Connect with us

Opinion

A Book That Stirred a Nation by Femi Fani-Kayode

Published

on

Leaderboard Ad

Much has been said and written since President Ibrahim Badamasi Babangida’s book, titled ‘A Journey In Service: An Autobiography’ was launched.

As to be expected, the reviews are interesting and the commentary has been in some cases good, in some bad and in some ugly.

This is a healthy development because the worst that one can do to a book or an essay is to ignore it.

Whether you agree with it’s contents or not or whether you like the author or not is not the point: what makes it worth writing is the commentary that follows and the oftentimes divided opinions.

This more than anything else makes the literary contribution a success and as the saying goes: it is better for it to be spoken about, even in negative terms, than for it to be ignored.

There is no doubt in my mind that few can ignore either Babangida or his controversial yet factual book and ever since it’s launching on February 20th 2025 it has been the talk of not just the town but the entire nation.

I welcome and encourage such discourse wholeheartedly because it engenders intellectual debate and it enriches and deepens our knowledge of history.

I do however take objection to those that have gone a little too far and that have characterised Babangida as “a coward” and “a weakling” simply because he spoke the truth about the role General Sani Abacha, his Chief of Defence Staff, played in the annulment of the June 12th election.

In the book Babangida displayed humility and remorse and assumed “full responsibility” for the annulment as Head of State.

He also pointed out the fact that he chose to tread that precarious and regrettable path primarily as a consequence of the immense pressure that he was subjected to by General Sani Abacha.

By bringing these facts to public glare and establishing this narrative he was not, as some have argued, “making excuses” for his actions but rather he was attempting to put them in context and, for historical purposes and the record, enlighten the Nigerian people about precisely which personalities and circumstances caused him to make the decision that he eventually made.

This surely ought to be commended and not condemned as it can only enrich the historical discourse and shed more light on the darkest corners of our journey as a nation.

I say this because I believe that the Nigerian people have a right to know about the real causes of the terrible trauma they were put through as a consequence of the annulment with its attendant loss of liberty and life and the 6 long years of suffering, strife, division and misery that it brought our people.

Sadly as a consequence of his submission about their patriach’s role in the whole sordid affair certain members of General Abacha’s family, some very young and some a little older, took umbrage and offence and publicly described Babangida as “weak” and as “a coward”.

This is not only a false characterisation of a man that has proved his courage on several occasions in our history and has put his life on the line for Nigeria many times but it is also very unkind given the strong friendship and trust that Babangida and Abacha themselves shared over the years and given the close relationship that their respective families have enjoyed ever since the Nigerian civil war.

Outside of that anyone that says IBB is “weak” or “a coward” does not know IBB.

It is better that we do not open up this debate because if we do those that are saying these uncharitable things will be worsted.

It really is advisable for them to sheath their swords at this early stage in order to ensure that their father’s tenure is not subjected to even more public scrutiny than it already is.

As they say sometimes silence is golden.

Some of us lived the experience whilst some of those talking today had not even been conceived let alone born.

Between the father and grandfather of those who are throwing bricks today and calling IBB “weak” and a “coward” we know who the monster and cold-blooded killer was.

Granted that it was under his watch that the June 12th election was annuled but what cannot be denied is that the real reign of terror began after Babangida left office and after Abacha toppled the Ernest Shonekan-led Interim National Government in a coup, took power and turned state-sponsored terror and murder into an art.

For five years the entire nation and particularly the Yoruba people were subjected to the worst form of barbarity and tyranny that our nation had ever known.

Many were falsely accused, persecuted, humiliated, killed, incarcerated, tortured and driven into exile to suffer in some foreign land whilst others, like the former military Head of State and later President, President Olusegun Obasanjo, General Shehu Musa Yar’adua (the second in command to General Obasanjo when he was military Head of State and the older brother to President Umaru Musa Yar’adua) and General Paul Oladipo Diya (General Sani Abacha’s second in command) were imprisoned for no just cause and one of them (Yar’adua) was pinned down and forcefully injected with strange and toxic substances, poisoned and murdered whilst there.

