Discourse

By Caroline Davies

Elizabeth II’s job as queen was imposed on her by an ancient constitution that required no qualification other than that she exist.

Having been appointed, and whatever her private thoughts, she performed her role over an extraordinarily long reign in near-faultless manner, leaving scant ammunition for personal attack from the fiercest opponents of hereditary principle.

As Britain hurtled through times of astonishing societal change, she faced many challenges in keeping the monarchy apace – and yet she succeeded in remaining a force for national cohesion. A constant: familiar in brightly coloured coat, brimmed hat and handbag, she glad-handed her way through “walkabouts”, garden parties, ship launches, plaque unveilings, tree plantings, building inaugurations – the bread and butter of her engagements diary – with an inscrutable smile in place.

Becoming queen at such a young age meant the world knew little of her personality and views before her accession, and she continued to reveal little thereafter. She never uttered a controversial opinion in public, though supporters and critics would differ over whether this was simply because she held none, or whether she was a master of the art of political neutrality.

When caught in a maelstrom, it was most likely she had been thrust there by a lack of precedent in the protocol on which her life was solidly predicated, or wrong-footed by politicians or the antics of the younger royals.

Only those closest knew Elizabeth the wife, mother, grandmother and excellent mimic. Though the masses caught occasional glimpses of the private woman, she remained largely an enigma, and will do so until the diaries, which in royal tradition she wrote daily, are made public.

Princess Elizabeth Alexandra Mary was born third in line to the throne on 21 April 1926, at 17 Bruton Street, Mayfair, her maternal grandparents’ London home, 12 days before the general strike. Three months previously, John Logie Baird had given his first public demonstration of television, which would, as high-speed travel and the internet did later, transform the world during her lifetime.

When her uncle David, then Edward VIII, abdicated over his determination to marry the American divorcee Wallis Simpson, destiny cast Elizabeth as heir presumptive at the age of 10. For the obedient, sensible princess, who neatly lined up her toy ponies outside the nursery door each night, and who was being home-schooled for an aristocratic life as a minor royal, it was a traumatic turn of events. She could, her grandmother Lady Strathmore said later, be seen at night “ardently praying for a brother”. None came.

Her stammering, introvert father, George VI, died prematurely in 1952, when she was 25, a young wife and mother of two, who had hoped for many more years between herself and the crown.

In the Elizabeth R documentary for the BBC, marking the 40th anniversary of her accession, she explained: “In a way, I didn’t have an apprenticeship. My father died much too young. It was all a very sudden kind of taking on and making the best job you can. It’s a question of maturing into something one has got used to doing and accepting that here you are and that is your fate, because I think continuity is very important. It’s a job for life.”

It was a succinct summary of her matter-of-fact attitude towards her lot.

The coronation in 1953 brought tens of thousands of people to the Mall. In unseasonably cold June drizzle and amid a blizzard of commemorative kitsch, the dazzling young queen was crowned with her handsome consort, Prince Philip, at her side. The public adoration and global fascination she attracted in those early years was of a level unmatched until Lady Diana Spencer joined the family firm 30 years later. A third of her subjects believed her to have been chosen by God. Deference was the order of the day.

Philip was at her side for 73 years. She was bereft at the loss of her lifelong companion after he died in his sleep at the age of 99 in April 2021. His death, during the Covid pandemic, led to her sitting alone and bereaved in St George’s Chapel, Windsor Castle, during the poignant funeral, hugely scaled down because of coronavirus restrictions. The two had spent the last months of his life together in lockdown, shielding at Windsor because of their vulnerability to the virus due to their advanced years.

Though duty and diligence were her own watchwords, there were occasions when Elizabeth found herself on the back foot despite her best endeavours. Her nadir, perhaps, was 1992, described by the Queen herself as her “annus horribilis”, a year when a scandal-weary public questioned whether misbehaving royals were deserving of their tax-free status and taxpayer-funded lifestyle. Dissent was fuelled by newspapers that had long ditched deference in favour of circulation-boosting headlines. The frenzy over the state of the marriages of the Prince of Wales and Duke of York was in full spate.

The Yorks separated, Princess Anne divorced, Andrew Morton published his disquieting Diana: Her True Story, and embarrassing taped calls – one involving Diana, the other between Charles and his then lover, Camilla Parker Bowles – found their way into the tabloids.

When part of Windsor Castle then burned down and a disconsolate Queen stood watching in a drab raincoat, a rare tear glistening, there was an outpouring of sympathy. It was swiftly surpassed by outrage when the government suggested taxpayers pick up the repair bill.

As best befits a constitutional monarchy, Elizabeth II appeared largely to be a passive queen, proving to be a more than competent mouthpiece for her governments in delivering the often stilted words of politicians or starched-shirt courtier advisers.

As a mother, too, she displayed some passive tendencies, tending to leave her children to their own business. She was said to immerse herself in her red boxes, containing official government correspondence, rather than face family rows and other emotional dramas.

Nonetheless, her family were the cause of some of the more turbulent times of her reign. When, in 2020, the Duke and Duchess of Sussex stepped back as senior working royals and decamped to the US to seek freedom and the ability to earn their own money, it was the beginning of a difficult chapter for the monarchy.

