Lasisi Olagunju, an esteemed columnist renowned for his incisive and thought-provoking writing, has long captivated readers with his ability to intertwine Yoruba folktales, historical references, and literary insight. His articles often critically examine Nigerias political and social landscape uniquely. Yet, even admirers like myselfa friend of over two decadesoccasionally find ourselves questioning some of his more provocative viewpoints.

Armed with a First-Class degree in English Studies and a PhD in political communication, Olagunju skillfully employs proverbs and allegorical storytelling to enrich his narratives, often embedding subtle hints that resonate with discerning readers capable of reading between the lines.

However, one area that has at times troubled me during our discussions is his candidand at times excessivecriticism of Northern Nigeria, which often extends to former President Buhari. Olagunju’s thematic collection of essays titled Cowries of Blood offers a poignant glimpse into his perspective on the Arewa region.

In his recent column, In Defence of Nepotism, Olagunju recounts a conversation with a northern friend (he didnt say I am the one) who criticised President Bola Tinubu for nepotistic appointments favouring the Yoruba. Olagunju counters this by asserting that the majority of key security appointments under Tinubu are held by northerners. His analysis appears to be informed by recent data from Sunday Dare, the newly appointed Presidential Adviser on Public Communication and Orientation. This data claims that strategic security roles are predominantly occupied by northerners, thereby challenging allegations of ethnic favouritism toward the Yoruba.

While Olagunju and Dare invoke the term “key and strategic positions” to bolster their arguments, they should note that certain statutory lead agencies hold far more critical operational and mandated significance than others.

For example, Dare’s analysis is not without its flaws. It raises eyebrows when he includes the two Defence Ministers, Muhammad Badaru and Bello Matawalle, as northern heads of agencies responsible for supervising the Army, Navy, and Air Force, yet omits the Minister of Interior, Dr. Olubunmi Tunji-Ojo from the Southwest, who oversees pivotal security agencies such as the Nigeria Security and Civil Defence Corps (NSCDC), Immigration, Prison and the Fire Services as well as the board in charge of recruitments and promotions in those agencies.

Additionally, Dare, a former Minister of Youth and Sports, makes a confusing classification by listing the National Youth Service Corps (NYSC) and the Nigerian Financial Intelligence Unit (NFIU) as security agencies led by northerners. Haba! This stretch of the concept of security agencies beyond their traditional confines further fuels scepticism regarding the credibility of his claims.

While Dares narrative may appear disingenuous, Olagunju’s assertion that Nigeria is geopolitically divided into three regionsSouth, West, and Northis laughable.

Emerging analyses, such as a recent report by PRNigeria, present a more nuanced view of security leadership distribution across Nigeria’s six geopolitical zones: Northwest, Northeast, Northcentral, Southwest, Southeast, and South-South.

Olagunjus perspectives on nepotism extend beyond mere data analysis. He argues that nepotism, often viewed negatively, can be a pragmatic strategy for leaders navigating Nigeria’s complex ethno-regional landscape. He traces the pattern of regional favouritism in appointments back to previous administrations.

A particularly striking claim from Olagunju posits that former President Olusegun Obasanjo strategically appointed primarily Southern and Northern Christians to sensitive security positions to mitigate perceived threats to his administration.

Olagunju notes, “Obasanjo had three Inspectors-General of Police, and all three were from his western region (Yoruba). His DG SSS from 1999 to 2007 was Colonel Kayode Are, his Abeokuta kinsman. For the army, Obasanjo, a Southern Christian, in eight years, had four gentlemen as his Chief of Army Staff. He started in 1999 with Victor Malu, a Christian from the North; then he moved south and picked Alexander Ogomudia, a Southern minority. After two years, two months, Obasanjo took the position back to the North but did not give it to those who might use it to injure him. He picked Martin Luther Agwai, a Southern Kaduna minority Christian. Three years later, he went south again and selected Andrew Owoye Azazi, another Southern minority. He was clearly deliberate about what he did, mixing his nationalist broth with condiments of small nepotism here a little altruism there. The Obasanjo experience ended almost twenty years ago. This is the age of reason, with an apology to Thomas Paine. The gloves are off.”

