Connect with us

Opinion

Opinion: The Unity of Nigeria and Secessionism: A New Approach

Published

on

By Modest Ibe

In 1862 German Prime Minister Otto Van Bismarch made a very powerful speech titled, Blood and Iron (German: Blut und Eisen) about the unification of the German territories. That speech contained words of fire and brimstone that today has become a favourite quote for some, either in words or action, including wielders of political, military and economic powers in Africa.

Bismarck spoke: ”Not through speeches and majority decisions will the great questions of the day be decided – that was the great mistake of 1848 and 1849 – but by iron and blood (Eisen und Blut).

There have always been great issues facing the unity of Nigeria, and the manner in which the issues have been handled from Independence in 1960 till today has created further discontent in the Nigerian content and space. Fears have greeted the quest for justice, fairness and equity for all – man, woman and child – irrespective of religious convictions, ethnic extraction, and political affiliation. These issues have been a deeply seated undercurrent, which any attempts to sweep them under carpet only rebirth them in different mutations.

These discontents are not ethnic group specific, but shifts in response to the availability or otherwise of a lawful and just lebensraum for all, and means of access to the core decision making centre or the corridors of State power, as to who gets what, when and how, to use David Easton’s analytical concept, regarding the management and control of the instruments of State.

It is not necessarily a northern issue, a south western problem, or a south eastern trouble. It is more fundamentally a systematic structural imperative that demands deep thought and re-think on the amalgamation called Nigeria.

These realities have remained hydra-headed in the calculus and configuration of Nigeria. This in all its perspectives – as an economy, a polity, and people interacting amidst variegated and differentiated, formations, backgrounds, culture, weltanschauung and philosophies as to how the discordant quests can be married into a truly autochthonous and mutually beneficial existence for all, on the basis of mutual understanding, interest and respect, away from the rushed, masterful and unilateral amalgamation of the 1914, which many researchers have represented as the greatest flaw of the colonial administration.

Consequently, the imperial overlord called the 1914 Amalgamation has been inexcusably a chief culprit of the recurrent miasma that have checkered the all most six-decade history of the country in her much desired unity of the country into a people united for peace, progress and development, which has been a desideratum. Hence the failure of the foisted command arrangement of the colonial lords at converting the diverse elements into a shared purpose, on the basis of justice, equity and fairness greatly accounts for the different agitations long before 1960.

The causes of these agitations are deeply rooted in colonial history, and therefore cannot be truthfully situated in post-independence experience of Nigeria, neither can we fairly attribute it to any past or current government. Contrariwise, they are a manifestation of systemic imbalance orchestrated by the framers of our pre-independence political architecture which reincarnated itself in the bogus independence paraphernalia of statehood, without due consultations with the people, without regards to the different idiosyncratic tendencies, values and belief systems they met on the ground.

Today, these realities should hunt the conscience of anyone who has a hand in stamping with airs of irreversible finality such non-altruistic alliance.

It is in our history books that a constitutional challenge occurred in the House of Representatives prior to Independence. On March 31, 1953, Chief Anthony Enahoro who had been elected from Western House of Assembly raised a motion that the British should grant Nigeria self government in 1956. As expected, the leader of North Regional members of the House of Representatives amended the motion by substituting the phrase ‘as soon as possible” for 1956 which in effect was meant to kill the bill. The Governor added his weight by enforcing the principle of collective responsibility of the cabinet. The four Ministers from the Western Region refused to abstain from participating in the ensuing debate.

Rather, they opted to resign their positions. The political Lagos crowd was disappointed by the position of the Northern representatives who frustrated the motion and were booed. Less than two months after the Lagos affair, Chief S L Akintola led a delegation of the Action Group to Kano to explain the position. This resulted in the Kano Riots that left forty-three killed and two hundred and four injured. The situation appeared to have confirmed the feeling expressed by a Member of the Northern House of Assembly in 1952 that “since the amalgamation in 1914, the British Government had been trying to make Nigeria into one country, but the Nigerian people are different in every way including religion, custom, language and aspiration… We here in the North take it that ‘Nigeria Unity’ is not for us”

It was no surprise that the Northern Region responded to all the events with the ‘Eight Point Programme’ which demanded a confederation, some kind of breakaway from Nigeria. Finally the London constitutional Conference of 1954 opted for a federation.

