Connect with us

Opinion

The Oracle: Why and How History Defines Who We Are (Pt 8)

Published

on

By Chief Mike Ozekhome SAN

 INTRODUCTION

In continuation of our treatise on historical figures and events. Today, we shall continue our discourse on Mungo Park, the Scottish Surgeon and Explorer who was said to have “discovered” the River Niger at Kainji, New Bussa. I always wonder, till date, how an explorer can “discover” a river he met the natives drinking, taking their bath in and farming with. Anyway, so much for “oyinbo” man’s narrative that suits them. It is high time we begin to interrogate history, question the answers and answer the questions. We shall also x-ray Hugh Clapperton, his voyage, challenges, achievements, elevation after voyage and his eventual death.

STILL ON MUNGO PARK

We saw how Mungo Park “discovered” the River Niger at New Bussa, Kainji. My argument is that having met the Natives living by the bank of the River Niger, bathing and drinking from it, it is wrong to say he discovered it. He saw it, yes, the first white man to do so. Yes. But, when he fell ill, it was the natives that came to his aid.

However, this is not to play down or underestimate his tortuous journey, sufferings, illnesses, attacks, etc. the story is that in June, 1788, nine of the twelve members of the Saturday Club, a gentlemen’s dining club, formed themselves into an ‘Association for Promoting the Discovery of the Interior Parts of Africa,’ as they deemed it unworthy of their ‘present age’ that only so little was known about ‘so large a portion of the globe’ as the African continent.

When in May, 1795, the twenty-three year old Scottish surgeon Mungo Park (1771-1806), left on his expedition to ‘ascertain the course and if possible, the rise and termination of [the river Niger]… [and] to visit the principal towns or cities in its neighbourhood, particularly Tombuctooo and Houssa,’ he was already the fourth explorer to be sent out by the African Association, as it was commonly known. Two of his predecessors, John Ledyard (1751-89) and Daniel Houghton (1740-91) had died in the attempt. The third, Simon Lucas (ca.1766-99), had not penetrated far into the interior, due to political upheaval in the region.

Park arrived in the Gambia in June. From there he travelled on with only a small amount of luggage, accompanied by his interpreter Johnson, a freed slave, and Demba, his servant. At first all went well but then Park was captured by Moors and badly treated. He eventually managed to escape and after being repeatedly robbed, suffering from fever, starvation and thirst, he finally reached the banks of the river Niger in July, 1796.

He then declared famously:

“I saw with infinite pleasure the great object of my mission; the long sought for, majestic Niger, glittering to the morning sun, as broad as the Thames at Westminster, and flowing slowly to the eastward.”

Mungo Park was an instant success, and the first edition of his book Travels in the Interior Districts of Africa sold out rapidly. His £1000 royalties allowed him to settle in Selkirk and set up medical practice (marrying Alice Anderson, the daughter of the surgeon to whom he had been apprenticed). Settled life soon bored him, however, and he looked for a new adventure-but only under the right conditions. Banks was offended when Park demanded a large sum to explore Australia for the Royal Society.​

Eventually in 1805, Banks and Mungo Park came to an arrangement-Park was to lead an expedition to follow the Niger to its end. His part consisted of 30 soldiers from the Royal Africa Corps garrisoned at Goree (they were offered extra pay and the promise of a discharge on return), plus officers including his brother-in-law Alexander Anderson, who agreed to join the trip) and four boat builders from Portsmouth who would construct a forty-foot boat when they reached the river.

Against logic and advice, Mungo Park set off from the Gambia in the rainy season – within ten days his men were falling to dysentery. After five weeks one man was dead, seven mules lost and the expedition’s baggage mostly destroyed by fire.Mungo Park’s letters back to London made no mention of his problems. By the time the expedition reached Sand sanding on the Niger, only eleven of the original 40 Europeans were still alive. The party rested for two months but the deaths continued. By November 19, only five of them remained alive (even Alexander Anderson was dead). Sending the native guide, Isaaco, back to Laidley with his journals, Park was determined to continue. Park, Lieutenant Martyn (who had become an alcoholic on native beer) and three soldiers set off downstream from Segu in a converted canoe, christened the HMS Joliba. Each man had fifteen muskets but little in the way of other supplies.

