swiftly signed into law.

The parties called on the National Assembly to immediately begin a fresh amendment process to remove what they described as “all obnoxious provisions” in the law.

Their position was made known at a press briefing themed “Urgent Call to Save Nigeria’s Democracy,” held at the Transcorp Hilton Hotel in Abuja on Thursday.

In a communiqué read by the Chairman of the New Nigeria Peoples Party (NNPP) Ahmed Ajuji, the opposition leaders stated:

“We demand that the National Assembly immediately commence a fresh amendment to the Electoral Act 2026, to remove all obnoxious provisions and ensure that the Act reflects only the will and aspiration of Nigerians for free, fair, transparent and credible electoral process in our country. Nothing short of this will be acceptable to Nigerians.”

Some of the opposition leaders present in at the event include former Senate President David Mark; former Governor of Osun State, Rauf Aregbesola; former Vice President Atiku Abubakar; former Governor of Rivers State, Chibuike Rotimi Amaechi; and former Governor of Anambra State, Peter Obi, all from the African Democratic Congress (ADC).

The National Chairman of the New Nigeria Peoples Party (NNPP), Ahmed Ajuji, and other prominent members of the NNPP, notably Buba Galadima, were also in attendance.

The coalition said the amended law, signed by Bola Tinubu, contains “anti-democratic” clauses, which they argue may weaken electoral transparency and public confidence in the voting system.

At the centre of the opposition’s concerns is the amendment to Section 60(3), which allows presiding officers to rely on manual transmission of election results where there is communication failure.

According to the coalition, the provision weakens the mandatory electronic transmission of results and could create loopholes for manipulation.

They argued that Nigeria’s electoral technology infrastructure is sufficient to support nationwide electronic transmission, citing previous assurances by officials of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC).

The parties also rejected the amendment to Section 84, which restricts political parties to direct primaries and consensus methods for candidate selection.

They described the change as an unconstitutional intrusion into the internal affairs of parties, insisting that indirect primaries remain a legitimate democratic option.

The opposition cited alleged irregularities in the recent Federal Capital Territory local government elections as evidence of what they described as a broader pattern of electoral compromise.

They characterised the polls as a “complete fraud” and said the outcome has deepened their lack of confidence in the ability of the electoral system to deliver credible elections in 2027.

The coalition also condemned reported attacks on leaders of the African Democratic Congress in Edo State, describing the incidents as a serious threat to democratic participation and political tolerance.

They warned that increasing violence against opposition figures could destabilise the political environment if not urgently addressed.

In their joint statement, the opposition parties pledged to pursue “every constitutional means” to challenge the Electoral Act 2026 and safeguard voters’ rights.

“We will not be intimidated,” the leaders said, urging civil society organisations and citizens to support efforts aimed at protecting Nigeria’s democratic system.

On February 18, 2026, President Bola Tinubu signed the Electoral Act (Amendment) 2026 into law following its passage by the National Assembly. The Act introduced several reforms, including statutory recognition of the Bimodal Voter Accreditation System and revised election timelines.

However, opposition figures such as Atiku Abubakar and Peter Obi have also called for further amendments, particularly over the manual transmission fallback clause, which critics say leaves room for manipulation.

The president said the law will strengthen democracy and prevent voter disenfranchisement.

Tinubu defended manual collation of results, questioned Nigeria’s readiness for full real-time electronic transmission, and warned against technical glitches and hacking.

The Electoral Act sparked intense debate in the National Assembly over how election results should be transmitted ahead of the 2027 general elections.

Civil society groups under the “Occupy NASS” campaign demanded real-time transmission to curb manipulation.

In the Senate, lawmakers clashed during consideration of Clause 60, which allows manual transmission of results if electronic transmission fails.

Senator Enyinnaya Abaribe (ADC, Abia South) demanded a formal vote to remove the proviso permitting manual transmission, arguing against weakening real-time electronic reporting.

The move led to a heated exchange on the floor, with Senate President Godswill Akpabio initially suggesting the demand had been withdrawn.

After procedural disputes and a brief confrontation among senators, a division was conducted. Fifteen opposition senators voted against retaining the manual transmission proviso, while 55 supported it, allowing the clause to stand.