Meanwhile Abiola’s wife, Alhaja Kudirat Abiola, along with many others including a young man by the name of Toyin Onagoruwa who was the son of Dr. Olu Onagoruwa SAN (Abacha’s Attorney General and Minister of Justice who had earlier resigned in protest against all the atrocities that the Government he served were committing), were either gunned down in the streets or, like Bagudu Kaltho, blown up with bombs.

What can one say about a man who, according to Onagoruwa himself, could order the murder of his own Minister of Justices’ son simply because the man gave a press conference, criticised his brutal policies and heinous practices and resigned.

Then there was the judicial murder of the activist and environmentalist Ken Saro-Wiwa.

Even after the international community pleaded with him not to hang this man and implored him to at least allow him to challenge his “conviction” for murder before what was to all intents and purposes a kangaroo court and go to the Court of Appeal, Abacha refused to listen and had the poet and human rights activist hanged in the middle of the night.

Worse of all is the fact that Saro-Wiwa was his close friend. This was singularly one of the most wicked and callous acts that took place under Abacha’s watch.

Saro-Wiwa deserved to at least go on Appeal and exhaust the opportunities that the law and the legal system availed to him.

It was a national tragedy and the Commonwealth nations particularly were so shocked that Nigeria’s membership was suspended.

Yet it didn’t end there and there is so much more to say.

For example brutal psychopaths like Colonel Frank Omenka and his gang of heartless cut throats tortured people, including women and children, with sadistic pleasure in the dungeons of the Directorate of Military Intelligence in Apapa, Lagos.
Few left there alive.

Most of the young people talking and writing on social media today know nothing about these ugly events or this time because they were not born and they know NOTHING about the history of the country.

We lived it, we were part of the struggle, we paid the price, it was hell and all of it happened under Abacha’s watch.

Yet how did we get there, what transpired, who were the major actors and who actually annuled the June 12th election and took us down that hideous path?

This is the million dollar question and Babangida finally answered it in his book.

The truth is that had it not been that IBB sheathed his sword, held his peace and conceded to the dark, sinister and evil forces that coordinated, orchestrated, initiated, effected and announced the annulment without his knowledge and behind his back there would have been a very bloody military coup which would have in turn been violently resisted by the IBB faction and thereby result in a long and protracted civil war.

Those that led these dark and evil pro-annulment forces were General Sani Abacha, Brigadier General David Mark, Lt. General Joshua Dogonyaro, Air Vice Marshal Nurudeen Imam, Colonel Lawan Gwadabe, Major General Alwali Kazir, Lt. General Ishaya Bamaiyi, Major General Jeremiah Useni and many others.

Had Babangida resolved to resist them, renounce the unauthorised announcement and de-annul the election (which he could easily have done) I have no doubt that Abiola, his wives, his children, his key supporters, many of those heroes that were to later become the leaders of NADECO, IBB himself and all his key loyalists including Major General Salihu Ibrahim (the Chief of Army Staff), Brigadier General Haliru Akilu, Major General Aliyu Gusau, Colonel Sambo Dasuki, Colonel Abubakar Umar, General Gado Nasko, Air Vice Marshall Hamza Abdullahi, Colonel Habibu Shuaibu, General Abdulsalami Abubakar, General Garba Duba, General Sani Bello, Colonel Nuhu Bamalli (as he then was), Major General Isola Williams, Admiral Augustus Aikhomu and many others would have been targetted for assassination and our country would have been plunged into a cataclysmic bloodbath given the fact that Babangida’s men would have struck back with equal ferocity and in equal measure.

More likely than not few of the main players on both sides, including Abacha, Abiola and Babangida themselves, would have survived the conflagration and the country would have been at war with itself, brother killing brother, for an indefinate period of time.

Anyone that doubts this or the horrific nature of such conflicts should remember what happened during the Nigeria/Biafra civil war and consider what is happening in Sudan today.

When senior and powerful military officers each with a massive following in the Armed Forces refuse to tread the path of compromise, peace and sanity and take up arms against one another EVERYONE loses and the entire country implodes into ashes and crumbles into dust.