Chief Awolowo’s request that a secession clause be inserted into the Constitution to enable each aggrieved region to secede was rejected. He was however resolute that it has to be ‘one Nigeria or no Nigeria at all’ thus rejecting Dr Azikiwe’s 1953 proposal for a Dominion of Southern Nigeria. In order to back this position, the Action Group committee on the Constitution recommended that “if for any reason the Northern Region is unable to remain in the Federation of Nigeria, the West should stand alone” . This position was very similar to that taken by Chief Awolowo on the eve on the Nigerian Civil War when he threatened that “if the Eastern Region was pushed out of the federation, western Nigeria would quit the federation as well.” Some people take that statement as an agreement or promise for the West to secede.

The agitations did not end with that. Since Independence till now the different groups that made up Nigeria have expressed various discontent with their perceived denial of rightful lebenstraum – from the Movement for the Emancipation of the Niger Delta (MEND) in the South South, the Oodua Peoples Congress (OPC), in the South West, the Arewa People’s Congress (APC) in the North, the monster Boko Haram, in the North, the Movement for the Survival of the Ogoni People, (MOSOP) in the Niger Delta, Movement for the Actualization of the Sovereign State of Biafra (MASSOB) in the South East,the struggles have plagued the Nigerian socio-political landscape like an incurable pandemic.

Recent developments in Nigeria the past few months, especially the agitations of the then latent but now resurfaced Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), albeit in slight superficial mutations but unaltered ideological foundations, brings to the front burner the challenge of militarizing the unity of the country using the Bismarck prescription,To wit,’Not through speeches and majority decisions will the great questions of the day be decided – that was the great mistake of 1848 and 1849 – but by iron and blood (Eisen und Blut). This is tantamount to ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant (… they make a desert, they call it peace.). Such approach to the great issues of our time becomes reminiscent of what Dr Nnamdi Azikiwe would call ”democracy with military vigilance”, and bespeaks of our pathetic failure to learn from history.

The Bismarck prescription meets its Waterloo when examined against the backdrop of the Nigerian Civil War (1967 -1970) – a war between unification and dismemberment, taking some three million lives of men, women and children. If anything, hindsight from that macabre chapter of life reveals the wisdom of Robert Green Ingersoll’s counsel that ‘a child forced on his knees only has an attitude of prayer.’ In other words, certain things cannot be achieved by force, iron and blood, Mao Zedong’s the barrel of a gun, but by speaking to the heart of a person, a people. The 1967 -1970 war was therefore a mere military palliative to a great issue without truly speaking to the soul of the issue, hence resurfacing of the spirit of the struggle.

In the light of these current realities, a new approach becomes inevitable.

It is an approach that does not see a people expressing their discontent with the entrenched system of denial as enemies but as stakeholders.

It is an approach that does not see a people asking for a redefinition of unity as rebels but as fellow citizens.

It is an approach that does not see a people calling for justice, equity and fairness as felons.

It is an approach that seeks to win the hearts of people, rather than wound their bodies.

It is a approach that both recognizes and protects the life of every man, woman and child, rather than spill blood.

This approach we must engage to move centrifugal irrespective of divisive tendencies or disengage and move centripetal.

In the words of Prince Hamlet, ”To be, or not to be, that is the question ” we must all ask ourselves. The answer we get, is the future we chose, the path we will walk, and the greatness or otherwise we will achieve.

As I conclude, the wisdom of Scriptures becomes inevitably germane.

Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool – Isaiah 1:18.

We must come together to reason out the great issues of our time.

We must come together to ask for forgiveness of all wrongs, hurts, and injustices of the past, to receive forgiveness and to offer same.

