Connect with us

Opinion

The Oracle: Local Government Autonomy As Panacea for National Development (Pt. 4)

Published

on

Leaderboard Ad

By Chief Mike Ozekhome

INTRODUCTION

Last two weeks, we took a break from this series to discuss a burning national issue. Today, we continue with our discourse on this all important matter. The most fundamental rationale for creating local governments anywhere in the world is to employ it to take responsibility for the development of the area directly and also contribute indirectly to the development of the nation. However, this fundamental rationale has been neglected over the years. On this note, we shall continue our above discourse.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT AUTONOMY: THEORY VS. PRACTICE (Continues)
Three National Conferences have so far been convened to discuss the political and constitutional future of Nigeria, with the local government system being discussed in all conferences. The most protracted debates on the system of local government were at the 2014 National Conference, where participants were provided the ample opportunity of discussing varying political and constitutional issues. The conference recommended scrapping the SJLGA and replacing this with a state Revenue Mobilization, Allocation and Fiscal Commission (RMAFC) with representatives from local government and a chair nominated by the State Governor. However, it also recommended a two-tier government structure – federal and state – with states able to create as many local governments as they wish. While the abolition of the SJLGA would restore financial autonomy of LGs and improve their viability, the two-tier government surrenders the autonomy of local governments. This two-tier government recommendation cannot survive, as local governments remain a fundamental aspect of democracy, serving as the most potent instrument to encourage and bring about local participation and to spread democratic values.

ROLE OF NULGE IN LOCAL GOVERNMENT RESTRUCTURING
The Nigeria Union of Local Government Employees (NULGE) has played a major role in the fight for restructuring the local government system of Nigeria. In its supervisory role, NULGE has observed the following defects threatening the continued existence of local governments in Nigeria.

The 1999 Constitution is fundamentally flawed in its provision for interventionist policies of the Federal and State governments on local government administration.

So far, the perceived “third tier” government has not materialized in Nigeria.

The ineffectiveness of local governments is caused by the factors of inadequate resources, including inappropriate fiscal base, the usurpation of the right to raise internal revenue, and the manipulation of the state joint local government account.

The creation of Local Council Development Areas or Centers aims to enhance State control over local governments, rather than aiding democracy and independence.
The appointment of Caretaker Committees to run local governments is manifestly unconstitutional and goes against the autonomy of local governments.

There is the urgent need for constitutional protection of local governments from the dictatorship control of Federal and State governments.

LGs ARE MERE ADMINISTRATIVE UNITS
A close perusal of the functions of Local Governments as listed in the Fourth Schedule to the CFRN, 1999, reveals that Local Government Councils are more or less administrative units of a State Government. For instance, item 2(d), which refers to the functions of Local Councils, provides that:

“The functions of a local government council in the government of a state as respects the following matters…and such other functions as may be conferred on local government councils by the House of Assembly of the State” (emphasis supplied).

THE 1976 LOCAL GOVERNMENT REFORMS
This provision grants State governments unfettered discretion to decide on what local governments within their States can or should do, or to usurp some of the specific Local Government functions set out in item 1(a)–(k). The reform of 1976 attempted to accord financial autonomy to local governments. Financial autonomy is the ability to generate revenue, allocate financial and material resources, impose local taxation, determine and authorize its annual budgets without external interference etc. In the 1976 reform, it was envisaged that democratic federalism would start by extending popular participation to the unit of government closest to the people, i.e. Local Government. This would require a workable degree of financial autonomy recognized by the Constitution. However, section 162(3)-(8) CFRN, 1999, denies financial autonomy of Local Governments. It states:

“(5) The amount standing to the credit of local government councils in the Federation Account shall also be allocated to the States for the benefit of their local government councils on such terms and in such manner as may be prescribed by the National Assembly.

(6) Each State shall maintain a special account to be called “State Joint Local Government Account” into which shall be paid all allocations to the local government councils of the State from the Federation Account and from the Government of the State.

(7) Each State shall pay to local government councils in its area of jurisdiction such proportion of its total revenue on such terms and in such manner as may be prescribed by the National Assembly.

(8) The amount standing to the credit of Local Government Councils of a State shall be distributed among the Local Government Councils of that State on such terms and in such manner as may be prescribed by the House of Assembly of the State.”

