Opinion

When Rebellion is a Virtue by Femi Fani-Kayode

Published

2 years ago

September 9, 2023

Eric

Unfolding events in Africa continue to intrigue the world and the fact that no less than seven military coups have been successfully effected in no less than seven African countries in the last three years gives cause for concern.

What is the cause for these violent acts of mutiny and rebellion and can there be any justification for such behaviour?

How legitimate were the mandates of those that have been toppled and are the soldiers that have carried out these ostensibly illegal acts of insurrection, revolution and treason and taken power by the barrel of a gun criminals and rebels that should be shot at the stake or God-sent and divinely-inspired heroes, liberators and deliverers of their respective countries and people?

Can their actions be justified in some cases or are they appropriate for all and can such a course of action ever be deemed appropriate for our country Nigeria?

When is rebellion a virtue and when is it a curse?

When is mutiny, revolution and a call to arms appropriate and when is it not?

What does one do with civilian dictators and sit-tight Presidents who have sold and mortgaged the future and destiny of their nation to the Western imperialists and neo-colonial powers and who torment their people and refuse to leave office.

These are just some of the questions that yours truly seeks to answer in this contribution.

Enjoy the ride!

On the 13th March 1962, in his
address on the first anniversary of the Alliance for Progress, John F. Kennedy, the 35th President of the United States of America, said the following:

“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable”.

In the history of humanity few have enunciated such a profound yet obvious home truth as President Kennedy has done with these famous words.

Sadly even fewer have learnt anything from them.

Those that doubt this have much to learn.

Consider the following.

President Paul Kagame of Rwanda and President Paul Biya of Cameroon have ruled their African countries for 23 and 42 years respectively.

Approximately one week ago they were both constrained to sack, retire, redeploy and replace much of their Military High Command, senior Army commanders and thousands of commissioned and non-commissioned officers in the light of the wave of military coups that have swept West and Central Africa and just one day after the one that took place in Gabon.

This was clearly a panic measure on both their parts. They did it out of rabid fear and in a desperate attempt to thwart, pre-empt and prevent a military coup and stave off an anticipated mutiny in their respective Armed Forces.

Unfortunately for them such peripheral and ineffectual remedies and desperate attempts to ward off all opposition and dissent in an attempt to hold on to power forever will not work because their so-called “mandates” lack legitimacy and they do not have the backing of the people.

Worse still they are both oblivious of and totally blind to the rationale and ethos of mutiny and armed rebellion and are clearly ignorant of the essence and motivation for military coups.

Simply put, no matter who your senior military commanders are, whether the old or the new and no matter how many times you sack, retire, redeploy or change them, when you are an illegitimate, depraved and evil leader who crushes, murders, persecutes and incarcerates members of the opposition and who rigs elections, refuses to leave power, torments the people and imposes a corrupt, bloodthirsty and blood-lusting dictatorship and dynasty of barbarism and tyranny on his nation, coups, mutiny, rebellion, revolution and insurrection become inevitable: it is only a question of time.

The great Mexican revolutionary and courageous hero, Emiliano Zapata said “if there is no justice for the people, let there be no peace for the Government”.

This sentiment is what we see playing out in the hearts and minds of most Africans today: no justice for the people and no peace for the Government.

In addition to that the Holy Bible says “there is no peace for the wicked”.

Is it any wonder that sit tight rulers and life-long dictators like Kagame, Biya and others are scared of their own shadow, are shivering under their beds and enjoy no peace?

It is a fulfilment of scripture: it cannot be resisted or broken.

And what is our response to these vile, unjust and wicked leaders who, like King Louis XIV (the Sun King) of France, regard themselves as being the living manifestation and embodiment of the state?

Surely it is nothing but hate, defiance, contempt, disdain and rebellion.

It is the same response that you will get from a wounded and cornered dog whose back is up against a wall: it will strike back and fight for its very life in the most ferocious, gallant and fearless manner.

That is where most Africans that are saddled with life-time rulers and civilian dictators in their respective countries are today.

They harbour a burning rage and violent anger in their hearts and minds and rebellion and revolution is brewing in their spirits and souls.

And surely no-one can blame them for that.

As William Shakespeare wrote in his famous play ‘Macbeth’, “unnatural deeds do breed unnatural troubles”.

If you do not stand up, resist, fight back and “breed unnatural troubles” when confronted with wickedness, injustice and tyranny, you cannot expect to ever enjoy your God-given right of freedom and neither will you ever witness emancipation from subjugation and oppression.