To do otherwise is to order wisdom out of our land.

God bless us all!

NOTE: These are the writer’s earlier thoughts on the Issue, as expressed in early 2016 under the title: “THE UNITY OF NIGERIA AND THE BIAFRAN STRUGGLE”. In the light of the agitations that have continued unabated and mounting insecurity that litter Nigeria’s geo-political landscape, a revisit has become imperative.

Modest Ibe writes from Lagos, and can be reached via modest.ibe@gmail.com

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

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

Opinion

President Trump’s Transformation of the Democratic System

Published

on

By

By Magnus Onyibe

President Donald J. Trump is actively reshaping the global political landscape, navigating the tension between globalization and fragmentation to establish a new order in the United States and, by extension, the world.

Before delving further into this discussion, I must disclose that I am an unapologetic supporter of the 47th President of the United States, Donald J. Trump. My support stems from my belief that he is undeniably a catalyst for change.

Many, including Democratic presidential candidates in the 2024 elections,ex president Joe Biden and former Vice President Kamala Harris, have accused Trump of seeking to dismantle democracy. However, a more accurate assessment is that he is challenging the status quo in Washington through radical policy shifts. While Democrats frame his actions as a threat to democracy, I see this as a misleading narrative,because changing the dynamics of democracy does not equate killing it.

Despite the alarm raised by his opponents, American voters prioritized economic concerns—rising inflation, the high cost of living, soaring housing prices, and the influx of undocumented immigrants—over the warnings about imminent death of democracy. It was these pressing issues that motivated voters to support Trump’s return to the White House.

The more than 77 million Americans who voted for him did so because they believe he was on a mission to address what they see as a “woke” and financially struggling America. According to the Oxford Dictionary, “woke” refers to those who are socially aware but is often used pejoratively to describe individuals perceived as self-righteous or overly dogmatic in their advocacy.

True to his promises, Trump wasted no time in implementing his agenda. During his inauguration, he took a strong stance against “woke” ideology by affirming that the U.S. Constitution recognizes only two genders—male and female—a direct challenge to the LGBTQ+ community. He has since followed through on his pledges by signing a series of executive orders aimed at radically reshaping America.

So, from my perspective, Trump is simply fulfilling the commitments he made during his campaign. The backlash from those negatively affected by his policies is therefore unsurprising, yet it should not overshadow the fact that he is delivering the change that millions of Americans willingly voted for, believing it will restore the country’s greatness.

As someone who embraces change, I am excited to see a leader who challenges the status quo in public leadership finally take charge. That leader is Donald J. Trump, who has now assumed office in the White House, the seat of U.S. political power.
Given President Tinubu’s huge appettite for change which has wrought on Nigeria in the past 2O months,he may be said to be cut from the same cloth with Trump, literally speaking.

Mr. Trump as the leader of the free world- U.S, exerts enormous influence on global affairs, reinforcing the popular saying: when America sneezes, the rest of the world catches a cold. This is evident in Trump’s decision to impose tariffs on key trading partners—25% on Mexico, 25% on general goods plus 10% on Canadian oil, and 10% on China—primarily to curb illegal immigration and combat the flow of fentanyl, a deadly drug ravaging American communities.

Before Trump even took office, his threats of tariff hikes caused global concern. However, World Trade Organization (WTO) Director-General Dr. Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala, speaking at the World Economic Forum (WEF) in Davos, urged caution: “I am concerned, but my approach is to stay calm. Let’s wait to see what policies are actually enacted before overreacting.”

Despite this advice, some countries affected by the new tariffs —especially Mexico and Canada—have already announced retaliatory tariffs, raising fears of an all-out trade war. Meanwhile, China has opted for a legal approach, filing complaints against the U.S. through the WTO.

As the head of the WTO, Dr. Okonjo-Iweala will play a crucial role in resolving this looming global trade conflict. Given her extensive experience—including her tenure at the World Bank and her ongoing second term as WTO chief—there is hope that she can help de-escalate tensions.