Margaret Thatcher, when prime minister, dreaded her mandatory summer Scottish sojourn, unable to relax during informal barbecues on windswept hillsides – Philip on sausages, Queen on salad, Charles mixing dressing. Even worse were the after-dinner charades, a fact the Queen later acknowledged during a dinner with six of her former prime ministers when she joked about “the party games which some of you have so nobly endured at Balmoral”.

Such details served to flesh out a woman about whom, personally, there was a dearth of knowledge. That is why the Sunday Times’s “Thatcher row” story, in 1986, caused such a sensation. Headlined “Queen dismayed by uncaring Thatcher”, the report claimed she was actually a bit of a leftie and worried about Thatcher’s refusal to impose tough sanctions on the apartheid regime in South Africa. Furthermore, Her Majesty was also reported to be worried about race relations, inner-city decay and damage caused to the social fabric of the nation by the miners’ strike.

Feeling obliged to take Macmillan’s advice, she made, according to her biographer, the historian Ben Pimlott, “the biggest political misjudgment of her reign”. It led the Conservatives to follow Labour’s example and establish a selection process so that the Queen would never be placed in such an awkward position again.

Personally, aides indicated at the time, Lord Home was much more her cup of tea than Butler would have been, and the two enjoyed chatting about dogs, shooting and Scottish estates. Undoubtedly, she had her favourite prime ministers. Wilson was a huge hit. Edward Heath she found a bit tricky. And while she and Thatcher could not be said to have enjoyed a warm relationship, it was respectful, and the Queen went to her 2013 ceremonial funeral as a personal tribute, the first funeral of a former prime minister she had attended since Sir Winston Churchill’s in 1965.

As the nation’s figurehead, it was her job to do its bidding, by and large. And she was often called on to perform gestures of reconciliation. As such, she visited Germany in 1965, signalling the end of its post-war pariah status and, in 2011, became the first British monarch in a century to visit the Republic of Ireland.

Queen Elizabeth II died at Balmoral, Scotland, on September 8th, four years short of her centenary: a surprise as well as a melancholy shock, for it often seemed that she would run forever.

This cheerfulness could bear remarkable fruit. In 1958, the youthful Queen, instead of mixing with the usual blue-blooded gang, had the honor of being presented to a real aristocrat, in white tie and tails—Duke Ellington, who was performing at a festival in Yorkshire. He recalled, “She asked me when your first time was in England? Oh, I said, oh my first time in England was in 1933, way before you were born.” (Her birth was actually in 1926.) “She gave me a real American look; very cool man, which I thought was too much.” Later that night, the story goes, Ellington went back to his hotel and began composing what would wind up as “The Queen’s Suite,” in six parts. Only one copy of the recording was pressed. It was sent to Her Majesty; the piece was not heard by the public until after Duke passed away. Talk about the good and the great.

Two days before she died, the Queen received another Elizabeth—Liz Truss, the fifteenth and last Prime Minister to have served during the second Elizabethan reign. (The first was Winston Churchill.) Cynics wondered whether that meeting might have been the final straw, but, in truth, the sense of royal timing was exact. Had the Queen expired a week earlier, it would have been Truss’s predecessor, Boris Johnson, leading the nation in mourning. He is not the man you want for grief. The revelation that parties had been held at 10 Downing Street on the eve of Prince Philip’s funeral, in April, 2021, was conclusive proof, if any were required, that Johnson was deaf to the prevailing mood. The Queen, needless to say, was tuned in. She sat alone at the funeral, black-masked and marooned, because she understood that, during lockdown, such sad solitude was the lot of her subjects. Simply by doing what everyone else was having to do, and by saying nothing, she shamed the laxity of her Prime Minister, and probably spelled his end.

The country that she leaves behind is scarcely at ease with itself, and whether any government, helmed by Truss or anyone else, can be expected to restore harmony is open to debate. Inflation is swelling like a pustule. Industrial unrest is afoot. So alarming is the rise in energy costs that the prospect of winter fills many families with dread. Below it all lurks a larger fear: how soon before the United Kingdom becomes a contradiction in terms? Not the least of the Queen’s innumerable duties was to act as a unifier-in-chief, and, with the removal of her guiding hand, divisions can only deepen. Though she died at Balmoral, which she loved, will the campaign for Scottish independence now find fresh impetus? What of the perennial Irish question? How about Wales? Could it be that what was once an empire, and then a commonwealth, will shrink to a single country, and then at last to one quiet village in Gloucestershire, with an empty church and a thriving line in marmalade?

“Though after my death you may have many stepdames, yet shall you never have a more natural mother than I mean to be unto you all.” Thus spake the Queen’s namesake, Elizabeth I—the age-old joke being that, notwithstanding the divine right of kings, it is British queens who have stayed the course, defined their times, and earned the acclamation. If Elizabeth II was, perhaps, a more natural mother to the nation than she was to her own children, that suggests only how wide, and how convulsive, the bereavement may turn out to be. Most Britons have known no other monarch. Even the ardently loyal, asked to sing not “God save our gracious Queen” but “God save our gracious King,” will struggle to make the switch. What happens next will not merely be a matter of trading one head of state for another, or of seeing a new profile on postage stamps and coins. To get up in the morning without the Queen being around, always distant but ever present, will be like living beneath a different sky. It is all, as Duke Ellington would say, too much.