Earlier proceedings had briefly stalled during clause-by-clause review, prompting consultations and a closed-door session.

In the House of Representatives, a similar disagreement came up over a motion to rescind an earlier decision that mandated compulsory real-time electronic transmission of results to IReV.

Although the “nays” were louder during a voice vote, Speaker Tajudeen Abbas ruled in favour of rescinding the decision, triggering protests and an executive session.

Continue Reading

Headline

AFP: How Tinubu’s Govt Paid Boko Haram ‘Huge’ Ransom, Released Two Terrorists for Kidnapped Saint Mary’s Pupils

Published

on

By

The Nigerian government paid Boko Haram militants a “huge” ransom of millions of dollars to free up to 230 children and staff the jihadists abducted from a Catholic school in November, an AFP investigation revealed Monday.

Two Boko Haram commanders were also freed as part of the deal, which goes against the country’s own law banning payments to kidnappers. The money was delivered by helicopter to Boko Haram’s Gwoza stronghold in northeastern Borno state on the border with Cameroon, intelligence sources told AFP.

The decision to pay the militants is likely to irritate US President Donald Trump, who ordered air strikes on jihadists in northern Nigeria on Christmas Day and has been sent military trainers to help support Nigerian forces.

Nigerian government officials deny any ransom was paid to the armed gang that snatched close to 300 schoolchildren and staff from St. Mary’s boarding school in Papiri in central Niger state on November 21. At least 50 later managed to escape their captors.

Boko Haram has not been previously linked to the kidnapping, but sources told AFP one of its most feared commanders was behind the mass abduction: the notorious jihadist known as Sadiku.

He infamously held up a train from the capital in 2022 and netted hefty ransoms for the release of government officials and other well-off passengers.

Boko Haram, which has waged a bloody insurgency since 2009, is strongest in northeast Nigeria.

But a cell in central Niger state operates under Sadiku’s leadership. The St. Mary’s pupils and staff were freed after two weeks of negotiations led by Nuhu Ribadu, Nigeria’s National Security Adviser, with the government insisting no ransom was paid. Nigeria’s State Security Service flatly denied paying any money, saying “government agents don’t pay ransoms”.

However, four intelligence sources familiar with the talks told AFP the government paid a “huge” ransom to get the pupils back. One source put it at 40 million naira per head – around $7 million in total.

Another put the figure lower at two billion naira overall. The money was delivered by chopper to Ali Ngulde, a Boko Haram commander in the northeast, three sources told AFP.

Due to the lack of communications cover in the remote area, Ngulde had to cross into Cameroon to confirm delivery of the ransom before the first group of 100 children were released.

Nigeria has long been plagued by mass abductions, with criminals and jihadist groups sometimes working together to extort millions from hostages’ families, and authorities seemingly powerless to stop them.

Source: Africanews

Continue Reading

Headline

Unlawful Invasion: El-Rufai Drags ICPC, IGP, Others to Court, Demands N1bn Damages

Published

on

By

Former Governor of Kaduna State, Nasir El-Rufai, has slammed a ₦1 billion fundamental rights enforcement suit against the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC) for what he claimed was an unlawful invasion of his Abuja residence.

El-Rufai, in a suit filed at the Federal High Court in Abuja, also listed the Chief Magistrate, Magistrate’s Court of the FCT, Abuja Magisterial District; Inspector-General of Police, and the Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF) as 2nd to 4th respondents respectively.

According to the suit filed through his lawyers, led by Oluwole Iyamu, El-Rufai prayed the court to declare that the search warrant issued on February 4 by the Chief Magistrate, Magistrate’s Court of the FCT (2nd respondent), authorising the search and seizure at his residence as invalid, null and void.

Security operatives had stormed and searched the former Governor’s residence in the ongoing investigations against him.

However, he argued in the case marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/345/2026, that the search was in violation of Section 37 of the Constitution, and urged the court to declare that the search warrant was “null and void for lack of particularity, material drafting errors, ambiguity in execution parameters, overbreadth, and absence of probable cause thereby constituting an unlawful and unreasonable search.”

In the suit dated and filed February 20 by Iyamu, ex-governor, who is currently under detention, sought seven reliefs.