However, as Olagunju emphasises this troubling narrative, it raises pertinent questions: Are Northern Muslims seen as potential threats capable of undermining any sitting president? Does this atmosphere of distrust underpin Tinubu’s preference for predominantly Yoruba Christian leadership within critical security agencies?

Despite being a Muslim, President Tinubu has entrusted the most influential security and economic positions predominantly to Yoruba Christians from the Southwest. Notable examples include the Acting Chief of Army Staff, Lt. Gen. Olufemi Oluyode; Inspector General of Police, Kayode Egbetokun; Director General of the DSS, Adeola Ajayi; and EFCC Chairman, Olanipekun Olukayede, who all lead front-line agencies in military, security, intelligence, and anti-corruption efforts.

Similarly, key national economic positions are held by Yoruba Christians from the South-West, such as the Governor of the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN), Yemi Cardoso; the powerful Chairman of the Federal Inland Revenue Service (FIRS), Zacch Adedeji; and the Minister of Finance and Coordinating Minister of the Economy, Wale Edun.

Olagunjus analysis deepens when he alludes to the power dynamics within Tinubus administration. He provocatively suggests uncertainty surrounding who truly holds powerwhether it is President Tinubu, his wife Remi Tinubu, an ordained senior pastor in the Redeemed Christian Church of God (RCCG), or even their son and close associates.

This observation leads to a broader concern about the direction of Nigerias democracy. Could this also reflect the agitation of Yoruba Muslims who feel underrepresented in Tinubus administration?

Olagunju further predicts impending leadership changes, particularly regarding the next Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) chairman. He argues that Tinubu’s choice is likely to reflect home-region bias, echoing the missteps of previous leaders. He warns that unlike President Goodluck Jonathanwho appointed a non-regional INEC chairman to his detrimentTinubu will likely prioritize regional loyalty in this critical appointment in 2025.

The implications of nepotism in Nigerias leadership are profound. Every moment a leader prioritizes ethnicity over competence is a moment that edges the nation closer to instability. If certain groups are deemed untrustworthy for critical appointments, how can they, in turn, trust the administration with their votes?

Ultimately, every moment spent fostering nepotism over competence distances Nigeria from effective governance. Leaders must embrace inclusivity and meritocracy to nurture trust and collaboration among all regions and ethnicities. Only then can Nigeria aspire to realise its full potential as a united nation.

Yushau A. Shuaib
www.YAShuaib.com, yashuaib@yashuaib.com

The post Security Sector: Olagunju, Dare and Nepotism in Appointments appeared first on YAShuaib.

At a recent advocacy workshop organized by the Revenue Mobilisation Commission (RMAFC), on the need for economic diversification and revenue generation, in Abeokuta, former President Olusegun Obasanjo dropped another bombshell on the economic performance and problems confronting the nation.

His criticisms of the government could be his usual blunt frankness as this writer had witnessed some of his combative postures in villa while he was President some years ago. I will come to that.

Against the backdrop of grinding poverty and allied economic hardship caused unemployment in Nigeria Olusegun Obasanjo warned that popular revolt as recently witnessed in the Arab World might occur in Nigeria if the precarious socio-economic conditions of the citizenry were not urgently addressed. He pointedly stressed that there was discontentment in the land.

Before his warning in Abeokuta, just recently at his investiture as the First Grand Patron of Nigeria- China Business Council (NCBC) in Lagos, Obasanjo had queried the squandering of $35 billion Nigeria foreign reserves that he left in office in 2007, saying the country’s leaders and people need to be prudent to get out of its economic woes currently confronting the country. He even advised that Nigeria should borrow a leaf from the Chinese economy that is designed for sustainable growth and development.

