Connect with us

Headline

Friday Sermon: Parable of the Patient Dog

Published

on

By Babatunde Jose

“O ye who believe! Obey Allah, and obey the Apostle, and those charged with authority among you. If ye differ in anything among yourselves, refer it to Allah and His Apostle, if ye do believe in Allah and the Last day: That is best, and most suitable for final determination.” (Quran 4:59)

Islam makes no sharp division between sacred and secular affairs; it expects governments to be imbued with righteousness. Likewise Islam expects Muslims to respect the authority of such government for otherwise there can be no order or discipline. This however, is the bane of religious precepts in a secular environment. It is not in consonant with participatory democracy and the qualities desired from followers in modern democratic society. This is the origin of the proverbial docility, acquiescence and unquestioning acceptance of leadership and the ‘rankadede’ syndrome; an unquestioning obeisance of leaders. The above verse of the Quran is based on the assumption of a theocratic state. Modern nation states demand a different set of qualities from followers among which are; willingness to assume responsibilities, competence and self-management, efficiency, political engagement, readiness to be mobilized and lending a voice to protest bad leadership and of course, demand for accountability. Unfortunately, most of these qualities are wanting in the followership in our society; hence the absence of a culture of protest.

As followers we are too timid and complacent. We do not make forceful demands on our rulers. We acquiesce and resort to self help. We do not make them accountable and limit our complaints to rancorous discussions at the beer parlor or at social events over plates of jollof rice and Coca Cola.  In the words of Prof Wole Soyinka: “I have become increasingly convinced that, between leadership and the led, there is only a very thin dividing line, often nearly indistinguishable. There is no question in my mind that, most often, the so-called led are their own worst enemies, even to the point of self-betrayal and treachery to their own existence. . . . .” Wole Soyinka: ‘Handshake Across History’.  The key role of citizens in a democracy is to participate in public life. In other climes they protest and riot over increase in the price of bread or rice, fuel and other issues that impinge on the welfare of the people. Here we are content to accept all that they throw at us with equanimity. What have we done about the fantabulous take home pay of our legislators? Nothing! We do not protest the potholes on our streets or the delay in refuse disposal. We make little or no demands on our leaders and do not hold them responsible for our degradation. Political apathy can lead to low voter turnout as we witnessed during the last elections and stagnation in government.

The case of Lebanon illustrates the matter.  In CNN’s Fareed Zakaria’s  Global Briefing,  Bilal Y. Saab writes at the Middle East Institute, citizens of the fragile country (where civil war raged from 1975 to 1990  and where power is still split, for the most part, between Christians, Sunnis, and Shiites) did not take part in the Arab Spring. But, that has changed recently as Lebanon has joined the club of countries facing mass demonstrations. In the vein of Chile’s transit-fare hike, Ecuador’s end to fuel subsidies, and Hong Kong’s extradition bill, Lebanon’s proposed $6 monthly tax on WhatsApp calls touched off a movement. As in other cases, it’s about much more: “This is not about a messaging app,” Saab writes. “This is about less than half the people in Lebanon being connected to official water supplies, a tiny minority getting full electricity coverage, more than a third of the country’s youth being unemployed,” among other grievances. “My only surprise is that it has taken so long for the anger to spill on to the streets,” Roula Khalaf writes in the Financial Times, noting that reforms passed at “lightning speed” in response may not be enough.

The situation in Lebanon exemplifies our condition in Nigeria where untold hardships are being face by the people. It is left to us to extract commitments and action on issues from our political leaders before giving them our vote. “This is a duty we must not shirk. It is a duty to us and to posterity. But, considering all that has gone before, and threatens to kill the future of this nation, you have a responsibility to go further and say, ‘Enough’ of unchangeable casts of mind whose possessors only re-cycle themselves either directly or by surrogation. It is time to disarm the entire political scene and re-arm the visionaries. The nation needs new players, new minds. It is time that a united opposition seize the bull by the horns and make a determined effort towards total transformation.”

It has been argued that religion; in particular Islam is a contributing factor to the situation of political docility and lethargy of its adherents. This perhaps account for the proverbial acceptance of some of our brothers in the faith for the misrule of their leaders and why they have remained a-political. This thesis is however faulted in the light of the ‘Arab Spring’ and other uprisings and protests in patently Islamic climes. It is therefore not Islam or Christianity that makes a citizen apathetic, irresponsible to his political duties and obligations; rather it is the political culture of lethargy and de-participation.