-By Kene Obiezu

A peek, any peek, into Nigeria`s difficult history as a country would immediately betray that there are those, many of them in fact, who have contributed in no small measure to complicating the Nigerian story.
Spread across military and civilian circles almost in equal measure, whenever Nigeria`s book of woes will be opened, these men and women will no doubt get dishonorable readings for their misdeeds.

However, it appears that as time has taken its toll on some of these men and women, the tendency to whitewash their actions and make them less undesirable and more presentable than they can ever be has become appealing to many who revel in drawing perverse parallels.

Ibrahim Badamasi Babangida was Nigeria`s military president from 1985 to 1993, a period in which Nigeria found out that like an onion bulb, darkness can have many layers. He became military president of Nigeria after he deposed Muhammadu Buhari in a palace coup d’état. It was under Babangida`s watch as military president that some of the worst atrocities committed against Nigeria and Nigerians were committed with reckless abandon and even glee.
Many argue that it was under Babangida, in the time colloquially known as the Babangida Era, that the political culture of corruption which today stands deeply embedded in the country really blossomed.

Executions and assassinations were also hot commodities during the Babangida era. Having survived two coup d`etat attempts, he had no qualms ordering the 1985 execution of Mamman Vatsa and the 1991 execution of Gideon Orkar. Under Babangida, hundreds of soldiers also went on trial.

But it was not just soldiers. On October 19, 1986, Dele Giwa, a Nigerian journalist, Editor and founder of Newswatch magazine was killed by a parcel bomb in his home at Ikeja, Lagos, while in his study. The assassination occurred two days after he had been interviewed by State Security Service officials. The assassination has never been solved but not a few Nigerians agree that it was sanctioned by the state of which Babangida was head at the time. In 2001, Babangida refused to testify before a national human rights commission about the murder, passing up in the process an opportunity to clear his name once and for all.
In 1993, at historic national polls, Moshood Abiola swept to victory. But he was never to become President of the country. It was yet under Babangida that the election was annulled.

Under Babangida`s iron fist, dozens of activists and journalists spent years in detention under horrific conditions.
Yet, in spite of this seemingly endless list of atrocities conceived, hatched and executed under Babangida`s watch as military president, there are many who consider him a hero. These people, wading in the pool of ignorance they have deliberately muddied, have argued that Babangida is a hero for the way his coup d`etat succeeded in unseating Muhammadu Buhari who was then military president of the country.

Those who have been peddling this extremely reprehensible and laughable line of thought on social media and elsewhere have argued that given how low the country had sunk under Muhammadu Buhari by 1985, Babangida`s palace coup of 1985, which opened the door to an era during which some of the deepest wounds on the conscience of Nigeria was inflicted, was an act of grace for Nigeria. This line of argument is shocking to say the least.

Nigeria may be at an all-time low given the failed promises of a government that whitewashed all its principal actors while successfully brainwashing Nigerians to vote for it not once but twice.

If the mistakes of the past are to be corrected, the correction will not be by the hands of those who don mendacity, mischief and even malice like garbs.
Babangida remains who he is for all that happened to Nigeria under his watch. Buhari remains who he is for all that is happening to Nigeria under his watch. Between them, there may be plenty villains but there is certainly no hero.

Celebrating Africa Anti-Corruption Day, Transparency International chapters across Africa have sent an open letter to the leaders of the African Union (AU), reminding them of their anti-corruption commitments and urging additional measures as a matter of urgency.

The organisations highlighted their concerns over the region’s recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic, which severely affected the livelihoods of all African citizens and deepened inequalities. Extensive funds are needed to reverse these effects, but corruption threatens to divert money away from important areas like health care and food. These organisations are therefore, calling for States to open up procurement information, and sanction; and prosecute any abuses of COVID-19 recovery funds.

The letter also recognises that tens of billions of dollars leave Africa every year in illicit funds, which is money that could be ploughed into essential public services for its people. It calls on leaders to accelerate strategies to combat these illicit financial flows and roll out reforms such as “Know Your Customer” requirements and an end to secretive company structures.

While the near-universal ratification by African States of the AU Convention on preventing and combating, Corruption is commendable, the letter calls attention to the poor translation of this into action at the national level.

Rueben Lifuka, vice-chair of Transparency International, said “This is a critical moment for the African region and its people. If corruption is not addressed urgently, it will block efforts to rebuild after the devastating pandemic and the region’s hopes of charting a path to a stronger future. Fairly and transparently managing large-scale COVID-19 recovery funds and preventing billions of dollars from illegally exiting the region through illicit means should be top issues for all leaders. On this Africa Anti-Corruption Day, we need the AU and governments of African states to heed the experts and action strong, decisive anti-corruption reforms” he said.

In Nigeria, Civil Society Organizations led by CISLAC, said Nigeria is rated as the highest Illicit Financial Flow (IFF) offender in the African continent with an estimated sum of $18 billion, based on the African Union High Level panel on IFF led by Thabo Mbeki. The group also, said it had become pertinent for all anti-corruption agencies, the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) and scores of other stakeholders, to ensure the full application of the laws.

This year’s celebration, which is the sixth edition, has the theme: “Strategies and Mechanisms for the Transparent Management of Covid-19 Funds” They therefore, reminded the government on the need to be transparent on its expenditures.

According to the group, a good example abound in the lingering fuel scarcity which has lasted for months despite the huge sums set aside for subsidy payments and trillions budgeted for fuel subsidy.

