Opinion

The Oracle: Different People, Different Forms of Government (Pt. 21)

Published

3 years ago

November 20, 2021

Eric

By Chief Mike Ozekhome

INTRODUCTION

MEANING
Bureaucracy is the administrative system governing any large institution, whether publicly owned or privately owned. It is a centralized form of management and tends to be differentiated from adhocracy, in which management is decentralized.

Some have argued that bureaucracy constitutes efficient and rational way in which human activity can be organized and that systematic processes and organized hierarchies are necessary to maintain order, maximize efficiency, and eliminate favoritism. On the other hand, others have seen bureaucracy as a threat to individual freedom, with the potential of trapping individuals in an impersonal “iron cage” of rule-based, rational control.

MODERN BUREAUCRACY MEANING
Modern bureaucracy has been defined as comprising four features: hierarchy (clearly defined spheres of competence and divisions of labor), continuity (a structure where administrators have a full-time salary and advance within the structure), impersonality (prescribed rules and operating rules rather than arbitrary actions), and expertise (officials are chosen according to merit, have been trained, and hold access to knowledge).

HISTORY
Although the term “bureaucracy” first originated in the mid-18th Century, organized and consistent administrative systems existed much earlier. The development of writing (c. 3500 BC) and the use of documents was critical to the administration of this system, and the first definitive emergence of bureaucracy occurred in ancient Sumer, where an emergent class of scribes used clay tablets to administer the harvest and to allocate its spoils. Ancient Egypt also had a hereditary class of scribes that administered the civil-service bureaucracy.

A hierarchy of regional proconsuls and their deputies administered the Roman Empire. The reforms of Diocletian (Emperor from 284 to 305) doubled the number of administrative districts and led to a large-scale expansion of Roman bureaucracy. The early Christian author Lactantius (c. 250 – c. 325) claimed that Diocletian’s reforms led to widespread economic stagnation, since the provinces were divided into minute portions, and many presidents and a multitude of inferior officers lay heavy on each territory. After the Empire split, the Byzantine Empire developed a notoriously complicated administrative hierarchy, and in the 20th century the term “Byzantine” came to refer to any complex bureaucratic structure.

In China, when the Qin dynasty (221–206 BC) unified China under the Legalist system, the Emperor assigned administration to dedicated officials rather than nobility, ending feudalism in China, replacing it with a centralized, bureaucratic government. The form of government created by the first emperor and his advisors was used by later dynasties to structure their own government. Under this system, the government thrived, as talented individuals could be more easily identified in the transformed society. The Han dynasty (202 BC – 220 AD) established a complicated bureaucracy based on the teachings of Confucius, who emphasized the importance of ritual in a family, in relationships, and in politics. With each subsequent dynasty, the bureaucracy evolved. In 165 BC, Emperor Wen introduced the first method of recruitment to civil service through examinations, while Emperor Wu (r. 141–87 BC), cemented the ideology of Confucius into mainstream governance installed a system of recommendation and nomination in government service known as xiaolian, and a national academy whereby officials would select candidates to take part in an examination of the Confucian classics, from which Emperor Wu would select officials. In the Sui dynasty (581–618) and the subsequent Tang dynasty (618–907) the shi class would begin to present itself by means of the fully standardized civil service examination system, of partial recruitment of those who passed standard exams and earned an official degree. Yet recruitment by recommendations to office was still prominent in both dynasties. It was not until the Song dynasty (960–1279) that the recruitment of those who passed the exams and earned degrees was given greater emphasis and significantly expanded. During the Song dynasty (960–1279) the bureaucracy became meritocratic. Following the Song reforms, competitive examinations took place to determine which candidates qualified to hold given positions. The imperial examination system lasted until 1905, six years before the Qing dynasty collapsed, marking the end of China’s traditional bureaucratic system.

JURISDICTIONS WHERE BUREACRACY ONCE EXISTED

ASHANTI EMPIRE
The government of the Ashanti Empire was built upon a sophisticated bureaucracy in Kumasi, with separate ministries which saw to the handling of state affairs. Ashanti’s Foreign Office was based in Kumasi. Despite the small size of the office, it allowed the state to pursue complex negotiations with foreign powers. The Office was divided into departments that handled Ashanti relations separately with the British, French, Dutch, and Arabs. Scholars of Ashanti history, such as Larry Yarak and Ivor Wilkes, disagree over the power of this sophisticated bureaucracy in comparison to the Asantehene. However, both scholars agree that it was a sign of a highly developed government with a complex system of checks and balances.