Despite the suffering and challenges we face, we lack the culture of protest and rejection of bad governance. People are not prepared to make sacrifice on the barricades and as such resign their lives to fate. There are however instances in the stories of the Prophet and the Caliphs of the importance of followers asking questions and making demands on their leaders. A person cannot be a functioning member of his community if he or she lacks knowledge and wisdom. Equally a follower is expected to be courageous. According to Mohamed “courage is a quality of the soul, its heart’s strength against shock and composure when experiencing fear.” (Mohamed, Y. (2006); The Path to Virtue: The ethical Philosophy of AlRaghib Al-Işfahani: International Institute of Islamic Thought and Civilization, p 275)   The earliest followers in Islam were credible, honest and courageous. Therefore, they established themselves as independent, critical thinkers whose knowledge and wisdom are dependable. Bashir bin Sa‘ad (r.a) was a courageous follower during ‘Omar’s (r.a) regime. He was bold enough to tell Caliph ‘Omar that they will straighten him as they do with their arrows if he fails to properly perform his duties as a leader.   Caliph Omar said, “It is the duty of the leader and followers to listen to each other and to voice out their concern.” He added, “When followers do not participate and provide input, they are not contributing something useful. And we are not useful if we do not consent to their contributions.” (Ali, A.J. (2005), Islamic Perspectives on Management and Organization. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. P 135)

In the parable of the patient dog, we learn that’ the patient dog starves to death’. There can be no virtue in patience under naked hunger and suffering.

Barka Juma’at and a happy weekend

 +2348033110822

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

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

Headline

LP: Nenadi Usman Floors Julius Abure at Appeal Court

Published

on

By

The Court of Appeal in Abuja has dismissed the appeal filed by Julius Abure challenging the legitimacy of the Nenadi Usman-led leadership of the Labour Party (LP).

A three-member panel of the appellate court, in a Tuesday judgment, unanimously affirmed the January 21 judgment by Justice Peter Lifu of the Federal High Court in Abuja, which upheld the legitimacy of the 29-member caretaker committee of the LP, led by Senator Usman.

In the lead judgment delivered by Justice Oyejoju Oyewumi, which Justices Abba Mohammed and Eberechi Nyesom-Wike agreed with, the appellate court held that the earlier Supreme Court judgment conclusively settled the leadership dispute within the LP by nullifying the convention that purportedly returned Abure as National Chairman.

Justice Lifu had, in the January 21 judgment, relied on an April 4, 2025, decision of the Supreme Court, which held that Abure’s tenure as the party’s National Chairman had expired. The judgment directed the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to recognize Senator Usman and other members of her committee as the legitimate leaders of the party, to the exclusion of all others.

The court further held that the lower court had the power under Section 251 of the Constitution to compel a statutory Federal government agency to perform its functions when it ordered INEC to recognize Senator Nenadi Usman as the National Chairman of the Labour Party.

It was equally agreed with the trial court that constituting the LP’s caretaker committee, headed by Usman, was a doctrine of necessity required to provide leadership in the party when a vacuum appeared to exist.

The court faulted Abure’s claim that the trial court denied him a fair hearing and accused him of abusing the court process.

The court also accused Abure of forum shopping by appearing before the Nasarawa State High Court in a case already decided by the Supreme Court, and of persisting in the claim the party’s leadership despite the apex court’s clear and unambiguous pronouncement.

It held that the appeal, marked: CA/ABJ/CV/255/2026, was devoid of merit and constituted an abuse of court process.

“On the whole, I agree with the decision and conclusion of the trial court as the same, being in accordance with the Constitution,” Justice Oyewumi held, adding that the lower court reached a reasonable conclusion that the Court of Appeal cannot fault.

While dismissing the appeal, the court awarded him costs of N10 million for wasting the court’s time on an issue that had already been conclusively determined.

Earlier, the court held that Nenadi Usman, as a juristic person, had the right to file the case before the trial court, and that the trial court had jurisdiction to hear and determine the case.

The court also rejected Abure’s allegation that the lower court denied him a fair hearing, noting that the claim lacked any basis.