When Isaaco reached Laidley in the Gambia news had already reached the coast of Mungo Park’s death – coming under fire at the Bussa Rapids, after a journey of over 1 000 miles on the river, Mungo Park and his small party were drowned. Isaaco was sent back to discover the truth, but the only remains to be discovered was Mungo Park’s munitions belt. The irony was that having avoided contact with local Muslim’s by keeping to the center of the river, they were in turn mistaken for Muslim raiders and shot at.

HUGH CLAPPERTON

Clapperton was born in Annan, Dumfriesshire, where his father, George Clapperton, was a surgeon. He gained some knowledge of practical mathematics and navigation, and at thirteen years was apprenticed on board a vessel which traded between Liverpool and North America. After having made several voyages across the Atlantic Ocean, he was impressed for the navy, in which he soon rose to the rank of midshipman. During the Napoleonic Wars, Clapperton saw a good deal of active service, and at the storming of Port Louis, Mauritius, in November 1810, he was first in the breach and hauled down the French flag.

In 1814, Clapperton went to Canada, was promoted to the rank of lieutenant, and to the command of a schooner on the Canadian lakes. In 1817, when the flotilla on the lakes was dismantled, he returned home on half-pay. In 1820 Clapperton removed to Edinburgh, where he made the acquaintance of Walter Oudney, who aroused his interest in African travel.

THE VOYAGES

Lieutenant G. F. Lyon having returned from an unsuccessful attempt to reach Bornu from Tripoli, the British government determined on a second expedition to that country. Walter Oudney was appointed by Lord Bathurst, then colonial secretary, to proceed to Bornu as consul, accompanied by Hugh Clapperton. From Tripoli, early in 1822, they set out southward to Murzuk, where they were later joined by Major Dixon Denham, who found both men in a wretched condition. They eventually proceeded south from Murzuk on 29 November 1822. By this time, a deep antipathy had developed between Clapperton and Denham, Denham secretly sending home malicious reports about Clapperton having homosexual relations with one of the Arab servants. The accusation, based on a rumour spread by a disgruntled servant dismissed by Clapperton for theft, was almost certainly unfounded, and Denham later withdrew it but without telling Clapperton he had done so, leading the historian Bovill to observe that ‘it remains difficult to recall in all the checkered history of geographic discovery.

CHALLENGES

On 17th February, 1823, the party eventually reached Kuka (now Kukawa in Nigeria), capital of the Bornu Empire, where they were well received by the sultan Sheikh Al-Kaneimi, having earlier become the first white men to see Lake Chad. Whilst at Kuka, Clapperton and Oudney parted company with Denham on 14th December, to explore the course of the Niger River. Denham remained behind to explore and survey the western, South and South-Eastern shores of Lake Chad, and the lower courses of the Rivers Waube, Logone and Shari. However, only a few weeks later, Oudney died at the village of Murmur, located near the town of Katagum on the road to Kano. Undeterred, Clapperton continued his journey alone through Kano to Sokoto, the capital of the Fulani Empire, where by order of Sultan Muhammed Bello, he was obliged to stop, though the Niger was only a five-day journey to the west. Exhausted by his travels, he returned by way of Zaria and Katsina to Kuka, where Denham found him barely recognizable after his privations. Clapperton and Denham departed Kuka for Tripoli in August, 1824, reaching Tripoli on 26th January, 1825. Their mutual antipathy unabated, they exchanged not a word during the 133-day journey. The pair continued their journey to England, arriving home to a heroes’ welcome on 1st June, 1825. An account of their travels was published in 1826, under the title Narrative of Travels and Discoveries in Northern and Central Africa in the years 1822–1823 and 1824.