They further remarked that this year’s celebration is a good time to remind INEC, anti-graft agencies and law enforcement agencies of their role in enabling a free and fair election devoid of dirty money and vote trading, as we approach 2023.

Recall that Accountant General of the federation had three (3) different individuals acting in that capacity in less than 2 months, while the numerous allegations against the previous two, citizens demand answers. “The government should not sweep the matter under the carpet” they warned.

There is also demand to investigate the deteriorating security situation bedevilling the country, the latest which is the Kuje prison break. Recent discoveries of huge sums in the residence of military contractors need to be investigated to its logical conclusion. Funds meant for securing the lives and properties of Nigerians shouldn’t be diverted.

Finally, a call was made on the anti-graft agencies to be very professional in their actions. Rather than seek media trial and sensational reporting, they are enjoined to do their assignments with professionalism, fairness and respect for human rights.

By Olugbenga Jaiyesimi

WITH the defeat of the Germans in 1945 and uncovering of the holocaust, in-depth soul searching was done on the German soul by philosophers and sociologists. With this was fashioned a new constitution for Germany. The same was done for the Japanese leading to what they termed a pacifist constitution.

Can nations be psychoanalysed or profiled? Is there a role for psychoanalysis at a macro developmental level? In October 2002, a clinical psychologist turned economist was awarded the Nobel prize in economics for his work in behavioural microeconomics. I believe this should be carried into developmental economics with the need to analyse nations and maybe categorise them as we characterise people, being phlegmatic, introverted, extroverted, etc.

There is nothing novel about this; somewhere in the archives of the British is a document by Lord Lugard profiling the peoples living in and around the lower River Niger area. Could this psychoanalysis have informed the choice of direct rule in an area of the colony and indirect rule in another area?

Should we march into ‘heavy lifting’ to transform our nation without us first knowing who we are? Not knowing who we are might be responsible for the failure of earlier euphoric plans like the Lagos Plan of 1980 and the New Partnership for African Development of 2002. I have seen new documents like the AU 2063 Agenda, the AfCTA and the German Marshall Plan for Africa. Lofty plans that do not take into account who we are. Meaning the Marshall plan that worked in Europe could fail in Africa. Also, should we write or copy constitutions for ourselves without understanding who we are and the full package and baggage of our history?

Not having done the above, have we not become a schizophrenic nation? We say we are a republic but monarchs hold sway across the country. We say we are a secular nation but religious considerations direct affairs of state. We say we are a federation but have organised our polity along unitary lines for years. We jettisoned the British parliamentary system and adopted the US presidential system without its Bill of Rights that protects citizens from government.

We end up with force, not equity or justice, being the determinant of who is right, and most often politicians in government have the force. We say the private sector should drive the economy but we tie the hands of the private sector with government interventions and regulations calling it government oversight.

We say corruption will kill us off but expect our brothers and friends in government to come out of service much richer! Woe unto anyone who holds political office and leaves still average.

We also have to contend with the bitter clash between two civilisations well represented in Nigeria, Arabic and Western. This clash we have glossed over to our consternation.

How can we psychoanalyse or profile a society? Is it a job for sociologists or psychologists? There is a sphere where we all meet and interact without labels and we exhibit traits that cut across all sections and tribes of society, interactions on our roads where we have articulated vehicles, tricycles, motorbikes and pedestrians. This is a representation of society that can be analysed. In fact, our total transport ecosystem is a crucible for national soul analysis. So, allow me to use this crucible to answer that crucial question: Who are we?

Let’s begin with the mighty articulated vehicle drivers. On Nigerian roads, as in the polity and I dare say in courts of justice, might is right. Just as our police units can ‘kill and go,’ our articulated vehicles are not expected to have functional brakes so all other road users better make way when these kings of the road blare their horns anytime they approach any junction. The rule of right of way seems not to hold for articulated vehicles. The SUVs vehicles in turn muscle out ordinary saloons and sedans, while sedans have no regard for tricycles who, in turn, have little regard for pedestrians. This says a lot about us and how we abuse power when in positions of authority.

Some owners of haulage vehicles have given orders to their drivers to crush buses or smaller vehicles to cushion impact and reduce damage to their vehicles at the expense of lives in smaller buses. To enforce this the drivers are made to drop assets, which they forfeit if the driver fails to comply. This sorry state was narrated to me by someone who as a passenger heard a driver chastise the driver of another truck who had run into a road divider rather than crush a smaller vehicle. This blood-curdling state can be multiplied many times over in many sectors and spheres of our country—inhumanity of man to man.

Would the decent people of this country say we are unaware of the situation of driver’s licences being sold and delivered to prospective drivers in their sitting rooms? This says a lot about us. In saner climes, this scandalous behaviour will lead to the fall of governments! In Nigeria no public outcry, everyone participates in the charade. Same for public examinations with special centres where invigilation is loose and students are allowed to cheat.

Roundabouts were introduced on Nigerian roads in the early 1960s. Drivers were taught the universal rules of right of way at such junctions. This rule held true for quite a while but as city traffic grew our peculiarities crept in. New entrants at the roundabouts began to compete with the cars at the roundabouts by edging into the way. This was in complete contrast with what happens in ‘mother country,’ where cars come to a halt at roundabouts and only move in when no vehicle is at the facility.
Fast forward to what is happening now, those at the roundabout now give way to a fast-approaching entrant! A universal traffic law has been turned on its head in our blessed country and life continues as though nothing is amiss.