Continue Reading

Headline

Tinubu Sacks Edun, Appoints Oyedele As Finance Minister

Published

on

By

President Bola Tinubu has approved a minor cabinet reshuffle in the membership of the Federal Executive Council (FEC).

According to a memo signed by the Secretary to the Government of the Federation, Senator George Akume, two cabinet members, Mr. Wale Edun and Arc. Ahmed Musa Dangiwa are to leave the cabinet while their replacements have been named.

A statement signed by the Special Adviser, Media and Publicity to the Secretary to the Government of the Federation, Yomi Odunuga, on Tuesday evening, said Edun, until the latest development, was the Minister of Finance and Coordinating Minister for the Economy.

“He has been directed to hand over to Mr. Taiwo Oyedele, who is now to take over as Minister of Finance and Coordinating Minister of the Economy. Oyedele was formerly a Minister of State in the ministry.

“Also Mr. Muttaqha Rabe Darma (PhD.) has been named as the ministerial nominee and minister-designate for the Housing and Urban Development Ministry,” Odunuga stated.

The memo also directed Dangiwa to hand over to the Minister of State in the ministry pending Darma’s confirmation.

The memo stated that “all handing over and taking over processes should be completed on or before close of business on Thursday 23rd April, 2026.”

Explaining the President’s decision, Odunuga quoted Akume as saying: “These changes are aimed at strengthening cohesion, synergy in governance as well as achieving more impactful delivery on the economy to Nigerians, through the Renewed Hope Agenda.”

He said the President, in approving the cabinet reshuffle, has fully exercised his powers as conferred on him by Sections 147 and 148 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (1999, as amended).

The President thanked the outgoing ministers for their services to the nation while wishing them the best in all their future endeavours.

The President, Akume noted, equally assured all cabinet members that “the process of reinvigoration shall be continuous.”

Continue Reading

Headline

Tinubu, Victim of Historical Amnesia – Atiku

Published

on

By

By Eric Elezuo

True to political permutations, the National Convention of the opposition African Democratic Congress (ADC) amid Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) derecognition and leadership litigation, set a chain reaction in the political space, including a former Vice President and one of the leaders of the ADC, Alhaji Atiku Abubakar, berating President Bola Tinubu as lacking a good knowledge of history.

Against all odds, the party went ahead on April 14, to host a Convention, where over 3000 delegates attended, and where the leadership of Senator David Mark and Ogbeni Rauf Aregbesola as National Chairman and National Secretary respectively were ratified.

Since the April 14 event, the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC) has reacted in a manner political stakeholders and analysts categorized as panicky with statements from the presidency, and President Bola Tinubu himself. Though these responses were tagged correctional of ill-made utterances by ADC chieftains, observers have however said they portray comments by a team faced with an ultimately new challenge.

At the convention, the secretary of the ADC, Aregbesola, had dismissed Tinubu’s administration and his renewed hope policy as a scam. He lambasted the administration as a government of “scammers”, urging Nigerians to block it from retaining power in 2027.

“If allowed, this regime will continue to chant renewed hope till eternity. We have a duty to stop these scammers from retaining power,” Aregbesola said.

The former vice president followed up the convention statements, accusing Tinubu’s presidency of attempting to subvert democratic principles and silence opposition voices ahead of the 2027 elections, a position that further set the ruling party on edge, eliciting tons of reactions.

Beyond Presidential spokesman, Bayo Onanuga’s criticism of Aregbesola for failing to reflect on his own record before attacking his “former boss and benefactor”, Tinubu himself made remarks against the person’s of the leaders of the ADC and their convention, calling it ‘street convention’.

“Unfortunately, Aregbesola did not undertake any honest self-reflection on his own record in public office — as governor or as Minister of Interior,” Onanuga stated in his statement.

He alleged that Aregbesola’s tenure as governor of Osun State was marked by hardship and poor economic management.

“His eight years as governor of Osun State were characterised by unmitigated hardship for the people. Under his half-baked socialist policies, civil servants went unpaid for months, and those who were paid received only a fraction of their salaries,” Onanuga said.

Tinubu, on his part, while hosting the Hope Renewal Ambassadors, took a swipe at some opposition figures, especially Atiku, ridiculing and questioning their records for criticising his administration, and saying that many of them have held strategic positions in the past without delivering lasting results.