ELEVATION AND FURTHER VOYAGES

Immediately after his return to England, Clapperton was raised to the rank of Commander, and sent out with another expedition to Africa, the Sultan Bello of Sokoto having professed his eagerness to open up trade with the west coast. Clapperton came out on HMS Brazen, which was joining the West Africa Squadron for the suppression of the slave trade. He landed at Badagry in the Bight of Benin, and started overland for the Niger on 7th December, 1825, having with him his servant Richard Lemon Lander, Captain Pearce, and Dr. Morrison, navy surgeon and naturalist. Before the month was out Pearce and Morrison were dead of fever. Clapperton continued his journey, and, passing through the Yoruba country, in January, 1826, he crossed the Niger at Bussa, the spot where Mungo Park had died twenty years before.

HIS ACHIEVEMENTS

Clapperton was the first European to make known from personal observation the Hausa states, which he visited soon after the establishment of the Sokoto Caliphate by the Fula. In 1829, the Journal of a Second Expedition into the Interior of Africa”, by Clapperton appeared posthumously, with a biographical sketch of the explorer by his uncle, Lieutenant-Colonel S. Clapperton, as a preface. Richard Lander, who had brought back the journal of his master, also published “Records of Captain Clapperton’s Last Expedition to Africa … with the subsequent Adventures of the Author (2 volumes, London, 1830).”

Hugh Clapperton was painted in 1817, by Sir Henry Raeburn. The painting now resides in the United States. A later oil painting by Gildon Manton is held by The National Gallery of Scotland. The frontispiece to Clapperton’s Narrative of Travels and Discoveries in Northern and Central Africa” features an engraving by Thomas Goff Lupton. Clapperton was renowned for the following works:

Clapperton, H. (1826). Difficult and Dangerous Roads – Travels in Sahara and Fezzan, 1822–1825. Eds. Bruce-Lockhart, J. & Wright, J. Sickle Moon Books, London.

Clapperton, Hugh; Lander, Richard (1829). Journal of a second expedition into the interior of Africa, from the Bight of Benin to Soccatoo by the late Commander Clapperton of the Royal Navy to which is added The Journal of Richard Lander from Kano to the Sea-Coast Partly by a More Easterly Route. London: John Murray.

Denham, Dixon; Clapperton, Hugh; Oudney, Walter (1826). Narrative of Travels and Discoveries in Northern and Central Africa: In the Years 1822, 1823, and 1824 (2 volumes). London: John Murray. Scans: Volume 1, Volume 2.

CLAPPERTON’S DEATH

In July, Clapperton arrived at Kano and thence the Fulani capital Sokoto, intending to continue to Bornu and renew his acquaintance with the Kanuri leader Sheikh al-Kaneimi. However, the Fulani were now at war with Al-Kaneimi, and Sultan Bello refused him permission to leave. After many months’ detention, afflicted by malaria, depression, and dysentery, Clapperton died, leaving his servant Lander the only survivor of the expedition. Lander returned to the coast, and at Fernando Po. By extraordinary coincidence, he met Clapperton’s old antagonist, Dixon Denham, who duly relayed the news of Clapperton’s demise to London. (To be continued.)

THOUGHT FOR THE WEEK

“We are not makers of history. We are made by history.” (Martin Luther King, Jr.).

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

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

Opinion

When Men in Power Feel Threatened: Obiageli Ezekwesili vs Senator Nwebonyi

Published

on

By

By Oyinkan Andu

Nigerian politics has never been a bastion of decorum, but even by our standards, the recent Senate committee hearing was a spectacle. What was supposed to be a forum for governance quickly devolved into a verbal brawl, with Senator Nwebonyi launching into a tirade against former Minister of Education, Obiageli Ezekwesili The exchange—filled with name-calling and personal insults—was as telling as it was embarrassing.

If there’s one thing that rattles the political establishment in Nigeria, it’s an outspoken woman who knows what she’s talking about. And that’s exactly what Ezekwesili represents.