By making States act as trustees and intermediaries or “middlemen” for the revenue of their Local Government Councils, these sections subject Local Governments’ funding to the discretion, whims and caprices of their respective State Governments and State Houses of Assembly. The creation of the contentious State Joint Local Government Account (SJLGA) under section 162(6) CFRN, 1999, has frustrated attempts to establish the third tier and autonomous status of local governments. Expectedly, State governments continue hide under the cloak of SJLGA to waylay at source, funds meant for LGs under section 163 of the CFRN, 1999. They thus control the affairs of their Local Government Councils, thereby undermining and reducing their impact, functions and contributions to national development, especially their immediate Constituencies and environment.

STATE GOVERNORS’ SKEWED SYSTEM OF ELECTION OF LG PERSONNEL

Another serious challenge faced by local government is the process of election. The Constitution empowers the State Governors to conduct Local Government elections. This is a significant challenge as the Governors can and have easily turned this into a process of selection and favouritism, backing and putting in power perceived loyalists, ‘yes-persons’ and bootlickers who are in favour of their government. In several States, a Governor’s political party usually wins virtually all the Chairmanship and Councillorship positions during election. This is to demonstrate the popularity of the Governor and his political party in the State, even if the governed are dying of starvation and destitution. This brings about a situation where unqualified candidates are elected to run the affairs of Local Governments, making it a near impossible task to achieve local development of the grassroots, let alone national development.

FURTHER CHALLENGES FACED BY LGs
The reality is that in Nigeria, there is little or no evidence of the impact of the local government system at the grassroots. Corruption, inefficiency, incompetence, lack of funds, poor and inadequate working equipment and undue interference by the state governments in the affairs of the local government councils have characterized the operation of the local government system in Nigeria. Arugu and Eke described the Nigerian situation more graphically thus:

“… The local governments in Nigeria have not been very effective due to the fact that they are very much dependent on the state government. This dependence on the states continues renovated and culminates in whittling down activities of the local government system thus rendering them ineffective, shadows of government and ghost environments. Thus, the major challenge bedeviling the operations of local government areas in Nigeria remains local government Autonomy – a system of governance that can make them truly autonomous…”

The local units of governance which formed the nucleus of present Nigeria have not only been undermined but are now undergoing major constitutional assault. With the exception of the 1976 local government reforms, which attempted to restore the sanctity of local governance, political restructuring has tended to further downgrade the importance and place of local government administration. However, despite these many assaults, the principles of democratic inclusiveness and grassroots participation have so ensured that the Local Government system still survives. Local Government is fundamental to the democratization process, as it remains the most potent instrument to mobilize people for local participation and to spread democratic values.

WHY LOCAL GOVERNMENT AUTONOMY IS CRUCIAL
Local government autonomy is advocated for due to several reasons, some of which are:
Autonomy develops the system and helps in educating the people in the rural areas to acquire knowledge of the political system.

Strengthens democratic decentralization of power and puts power in the hands of citizens at the grassroots level governance, in addition to delivering development
Enables capacity building of people in rural areas in the form of economic empowerment through job creation and payment of salary and emoluments; freedom from external control of allocation whose excess can be channeled into the economic system of the communities concerned.

Makes the working environment functional and less threatening to the survival of the system. Local government employees in most of the states of the federation are today being owed salaries and retirement benefits. Creating a functional working environment will give the workers a sense of job security and motivation which will encourage them to put in their best.

Guarantees more money in the hands of local governments to deliver services to citizens since autonomy weakens the over-concentration of power in the state. Local contractors can thus rely on this tier of government for payment of contract sums, instead of the State and Federal governments. This also develops their capacity to handle bigger and more complex projects in the future.
Minorities, no matter the size of their population, are, with autonomy, involved in the political equation and process of electing or making the Councilor or Chairman of their Local Government.
Gives greater capacity to engage in and execute projects that are dear to the hearts of the people, such as construction, grading, maintenance of federal roads in the rural communities, primary health centres, repairs of bridges and culverts, building of primary schools, as well as provision of improved seedlings, aquatic and agricultural enlightenment services to farmers
Enables LGs make decisions that enhance and enrich the cultural base of the communities. Under this, internal communal conflicts could be amicably resolved by Local Government Councils through ADR mechanics, without recourse to litigation, to the states or federal governments. Chieftaincy, land and kindred matters as well as issues bordering on Community Development Unions (CDUs) can be easily tackled with powers bested in the local councils through autonomy (To be continued).

FUNTIMES

“Obesity is not because it runs in the family. It is because no one runs in the family”-Anonymous.