He boldly retorted that “If you look at one of them, no one without history among them – no one without history. The head was the chairman of the privatisation council of Nigeria in this country one time.

“He privatised the steel industry in Delta. Is it working today? No. Is anything they privatised working today? They want to privatise another man’s political party. That one says no.”

Responding therefore, the former Vice President launched a fierce counterattack on Tinubu, accusing him of hypocrisy, historical distortion, and political desperation.

In a statement issued by his Senior Special Assistant on Public Communication, Phrank Shaibu, Atiku described the President’s remarks as a “reckless tirade” that reflects “a troubling pattern of hypocrisy and historical amnesia.”

The statement began with “Atiku Abubakar’s attention has been drawn to the latest reckless tirade by President Bola Ahmed Tinubu—a performance that exposes not just desperation, but a troubling pattern of hypocrisy and historical amnesia.”

Atiku expressed surprise that a leader facing persistent scrutiny over his own credentials would attempt to discredit others with what he described as well-documented records of public service.

On the issue of privatisation, Atiku’s camp argued that Tinubu’s criticism does not stand up to scrutiny, noting that the President had previously opposed reforms he now appears to be implementing.

The statement maintained that Atiku had long advocated the privatisation of the Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation (NNPC) and the sale of refineries to credible private investors—a position it claimed Tinubu resisted at the time.

It, however, alleged that the current administration is now overseeing a system that has effectively commercialised the national oil company “without transparency, clear valuation, or accountability.”

“This is not reform; it is privatisation without accountability,” the statement said.

Defending Atiku’s economic legacy, the statement cited several companies as examples of the success of the privatisation programme he supervised, including Oando Plc (formerly Unipetrol), Conoil Plc, African Petroleum (now Ardova Plc), Indorama Eleme Petrochemicals, Benue Cement Company, and Transcorp Hilton Abuja.

The statement also took a swipe at the President’s intellectual posture, suggesting that his comments reflect a failure to engage with documented history on Nigeria’s economic reforms.

“It is not our fault that the President does not and cannot read,” the statement said, while also referencing past controversies surrounding Tinubu’s academic records.

It added that Tinubu’s remarks could only have been made in disregard of publicly available records and credible accounts of the privatisation process.

“You cannot oppose reform when it demands courage and then execute a shadow version of it in power,” the statement added.

Atiku’s camp further criticised the tone of the President’s remarks, arguing that resorting to mockery reflects a deeper leadership concern.

“The President’s attempt to reduce a serious economic legacy to ridicule underscores a leadership more comfortable with insults than with facts,” it stated.

The statement also highlighted the current economic situation in the country, pointing to rising cost of living, inflation, and insecurity as evidence of policy failure.

“Across the country, families are skipping meals, businesses are shutting down, and citizens are struggling under the weight of inflation and declining purchasing power. What has been presented as reform has translated into hardship without relief,” it said.

The statement concluded by asserting that Atiku’s record remains “clear, documented, and defensible,” while noting that unresolved public concerns about the President’s background persist.

“A leader who has not fully addressed questions about his own background should exercise restraint before casting aspersions on others,” it added.

The statement ended with a cautionary note: “Nigerians are watching.”

While the ADC is fighting for their life, and an opportunity to feature on the ballot during the 2027 general elections, and APC solidifying their grip on the political space, the atmosphere still exudes evidence of palpable tension. The APC maintains that they are on homerun to victory, ADC counters that nothing will save the ruling party from being defeated in the coming elections.

But as it stands today, both parties are locked in battle of wits recreating the tension and bad blood that was the hallmark of the 2015, and to a large extent, the 2023 elections.

But on April 22, the Supreme Court will rule on the leadership of the ADC; this will set the motion to the credibility of the ADC to participate in the 2027 election.

But fears pervade the political terrain as Tinubu made veiled reference to the judiciary while mocking Atiku and other leaders of the ADC.

“We cannot submit to the disobedience of unlawful orders in court. We must embrace the judiciary, whether it favours us or it doesn’t, we submit to this principle of democracy, separation of powers and understanding of the dynamics of it and the nation that Nigeria is,” Tinubu had said, insinuating that the ADC had gone against the judiciary.

The coming week will determine in totality the direction the 2027 situation will take.

Continue Reading

Trending