THE UNITED KINGDOM
The 18th Century Department of Excise developed a sophisticated bureaucracy. Pictured, the Custom House in the City of London.

Instead of the inefficient and often corrupt system of tax farming that prevailed in absolutist states such as France, the Exchequer was able to exert control over the entire system of tax revenue and government expenditure. By the late 18th Century, the ratio of fiscal bureaucracy to population in Britain was approximately 1 in 1300, almost four times larger than the second most heavily bureaucratized nation, France. Thomas Taylor Meadows, Britain’s consul in Guangzhou, argued in his Desultory Notes on the Government and People of China (1847) that the long duration of the Chinese Empire is solely and altogether owing to the good government which consists in the advancement of men of talent and merit only, and that the British must reform their civil service by making the institution meritocratic. Influenced by the ancient Chinese imperial examination, the Northcote–Trevelyan Report of 1854, recommended that recruitment should be on the basis of merit determined through competitive examination, candidates should have a solid general education to enable inter-departmental transfers, and promotion should be through achievement rather than preferment, patronage, or purchase. This led to implementation of Her Majesty’s Civil Service as a systematic, meritocratic civil service bureaucracy.
In the British civil service, just as it was in China, entrance to the civil service was usually based on a general education in ancient classics, which similarly gave bureaucrats greater prestige. The Cambridge-Oxford ideal of the civil service was identical to the Confucian ideal of a general education in world affairs through humanism.

FRANCE
Like the British, the development of French bureaucracy was influenced by the Chinese system. Under Louis XIV of France, the old nobility had neither power nor political influence, their only privilege being exemption from taxes. The dis-satisfied noblemen complained about this “unnatural” state of affairs, and discovered similarities between absolute monarchy and bureaucratic despotism. With the translation of Confucian texts during the enlightenment, the concept of a meritocracy reached intellectuals in the West, who saw it as an alternative to the traditional ancient regime of Europe. Western perception of China even in the 18th Century admired the Chinese bureaucratic system as favourable over European governments for its seeming meritocracy.

Napoleonic France adopted this meritocracy system and soon saw a rapid and dramatic expansion of government, accompanied by the rise of the French civil service and its complex systems of bureaucracy. This phenomenon became known as “bureaumania”. In the early 19th century, Napoleon attempted to reform the bureaucracies of France and other territories under his control by the imposition of the standardized Napoleonic Code. But paradoxically, that led to even further growth of the bureaucracy.

French Civil Service examinations adopted in the late 19th Century were also heavily based on general cultural studies. These features have been likened to the earlier Chinese model.
OTHER INDUSTRIALIZED NATIONS
By the mid-19th Century, bureaucratic forms of administration were firmly in place across the industrialized world. Thinkers like John Stuart Mill and Karl Marx began to theorize about the economic functions and power-structures of bureaucracy in contemporary life. Max Weber was the first to endorse bureaucracy as a necessary feature of modernity, and by the late 19th century bureaucratic forms had begun their spread from government to other large-scale institutions.

The trend toward increased bureaucratization continued in the 20th Century, with the public sector employing over 5% of the workforce in many Western countries. Meanwhile, in the Soviet Union and Eastern Bloc nations, a powerful class of bureaucratic administrators termed nomenklatura governed nearly all aspects of public life.
The 1980s brought a backlash against perceptions of “big government” and the associated bureaucracy. Politicians like Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan gained power by promising to eliminate government regulatory bureaucracies, which they saw as overbearing, and return economic production to a more purely capitalistic mode, which they saw as more efficient. In the business world, managers like Jack Welch gained fortune and renown by eliminating bureaucratic structures inside corporations. Still, in the modern world, most organized institutions rely on bureaucratic systems to manage information, process records, and administer complex systems, although the decline of paperwork and the widespread use of electronic databases is transforming the way bureaucracies function.

VARIOUS THEORIES OF BUREAUCRACY

KARL MARX
Karl Marx theorized about the role and function of bureaucracy in his book, Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right, published in 1843. In Philosophy of Right, Hegel had supported the role of specialized officials in public administration, although he never used the term “bureaucracy” himself. By contrast, Marx was opposed to bureaucracy. Marx posited that while corporate and government bureaucracy seem to operate in opposition, in actuality they mutually rely on one another to exist. He wrote that “The Corporation is civil society’s attempt to become state; but the bureaucracy is the state which has really made itself into civil society.