How else would you remove and replace power-obsessed dictators like Ali ‘Make Some Noise’ Bongo of Gabon, Field Marshall Idi Amin Dada of Uganda, Papa Doc and his son Baby Doc Duvalier of Haiti and the mentally-ill Jean Bedie Bokassa of the Central African Republic (who declared himself the Black Napoleon and Emperor for life and who kept the freshly decapitated heads of his enemies in his fridge)?

How else can a cruel, sadistic, psychopathic, sociopathic, narcisstic, unjust, vicious, depraved and malevolent tyrant who has broken the spirit of his people, enslaved them for decades and turned them into what can best be described as grovelling quislings, servile and compliant zombies and snivelling lackeys be removed from power if not by resistance, rebellion and the force of arms?

To move against such monsters and topple them by ANY means possible is surely a divine duty and obligation and one which every single one of the Holy Books not only encourages but also insists on.

The Holy Bible, for example, enjoins us to “resist evil” in the same way that Jehu resisted Jezebel, Moses resisted Pharaoh, David resisted Goliath, Peter resisted Herod and Paul resisted the Romans.

Can we be expected to do anything less?

Is it not the injustice and tyranny that the French, the Russian, the American, the English, the Chinese and many others were subjected to hundreds of years ago that pushed them to the wall and inspired and provoked them to take up arms and unleash some of the most violent and bloodthirsty rebellions and revolutions in the history of humanity?

Was this not the right and proper thing for them to do and had it not been for their resistance to such barbarous oppression and subjugation from their erstwhile oppressors and slave masters would they be the free, civilised, great and powerful nations that they are today?

Had it not been for Flt. Lieutenant Jerry Rawlings’ revolution and coup d’etat in 1979 and 1983 respectively would Ghana be the great and stable nation and flourishing democracy that she is today?

Had it not been for Nelson Mandela and the gallant and heroic struggle, resistence and open rebellion of the ANC and its armed wing, Umkhonto we Sizwe (meaning “Spear of the Nation”), would South Africa had been rid of white minority rule today, would the cruel and inhuman system of apartheid still not be in place, would the majority black population still not be referred to as “filthy kafirs” and nothing but “hewers of the wood and drawers of the water” and would the Boers still not be in power up until today?

Had it not been for Fidel Castro’s revolution and armed struggle, with the support of great men like Che Guevera, would Cuba have ever been able to break the yoke of the hegemony and tyranny of the United States of America and rid themselves of their corrupt Yankee-loving President Fulgencio Batista?

We must learn from the history of others and not continue to accept injustice simply because we believe that we must keep the peace at the expense of our fundamental liberties, human rights, basic humanity and God-given freedom.

President Franklin Delano Roosevelt of the United States of America said, “the liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic state itself. That, in its essence, is fascism: ownership of Government by an individual, by a group or by any other controlling private power.”

Is this not what we are witnessing in much of Africa today?

Is this not the elephant in the room that few care to admit exists much less talk about on our continent today?

If a so-called leader degrades you to a point of being regarded and treated as nothing but a worthless animal, dashes all your aspirations, controls your essence and very being and takes everything away from you, including your future and that of your loved ones, is it not logical and indeed mandatory for you to rise up in resistence, fight for your rights and, if necessary, break every state-imposed rule in the book in order to restore your God-given self-respect, self-esteem, dignity, freedom and fundamental rights?

Must the cruel will and vainglorious and gluttonous aspirations and desires of the few be imposed on the destiny and future of the many?

Must an entire nation bend the knee to one man and his family in perpetuity?

Were some born to rule whilst others were born to be slaves?

This is the tragedy of Africa and these questions need to be answered.

Can we boast of being a continent where justice reigns and men treat one another in an equitable, humane and just manner?

Why do we as a people glorify injustice and wickedness and why do we so readily accept it?

Do those that deserve to lead ever really get a chance to do so given the sit tight mentality, inexplicable cruelty and lust for power of most African leaders?

What makes it worse is that most of those “leaders” are loyal servants and willing slaves of the Western neo-colonial powers and imperialists who see no wrong in the pain, suffering, hunger, abject poverty, penury, bondage, shame and disgrace that they have thrown the people of their respective nation’s into.

As a matter of fact it is to the advantage of the western powers for such gutless and feckless quislings to remain in power for life simply because it guarantees the fact that Africa will remain servile, docile, impoverished, underdeveloped, weak and totally dependent on their goodwill, accursed aid and wretched loans forever.