“Yesterday a visitor shocked me….
I offered him juice and he was like I will drink it after eating..
Excuse me! After eating what?????”-Anonymous.

THOUGHT FOR THE WEEK
“The real cost of corruption in government, whether it is local, state, or federal, is a loss of the public trust”. (Mike Quigley).

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

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

Opinion

The Trump-Vance Approach to Zelensky and the Emergence of a New World Order

Published

on

By

Leaderboard Ad

By Magnus Onyibe

During his visit to the White House on Friday, February 28, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky faced a tough reception from President Donald J. Trump and Vice President J.D. Vance. Their handling of him demonstrated their firm approach to diplomacy, signaling a shift in global power dynamics.

As the saying goes, a beggar has no choice—their hand is always beneath that of the giver, not above it. This principle was clearly reinforced when President Trump made it explicit that Ukraine had little say in negotiations regarding the resolution of the ongoing three-year war with Russia. Initial discussions had already taken place in Saudi Arabia without Ukraine or European nations at the table. Instead, the negotiations involved Saudi Arabia, the U.S., and Russia.

In response, Zelensky expressed his frustration:

“It feels like the U.S. is now discussing the ultimatum that Putin set at the start of the full-scale war. Once again, decisions about Ukraine are being made without Ukraine. I wonder why they believe Ukraine would accept all these ultimatums now if we refused them at the most difficult moment.”

Similarly, UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer voiced concerns over Trump and Vance’s strategy of excluding Europe from the discussions:

“Nobody wants the bloodshed to continue, least of all the Ukrainians. But after everything that they have suffered, after everything they have fought for, there can be no discussion about Ukraine without Ukraine, and the people of Ukraine must have a long-term, secure future.”

However, the reality is that Zelensky is in no position to dictate terms. This was emphasized when Vice President Vance rebuked him during the Oval Office meeting:

“Mr. President, with respect, I think it’s disrespectful for you to come into the Oval Office to try to litigate this in front of the American media.”

Trump had long accused Zelensky of being a shrewd negotiator who, during Biden’s presidency, would visit Washington and leave with massive financial aid. Determined to change this dynamic, Trump made it clear that such a practice would not continue under his administration. Summarizing the meeting, he stated:

“We had a very meaningful meeting in the White House today. Much was learned that could never be understood without conversation under such fire and pressure. It’s amazing what comes out through emotion, and I have determined that President Zelensky is not ready for peace if America is involved because he feels our involvement gives him a big advantage in negotiations. I don’t want advantage, I want PEACE.”

Trump went further, saying:

“He disrespected the United States of America in its cherished Oval Office. He can come back when he is ready for peace.”

By securing a deal that would grant the U.S. control over some of Ukraine’s rare earth resources as repayment for previous military aid, Trump demonstrated his negotiation skills. This approach mirrors historical precedents, such as Kuwait compensating the U.S. with oil after being liberated from Iraq in 1990 and Europe repaying America for the post-World War II Marshall Plan by allowing the formation of NATO under U.S. leadership.

The war itself stems from Ukraine’s desire to join NATO, which Russia perceived as a threat, prompting the invasion. Biden’s administration rallied U.S. allies to support Ukraine, possibly influenced by Biden’s personal connections—especially considering that Zelensky previously shielded Biden’s son, Hunter, from scrutiny over alleged financial misconduct in Ukraine. This decision may have played a role in Biden’s election victory in 2020, sparing him political damage from Trump’s opposition research.

However, Zelensky’s alignment with one side of U.S. politics carried risks. Hunter Biden’s business dealings eventually came under investigation, leading to his conviction, though his father pardoned him before leaving office. Some speculate that Biden’s support for Ukraine was a way of repaying Zelensky, providing him with financial and military backing against Russia.

This led Ukraine into a protracted war, with devastating consequences. Europe, drawn into the conflict through NATO, has suffered economic strain due to sanctions on Russian energy, with Germany experiencing economic downturns and the UK entering a recession. Africa has also been affected, as food shortages have worsened due to disruptions in wheat exports from Ukraine and Russia.

Had former President Barack Obama acted in 2014 when Russia annexed Crimea, this war might have been avoided. However, Obama, who prioritized ending wars rather than starting them, resisted calls for military action, despite pressure from figures like then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Ironically, Biden, who was Obama’s vice president at the time, later led Ukraine into a war that his former boss had deliberately avoided.