I do not seek to justify the annulment and at the time, along with millions of others, I opposed it with all my heart and every fiber of my being but the reality was that IBB was faced with a very difficult choice.

As he said in his book he was indeed “caught between the devil and the deep blue sea”.

He could have done what some may deem right right by resisting the deceit, betrayal, perfidy, pressure and subterfuge from the Abacha faction of the military, refuse to accept the illegal and unconciable annulment, declare it as “null and void” and consequently spark off a bloody chain of events and a civil war or he could have chosen to do what some may deem wrong by keeping his cool, letting Abacha have his dastardly way, conceeding to the dark forces, accepting the annulment and thereby save lives and maintain a tenuous even though short-lived peace.

He chose the latter, saved MKO Abiola’s life and that of many others and maintained the fragile unity of the military and by extention the country by doing so.

Yet whichever option he opted to take, Babangida was not the villainous usurper, traitor and Kingslayer here: Abacha and his vile power-hungry cohorts were.

This is what IBB has now firmly established in his book and we await sensible literary responses from those that are still alive and that were in the Abacha camp.

They are more than welcome to dispute the facts and tell their side of the story and we are eager to hear them.

However until they do so and provide the necessary evidence to establish the veracity of their claims yours truly along with many others are constrained to accept Babangida’s narrative because, in my view, he remains a respected elderstatesman and a man of integrity and secondly his account appears to credible and plausible.

For the benefit of those that may not have the book I would urge them to get a copy and read from pages 274 to 276 in order to get a clear picture of what actually transpired and the truth is that it is shocking!

Due to space constraints permit me to qoute just a portion of it from page 275 where he wrote,

“On the morning of June 23, I left Abuja for Katsina to commiserate with the Yar’Adua family over the death of their patriarch, Alhaji Musa Yar’Adua.

The funeral had taken place, and as I got ready to leave, a report filtered to me that the June 12 elections had been annulled.

Even more bizarre was the extent of the annulment because it terminated all court proceedings regarding the June 12 elections, repealed all the decrees governing the Transition and even suspended NEC! Equally weird was the shabby way the statement was couched and made.

Admiral Aikhomu’s press secretary, Nduka Irabor, had read out a terse, poorly worded statement from a scrap of paper, which bore neither the presidential seal nor the official letterhead of the government, annulling the June 12 presidential elections. I was alarmed and horrified.

Yes, during the stalemate that followed the termination of the results announcement, the possibility of annulment that could lead to fresh elections was loosely broached in passing but annulment was only a component of a series of other options.

To suddenly have an announcement made without my authority was, to put it mildly, alarming.

I remember saying: ‘These nefarious inside forces opposed to the elections have outflanked me!’

I would later find out that the ‘forces’ led by General Sani Abacha annulled the elections.

There and then, I knew I was caught between the devil and the deep blue sea!

From then on the June 12 elections took on a painful twist for which, as I will show later, I regrettably take responsibility.of its worst political crises ever.

Like many of us in government, the political class was stunned.”

All this yet Babangida still opted to take full responsibility for these troubling events and great injustice and kept his lips sealed about the abominable role that General Sani Abacha and his group played in the annulment of the June 12th election and the rape and usurpation of the mandate that was freely given to Chief MKO Abiola and his running mate Ambassador Babagana Kingibe by the Nigerian people.

To drive home the point about how dangerous the situation was for all and sundry permit me to remind those that were alive at the time about the meeting that Babangida had with Abiola after the annulment in which he told him that “these people” meaning the Abacha group would “kill me, you and all the rest of us” if the election result was “de-annulled” and allowed to stand.

His words were leaked to the media and widely reported at the time yet they were never denied by either Babangida or Abiola.

Again there was the infamous contribution from Colonel David Mark (as he then was) who had hitherto been a Babangida loyalist where he was reported to have said “we will not allow Abiola to be sworn in as President and if NEC swears him in we will shoot him”.

Those that doubt this should read Professor Omo Omoruyi’s book titled ‘The Tale Of June 12th: The Betrayal Of The Democratic Rights Of Nigerians’.