This is what much of Africa has been reduced to by their “leaders” with thankfully a few notable exceptions such as the leadership in Egypt, South Africa, Algeria, Nigeria, Kenya, Namibia, Ethiopia, Ghana and a handful of others.

The rest are in the main nothing but cheap and inconsequential peddlers of filth and falsehood, tin pot dictators, hopeless pretenders, clowns and court jesters and propagators of falsehood, rubbish and arrant nonsense.

When confronted and saddled with a such a depressing and uninspiring coterie of destructive leaders is resistance and rebellion not the only way forward?

Is it any wonder that, according to a statement published in the Iranian Government’s website, Iranian President Ebrahim Raisi, whilst receiving Olivia Rouamba, the Foreign Minister of Burkina Faso, a country which recently experienced her own military coup and armed rebellion “praised the resistance of African countries in the face of colonialism and terrorism and hailed their stance as a sign of vigilance and awakening”.

A vivid illustration and graphic example of the indignity and injustice that the people of Africa have been subjected to is appropriate here.

Consider the fact that just 11 men, namely Paul Kagame of Rwanda (23 years), Paul Biya of Cameroons (42 years), Teodoro Mbasogo of Equitorial Guinea (43 years), Dennis Nguesso of Congo (38 years), Isias Afwerki of Eritrea (30 years), Yoweri Museveni of Uganda (37years), Alhassan Outtara of Ivory Coast (13 years), Gnassingbe Eyadema of Togo (38 years), his son Faure Eyadema of Togo (18 years), Omar Bongo of Gabon (42 years) and his son Ali Bongo of Gabon (14 years) collectively ruled different African countries for a total of 347 years!

As my dear friend and brother Femi Adesina, the ersthwhile spokesman to President Muhammadu Buhari, would say: “Jumping Jehoshaphat!”

347 long years of bondage, suffering and trauma!

347 years of torture, incarceration, humiliation, slavery and the glorification and deification of a single man and his family!

347 years of an Orwellian nightmare unleashed and imposed upon millions of innocent, helpless and defenceless people whose dreams, aspirations and hopes were shattered and whose dignity, self-respect and sense of self-worth were crushed and buried.

347 years of pillaging, plundering, looting and stealing of their respective nation’s patrimony.

347 years of slaughtering, butchering and maiming of the few dissenting voices and courageous men and women who had the strength and fortitude to resist the evil and to rise up and say “no more!”

Is this not totally and completely unacceptable?

Is it not utterly repugnant and reprehensible?

Is it not a shame!

Worse still they have all done it in the name of democracy!

I am at a loss for words! I do not know whether to laugh or cry! The only thing I can say is “come and see AFRICA WONDER!”

A few comparisons are appropriate here.

The House of Romanov ruled Russia for 300 years. The House of Bourbon ruled France for 218 years.

The House of Plantagenet, Tudor and Stuart collectively and respectively ruled England, Ireland, Wales and Scotland for 500 years.

The House of Bourbon ruled Spain for 400 years. The House of Osman ruled Turkey for 700 years.

The House of Hohenzollern ruled Germany for 500 years. The House of Pahlavi ruled Iran for 54 years.

The House of Bernadotte ruled Sweden for 200 years. The House of Saud have ruled Saudi Arabia for 123 years.

The House of Alouite has ruled Morocco for the last 400 years.

The House of Orange-Nassau ruled Holland for 208 years.

These families of noble and bona fide Kings and Queens were all blue-blooded and were rooted in an enviable Royal heritage.

They hailed from a Royal lineage and they were indeed Royalty in every true sense of the word believing in the ‘divine right of Kings’.

The same cannot be said of our 11 pitiful and deluded sit-tight African rulers who have collectively ruled their domains for the last 354 years.

None of them can lay claim to blue blood or a royal heritage and lineage. Far from being blue their blood is rather something akin to the blood of rats.

Every single one of these 11 criminals and tyrants are unlettered, irreverent feral psychopaths whose bloodline is not worthy of mention.

Yet the truth is that all those African leaders, including the ones listed above, that have become sit-tight rulers and life-time President’s in their respective nations are NOT democrats: they are nothing but illegitimate pretenders, unhinged and psychotic meglomaniacs and irredeemable, unrepentant and vicious barbarians and power grabbers with no valid mandate.

They are also mostly social deviants and insidious cowards.

Simply put, they are an utter and complete disgrace to Africa.