With around 400,000 Ukrainians killed or wounded and much of the country’s infrastructure in ruins, the war has proven catastrophic. As Trump attempts to broker peace, it remains uncertain whether Zelensky will adapt to the new realities of U.S. foreign policy. Unlike the previous administration, Trump and Vance do not view Ukraine as a victim but as a country that must make concessions to secure peace.

Trump has already played a key role in de-escalating the Gaza conflict, and a similar approach could be applied to Ukraine. However, for this to happen, Zelensky must recognize that the geopolitical landscape has shifted and that the U.S. will no longer provide unconditional support. If Ukraine truly seeks peace, its leadership must engage with the new administration on its own terms.

The cold reception President Trump gave to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky was evident when he labeled him a dictator and accused him of starting the war—though he later jokingly retracted the statement, expressing disbelief that he had said it. This exchange took place in response to reporters’ questions on the matter.

Trump’s firm stance signaled a shift from past U.S. support, and Zelensky might have adjusted his approach accordingly, handling the new White House administration with more caution. However, he chose a more assertive approach and was met with strong pushback from Trump and Vice President J.D. Vance. The two leaders discarded diplomatic formalities and sternly reprimanded Zelensky for what they perceived as arrogance regarding global security and an attempt to exploit perceived U.S. vulnerabilities—something they were unwilling to tolerate.

Through their bold policies, which are reshaping international relations, Trump and Vance are clearly dismantling the old world order and crafting a new one. This is evident in Trump’s imposition of steep tariffs on U.S. trading partners, a move that is redefining alliances worldwide. Simultaneously, he is pushing for a swift resolution to conflicts in Gaza and Ukraine—wars he insists would never have started under his leadership. Despite domestic political challenges, Trump has vowed to bring these conflicts to an end.

For the sake of a more comprehensive global peace effort, it would be worthwhile for Trump to extend his focus to ending conflicts in Africa, particularly in the Democratic Republic of Congo and Sudan. These regions hold vast reserves of critical resources—Congo with its cobalt and Sudan with its oil—both vital for sustaining global energy production and technological advancement.

Even before formally taking office, Trump’s aggressive rhetoric influenced global events. His warning that chaos would erupt if Hamas refused to negotiate a ceasefire prompted a temporary truce between Hamas and the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF). A pattern of strategic pressure appears to be emerging. After Trump excluded Europe from negotiations on ending the Russia-Ukraine war, French President Emmanuel Macron, a longtime acquaintance of Trump, was among the first European leaders to visit him in Washington, seeking clarity on France’s position in the shifting geopolitical landscape. German Chancellor Olaf Scholz and British Prime Minister Keir Starmer soon followed, with Zelensky arriving thereafter.

Notably, Scholz maintained Germany’s trademark direct and pragmatic approach during his White House visit. Macron, having built a rapport with Trump during his previous presidency, engaged in lighthearted banter, reflecting the French leader’s personable style. Starmer, adhering to Britain’s tradition of diplomatic finesse, presented Trump with a letter from King Charles III, inviting him for a state visit—an overture that reportedly charmed the U.S. president. This diplomatic strategy was reminiscent of how North Korean leader Kim Jong Un had won Trump over with personal letters, following initial hostilities.

Unlike these European leaders, who carefully navigated discussions with Trump, Zelensky adopted a confrontational tone, attempting to lecture Trump on why defending Ukraine was also in America’s best interest. He argued that, despite the Atlantic Ocean separating the U.S. from Europe, Russia still posed a threat. However, Trump and Vance found this stance presumptuous and swiftly dismissed his arguments, reminding him that he was in no position to dictate U.S. security policy.

Zelensky’s misstep revealed his lack of diplomatic finesse, likely stemming from his inexperience—having transitioned directly from a comedian satirizing politicians to a wartime president. His extensive international support, largely driven by Western sympathy for Ukraine as the underdog in its struggle against Russia, may have inflated his sense of importance, leading him to expect universal backing. But Trump was not swayed by this sentiment.

The flurry of European leaders visiting Washington underscores Trump’s influence as a dominant global figure. While critics often overlook it, Trump’s approach is rooted in pragmatism and his commitment to his “Make America Great Again” (MAGA) agenda. His numerous executive orders are designed to strengthen the U.S. economy and give it an edge over competitors.

A key aspect of Trump’s legacy-building efforts is tackling the U.S. budget deficit, which currently stands at approximately $36 trillion. He is also seeking to reverse trade imbalances with major partners like China, Mexico, and Canada. One of his unconventional strategies to generate revenue is the significant increase in the EB-5 visa investment threshold—from $1 million to $5 million—offering a direct pathway to U.S. residency for high-net-worth individuals willing to invest in the country.