Omoruyi, who was the Director General of the Center For Democratic Studies, was not only an Advisor and insider in the Babangida Government but he was also very close to the Head of State and a strong ally and voice of the pro-democracy and anti-annulment movement within the regime.

He was a formidable intellectual who was credible, humane, decent, cerebral and highly respected and I have no reason to doubt his word.

Ironically after the annulment took place and Babangida “stepped aside” from office Mark fell out with Abacha and fled the country for his life.

Then there was the case of Colonel Lawan Gwadabe who actually told one of Babangida’s children that they would pick up his/her father and “deal with him” if he allowed Abiola to take over.

Ironically the same Gwadabe who at that time was in the Abacha camp was later arrested by Abacha and tortured brutally for planning a coup. He was beaten so badly that he almost lost his life.

Both Mark (who 14 years later was elected Senate President) and Gwadabe were originally IBB boys but they turned their back on their mentor, joined the pro-annulment camp and vehemently opposed the election and mandate of MKO Abiola.

Thankfully not all of IBB’s boys shifted camps at that crucial time and most remained loyal to him.

Brigadier General Haliru Akilu, the clinically efficient Director of National Intelligence and the man who detected and prevented numerous coup attempts, exposed many conspiracies and single-handedly kept Babangida in power for 8 years never faltered or failed and remains loyal to IBB till today.

Colonel Sambo Dasuki, IBB’s erstwhile ADC (who became National Security Advisor to President Goodluck Jonathan 20 years later) was as constant as the Northern star and was loyal till the end.

Thankfully there were many others but worthy of mention for his remarkable courage and gallantry at the time was Colonel Abubakar ‘Dangiwa’ Umar (my erstwhile Polo Captain from Lagos Polo Club and the former Governor of Kaduna state) who was the shining star of the Babangida inner circle.

A former ADC to General Hassan Katsina (the Chief of Army Staff when General Gowon was Head of State), Umar was young, tough, outspoken, courageous, suave, sophisticated, dashing and very good-looking.

He was also very pro-June 12th and was one of IBB’s greatest loyalists in the military hierarchy.

Permit me to share a few words that I extracted from my essay titled ‘President Ibrahim Babangida: An Irrepressible Enigma And Enduring Institution’ which I wrote the day after the launch of President Babangida’s book.

I wrote, inter alia,

“Babangida has explained to us his own side of the story and told us exactly what transpired.

He refused to remain silent, he did not shy away from speaking the truth or refuse to accept responsibility and he did not pass the buck.

Instead he came clean, displayed immense courage and did the right and proper thing.

That is what leaders are meant to do and he did it without fear or favour regardless of whose ox was gored. Kudos to him.

We need to appreciate this gesture, eschew all bitterness, let go of all our pent up anger, forgive him for what many perceive to be his sins and move on.

Equally we need to accord him his rightful place in history as one of the the greats despite his fallibility.

He is after all a mere man, albeit a great one, and not God. Only God is free of fault and is infallible and there is not one man that has ever lived, led or ruled that can claim to be perfect.

All those insulting and abusing him for putting the facts and his experiences on record in his book are malevolent, bitter, twisted souls and unenlightened, ignorant, cowards who have no appreciation of history or what this man actually achieved in his 8 years in office.

Again they cannot fully comprehend or appreciate the complex events that led up to the annulment of June 12th.

They only see things in part and have allowed their emotions rather than their heads to rule them.

I was in the NADECO trenches during that difficult time and like many others paid my dues too but I can boldly say that outside of the June 12th matter IBB did more for Nigeria than virtually any other President or Head of State.

He left power 32 years ago and yet every single living former Nigerian President and Head of State bar President Muhammadu Buhari who he had removed from power in a coup in 1985 attended his book launch in person and despite all Buhari actually sent a representative and a warm message.

It was an extraordinary event and I witnessed it with my own eyes because I had the privilege of being invited.

If the number of leaders that attended, which included President Bola Ahmed Tinubu, former Head of State General General Yakubu Gowon, former Head of State General Abdulsalami Abubakar, former President and former Head of State President Olusegun Obasanjo, former President Goodluck Jonathan, former President of Ghana Nana Akufo Addo, former President of Sierra Leone President Koroma, former Vice President Yemi Osinbajo, former Vice President Namadi Sambo and former Vice President Atiku Abubakar does not prove to Nigerians the high esteem that the ruling elites have for him then nothing will.