When last did an incoming driver respond to your signal to dim his car’s headlights? Rarely. Manifestation of our disdain for others and a breakdown of common courtesy. Isn’t this who we are? Articulated vehicles, trailers we call them, have their headlamps in the middle, no more at edges, meaning oncoming drivers could easily mistake them for a motorcycle or tricycle. Some position their lights right at the top so one might just think it’s an aircraft. How about our penchant for throwing out of our vehicle windows wrappers, plastic bags, bottles such that our highways have become ‘ugly’. This lack of aesthetic appreciation can be saying more than we think about our internal aesthetics—our very souls.

Environmental sanitation day was introduced about 40 years ago (1984), but what do we have? Littered streets, highways and littered neighbourhoods. By now our environment should be a sight to behold but it is not. Every last Saturday of the month we are reminded of ESD but the country remains littered. The sore point is our not asking what we are doing wrong? As in most things the ESD was never thought through, it was imposed by military fiat and it has not been imbibed into our subconsciousness for it to percolate into the culture of our society.

Hooting to alert and warn of impending catastrophe has, after years of its abuse by light-fingered drivers who make music with their horns, lost its usefulness. Nigerians do not react to the hoot of the horn anymore. We are now horn deaf and don’t react to the warning it portends. A lot of other things have lost their usefulness to such habits and behaviour in Nigeria.

Is it all gloom and doom? Where are the bright spots? The happiest people in the world, resilient and really one of the most entrepreneurial races. Also, academically gifted people, making professorships all over the world. Lord Frederick Lugard also said this about us: “fond of music, naturally courageous, courteous and polite.” Yes, we have our strengths, our diversity is a strength but our negatives will keep on bringing us down until we mitigate them.

By Qudus Lawal

History taught us about the state of nature when man was a wanderer and a gatherer. When man lived in caves and slept on branches of trees.

When man competed severely with animals and the fellow man for survival. When man fed on wild animals and fellow man. When wild animals fed on man. When man ate his food raw. When the environment was the master of man because man had little or no power to master his environment.

With time, man evolved and began to live a settled lifestyle. He domesticated plants and animals for food and for company.

Man began to build houses for himself and other necessities of life. This was the beginning of what is to be known today as modern man.

All this was not achieved by luck. It involved hard work and agreement. It was on the basis of this agreement that government was formed. Man agreed to surrender some of his rights to an authority which in return guaranteed him his safety.

For ease of governance, customs, norms, morals and ultimately laws were made to regulate the activities of man. Hence, government was fully formed. Constitution was made. On the basis of this agreement, government conceded to ensure the safety of man.

The Nigerian society of today is not an exception. It was a product of the evolution that man went through before today’s modern society came to be.

A country like Nigeria with its colonial history has found it necessary to strike a balance in the distribution of its resources and developmental projects.

Her heterogeneous nature compelled her founding fathers to put into consideration an appropriate system of government that would ensure that no part was left behind.

Of a truth, Nigeria was not created on the agreement of her indigenous peoples. The British created Nigeria in this conglomerate largely for their economic interests. But, in the long run, it has been discovered that this diversity is a blessing.

Unfortunately, since independence, the benefits of this diversity, material resources and her population strength have not been explored nor exploited. Our human and materials resources are largely left to lie and remain fallow.

They have not been effectively utilised. These resources are gradually becoming burdens as they have become readily available tools that are used to threaten the corporate existence of the country. The reason for this underutilisation of human and materials resources, and its attendant underdevelopment of the country, is largely because we have not gotten our leadership choice right.

In the wisdom of our founding fathers, this country was divided into geopolitical zones.

The South-East region remains the only region that has not produced a substantial president since independence in 1960 except for the short-lived reign of Major General Johnson Aguiyi-Ironsi of blessed memory. The best they had had were a ceremonial president and a vice president.

Constitutionally, the Ndigbo might not have a unilateral claim to produce the next president but logically, morally and on the principle of equity, the South-East is long overdue to produce the next president of the Federal Republic of Nigeria come 2023.

One might be compelled to ask why the Ndigbo are not considered fit enough to produce the country’s president after the ugly civil war? Could it be because of their political leanings? The fear that they might cede or disintegrate the country? Is it because of their roles in the civil war? Or could it be that their business prowess is seen as a threat to other regions?

None of the above reasons nor any other that any person, persons or groups can put forward are enough to deny the Ndigbo a sense of belonging in their own country. They have paid their dues. They were also victims of the war.

They are the economic power of Nigeria. Their business acme is a major contributor to national revenue. They are the pride of the black race.

They fly the flags of the country and the continent high in the diaspora. No region in modern day Nigeria has contributed economically more than the Ndigbo to Nigeria’s gross domestic and national products.

An Igbo president come 2023 is not out of pity. It is not a consensus. It is not an option nor a political opinion.

It is an overdue necessity to heal our country of the unjust treatment of a particular region that is not only qualified to lead this country but also has some of the best administrators, technocrats and economic gurus of international class.

It will also pacify our illustrious brothers and sisters of the eastern origin and the Biafran heroes and heroines who lost their lives in the unfortunate civil war.