Similarly, his tariff hikes are aimed at shifting trade dynamics in America’s favor. These strategies are already causing ripples globally, sending shockwaves across markets and international relations. While some argue that Trump’s ambitious goal of attracting 10 million investors through the $5 million EB-5 visa is unrealistic—citing the UK’s modest intake of 1,000 applicants for its similar program—others believe the U.S. will draw significant interest, particularly from wealthy individuals in China, Korea, the Middle East, Russia, and even Britain.

For many affluent foreigners, the opportunity to secure U.S. residency through the “Golden Green Card” is worth the steep price tag. With Trump’s administration pursuing aggressive economic and geopolitical strategies, the global landscape is rapidly evolving—whether the world is ready for it or not.

A provision in the U.S. Constitution, which the new administration attempted to nullify through an executive order, was subsequently suspended by a court ruling.

Many may be surprised to learn that people worldwide already pay amounts equivalent to or even exceeding $5 million to participate in the U.S. citizenship-by-investment program. This is similar to how, in Nigeria, bureaucratic hurdles and corruption sometimes force citizens to pay up to four times the official cost to obtain an international passport. Likewise, visa application fees for certain countries are often inflated by syndicates, as seen in recent allegations against South African High Commission officials accused of visa racketeering.

The current $5 million fee is significantly higher than the original cost when the EB-5 visa program was introduced in 1990. To put this into perspective, the U.S. Congress initially established the EB-5 Program to stimulate the economy through job creation and foreign investment. In 1992, lawmakers expanded the initiative by creating the Immigrant Investor Program, or Regional Center Program, allowing investors to fund projects tied to designated regional centers that promote economic growth. While the program initially required a $1 million investment, this amount increased to $1.8 million in 1992 and has now been raised to $5 million under President Trump in 2025.

Critics who accuse Trump of being overly transactional for increasing the cost of the EB-5 visa may be unaware—or deliberately ignoring—the fact that he is not the first president to revise its pricing.

Following his tense meeting at the White House, Zelensky has shifted his tone, seemingly acknowledging the need for a more conciliatory approach. On Saturday, he issued a statement of appreciation, saying, “America’s help has been vital in helping us survive, and I want to acknowledge that.” He also emphasized the need for open dialogue, stating, “Despite the tough discussions, we remain strategic partners. But we need to be honest and direct with each other to truly understand our shared goals.”

At its core, Zelensky’s visit aimed to secure U.S. security guarantees against future Russian aggression. His skepticism toward any agreement with Moscow is understandable, given that Russia previously invaded Ukraine in 2014, annexing Crimea during President Obama’s tenure. Zelensky does not trust Putin, especially since Russia violated the 2015 peace agreement with Ukraine.

However, his confrontational approach—marked by emotional appeals rather than pragmatic diplomacy—worked against him. As a result, he left the White House empty-handed, failing to secure his key objectives, including a potential deal to trade rare earth minerals in exchange for U.S. military protection.

Zelensky has since sought solace among European leaders, but this offers little real security. Even those comforting him recognize their own vulnerabilities, as they, too, rely on U.S. military support. Despite Europe’s show of solidarity with Ukraine during a recent meeting in London on March 2—where they agreed to form a coalition—it remains clear that Europe cannot effectively defend itself without the United States. This reality, which became evident after World War II and led to NATO’s formation under U.S. leadership, remains unchanged.

Recognizing this, European leaders—including those from France, the UK, Germany, and Italy—have prioritized maintaining strong ties with the U.S., frequently traveling across the Atlantic to engage with President Trump, despite the turbulent state of their current relationship.

Trump has made it clear that he intends to end both the Israel-Hamas and Russia-Ukraine wars, possibly through unconventional means. In a phone conversation with Putin, he reportedly expressed no opposition to Europe deploying a peacekeeping force in Ukraine—a concept that closely resembles Ukraine’s original desire to join NATO, which sparked Russia’s invasion in the first place.

Strangely, this significant development has received little attention, with European leaders instead opting to continue funding Ukraine’s war efforts. The UK, for instance, approved a $2.8 billion loan to Ukraine just last Sunday, despite the reality that Ukraine is unlikely to achieve a decisive military victory, no matter how determined it remains.