JOHN STUART MILL
Writing in the early 1860s, political scientist John Stuart Mill theorized that successful monarchies were essentially bureaucracies, and found evidence of their existence in Imperial China, the Russian Empire, and the regimes of Europe. Mill referred to bureaucracy as a distinct form of government, separate from representative democracy. He believed bureaucracies had certain advantages, most importantly the accumulation of experience in those who actually conduct the affairs.

Nevertheless, he believed this form of governance compared poorly to representative government, as it relied on appointment rather than direct election. Mill wrote that ultimately the bureaucracy stifles the mind.

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

“My little nephew just arrived Nigeria from UK and was playing video game at night, immediately NEPA seize light he was shouting, uncle am blind, for my mind I say you never see anything. By the time we go on generator you go deaf”.

THOUGHT FOR THE WEEK
“In any bureaucracy, there’s a natural tendency to let the system become an excuse for inaction.” (Chris Fussell).

Opinion

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

Published

8 hours ago

March 24, 2025

Eric

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.

Opinion

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

Published

20 hours ago

March 24, 2025

Eric

...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?

Opinion

Building Resilience in the Face of Adversity

Published

1 day ago

March 23, 2025

Eric

By Hezekiah Olujobi

Adversity, like sculpture, brings out the best in us and makes us stronger than our adversaries

In 2004, I suddenly lost my job at my mother church due to a misunderstanding of the purpose of my vision and persecution.

Since then, life has been a series of struggles. As a survivor of injustice and someone, who has experienced life in prison six consecutive times, I understand that in a society where stigma can severely damage one’s image, exposing oneself can create barriers to growth. However, I cannot remain silent about my story of salvation. If my own blood sister can doubt me and say it will take two years before she believes my story, why should I take offense at the opinions of outsiders? If my church authority can decline my vision, why should I blame the pastor who did not believe in it?

I believe I should stand up for those who are going through similar experiences, and filling this gap has been a profound experience for me.

Out of the integrity of my heart and ignorance of the consequences that may lie ahead, I made the decision to stand by the vision. I told the church authorities when I was asked to choose between prison evangelism and the practical aspect of reintegration, “Sir, the message is incomplete. It is insufficient to preach the gospel to prisoners without further care for their reintegration; it is incomplete to abandon a man who has wronged many people and is willing to reconcile with them.”

Nothing moved me as much as when someone approached me seeking help for accommodation upon their release. Due to this pressing need, the initiative of the Halfway Home was established. The needs arose, but where are the resources? As a result, I had to search for resources and find a way to survive. Please underline the word SURVIVE. As a father of three children at that time, where do I start life from? There is a need to reach out to the people.

In my quest for funding from local efforts, I encountered many individuals with practical life experiences. I visited a large church, thinking the problem would be solved, but what I found was a big mess. I remember a church secretary to whom I shared my vision and mission, who told me, “Sir, this church you see is going through big challenges. Every Sunday, the offerings amount to millions, and the bank staff are on the ground to take the money away for their loan recovery. As a matter of fact, our salary is inconsistent.”

So many realities of life were revealed to me. Sometimes, if you don’t know the story of where someone is coming from, what they have been through, and what they are still going through, one day you will understand, and the regret of your neglected actions and your sense of judgment may not leave you easily.

If you are the type who judges people based on assumptions—that this person, that fellow you are looking at, has the potential to help you but refuses to do so—you may live with the regret of your wrong assumptions when you finally learn what he or she is going through. Many of those whom you judge based on outward appearances are facing significant challenges that they cannot share with you. Some, despite their challenges, are still standing tall and stretching out their hands to help you. You may not be the only one on their list, yet they still sacrifice to do their best, and yet you are not satisfied or appreciative.

Some are out there sitting on a wrecked ship that is about to sink but cannot tell you. Some are battling life-threatening diseases beneath their clothes, yet what they can offer you is a smile on their faces.

This small piece is for my people going through whatever struggles they may face. Please, DO NOT GIVE UP! You are alive for a reason. Every day of your life, you must fight to be a better person than you were yesterday.

Looking back at where I am coming from, I can say that my today is far better than my yesterday, and tomorrow will be even better at the appointed time of my turning point.

What will be your reaction to those who betrayed you, those who backbite and backlash you, those who added more pain to your journey, and those who blocked you?

As for me, I look at them as if nothing happened. Without their rejection, I may not have learned the lessons I learned today. Adversity, like sculpture, brings out the best in us and makes us stronger than our adversaries.

To all my partners and supporters, to those individuals who choose to invest in my personal growth, and to those who are going through challenges yet still reaching out to help others, I say a big thank you.

Never give up!

See you at the top!!

Hezekiah Deboboye Olujobi CRJ writes from Lagos