While bemoaning the shrink in the nation’s foreign reserves, he said China was working assiduously to improve its economy and foreign reserves while Nigeria was busy reducing its own. According to him: “We left what we call excess crude for the raining day, up to 35billion dollars; within three years, the 35 billion dollars disappeared. Whether the money disappeared or-like the governor said-it was shared, the fact remains that $35 billion disappeared from the foreign reserve I left behind in office.” Surprisingly up till today no one is asking question after the disclosure before he dropped another bombshell.
The Abeokuta workshop gave the former leader ample opportunity, as usual to speak extemporal with jokes and innuendoes which are loaded with warning messages. He said: “There is the possibility of having the Arab Spring in Nigeria if similar conditions, hardships and un-employment which gave birth to it are not addressed.”

Citing Libya and Egypt as countries that witnessed the “Arab Spring”, Obasanjo said though there was appreciable economic growth in both countries, their people revolted because there was “a disconnect” between the “economic growth” in those Arab nations and “discontentment” of the people for democratic practice. Obasanjo said: “It doesn’t matter which way you look at it today. People are now talking of Arab Spring. And some people will say, is Egypt not developing? On economic scale, after South Africa, it is Egypt in Africa. Has Libya not got resources? At one time Libya was producing as much oil as Nigeria and in terms of Gross Domestic Products (GDP), it was growing well.”

The former leader, agreed with the current Chairman of RMAFC, Engr. Elias Mbam in lamenting that the nation has been “mobilising and sharing revenue” from only one source – oil, and stressing that the time had come for the governments to devise ingenious ways of expanding their revenue base by venturing into agriculture, tourism and manufacturing which was the purpose of the workshop.

He therefore advised the three tiers of governments in Nigeria to pay special attention to agriculture and agro-business as tools for employment generation for the “burgeoning army of unemployed Nigerians so that the Arab Spring does not rear its head in the country.

He also urged financial institutions, large-scale farmers, small and medium scale farmers, researchers, retailers and distributors and governments to get involved in using agriculture and agro-business to create jobs and food in order to enhance national security and stability.

After the workshop some of the participants who had never met or seen Obasanjo spoke in public were marveled by his power of oratory with proven statistics in his extemporal remarks. They asked: “Is this the same Obasanjo that many Nigerians love to dislike?”

Though many Nigerians may have reservations on the man that ruled them twice first as a military leader and later a civilian president making him the longest serving Head of State in Nigeria, Obasanjo is eloquent, charismatic and intellectual leader who could discuss any topic with meticulousness and distinctiveness of academic scholar and political orator. In the face of some of his obvious shortcomings, especially unforgiving nature, he is widely respected globally as an African leader of repute. His views are still respected abroad, though the same could be ignored in the country.

Obasanjo is largely misunderstood by some of his actions against those he perceived as his enemies. He seems to be very sincere about Nigeria project and to some extent a patriotic man. While some officers during his tenure found it difficult to tell him the truth, but with my korokoro eyes I witnesses several occasions where the former Chairman of RMAFC, Engr. Hamman Tukur always took on him whenever we were on a visit to submit some damning reports on the oil sector, external debt management, monetization policy and fiscal issues.

I remember an episode where he banged his table in the villa and shouted at Tukur: “Chairman or whatever you call yourself I am the President and the Commander-in-Chief. You cant come here to be talking nonsense and indicting my officials.” Though the report was submitted after heated arguments, he nevertheless implemented some aspects of the recommendations through probes and sanctioning of officials involved in billions of Naira hanky-panky. And the mother of all surprise: he reappointed the same Tukur against stiff opposition from most members of his cabinet.

The fact is Obasanjo had a good team with good intentions during his tenure. The alleged Third-Term ambition and his unnecessary infighting with his Vice President Atiku Abubakar distracted the administration and consumed their reputation.

This article by Yushau A. Shuaib has appeared in the Economic Confidential, Daily Trust, Thisday, Nigerian Tribune, Vanguard, Champion, New Nigerian, the Sun and Punch in December 2011

The post That Obasanjo’s Bombshell on the economy appeared first on YAShuaib.