Power and Gender
This was not just a disagreement over policy. If it were, we would have seen a spirited debate backed by facts and counterarguments. Instead, we witnessed what has become a predictable pattern: a powerful woman challenging the system and being met not with logic but with derision.

Ezekwesili has built a career on holding power to account. From her time in government to her role in the Bring Back Our Girls movement, she has consistently pushed for transparency and justice. She is not known for being timid. But in Nigeria, confidence and competence in women are often seen as provocation rather than virtue.

Senator Nwebonyi’s outburst was not just about a disagreement—it was a performance. A warning. A reminder that no matter how qualified or respected a woman is, the political boys’ club will not hesitate to put her “in her place.”

A System Built to Humiliate Women in Power
We’ve seen this before. The Nigerian political arena is no stranger to public humiliations aimed at female leaders.

Dora Akunyili faced relentless attacks for daring to reform NAFDAC.

Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala was branded a “foreign agent” when she pushed for economic reforms.

Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan was suspended after speaking out against the Senate President.

It is the same old playbook: when women hold power to account, the response is not to engage—it is to attack.

The Spectacle Over Substance Problem
What makes this clash even more concerning is how quickly our political discourse is degenerating into theatre. Instead of focusing on policy, lawmakers are turning committee hearings into reality TV auditions, complete with shouting matches and insults. This is more than just bad optics—it’s dangerous.

One would expect that a senator, tasked with shaping the laws of a country, would at least have the intellectual stamina to engage in a meaningful debate. But apparently, that’s asking for too much.

Instead of challenging Ezekwesili on substance, Senator Nwebonyi opted for personal attacks—an age-old trick used by those who have run out of ideas. It’s almost as if logic took one look at the Senate chamber that day and quietly excused itself.

How does a man get elected to the highest lawmaking body in the country, only to behave like a schoolyard bully? Shouldn’t there be an entrance exam for basic reasoning before handing out Senate seats? Or at the very least, a crash course in How to Argue Without Embarrassing Yourself 101?

Perhaps the real problem is that Senator Nwebonyi was simply outmatched. In a battle of wits, he brought a dull spoon to a sword fight. And when words failed him, he defaulted to insults—because nothing exposes intellectual bankruptcy faster than resorting to name-calling.

The sad reality is that few will be surprised by what happened between Senator Nwebonyi and Obi Ezekwesili. Many will even justify it. But the question is: will we ever demand better?

Will we insist on a political culture where disagreements are debated, not reduced to playground insults?

Will we support women who dare to challenge the status quo instead of letting them be shouted down?

Will we hold those in power accountable for their actions instead of treating these moments as entertainment?

If we do not demand better, we will continue to see our political institutions degrade into arenas of ego and pettiness rather than governance. And if that happens, we can not act shocked when the country remains in a perpetual state of dysfunction.

The real scandal is not that a senator insulted Ezekwesili—it’s that this is what governance in Nigeria has become.

Continue Reading

Opinion

President Tinubu’s Silence on Wike: A Calculated Gambit or Political Oversight?

Published

on

By

By Oyinkan Andu

Hours after the March 18 explosion on the Trans Niger Pipeline – which threatened to upend the transportation of 245,000 barrels of crude oil daily – President Bola Ahmed Tinubu took decisive action by declaring a state of emergency in Rivers State. The move was undeniably bold, but also deeply ironic.
Flashback to 2013, when Tinubu, then opposition leader, furiously condemned former President Goodluck Jonathan’s declaration of a state of emergency in parts of Northern Nigeria. He decried it as a “ploy to subvert constitutional democracy” and warned of its destructive consequences. While the 2013 emergency was aimed at addressing a genuine humanitarian crisis in the face of Boko Haram insurgency, the context now is starkly different – politically motivated turmoil in Rivers State, driven by the power struggle between President Tinubu’s allies.