Anticipating the economic impact of the trade war, President Trump has urged Americans to brace for temporary hardships, acknowledging that tariffs might contribute to inflation. However, he remains confident that the outcome will ultimately benefit the country, declaring: “This will be the golden age of America. Will there be some pain? Yes. But we will make America great again, and it will be worth the price.”

This sentiment is reminiscent of Nigerian President Bola Tinubu’s remarks when he removed the long-standing fuel subsidy and floated the naira, leading to economic hardship for Nigerians. He reassured the nation, saying: “I understand that our people are suffering, but there can be no childbirth without pain. The joy of childbirth is the baby. Relief comes after the pain. Nigeria is being reborn.”

Remarkably,Trump’s policies signal a fundamental shift away from globalization—a concept introduced between 1870 and 1914 and later popularized in 1983 by economist Theodore Levitt in his essay titled “The Globalization of Markets.” The current global order, shaped by decades of economic integration, now faces disruption under Trump’s America First doctrine, which prioritizes national interests over international cooperation.

Interestingly, Trump’s long-held stance on tariffs is not new. In a resurfaced 1978 interview with Oprah Winfrey, he expressed similar views, making it clear that his current trade policies have been decades in the making.

While trade wars typically harm weaker economies (when elephants fight, the grass suffers), Africa might stand to benefit from this geopolitical shift. As tensions escalate among major trading partners—U.S., Canada, Mexico, and China—Africa, historically seen as merely a source of raw materials, could emerge as an alternative manufacturing hub.

For instance, Nigeria’s oil exports to the U.S. declined significantly under President Barack Obama, with Canada and Mexico becoming America’s top crude suppliers. However, if the trade war leads to disruptions in North American oil exports, Trump may turn back to Nigeria, currently the 8th largest supplier, to fill the gap.

So, rather than viewing Trump’s policies as purely negative, it may be worth considering the potential opportunities they create for Africa. As a matter of fact , instead of getting caught up in narratives of doom and gloom, could this be a moment for the continent to reposition itself as a key player in the evolving global trade landscape?

I would argue that it is time for the world to recognize that Africa is not a problem to be solved but a vital part of the global solution. Thats owed to the fact that the continent holds vast reserves of critical minerals essential for the energy transition that the world desperately seeks. Rather than being viewed merely as a supplier of raw materials, Africa should be seen as a prime destination for investment and industrial partnerships.

There is a well-known economic principle that a rising tide lifts all boats and yachts. In that spirit, industrialized nations like the U.S. and China must acknowledge that Africa—home to 54 countries and a population of approximately 1.5 billion, larger than China’s 1.3 billion and rivaling India’s 1.4 billion—is not a charity case but an investment opportunity.

As a long-time advocate for Africa’s economic resurgence, I have consistently argued that the continent needs trade, not aid. So, it is imperative that major global economies shift their perception of Africa from a passive recipient of aid to an active economic partner. Historically, Africa has been exploited—most notably through the partitioning of the continent at the 1884–1885 Berlin Conference, where European powers divided African territories for their own benefit. As a result, Africa has remained marginalized in global trade, accounting for less than 3% of total global trade, despite having 18% of the world’s population.

To secure a greater share of global trade, Africa must be integrated into the evolving international economic order. Without disruptions to the existing system—such as those triggered by President Trump’s policies—meaningful change is unlikely. Given the resistance Africa has faced in its bid to gain a permanent seat on the UN Security Council, a fundamental shift in global power structures, like the one Trump is advocating, may be necessary for Africa to be taken seriously as a key player in international trade.

At this moment in history, the world may actually benefit from the tensions between defenders of the entrenched old order and leaders like Trump, who are determined to shake up the system. Since assuming office on January 20, 2025, Trump has been implementing the bold changes he promised during his campaign. In my assessment, the mandate given to him by American voters provides a unique opportunity to push for a rebalancing of global trade and governance.