Obasanjo

By Yushau A. Shuaib

Democracy is appreciated by the roles of political office holders whose activities are beamed efficiently to the public through the media. In our political system, the executive, legislature and judiciary, have been amplified as sensitive arms of government, while the media is recognized, even if not constitutionally, as the fourth estate of the realm, by serving as watch dogs over other branches of the bureaucracy.

When President Obasanjo recently asked his vice, Atiku Abubakar to take over negotiation over the increase on fuel pump price, after the attendant workers’ strike which engulfed the nation, many were dumbfounded by the seeming generosity of the president to his partner in the face of strong insinuations on their no-love-lost-relationship. Though, the media widely reported the request cum directive for Atiku to lead the technical committee set up to resolve the fuel crisis, but not without varied headlines that suggested many interpretations on strained relationship between the landlords in Aso Rock. The misconception over the relationship was borne by the way the media portrayed the two leaders.

Public analysts and commentators have severally dealt with the roles of the Media since the inception of democracy in the country after decades of military intervention in our nationhood. But nothing has been highlighted other than the purported disagreements and rancour between the political leadership. It could be recalled that in the struggle for the enshrinement of democracy, especially during the regime of General Abdulsalami, the press played laudable roles in the emergence of Chief Olusegun Obasanjo, also a General, as the candidate of the People Democratic Party and by extension, made case for a moderate and liberal personality as his running mate. Atiku Abubakar who had already won a gubernatorial seat in Adamawa State, was invited to be the vice by the then President-in-waiting as the best alternative. Almost towards the end of the first tenure of the administration the president had a healthy and cordial relationship with his vice, this cannot be said in the case of most Governors whose first tenure did not end without unfortunate scenarios, in which some deputies attempted to dethrone their bosses from office.

Though the press may not participate in the vigorous campaign for public office or seek for political appointment, it is a vibrant and outspoken arm for change and radical transformation. It is truly a representative institution, endorsed by large patronage from viewers and readership who express themselves through the platforms and contribute to the media sustenance in the marketplace. But unfortunately, the media, which is used by the office seekers to metamorphose into elected representatives of the people, are reused to fractionalize the polity, thereby overheating the system.

Just before the last party primaries, the President and his vice were aloof over alleged frosty alliance. The media were awash with behind the scene rivalry between the two powerful men that at a stage they created an impression that the boss had to passionately plead with his junior partner to save him from the emerging likely humiliation from powerful opponents. The messages to the electorates during the period were centred on the growing antagonisms amongst the political class, while issues bordering on mission statements and manifestoes of the political parties which are vital instruments to equip voters rationally in exercising their franchise were highly neglected at the expenses of the system.

One might have expected that at least after the election, when the supposedly warring parties must have established a clear unity of purpose, the media would concentrate on advocating for social changes and developmental efforts, but the media instead, concentrate and act as an instigating referee, who incites bloody fights. To buttress this further, a magazine recently published a damning report, which may likely estrange the public officers. The journal probably in its quest to win laurels or crave for breaking news, indicted the presidency, as it consistently did over the years with each administration. The publication, which carried two strange paid adverts of a former military leader it had attacked in the past, seems to recreate the infighting between the present occupants of the Presidential Villa. In the same edition, a governor who was recently sworn in after being cleared before the election was accused of forging educational qualifications, which couldn’t add anything constitutionally to his aspiration to govern a state. The scandalous media scrutiny has necessitated some office seekers to attach video and pictures of their academic background to academic credentials.

The moral question one asks in this situation is, if the electorates voted by the influence of the media campaign, as represented in editorial commentaries and sponsored spotlight, would it be fair to condemn the elected officers immediately before undertaking any activity in their new tenure? Were the allegations, though trivial, not belated when they could have been used effectively to forewarn the electorates? There may not be any thing wrong in condemning bad policies and programmes of government, but a lot is wrong if the public is fed with personality clashes and scandalous insinuations which neither are significant to the administration of a state nor have direct connections to performance in office.