My prayer is that God continues to be with this great and inspiring man who has displayed immense discipline, resilience, dignity, self-respect, courage and humility throughout his distinguished and illustrious life.

I pray he continues to share his vast reserves of experience, knowledge and wisdom and make his contributions to national development for many years to come.

Whether his numerous detractors like it or not IBB remains an enigma, an institution and the most consequential Head of State and President in our history.

No-one can take that away from him and we are very proud of him. I wish both him and his family well”.

I stand by every word.

Permit me to conclude this contribution with a quote from Babangida’s book which many have chosen to ignore or misinterpret.

For posterity’s sake we must put what he has said on record lest the uninformed, ignorant, unlettered and intellectually dishonest amongst us have a field day and misinform future generations about those that were behind the first coup d’etat in our country which took place on January 15th 1966 and which was led by Major Emmanuel Ifeajuna and Major Chukwuemeka Kaduna Nzeogwu respectively.

On page 39 of the book Babangida wrote the following:

“It was heinously callous for Nzeogwu to have murdered Sir Ahmadu Bello and his wife, Hafsatu, because not only were they eminently adored by many but also because they were said not to have put up a fight. From that moment the putsch was infiltrated by “outsiders” to its supposed original intention and it took on an unmistakable ethnic coloration compounded by the fact that there were no related coup activities in the Eastern Region”.

I hate to burst the bubble of those that are beating their chests like puerile apes and think otherwise but there is NOWHERE in Babangida’s book that he said that the coup of January 15th 1966 was NOT an Igbo one.

In fact he alluded to the contrary when he said the coup had taken on an “unmistakable ethnic coloration”.

That is what he wrote and that is the reality.

The coup was indeed an ethnic one and the ethnic group he was referring to were none other than the Igbo!

Those that have purposely twisted and misinterpreted his words and have said that he wrote that the coup was “not an Igbo coup” are either misguided and misinformed or are being mischievous and patently dishonest.

Most of them have a poor understanding of the English language and have not even read the book and instead are relying on erroneous and nonsensical social media headlines, fake news, fake qoutes and well-crafted propaganda and disinformation.

I suggest that they procure a copy of the book, read it from cover to cover and stop attempting to revise history by misinterpreting the words of the esteemed author.

Babangida, in his characteristic manner, was charitable to the Igbos in his book but that does not give anyone licence to misinterpret his words and conclusions or use them in a self-serving manner in an attempt to revise history.

Whether anyone likes it or not the facts are clear and they are as follows.

99% of the officers that planned and executed the January 15th 1966 coup and that were involved in the execution of the mutiny were Igbo and 99% of those that were murdered by them were non-Igbo military officers and political leaders in some cases including their wives.

We owe it to the memory of those that were so callously slaughtered not to hide, distort or sugar coat the bitter truth, not to revise history and not to tell pernicious lies.

The coup was UNMISTAKEABLY and UNEQUIVOCALLY an Igbo one and Babangida made this very clear when he wrote about its “ethnic coloration”.

I urge all those that have a poor understanding of the English language and that cannot read more than three lines of any book or essay to stop using his words to establish their revisionist and patently dishonest narrative and their futile attempt to perpetuate an age-old mendacity and delusion.

Falsehood, deceit, specious lies and intellectual fraud have no place in a civilised society or the world of the educated and literate.

The truth is that the January 15th 1966 coup WAS an Igbo one and I am glad to say that Babangida has confirmed it.

This is a FACT and as our journalist friends will tell you ‘facts are sacred and opinion is cheap”.

God bless Nigeria!

Chief Femi Fani-Kayode is the Sadaukin Shinkafi, the Wakilin Doka of Potiskum, a former Minister of Culture and Tourism and a former Minister of Aviation

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

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

Opinion

AKPoti-AKPabio Saga: Standing Justice on Its Head

Published

on

By

Leaderboard Ad

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.

Continue Reading

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

Trending