The sooner they are removed from power the better for us all.

Thankfully in Nigeria, regardless of whatever challenges we may have been confronted with over the last 23 years, we have enjoyed reasonable and relatively sane Presidents, term limits, a credible Legislature, an independent Judiciary, a free press and the rule of law.

I would not endorse mutiny or rebellion against a democratically-elected, constitutional and legitimate Government such as ours which enjoys a lawful and freely-given mandate from the people and whose legitimacy has finally and rightfully been affirmed by the Presidential Election Tribunal.

I wholeheartedly oppose the agenda of coup plotters, rebels and subversives in Nigeria.

In the case of our country rebellion is a curse and not a virtue.

I do not believe that a coup is desirable or appropriate here simply because, firstly, our Government does not seek to discourage, muzzle, stifle or crush dissent or legitimate and lawful criticism and opposition and secondly because we are not burdened with a sit-tight and insane ruler who seeks to remove term limits from our constitution and impose a vicious and corrupt family dynasty and civilian dictatorship on our nation and people.

Permit me to add that I have nothing but pity and contempt for those reckless opportunists, lazy intellectuals, shameless dreamers and dangerous schemers who erroneously compare our situation and circumstances with that of ill-fated and beleaguered countries like Togo, Cameroons, Mali, Niger, Gabon, Uganda, Sudan, Guniea, Ivory Coast, Chad and Burkina Faso and who actually believe that a coup is equally appropriate here.

Nothing could be further from the truth and, given the circumstances, another coup in Nigeria would be the worst thing that could ever happen to us as a nation today.

This is because firstly there is absolutely no need or justification for one and secondly because our experiences in the past with military governments was, to say the least, shockingly horrendous.

It took us just under 40 years of resistance, struggle and suffering during which we as a people were subjected to the most inhuman, extreme and barbaric form of terror, subjugation, humiliation and trauma and in which many were murdered, maimed, tortured, jailed, driven into exile and destroyed, to break the military yoke.

Those young people all over the social media, most of whom are millennials, Obidients and members of what has come to be known as the “GEN-Z” generation, that are busy fantasising and toying with the idea of a military coup, indulging in masturbatory illusions and calling for the Army to topple our Government and take over the reigns of power are naive, gullible, ignorant and irresponsible.

They do not know anything about the frightful dangers of military rule or the vicious, oppressive, draconian, repressive, reactionary, bloodthirsty and inherently unaccountable and unjust nature of military Governments.

They were not born when the June 12th struggle took place in 1993 and they know nothing about the series of bloody military interventions and coups that took place from Major Kaduna Nzeogwu’s January 15th 1966 mutiny (with all its attendant bloodshed) right up until 1999 when General Abdulsalami Abubakar finally relinquished power and handed it over to the democratically-elected Government of President Olusegun Obasanjo.

They do not know that the first and second coups in Nigeria, in January 1966 and July 1966 respectively, led to the slaughter and reprisal killings of thousands of Igbos in the North, our civil war in which three million people were killed and thereafter led to bloody coup after bloody coup for the next 29 years!

They do not know that between 1966 right up until 1999 we only had 4 years of democracy and constitutional Government and that within those years of military rule hundreds of thousands of lives were lost, millions of people suffered, human rights ceased to exist, thousands were unjustly sent to jail and our civic and educational institutions were infiltrated, corrupted and utterly annihilated.

They do not know and apparently neither do they care that millions of innocent and gallant souls over the years gave their lives and paid the supreme price for the democracy, freedom, civil liberties, human rights, constitutional guarantees and free speech that they enjoy today.

They do not know that to advocate for a return to military rule in Nigeria today is indeed a manifestation of madness in its crudest, rawest and most perverse form: it is neither justifiable or defensible.

I am constrained to concede that in some cases resistance and rebellion is a necessary evil which can and must be employed to remove tyrants and corrupt unconstitutional civilian life-time dictators who refuse to leave power and who have no democratic credentials or legitimate mandate from the people.

That is indeed the essence, thrust and overall mesage of this contribution.

I believe that such acts of insurrection, mutiny and rebellion may be necessary and appropriate in nations that are living under the subjugation, bondage and hegemony of corrupt and repressive life-time civilian dictators but I do not believe that they are appropriate for Nigeria.

I say this because in our country, for the last 24 years and since the advent of democracy in 1999, reasonable leaders with solid and incontrovertible democratic credentials, that are restricted by term limits and that respect civil liberties, human rights and the concept of a free press and the rule of law have led our nation and not sit-tight and corrupt monsters who seek to impose a feudal dynasty upon us.