Even if Obasanjo and Atiku’s camaraderie of regular convivial exchange of banters is a pretext before the cameras, they have never betrayed any emotion of hostility. This is a clear distinction from the animosity that existed between some governors and their deputies over flimsies. It is regrettable that when the masses are distraught with hardship in the early stage of the tenure, the disputations are speculated as part of the struggle for plum offices in 2007, as if they know who may survive and be relevant tomorrow.

It is a well-known fact that politicians with egocentric ambitions encourage and finance anonymous and destructive stories against political opponents, even within the same party. The activities of such faceless politicians in collusion with some sections of the media are total disservice to the poor and innocent electorates who suffered the negative distraction over alleged power tussles of the titans.

The excessive coverage and reporting on political office holders in media against special focus on the populace have deprived competent and well-intentioned Nigerians to vie for public office. For instance, out of the thirty registered political parties in the country, the few reported are those involved in clownish presentations and combatant remarks. The reasons are not far-fetched as the press, especially the electronic media, commercialize most of their services which are hardly affordable to the ordinary citizens but exclusively utilized by those in power and the moneybags. This unfortunate stand seems to justify, to some extent, the craving for campaign donations by some candidates. But unfortunately, it is the elites and those in power who benefitted from organised jamborees, which are largely viewed as morally incomprehensible and politically objectionable.

In addition, due to high level of sensationalism, where conflicts, sex and diseases constitute the element of newsworthiness, the public is wary and extremely selective on media products. No one in his right senses would call for the regulation of the press despite the activities of few practitioners who are beclouded by sectional allegiance and promoted discord in the society. Regulation would no doubt encourage editorial interference and political pressure, rendering the press with no teeth to bite and remains a mere rubber stamp in endorsing the interest of those in power, even where its decision is against the public interest.

While at the national level, the battle is fought in the private and public media, the states wholly control the press at that level which are mostly owned by the government. Most electronic and print media at the second tier, as used by respective public figures, are not in any way instruments of empowerment and rationality, but means of sidelining the public whom they intended to protect. That was why some corrupt officers were returned because the public media is used to manipulate mass-opinion, undermines public right to self-expression, perpetuates the rotation of illegitimate and unconstitutional acts and promotes selfish interest of the few. This attitude is defeatist and that is why the selling and competitive state owned media that were not challenged could not measure up to the circulating strength of private media.

As the media become a football to be dribbled forth and back by the politicians who accused it of partisanship, while the public becoming disenchanted over non-representation, the role of media in democracy has therefore, called for a reassessment. The media in a democratic system must represent the voice of the voiceless, the artisans, market women, students, labour, activists, traditional institutions, religious bodies, organized sectors, and every segment of the society, by bringing to the fore their positions and plights. As the public watch dogs they must oversee the activities of government as related to its impact on the society and facilitate general debate on issue of national importance by participating in the resolution of conflicts for the benefit of the society. It should check the excesses of government and protect the public interest through constructive criticisms and patriotic commentaries that encourage flow of investment thereby boost revenue even through tourism.

Since Aso Rock has magnanimously appointed two former Presidents of Nigerian Guild of Editors, Remi Oyo and Garba Shehu as spokespersons to Chief Obasanjo and Atiku Abubakar respectively, the Media representatives in government should guide their bosses on the manner and mannerism that may not be misinterpreted in the editorials and public views as distraction from social reforms towards better society. As Professor James Curran says “free market media inform citizens from a variety of view points; they keep open the channels of communication between government and governed, and between different groups in society; they provide neutral zones for the formation of public opinion. In short, the processes of the market are central to exercise of popular sovereignty.”

This article by Yushau A. Shuaib was originally published in Guardian July14, New Nigeria July15, Daily Trust July17, Nigerian Tribune July21, Daily Champion Aug5, Daily Times August 28, 2003

The post Between Obasanjo, Atiku and the Media by YAShuaib appeared first on YAShuaib.