Throughout history, transformative change has always required bold action. If astronauts had not pushed boundaries, Neil Armstrong would never have walked on the moon in 1969, a breakthrough that reshaped human understanding of the universe. Similarly, astronomer Galileo’s discoveries challenged the belief that the Earth was flat, while it is actually cylindrical paving the way for modern scientific thought. It is this same drive for progress that appears to be fueling Trump’s disruptive approach to governance.

Keyu Jin, a professor of economics and author of The New China Playbook, recently highlighted a growing shift in global trade patterns, noting that China and other nations have been diversifying their markets away from the U.S. even before the current tariff wars. Therefore,Trump’s policies are merely accelerating this trend. In Europe, for instance, we are seeing a rise in nationalist-leaning leaders, particularly in France and Germany, who are also prioritizing domestic interests over globalism.

This geopolitical realignment is further evident in the expansion of BRICS—a coalition of Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa—which has recently welcomed new members like Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Egypt. As more countries join BRICS in an effort to counterbalance U.S. influence, and attempts to reduce dependence on the U.S. dollar in global trade may intensify. The general belief is that if America continues using tariffs as a tool to pressure its trading partners, it risks pushing them further toward alternative alliances, potentially diminishing its own economic influence. But would that really be the case?

For Africa, this shifting landscape presents an opportunity. If trade flows are redirected away from the U.S., Africa could gain a larger share of global commerce—but only if the continent positions itself strategically. With the establishment of the African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA), headquartered in Ghana, Africa is already laying the groundwork to take advantage of this new world order.

While Trump’s critics have valid concerns about the potential risks of his sweeping policy changes—particularly the hardship caused by the deportation of undocumented immigrants and disruptions in U.S. aid to Africa( which was later restored) it is also worth considering the potential long-term benefits of a restructured global economy.

The changes unfolding in global trade could open up unprecedented opportunities for Africa. If the continent plays its cards right, it could emerge as a major beneficiary of the ongoing shake-up. So, instead of viewing Trump’s policies solely through the lens of crisis, perhaps it is time to explore how Africa can leverage this moment to secure a more equitable role in the global economy.

A US based Nigerian Professor Ndubuisi Ekekwe describes Trump’s leadership as a “tsunami-earthquake-storm” approach, highlighting the unprecedented nature of shutting down USAID. According to him, this move signals a clear message to the world—that America has no obligation to fund or influence other nations through soft power. However, he suggests that this could actually be a positive development if African leaders step up and take responsibility.

He further explains how foreign aid often distorts markets and hinders sustainable development. For instance, an entrepreneur might develop a viable product in healthcare, education, or agriculture, only for an aid agency to introduce a similar product for free. This forces local businesses to shut down, and once the aid funds disappear after a few years, communities are left worse off, having lost both the external support and the local solutions that were once in place.

Rather than panicking over these funding cuts, Professor Ekekwe urges African governments to seize the opportunity by creating systems to identify and assist citizens in need. He argues that without external interference, local businesses can step in to fill market gaps, and governments can provide targeted support to those who truly require it. He points out that Africa has a long history of self-reliance and should return to indigenous solutions rather than depending on unpredictable foreign aid.

This perspective aligns with the arguments earlier made by economist Dr. Dambisa Moyo in her ground breaking book “Dead Aid”, where she contends that Western aid has done more harm than good in Africa.

Considering Trump’s repeated assertion that his second term marks a “golden age” for America, it is possibly a golden age for Africa too as the continent could benefit—if it strategically positions itself to take advantage of the shifting global order being shaped by Trump’s policies.

Magnus Onyibe, a public policy analyst, author, democracy advocate, development strategist, alumnus of the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, Tufts University, Massachusetts, USA, and a former commissioner in the Delta State government, (2003-2007) sent this piece from Lagos, Nigeria.

To continue with this conversation and more, please visit www.magnum.ng.

Continue Reading

Opinion

EFCC in the Eye of the Storm!