The Dangers of a State of Emergency in the Niger Delta

Looking back at Nigeria’s history, it’s hard to ignore the dark shadows of military rule, where states of emergency were routinely invoked as political tools. Under military regimes from the 1960s to the 1990s, emergency powers were used to quell dissent and assert control, often at the cost of democratic freedoms. From General Yakubu Gowon’s administration, which invoked emergency rule during the Civil War, to Ibrahim Babangida’s deployment of the same tactic to suppress electoral uprisings, Nigeria has seen firsthand the dangers of turning to emergency rule in times of political unrest.

These authoritarian precedents have often led to deeper divisions and instability, fostering environments ripe for corruption and manipulation. President Tinubu’s potential misuse of the state of emergency in Rivers State echoes this troubling past, underscoring how history could repeat itself if Nigeria’s political elites continue to prioritise personal alliances over democratic principles.

History teaches that such measures often spark unintended consequences: renewed piracy, cultism, and an uptick in kidnappings. It threatens to undermine the peace painstakingly fostered by the Niger Delta Amnesty Program since 2009. The real danger? A resurgence of inter-militant warfare, as the Wike and Fubara factions, already drawing lines in the sand, could plunge the region into a new cycle of chaos and vendettas.

The real irony? Tinubu’s deafening silence on Nyesom Wike’s role in this mess. The man at the heart of the Rivers crisis, Wike, remains untouched by the political fallout, and yet his actions remain a looming shadow over the state’s governance. Why?

The Rivers State Crisis

To get a sense of the stakes, one must understand the underlying political drama that’s been unfolding in Rivers State. It all began with Wike’s choice of Siminalayi Fubara as his successor in 2023. What seemed like a smooth transition turned into an intense clash of egos and ambitions. Fubara, instead of toeing Wike’s line, started flexing his independence, particularly by resisting Wike’s influence from Abuja.

What followed? Political warfare.

Wike’s loyalists in the Rivers State House of Assembly attempted an impeachment of Fubara. In response, Fubara dissolved the assembly, triggering a constitutional crisis. Then, the Rivers House of Assembly complex mysteriously caught fire, sparking accusations of foul play. Fubara, in a rash display of misguided impunity, demolished the complex, citing safety concerns, but fuelling allegations of erasing evidence.
The more this drama unfolded, the more one figure remained untouchable: Wike.

Tinubu’s Selective Accountability

President Tinubu, however, has opted for a peculiar kind of selective accountability. He swiftly reprimanded Fubara, yet remained silent on Wike’s clear interference in the affairs of Rivers State. His silence is deafening, especially when PDP Governors openly criticised Wike’s destabilising influence. Why? Is Wike above reproach?
The silence, coupled with the fact that civil society groups and opposition figures have questioned President Tinubu’s inaction, has raised critical questions about whether Tinubu is playing favorites.

Nyesom Wike – The Untouchable

A plausible explanation for President Tinubu’s reluctance to confront Wike may lie in the realm of political debt. In the 2023 elections, Wike defied his own party, the PDP, and backed Tinubu’s presidential bid. This defection was pivotal in securing Rivers State for Tinubu. In return, Wike secured the cushy post of Minister for the Federal Capital Territory, further entrenching his influence.

The question now is whether President Tinubu is unable to hold Wike accountable due to this political debt. President Tinubu may view Wike’s support as indispensable for his broader 2027 political ambitions, particularly in neutralising the PDP and bolstering his hold in the South-South. But this kind of political manoeuvring is a dangerous gamble. By selectively punishing Fubara while allowing Wike to go unchallenged, Tinubu risks institutionalising a culture of impunity which directly challenges his Hope Renewed agenda.

Wike’s Troubling Track Record

Wike is no stranger to accusations of overreach and intimidation. During his tenure as Governor of Rivers State, his administration was plagued by Allegations of using security forces to silence opposition and undue influence over judicial matters to maintain his grip on power.

This history of excess, combined with President Tinubu’s blind eye, raises serious concerns about the future trajectory of governance in Rivers State—and Nigeria at large.