Ultimately, the U.S. remains central to resolving these major conflicts in Europe, the Middle East, and Africa. This reality must be acknowledged in any serious discussion about achieving lasting peace in regions where wars have left millions dead or struggling with extreme hunger.

Magnus Onyibe, an entrepreneur, 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, sent this piece from Lagos, Nigeria.
To continue with this conversation and more, please visit www.magnum.ng.

Continue Reading

Opinion

On the Suspension of Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan: A Grave Injustice and a Desperate Smear Campaign

Published

on

By

Leaderboard Ad

By Senator Ojudu Babafemi

The decision of the Nigerian Senate to suspend Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan for raising allegations of sexual harassment against Senate President Godswill Akpabio is deeply troubling and unjustifiable. While I take no position on the veracity of her claim, the fundamental principle of fairness demands that Akpabio should not have presided over a case in which he was personally implicated. It was his duty to step aside and allow his deputy to handle the matter impartially. By failing to do so, he compromised the integrity of the Senate and reinforced the perception of institutional bias against women who dare to speak up.

Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan is not one to be dismissed lightly. I had the opportunity to interact with her in an official capacity while serving in the presidency, and I can attest that she is a woman of immense strength, intelligence, and purpose. She is not frivolous, nor is she someone who can be easily intimidated. Her journey in Kogi State has been marked by monumental struggles and persecution, yet she has remained unwavering in her commitment to her people. Her grassroots connection is undeniable, and her dedication to uplifting her constituency is evident in her relentless advocacy.

Beyond the unjust suspension, what is even more disgraceful is the rash of hired protesters in both Abuja and Akwa Ibom, clearly orchestrated to malign her. These so-called protests are glaringly artificial, a poorly executed charade that insults the intelligence of Nigerians. It is evident to the world that these are not spontaneous expressions of public sentiment but paid theatrics aimed at discrediting a strong woman who refuses to be silenced. The fact that such desperate measures are being deployed only signals that someone has something to hide. This playbook is cheap, nauseating, and frankly, an embarrassment to any society that claims to uphold democratic values.

But history has shown that truth and justice always prevail. This suspension is nothing more than a temporary setback. Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan will emerge from this even stronger, her resilience further cementing her place as a formidable politician and conscientious public servant. Meanwhile, those orchestrating this smear campaign will find their names recorded in the book of infamy—a stark reminder of those who stood on the wrong side of history.

Nigeria deserves a legislative chamber where justice is not only done but seen to be done. The Senate must correct this grave injustice and ensure that no lawmaker, especially a woman, faces persecution for speaking out.

Continue Reading

Opinion

The Fearful General and a Controversial Book

Published

on

By

Leaderboard Ad

By Eric Elezuo

A lot of things reared their heads for discussion when on February 20, 2025 at the Transcorp Hilton Hotel, Abuja, former Military President, General Ibrahim Badamasi Babagida, gathered the who’s who in Nigeria politics and entrepreneurship, to launch his much awaited book, A Journey in Service, and to raise fund for his proposed Presidential Library in Minna, Niger State.

The meeting, which proved to be an anti-climax of some sort, raised a lot of dust, most of which bothered on the inauthenticity of the narratives than an exposition. While Babangida acknowledged the winner of the annuled June 12, 1993 Presidential election as Chief MKO Abiola, he dwelled on bulk passing, blaming everyone but himself for the disaster that was June 12.

But more importantly, the reason behind all the blames heaped on other entities, was traced to his fearfulness, having noted that he was afraid for his life, and that explains why he had to annul an election that was adjudged the freest and fairest in modern times.

Erroneously, Babangida has been counted among the courageous leaders Nigeria has produced if going by his narration as being afraid for his life is anything to go by. By hindsight and convention, Generals are known to be officers, who has accomplished a lot, exhibited untold velour and bravado in the discharge of their duties. It therefore, becomes unheard of to note a retired to speak about a fear he harbored, preventing him from doing the right thing.

How can a General say he was a afraid for his own life. Who would he protect when he is sore afraid? The revelation is not only surprising, but explained that Nigerians have been giving Babangida undue honour as fear is not part of the military training, and that explains why they go headlong into battle to protect territorial integrity.

Most Nigerians have said that Babangida should be prosecuted for his part in the ill-fated June 12 affair, but he also face the consequences of not representing the military very when it mattered most.

A fearful General has no place leading anyone. A fearful like Babangida said he was, should be cautioned and not praised, and as case may be, face court-martial.

Continue Reading

Trending