It will be a spirit lifter for the victims of the war on the Nigerian government side. It will ensure that our First Republican heroes who paid the supreme price rest in peace. It is a national duty. A duty that all must collectively partake in to write their names in gold.

On the other hand, the Igbos must put their house in order. They need unity of purpose to get their rightful due. This is not the time to divide their ranks. They should conduct primary, local elections and come out with the best candidate.

A popular candidate from their region. A candidate with the best and practicable blueprint to set the basis for national development. A candidate that will convince all of what the country has missed by denying the Ndigbo their rightful role in national development

By Ifeanyi Raymond

Democracy is a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives. Simply put; it is government of the people, by the people and for the people. It would suffice to say that it hasn’t been the case in Nigeria since Olusegun Obasanjo became the first democratically elected civilian president in 1999 after Shehu Shagari 20 years prior in 1979.

Nigeria has been riddled with corruption, voter manipulation and electoral disorientations dating back to the first military coup in 1966 by General Aguiyi-Ironsi who took advantage of an initial failed coup by a group of army officers led by Major Chukwuma Nzeogwu which the nation has yet to recover from.

With the 2023 general elections fast approaching and campaigns ringing in the ears of its citizens, Nigerians should wake up and realize the mischievous and obvious bogus lies by said politicians who have since abandoned democracy for kleptocracy.

During electoral campaigns, politicians promise heaven and earth to win over the votes of the masses that troop en mass to support their choice candidates. These promises are nothing but basic amenities like good motorable roads, clean pipe-borne water, reformed education, quality healthcare, employment for youths and so on; these should be made readily available by any seating government as instituted in chapter two of the Nigerian Constitution.

More often than not, 80% of the political office seekers wheel off from these promises and sought to enrich their pockets while others are applauded for executing their constitutional obligations which in some cases is an election tactic for another four-year stay in office. Needless to say that Nigerians have fallen so behind that we are easily deceived and gullible to the lies the politicians keep recycling. We need to take a stand, vote for the right people without fear or favor.

Growing up, we were told by teachers from primary school: You are the leaders of tomorrow. Over 20 years into the 21st century and we are still being told same lies. The current president of Nigeria, Muhammadu Buhari who is the 7th and 15th president of the nation first as military head of state from 1983-1985 and in 2015 till date, is 79 years old currently in the U.K for ‘medical checkup’ which he undergoes on a regular basis leaving his vice, Prof Yemi Osinbajo, at the helm of affairs mostly when the nation is rocked with crisis.

Before him was Goodluck Ebele Jonathan who holds the record for the youngest democratically elected at 53 years (which rules him out as a youth). Jonathan became president after the demise of Umar Musa Yar’adua in 2010 and took part in the elections of 2011 where he emerged victorious but was usurped by Muhammadu Buhari in 2015. Yar’adua was elected in 2007 before his death in 2010.

Olusegun Obasanjo won the 1999 general elections at the age of 62. During the 2003 elections, current president Muhammadu Buhari contested and lost to Obasanjo who came back for a second term in office. Albeit, there have been bills in the National Assembly for the inclusion of youths to run for political offices which came to light in last general elections of 2019 where the likes of Omoyole Sowore (a human rights activist and pro democracy campaigner) aged 47years, Kingsley Moghalu (a former deputy governor of the central bank of Nigeria) aged 53 years, Fela Durotoye (a business consultant and leadership expert) at 45 years all declared interests for the presidential seat.

On Thursday 24 January 2019, Fela Durotoye took to his Twitter handle commending Oby Ezekwesili for leading the frontier of building a formidable coalition and presenting a Consensus Candidate for the 2019 Presidential elections.

He further expressed his willingness to support the candidacy of a Consensus candidate chosen from among the frontline alternative candidates, which include Fela Durotoye, Omoyele Sowore & Kingsley Moghalu through a transparent electoral process if he did not emerge as the Consensus candidate in the forthcoming election. Prior to this consensus was a Coalition between the Young progressive party and the Alliance for New Nigeria which was to be known as “The Force”.

In 2019, a former vice president under Olusegun Obasanjo, Atiku Abubakar with Peter Obi (a former governor of Anambra State) as his running mate lost the presidential election to incumbent President Muhammadu Buhari by over 3 million votes.

They appealed at the Supreme Court and described the election as the “worst in Nigeria’s democratic history.” Thinking it would be the last we see of him in Nigerian elections till he declared for office again for the 2023 presidential elections under the umbrella of Peoples’ Democratic Party.

Recently, former governor of Lagos State, Bola Tinubu after much speculation from different quarters also declared for the office of the president while also stating “I have informed the President of my ambition but I have not informed Nigerians yet, I am still consulting. And I have no problem consulting. And I’ve not set a parameter of limitation to the extent of how many people I will consult.

“You will soon hear. All you want to hear is the categorical declaration. You’ve gotten that truth from me that I have informed Mr President of my ambition, and you don’t expect more answers than that,” he said. Speaking further; “I’m out to become President of Nigeria. No intimidation, no blackmail can stop me.

I have read about a Greek Philosopher that if you want to fight a pig, you must be ready to be smeared and I’m ready to be dirty…”
Needless to say he’s very much assured of succeeding Muhammadu Buhari after the upcoming elections in February 2023 as announced by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) not too long ago from his level of confidence.