Published

on

By

By Ayo Oyoze Baje

With comments such as ” embarrassing”, “shameful” and ” disturbing” trailing the recent revelations that not less than 27 officers of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, EFCC were reportedly dismissed for acts of misconduct and fraudulent activities in 2024 alone, the clarion call for full-fledged investigations into what really happened has become a necessity. This is compelling because the alleged acts of fraud span from Lagos to Kaduna Zonal Commands. And given the delicate duty hinged on the matching mandate of the EFCC he who comes to equity must do so with clean hands.

But sadly, according to the spokesperson of the federal government agency, Dele Oyewale as revealed on January 6, 2025 the EFCC has started investigating ” a trending $400, 000 claim of a yet – to – be – identified supposed staff of the agency against a sectional head”. But that was just a tip of the iceberg. Some two days later, precisely on January 8, of this year 10 officers of the Lagos Zonal Command were detained over the theft of operational items.

Listed amongst the missing items are gold bars valued at over N1 billion. That is in addition to some precious jewelry and cash of between $350,000 and $400,000. Though the agency is yet to speak on what took place at the Kaduna Zonal Command, an officer simply identified as Polycarp allegedly stole a humongous amount claimed to be over $30,000 in addition to other valuable items.Such an embarrassing situation certainly triggers some flaming questions.

For instance, how do we explain the scandalous scenario that an anti-graft agency of the stature of the EFCC could not provide adequate security for expensive exhibits, including gold and mouth-watering amounts of raw cash? How would any officer, trained to fight for and recover stolen materials and money blame the prevailing poverty and high cost of living in the country as the factors of temptation for his shameful and unpatriotic act? Good leaders do not give excuses for dereliction of duty. Not at all. Rather, they should muster the moral courage to rein in the insidious urge to attempt to convert what does not belong to one as his, for whatever reason. That brings us to the nitty-gritty of the Act which established the EFCC.

Propelled by the Establishment Act first enacted in 2002 and subsequently amended in 2004 the matching mandate of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, EFCC is to frontally combat both economic and financial crimes. To bolster its performance the Act enables the Commission to prevent, investigate, prosecute and penalize economic and financial crimes in their various shades. Good enough, the EFCC is also charged with the responsibility of executing the provisions of other laws and regulations that are related to economic and financial crimes.

In its distilled essence, these laws are embedded in Section 7(2) of the Establishment Act 2004. These include Money Laundering Act 1995, Money Laundering (Prohibition) Act 2004 as well as Advanced Fee Fraud and other related Offence Act 1995. Not left out are the Failed Bank Act, 1994, the Criminal Code and the Terrorism Act 2011. But the recent revelations of odious acts of deliberate criminality carried out by officers of the EFCC run against the grains of the fight against corruption. They must therefore, be brought to the public sphere for proper scrutiny while the agency should beam a brighter searchlight into its inner structures to plug the widening loopholes.

Beginning with its recruitment process, it has become expedient for a more thorough assessment of the moral standards of any Nigerian citizen presenting himself for any of the available posts before he is employed there. Also significant is the need to guarantee the safety and security of all forms of exhibits -be it gold, jewelry or cash-preferably in bank vaults. Doing so will cut off any access to them.

From the point of view of security experts it amounts to unprofessional act not to have mechanisms firmly in place to ensure both safety and accountability of the exhibits. And if the EFCC decides to keep them within its purvey they should be well secured with multiple layers of protection provided. With such a guarantee it means that if the court finally decides in favour of the defendants, or those alleged to have stolen the recovered items they would be fully returned, without spurious claims of such to have been stolen by operatives of the EFCC. That brings us to what punishments should be meted out to the culprits.

Beyond their outright dismissal from office, they should be prosecuted and made to face the full wrath of the law. If perhaps, they have relocated outside the country the use of biometrics on record will be handy to trace and track them down.That would send the right punitive message and serve as a form of deterrence, to others with similar inclination to steal. But then, the question on the lips of concerned Nigerians is why all these acts of malfeasance are coming up at this point in time?