That is the difference between the Nigerian experience and that of others.

Still on the dangerous, misplaced, asinine and thoroughly irresponsible notion that a coup d’etat and military intervention is the remedy to the challenges and problems that we are faced with in Nigeria today consider the following.

On September 3rd 2023 my good friend Charly Boy Oputa, a proud and diehard Obidient, posted the following on his X account:

“Oh lord how can we be praying in Nigeria and you are answering prayers in Gabon, Niger, Burkina Faso and Mali”.

This saddened and disheartened me because it came from a man who I consider to be one of the most brilliant artists, keen minds and free thinkers in our nation and history.

Sadly on this occassion he has missed the mark and his words are nothing but disingenious and specious sophistry and dangerous talk in their worst and most primitive form.

Charly Boy is not only playing with fire but also encouraging others to indulge in treason and insurrection.

I wholeheartedly condemn his incendiary disposition and counsel and reject his malevolent and nebulous aspirations and prayers for our country.

Compounding the problem are comments like “our democracy is not working” coming from hitherto respected individials who are very much part of the system and who are leading members of the ruling party like my dear friend and brother, the Minister of Solid Minerals and former Governor of Ekiti state, Dr. Kayode Fayemi.

Kayode, who I have known for many years and who I have always had a soft spot for, is a staunch democrat and has an insightful and brilliant mind but on this occassion his comments are open to being misconstrued by the less discerning.

Such contributions do not help matters and may inadvertently encourage the gullible tribe of dissaffected and dissolutioned young and gullible radicals and hot heads in our country that are openly calling for a military coup to continue to indulge in their madness and to proceed in their wilfull and misplaced determination to climb the slippery slope of perfidy, delusion and ritualistic self-immolation with grave consequences for us all.

Simply put we all need to be careful about what we say and we must do nothing that will encourage or mislead others into charting a dangerous and violent course in Nigeria.

The remedy to the challenges in our country cannot be to kill democracy by encouraging the military to take power or to throw out the baby with the bathwater and treading such a damned path would be indicative of a curse.

The remedy lies in staying the course, keeping faith with the system, providing good governance, meeting the needs of the people, getting rid of the pervasive hunger and debilitating poverty in the land and gallantly defending our hard-earned democracy.

Let that sink into the minds, bodies, spirits and souls of the puerile ignoramuses, deluded reprobates, masochistic miscreants and suicidal fools that are praying for a coup d’etat in our land.

May God deliver them from their fecal dispostion and mental affliction and may He reject their unholy petitions!

Permit me to end this contribution with the following.

Reno Omokri wrote,

“How can such a tribal, fascist, intolerant mob like the Obidient movement think they can intimidate the judiciary into giving the third place winner victory? After today’s verdict, the DSS and the police must fish out that Obidient who threatened Justice Tsamani’s children, and any Obidient that continues to call for a military coup should be mercilessly dealt with irrespective of their status in society. What an utterly disgusting and reprehensible movement. Nothing but disgrace will be their portion! Because your yes daddy candidate lost you want coup. Never!”

I do not often find myself in agreement with my younger brother Reno but on this occassion I am glad to say that I most certainly do.

Even though we are on different sides of the political divide, with these words, he has expressed my sentiments and that of millions of other reasonable and rational Nigerians.

Those Obidients that are calling for a coup in Nigeria on social media simply because their candidate lost the presidential election and failed at the Presidential Election Petition Tribunal are sick and they should be called to order.

Outside of that they should be picked up, locked up, charged with treason and either shot at the stake or jailed for life.

A word is enough for the wise.

Glory Hallelujah!

Opinion

AKPoti-AKPabio Saga: Standing Justice on Its Head

Published

7 days ago

March 11, 2025

Eric

By Ayo Oyoze Baje

“There are several court rulings, including that of the Court of Appeal, each of which deems it illegal to suspend an elected member of the legislature. The recent suspension of Senator Natasha Akpoti – Uduaghan is therefore, the height of legislative recklessness” – Femi Falana SAN

When and where might – is – right, as amply demonstrated by the recent outrageous and illegal suspension of Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan, representing Kogi Central Senatorial District at the Red Chamber – without salary or allowances – it does not only question the authority on which the lawmakers stand to carry out their statutory functions but ridicules the manner of democracy we practise here in Nigeria. And if the wrong done is not righted within the shortest possible time, it goes further to de-brand our so called democratic structure that places overt power of the jungle mantra of might – is – right on the elected representatives of the people above the wishes of the led majority. That indeed, is both an aberration and a legislative anomaly, triggered by the senator’s suspension, hence the outrage it has so far evolved. But let us first take an objective analysis of the drama that led to the development.

Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan ‘s suspension took place after she submitted a petition alleging being sexually harassed by the Senate President, Godswill Akpabio. After dismissing her petition on procedural ground the Ethics Committee, as led by Neda Imasuen ( Labour Party, Edo South) recommended her suspension for six months claiming that she brought ”

public opprobrium” to the Upper Chamber of the National Assembly. Though some members wanted the suspension reduced to three months, 14 members of the Committee stood by their decision, insisting that Natasha did not attend the investigative hearing to defend herself. In fact, they went further to ask her to tender an apology to the same Senate President Akpabio she has accused of sexual harassment, for her outburst during the plenary session!

Expectedly, the steamy situation has sparked off some flaming questions with regards to the rule of law under such circumstances. For instance, is it not her inalienable right to reject the sitting arrangement, which was surreptitiously meant to relegate her to the legislative shadows? Good enough, the answer is not far -fetched. According to Natasha’s legal counsel, Victor Giwa the Nigerian constitution of 1999, (as amended) supersedes the Senate’s Standing Orders. Specifically, Section 6, Sub-Section (6) of that constitution grants every citizen the right to seek redress in court when their civil rights are violated. Incidentally, she has done so, with her knowledge of the law.

The next question has to do with the best of ways to handle a delicate matter such as this. Should the matter not have been made open by placing it before an independent panel, to investigate and make recommendations in the interest of justice? That is, instead of slamming Natasha for having the gut, the temerity and audacity to express her complaints at the Senate chamber? According to Giwa the suspension of his client is definitely a brazen attempt to silence her. But unfortunately, for those behind it all it has only emboldened her to seek for justice going through the right process. In Giwa’s words: “The Committee disobeyed a valid court order that was served on them, making a mockery of the chamber that is supposed to uphold the law”. That should serve as food-for-thought for the masterminds behind the illegal suspension of the senator.

That perhaps, aptly explains why the Nigeria Bar Association ( NBA) has slammed the Senate by not giving her, the complainant to present her sexual harassment claim against Akpabio. That reminds us of the odious ” off the mic ” scenario that has played out each time an issue of public interest is being denied an objective investigation. The lawmakers, especially those who are bent on attempting to paper over cracks, or give a person a bad name to hang him or her must be reminded that there is a court order restraining the Senate from taking an action on the matter, pending the determination of of s motion on notice. The mishandling of the matter at hand by the senators is what has emboldened Natasha’s lawyer, Giwa to declare her suspension as ” null and void”. Yet, he is not the only person to outrightly condemn the illegality that has evolved so far.

The world acclaimed Women Rights activist, Hadiza Ado described Natasha’s suspension as amounting to a “,sad day for Nigerian women”. On its part the Socio–Economic Rights and Accountability Project ( SERAP ) has described it as “patently unlawful”and a clear violation of her right to freedom of speech. The organization has therefore, called on the Senate President Akpabio to reinstate her without further delay or face their legal action against such oddity. Similarly, the Peoples Democratic Party, PDP to which Natasha belongs has described as her suspension as am attempt by the Senate ” to cover up an issue”. That is according to the National Publicity Secretary, Debbo Ologunagba.So, what really could it be?

It would be recalled that on February 28, 2025 right on ARISE television, Natasha made a bold allegation of sexual harassment against the Senate President Akpabio.While some concerned Nigerians wondered why she went as far as that point of publicity, others knowing fully well about her background as an Ihima- born lady brought up with high moral standards would not kowtow to, be cowed by anyone, or acquiesce to the weird and wild emotional inclinations of a man for whatever reasons.

So, as the AKPoti -AKPabio saga rolls out, the lesson to learn is for people to always strike the delicate balance between the Motive and the Method of our utterances and actions. And of course, the brand we want to be recognized and stand for in our chequered journeys on Planet Earth. Of great significance also is the piece of admonition by Natasha’s legal counsel, Giwa, that: ” The Senate must abide by international best practices” all because the world is watching us.

Opinion

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

Published

1 week ago

March 9, 2025

Eric

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.

Opinion

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

Published

1 week ago

March 9, 2025

Eric

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.