From Lagos to Rivers, powerful figures who control the strings of political fortunes in their states have often used this leverage to demand loyalty from political protégés. Wike’s unchecked influence could very well be a continuation of this political tradition, where the state apparatus bends to the will of the godfather, rather than the people.

The Broader Implications for Nigerian Democracy

The turbulence of Nigeria’s post-1999 civilian government era remains a cautionary tale. Though Nigeria made strides in its return to democracy, its political stability remains fragile. Many of the challenges faced in the post-1999 era — rigged elections, systemic violence, and political manipulation still persist and appear to be directly incompatible with the promised “Renewal” we voted for in the 2023 election, so why maintain the status quo? The failure to hold Wike accountable continues this troubling tradition of weak governance and selective justice. When Nigerian leaders are continuously carte blanche to act without consequence, it escalates a negative trajectory in an environment where impunity already flourishes. It also sets a dangerous precedent for other politicians, who might see the president’s inaction as an endorsement of their own ambitions, no matter how disruptive.

If President Tinubu continues to shield Wike from accountability, it could further erode the public’s trust in the rule of law and democratic institutions and the “hope” that’s already on life support might flatline entirely.

The longer he withholds action, the greater the cost—both for his credibility and for the future of Nigeria’s democracy.
As Nigeria watches, one thing is clear: silence in this case is not neutrality—it is complicity.

Continue Reading

Opinion

Akpoti-Uduaghan vs The System: A Battle for the Soul of Nigeria

Published

on

By

...Examining the Court’s Ruling on Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan’s Recall

By Oyinkan Andu

The Federal High Court’s decision to vacate the order restraining INEC from receiving recall petitions against Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan might seem like another legal technicality. But in Nigeria, where democracy often functions like a high-stakes chess game, it’s far more than that.

Yes, the ruling reaffirms the constitutional right of constituents to recall elected officials. But it also raises a pressing question: is this a legitimate expression of voter dissatisfaction or just another political tool wielded to neutralise opponents?

In a political landscape as ruthless as Nigeria’s, recall mechanisms can be easily weaponised. Imagine a system where every ambitious politician, backed by well-oiled interests, could trigger a recall simply to distract, destabilise, or discredit an opponent. That’s not democracy—that’s guerrilla warfare.

The courts, therefore, carry the weighty responsibility of ensuring that recalls serve the people, not political vendettas. While this ruling allows the petition process to proceed, INEC must still verify whether it meets legal standards. The real challenge? Ensuring the recall process remains a tool of accountability, not an instrument of sabotage.

A Battle Beyond the Courts

There’s an unspoken rule in Nigerian politics: women must play by different rules or risk being destroyed. Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan is learning this the hard way.

When she accused Senate President Godswill Akpabio of sexual harassment, the expected reaction should have been outrage, an investigation, something. Instead, she was swiftly suspended for six months—punished for daring to speak out in a system meticulously designed to silence women like her.

The backlash followed a familiar script. Yet, something unprecedented happened: many Nigerians rallied behind her.

For a country where high-profile accusations of sexual misconduct have historically met women with more backlash than justice, this shift was remarkable.

Consider Busola Dakolo’s case against Pastor Biodun Fatoyinbo—the backlash was so severe that she eventually fled the country briefly. The playbook is always the same: discredit, dismiss, destroy.

Yet, despite the growing support Akpoti-Uduaghan has received, scepticism remains.

Some immediately doubted her claims—not just out of political distrust, but because the truth can be too unsettling to confront. What if she’s pulling back the curtain on something too ugly to acknowledge? What if this is just the tip of the iceberg—a world where male politicians have long wielded power with unchecked impunity, protected by silence, complicity, and fear? Or worse still, what if some female politicians, past and present, have been coerced into submission, while others—women who could have reshaped Nigeria’s political landscape for the better—were cast aside and destroyed simply for refusing to play along?

Others dismissed her as yet another ambitious politician playing the game. They scrutinised everything—her privileged background, her past as a single mother, even her audacity to be politically ambitious.