While some observers of the goings on at the EFCC have applauded the Chairman, Olanipekun Olukayode for mustering the leadership will to ensure probity and accountability in the operations others are not impressed by the method of night raids. Also, with the viral video of one Idris Okunaye, aka Bobrisky who claimed that some operatives of the agency collected N15 million from him to absolve him of the charge of money laundering, though later denied, the image of the EFCC is currently at stake.

But we urge Olukayode to continue with the internal cleaning up process, go ahead with the auditing of the recovered items on Zonal Command basis and ensure their security. He should review the night operations that have led to some deaths of the officials, strengthen oversight functions while doing away with problems traced to political interference.

As the Centre for Anti-Corruption and Open Leadership has rightly demanded for the internal cleansing should be holistic and devoid of manipulations from the corridors of political power.

Indeed, to restore public confidence in the EFCC it must free itself from the antics, sentiments and threats from the executive arm of government at the state and federal government levels. That would also reinforce the standard of morality in the nation, which has been rubbished by the crass, crude and criminal culture of impunity. With some of those who have pilfered the national treasury dry still walking our streets as free men and women, it is hard to discourage our rudderless youths from all forms of fraudulent practices. But we cannot continue to tread that path of perfidy. Not at all.

Continue Reading

Opinion

How Wike Benefitted from Dele Momodu’s Expertise and Conflict Resolution Skills

Published

on

By

By Dr. Sani Sa’idu Baba
ssbaba.pys@buk.edu.ng

Let me begin with this beautiful quote by Benjamin Franklin that “The doorstep to the temple of wisdom is a knowledge of our own ignorance.” Indeed, some people lack the knowledge of their own ignorance. Earlier this morning, Aare Dele MOMODU posted multiple pictures of him and his friend, the former Governor of Rivers State as he used to do from time to time in his busy social media pages. Immediately I saw those pictures, it reminded me of how CHIEF DELE MOMODU contributed immensely to WIKE’S popularity by showcasing the then Governor’s projects, an event that marked the origin of his nickname “Mr Project” all over Nigeria.

I would always say that WIKE’s popularity in Nigeria especially in the North was not as a result of his failed attempt to cling his party’s presidential ticket during the May 2022 presidential primaries or the events that followed, rather as a result of how the OVATION MEDIA GROUP demonstrated to Nigerians, Africa and many parts of the world that a Governor like Wike actually existed in Nigeria due to the volume of projects he was able to put in place in Rivers State which probably overrode all history of governance at state level in Nigeria. Unfortunately, some ignorant people threw their usual tantrums under the comment section, saying that MOMODU betrayed WIKE, which in my humble opinion is the other way round. Follow me patiently as I make a few points to that effect in a jiffy, keeping in mind the fact that Governor WIKE’s multiple work in Rivers had been undervalued, under-reported, or, let’s say, eclipsed by politics until the OVATION media group intervened in late 2020.

Furthermore, in my own understanding, a journalist has to be fair and ready to listen to the other side of any story. Governor WIKE turned out to be amongst the top beneficiaries of this Momodu’s rare quality as a veteran journalist. Let me take a step back a bit to the best of my knowledge as a meticulous follower of Ovation Media Group. Momodu had interviewed MAZI NNAMDI KANU, the leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) weeks before, specifically on the 29th October, 2020 and his fans were very happy. It was the mother of all interviews because both the interviewer and respondent knew their onions. The brilliant Nnamdi Kanu himself tweeted the following day expressing his satisfaction with Momodu’s comportment and describing him as the Larry King of Africa, which was largely true in my opinion. In fact some called him the man with magic fingers because of his enormous wisdom and prolificness in writing.

Thereafter, many Nigerians at home and in diaspora, his fans and mentees including myself requested him to interview GOVERNOR NYESOM WIKE. In fact, when I called him about that, he said “Dr Baba, I will! I always believe a journalist must hear and ventilate the other side of any story…”. So willingly and by popular demand, DELE MOMODU made it happen.