Tinubu is renowned for his bullish politicking and has been the national leader of the All Progressives Congress (APC) since its inception in 2013 despite the current president being a member of the party as well. In a recent presidential consultation with traditional rulers in Akure, Ondo State while lamenting that Nigeria was yet to attain her greatness, Tinubu stated that he will not only ensure massive job opportunities for Nigerian youth, but also establishment of industries across the country.

He said, “When I rule for eight years, I will hand over to the smartest and someone with most followers will take over from me after I finish my tenure.

“It is a pity that ordinary brake pad Nigeria cannot produce. I will turn Nigeria around for good.”
Not yet sure of his intentions if he eventually gets into Aso Rock as opposed to what has being the order of the day not just at the presidential level but also governors, Houses of Assembly and the rest.

It is only in Nigeria a former governor serves as a senator or minister with the likes of Chris Ngige who is the current Minister of Labour also a former senator and governor of Anambra State, Aminu Tambuwal a former speaker of the House of Representatives, former presidential aspirant and incumbent governor of Sokoto State, Babatunde Fashola a former governor of Lagos State now the Minister of Works and Housing, Rotimi Amaechi, former governor of Rivers State and serving Minister of Transport all to mention but a few of those whom power of office has been circulating across for years in Nigerian politics serving as a major hindrance to any form of young aspiration from the youth of the country.

In recent times, countries of the world have elected young presidents and leaders into office and have had sustainable economies to show for it. Barrack Obama became the first black president of the United States at 47 years, Emmanuel Macron of France still seating is 45 years old, Vanessa D’Ambrosio of San Marino (34 years), Leo Varadkar of Ireland (43 years), Carlos Alvarado of Costa Rica (42 years) these and many more. Emma Theofelus, 23, was appointed Namibia’s information, communication and technology deputy minister a week after coronavirus hit Namibian shores.

“I have literally been learning on the job so far,” she says. 30 year old Bogolo Joy Kenewendo, appointed the Investment, Trade and Industry Minister became Botswana’s youngest ever minister, two years after she was appointed by the former president Ian Khama as a member of parliament.

Able, qualified and willing Nigerian youths should be given a chance to run for various offices in the upcoming elections without being bullied or priced out of the race and the masses should not be cajoled into selling their votes to the highest bidder instead we should search our conscience in choosing the right candidate and representatives at various levels in the 2023 elections.

By Ifeanyi Raymond

As the Batch A Stream I of corps members are set to arrive their various camps all over the country from today (Wednesday) 23rd February, 2022 it would only be justified to emphasize on the origin, development and spread of the Mammy Markets located virtually in all the Army Barracks in the country where the NYSC holds its 3-week camp for corps members.

It was in 1959, Mammy Maria Ode, a young girl from Jericho-Ugboju in the present Otukpo Local Government Area of Benue State, was married to Anthony Aboki Ochefu at the tender age of 14, a young Non-Commissioned military officer, who had just been posted to Enugu from Abeokuta.

They were quartered at the Army Barracks, Abakpa, Enugu. To beat idleness and perhaps earn some money to support her young family, Mrs. Mammy Ochefu established a soft drinks business. She prepared gruel, which is called umu or enyi in Idoma, or kunu in Hausa, for sale to soldiers. She soon became popular with her stuff as soldiers trooped to her house to buy enyi. Some of her best customers were officers, who always sent their batmen to buy some of the gruel for them, Monday through Friday.

Somehow, one of the Non-Commissioned Officers, the RSM, did not flow with the enthusiasm which Mammy’s gruel generated among other military men in the barracks. He complained that it was attracting flies into the barracks and ordered Mrs. Mammy Ochefu to stop its production and sale.

Though surprised and disappointed at the order of the RSM, she stopped the production and sale of enyi. Her husband, not being an officer at the time, could not challenge the order of the RSM.

For weeks, Mrs. Mammy Ochefu agonized over the fate of her business, just as officers and men of the Nigerian Army who enjoyed her enyi because of its freshness and nutritional value lamented the situation.

From several quarters, pressure mounted on the RSM for a reversal of the order. After a while, he succumbed to the pressure and directed that a section of the barracks be reserved for Mrs. Mammy Ochefu to produce and sell her enyi. Her joy knew no bounds.

Few days after, a section of the barracks was given to her. She built a small shop and soon, her business began to boom. Most of her customers booked for their shares in advance. Before noon, she would have finished selling the available enyi for the day.

Soon, other women in the barracks tapped into her fortune and started selling other items. It was not long before that portion of the barracks became known as Mammy Market. It also became a policy to establish markets inside or near military barracks in the country, initially for the exclusive use of officers and men. She then registered the business in 1971, and in no time, the business had grown into a supermarket and a transport business.

The idea of the business ‘Mammy Market’ has grown with the country and wherever a military camp is situated, Mammy market is also established. Through this initiative, Mammy Ochefu helped millions of Nigerian women across the country to be business owners. We celebrate this beautiful strong woman who defied all odds to create jobs for millions of women.

Today, no visit to Abuja, the Federal Capital City, is complete without a taste of fresh fish in one of the Mammy Markets, especially the one attached to Abacha Barracks. Similar markets attached to paramilitary barracks are also called Mammy Markets.

After the coup that overthrew General Yakubu Gowon, Anthony Aboki Ochefu, then a Colonel was posted to East Central State as Military Governor.