But did they stop to ask: what if she’s telling the truth?

Her allegations don’t exist in a vacuum. Investigative reports from The Guardian and Al Jazeera have hinted at murmurings—and even documented claims—about Akpabio’s conduct. Former aides and political insiders have whispered about inappropriate behavior for years. But like so many before, these allegations were swept under the rug.

The same forces that fuel scepticism today—patriarchy, political self-interest, and distrust of authority—are the ones that have allowed such claims to be ignored in the past.

If history teaches us anything, it’s that impunity thrives in silence. And yet, silence is precisely what is expected of women in Nigerian politics.

Speaking Out Isn’t Just Hard—It’s Dangerous
Calling out powerful men in Nigeria doesn’t just lead to public humiliation—it’s a battle for survival. If Akpoti-Uduaghan is telling the truth, she isn’t just fighting for justice; she’s fighting for her future.

Women across Africa who challenge power rarely escape unscathed:

Fatou Jagne Senghore (Gambia) was persecuted for pushing gender rights.
Stella Nyanzi (Uganda) was jailed for calling out misogyny.
Joyce Banda (former President of Malawi) endured relentless smear campaigns simply for daring to lead.
Nigeria is no different. The system is designed to make women regret speaking up.

Why Is It So Hard to Believe Women?

Scepticism toward Akpoti-Uduaghan follows predictable lines. She’s a politician. In a system riddled with corruption, people assume any claim is a power move.

She’s privileged. Many believe wealth should shield a woman from harassment. In reality, privilege just makes her easier to discredit.
She’s a single mother. Nigerian society weaponises a woman’s personal life. Being unmarried or divorced is treated as a flaw, making her an easy target.
She’s up against a powerful man. This isn’t just any politician—Akpabio is the Senate President. This is a battle between an insider and an inconvenient woman.
In a system that prioritises the status quo, it’s always easier to believe a woman is lying than to confront the reality that a powerful man might be guilty.

A Nigerian #MeToo Moment?
Nigeria has dodged its #MeToo reckoning for years.

In 2017, the U.S. saw powerful men fall as women spoke out. In Nigeria, women who speak up are ridiculed, threatened, or erased.

Now, with Natasha’s case, we stand at a crossroads:

If she is lying, let the evidence prove it.
If she is telling the truth and is destroyed for it, what does that say about us as a society?Let’s us also give her the benefit of the doubt that she may not have planned to reveal this issue if her hand was not forced by the Senate presidents petty actions against her while undergoing her duties.
This isn’t just about Natasha. This is about every Nigerian woman who has been afraid to speak.

It’s why women’s groups chant “We Are All Natasha.” It’s not just a slogan—it’s a demand for change. If a senator can be silenced, what hope do ordinary women have?

Beyond Politics: This Is About Justice
Forget party lines. Forget personal opinions about Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan. This is about justice.

What allegedly happened to her could happen to any woman—any woman who dares to say, “Enough.”

So will Nigeria listen? Or will we continue silencing women until they stop speaking altogether?

A Shifting Demographic Tide—And A Hopeful Future
There’s something the system isn’t ready for: women are becoming the majority.

Demographic studies show that across Africa, female populations are growing faster than male populations due to socio-economic factors. This shift could fundamentally change power dynamics.

A growing female electorate will demand better representation.
As women gain economic power, traditional gender roles will evolve.
A society that values female leadership is more likely to embrace justice, collaboration, and reform.

But change is never welcomed by those who benefit from the status quo. The very trend that could lead to a more equitable Nigeria is already provoking backlash.

The Real Battle: Will Nigeria Listen?
At its core, this is a battle over Nigeria’s future.

Will we continue a culture where speaking up comes at a cost too high to bear? Or will we seize this moment to redefine the standards of justice and power?

The courage of women who speak out must be celebrated, not condemned. Because if a senator, armed with privilege and power, can be silenced—what chance do the millions of silenced women stand?

And so, the question remains: Will Nigeria listen?

Continue Reading

Trending