A few days later, he announced the acceptance of the then Governor WIKE to join him for a chat on one of his Instagram live sessions. That was one of the must watched interviews that set all social media streets agog. The interview went well, and he answered very interesting questions as candidly and as boldly as he could, not mincing words about his sharp disagreement with Mazi Nnamdi Kanu and the IPOB he leads, while MOMODU maintained his usual neutrality as much as possible. Momodu also asked the Governor some important questions about his developmental projects because the session was not just about his altercation with Kanu.

Moving fast forward during the interview, Governor WIKE threw a challenge by immediately inviting the Ovation Media Group to visit Rivers and see things for themselves. He was confident that given the infrastructural development Rivers State had witnessed under his watch though unpopular, Ovation would require over two weeks to cover his projects. Momodu accepted his challenge and headed to Rivers, prepared as always, regardless of what was on ground. They were pleasantly surprised. Two weeks and counting, Ovation team was still in Rivers State. There was simply so much to be seen and it was as if the governor had captured them permanently. He was enjoying their stay in Rivers while the whole country was resonating wondering what the Ovation crew were revealing from Rivers state. That was in my best understanding what brought the Governor WIKE’S massive achievement in Rivers to limelight in Nigeria and beyond. They travelled extensively and traversed the length and breadth of Rivers State, given the Governor WIKE all the machineries he needed to brag and beat his chest about the massive development he brought to his own state.

The other face of the story was even more interesting because some people who are extremely loyal to Kanu got angry. They said Wike was lying. They said he was the one who ordered the killing and mass murder of the people in OYIGBO/OBIGBO. They immediately challenged Momodu to go to the town and see the level of destruction and devastation. Some immediately began to rain insults and abuse on the Momodu’s platforms. I still remember clearly some of the false accusations and allegations by the same people who were happy before. Indeed this is not new to any journalist who chose to deploy ethical standards and neutrality. This also reminds me of the atmosphere when CHIEF DELE MOMODU interviewed the former Nigeria minister of petroleum DIAZENI ALLISON MADUEKE in London.
Coming back to the main epistle, DELE MOMODU also accepted the challenge and decided to visit OBIGBO town in Rivers State, a place where all the media spaces in Nigeria have likened to GAZA, PALESTINE where killings and human rights abuse became the order of the day. Momodu’s visit to OBIGBO is also a different story on its own, yet very interesting because what came out of it was totally contrary to a place where everyone believes it was under military siege. Everyone was ready to see the possible bloodbath and devastation that he/she was reading about constantly on social media. It was showcased LIVE in all Momodu’s platforms as the visit was ongoing in OBIGBO town.

In going to OBIGBO, Momodu employed and deployed his vast experience in the last three decades in promoting peace in West Africa and visiting war torn areas. In a sense, he was returning to familiar turfs and terrain. There were times MOMODU had to come down from the car to walk around a bit and interact with the people based on requests, instructions and directions from the INSTAGRAM LIVE feeds. He felt comfortable and very much at home amongst the indigenes and residents of Obigbo and the people welcomed the Ovation crew and freely expressed themselves. He also asked directly from the people about the murders and wanted to know if killings were still ongoing. Everybody he spoke with confirmed what had happened, but they all said the situation was under control, contrary to what the media was falsely and unjustly promoting. Normalcy had been restored substantially, in the town. Markets were bristling with the usual hustle and bustle of a boisterous community and it was live for all viewers to see. Momodu also listened to the Local Government Chairman, Prince Gerald Oforji, and the Chiefs for their own version of the story.

To my surprise however, some people kept raining abuses during the live broadcasts despite Momodu’s open, transparent work and apparent selflessness. He remained unperturbed because obviously he was not out to impress anyone but to do his job as professionally as he knows best.

In my own understanding, that was how most Nigerians naturally exonerated Governor WIKE from the alleged massive killings in OBIGBO as some believed he masterminded everything like a Bollywood director.

Who now is the ultimate beneficiary of these Momodu trips and interventions? Who benefitted from Momodu’s uncommon conflict resolution skills?

Continue Reading

Trending