He prayed the court to declare that the invasion and search of his residence at House 12, Mambilla Street, Aso Drive, Abuja, on Feb. 19 at about 2pm and executed by agents of ICPC and I-G, “under the aforesaid invalid warrant, amounts to a gross violation of the applicant’s fundamental rights to dignity of the human person, personal liberty, fair hearing, and privacy under Sections 34, 35, 36, and 37 of the Constitution.”

He urged the court to declare that “any evidence obtained pursuant to the aforesaid invalid warrant and unlawful search is inadmissible in any proceedings against the applicant, as it was procured in breach of constitutional safeguards.”

El-Rufai, therefore, sought an order of injunction restraining the respondents and their agents from further relying on, using, or tendering any evidence or items seized during the unlawful search in any investigation, prosecution, or proceedings involving him.

“An order directing the Ist and 3rd respondents (ICPC and I-G) to forthwith return all items seized from the applicant’s premises during the unlawful search, together with a detailed inventory thereof.

“An order awarding the sum of N1,000,000,000.00 (One Billion Naira) as general, exemplary, and aggravated damages against the respondents jointly and severally for the violations of the applicant’s fundamental rights, including trespass, unlawful seizure, and the resultant psychological trauma, humiliation, distress, infringement of privacy, and reputational harm.”

The breakdown of the ₦1 billion in damages includes “a N300 million as compensatory damages for psychological trauma, emotional distress, and loss of personal security;

“A ₦400 million as exemplary damages to deter future misconduct by law enforcement agencies and vindicate the applicant’s rights.

“A ₦300 million as aggravated damages for the malicious, high-handed and oppressive nature of the respondents’ actions, including the use of a patently defective warrant procured through misleading representations.”

He equally sought ₦100 million as the cost of filing the suit, including legal fees and associated expenses.

Iyamu argued that the search warrant was fundamentally defective, lacking specificity in the description of items to be seized, containing material typographical errors, ambiguous execution terms, overbroad directives, and no verifiable probable cause.

He added that the warrant violated Sections 143-148 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA), 2015; Section 36 of the Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences (ICPC) Act, 2000, and constitutional protections against arbitrary intrusions and several other constitutional provisions.

“Section 146 stipulates that the warrant must be in the prescribed form, free from defects that could mislead, but the document is riddled with errors in the address, date, and district designation;

“Section 147 allows direction to specified persons, but the warrant’s indiscriminate addressing to “all officers is overbroad and unaccountable.

“Section 148 permits execution at reasonable times, but the contradictory language creates ambiguity, undermining procedural clarity,” he submitted.

Iyamu stated that the execution of the invalid warrant on Feb. 19 resulted in an unlawful invasion of his client’s premises, constituting violations of the rights to dignity (Section 34), personal liberty (Section 35), fair hearing (Section 36), and privacy (Section 37) of the Constitution.

He further argued that the search was conducted without legal justification and in a manner that inflicted humiliation and distress.

Evidence obtained without a valid warrant is unlawful and inadmissible, as established in judicial precedents such as C.O.P. v. Omoh (1969) NCLR 137, where the court ruled that evidence procured through improper means contravenes fundamental rights and must be excluded,” he said.

In the affidavit in support of the application, Mohammed Shaba, a Principal Secretary to the former governor, averred that on Feb. 19 at about 2p.m., officers from the ICPC and Nigeria Police Force invaded the residence under a purported search warrant issued on or about Feb. 4.

According to him, the said warrant is invalid due to its lack of specificity, errors, and other defects as outlined in the grounds of this application.

He said the “search warrant did not specify the properties or items being searched for.”

Shaba stated that the officers failed to submit themselves for search as provided by the law before proceeding with the search.

“That the Magistrate did not specify the magisterial district wherein he sits.

“That during the invasion, the officers searched the applicant’s premises without lawful authority, seized personal items including documents and electronic devices, and caused the applicant undue humiliation, psychological trauma, and distress.

“Now shown to me and marked as ‘EXHIBIT B’ Is the list of the items carted away.

“That no items seized have been returned, and the respondents continue to rely on the unlawful evidence.

“That the applicant suffered violations of his constitutional rights as a result, and this application is brought in good faith to enforce same,” Shaba said.

Source: Naijanews.com

Continue Reading

Trending