So Mrs. Mammy Ochefu and her husband returned to Enugu as the First Family; she sometimes visited the site where Mammy Market started about sixteen years earlier. It must be stressed too that in retirement, Colonel Anthony Aboki Ochefu and his wife incorporated a company, Mammy Markets, which was into haulage and trading.

Wiktionary defines Mammy Market as (chiefly in Nigeria) a market attached to a barracks where products for soldiers are sold. In recent times the markets have grown more populous since the inception of the National Youth Service Corps (NYSC) in 1973 by General Yakubu Gowon (rtd) and Adebayo Adedeji.

It now houses not just kunu joints but various items and services on sale like mama-put restaurants where corps members who prefer not to eat the food provided by the Federal Government in their camps go to satisfy their hunger at affordable rates. It also provides services to charge phones, wash and iron clothes, PoS stands, essential camp items like buckets, mosquito nets even bars where corps members go to relax and relieve the stress accrued during the day’s activities which is mostly filled with parades under the scorching sun. Today, asking a serving or erstwhile corps member the highlight or what he/she misses most about the NYSC camp no doubt it will be the Mammy Markets which makes the 3-week stay less boring than it originally was and all thanks to Mammy Maria Ochefu for her endearing foresight and business-oriented mindset.

Notably, the Mammy Market is not just for buying and selling but also serves as a social ground for camp lovers and gatherings alike. Activities that are banned in camp are mostly experienced in the markets where people from all over the country mingle and fraternize amongst themselves which most of these relationships are continued away from the markets and camps.

Mrs. Mammy Ochefu has inarguably built a lasting legacy however, in a recent interview she lamented on being neglected and disregarded by the Federal Government and the nation who have yet to attribute the Mammy Markets, its origin and all that it represents to her officially as the founder and originator. She pleads for recognition for such a magnanimous feat as a woman at a time when women were seen as housekeepers and not given a chance to contribute to the fore especially as the wife of military personnel.

Mrs. Mammy Ochefu is alive at 79 years and lives in Otukpo where she has a livestock farm and engages them for personal use and sales. She is indeed one of the prized legends of our time.

“It is really a great privilege and a very high honour to have the opportunity to deliver this thought-provoking lecture in an event put together by young Igbo intelligentsia and bureaucrats. I do not propose to speak for too long because I believe, as your lecture topic suggests, that the time has come, when action rather than words is required to get things right not just in Igboland, but in our beloved country, Nigeria. Nothing moves a nation forward more than intellectual stimulants such as this Ozuruigbo lecture series. It is only through such an intellectual enterprise that we can generate ideas to shape our future. As you well know, ideas rule the world. I believe that this was what one of our greatest literary icons, Chinua Achebe, had in mind when he said in his book, “Morning Yet On Creation Day” –

“Let every people bring their gifts to the great festival of world’s cultural harvest and mankind will be all the richer for the variety and distinctiveness of the offering.” Borrowing from that, I say to you my brothers and sisters, and indeed all the different groups or organizations that populate our country, Let every people bring their gifts of ideas to the national political altar for a great harvest and Nigeria will be all the better and richer for the variety and distinctiveness of the offerings.

It is with this at the back of my mind that I feel excited to be at this event as the lecturer for the topic of the day. You will permit me to begin with a note of caution. What we need is a Nigerian president not an Igbo president. On this note, I dare say without any fear of contradiction, that we have never had and will never have, an Hausa or a Fulani President, a Yoruba President, an Igbo President or an Idoma President, etc. We have only had Nigerian Presidents – from Nnamdi Azikiwe to Shehu Shagari, to Olusegun Obasanjo, to Umaru Musa Yar’Adua, to Goodluck Jonathan, and now Muhammadu Buhari. Yes, all of them come from somewhere or belong to one linguistic group of the other. But they were not made presidents by their ethnic or linguistic groups alone. They were made presidents by Nigerians or at least a majority of Nigerians. Our constitution, the 1999 constitution as amended and others before it, make it clear that to be president of Nigeria, you must secure two-thirds of the support of all the states. Section 134 (2) of the 1999 constitution as amended states:

“A candidate for an election to the office of the president shall be deemed to have been elected where, there being more than two candidates for the election, (a) he has the highest number of votes cast at the election (b) he has not less than one quarter of the votes cast at the election in each of at least two-thirds of all the states in the federation and the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja.”

So, you need both spread and majority of votes cast to be president of Nigeria. It follows that you can only be president of Nigeria with the support of a majority of Nigerians. However, because you come from a particular ethnic extraction, we can have a president of Nigeria of Yoruba, Igbo, Ijaw, Hausa or Fulani extraction. This is the closest we can come to ethnicizing the presidency of Nigeria, if we must.

I believe that this initial clarification or cautionary note is necessary because it forms the premise upon which the body of my lecture topic is rested. This begins so, let me elaborate further on the foundations of the premise by jolting you with some stark historical realities, which I hope will help to align you to my line of thinking.

Also, the lesson that will emanate from this historical voyage, I believe, will boldly underscore the futility in the illusory pursuit of Igbo presidency.

In the 1959 general elections that ushered in Nigeria’s independence, the Northern Peoples’ Congress (NPC) won 148 seats, the National Council of Nigeria and Cameroon (NCNC), in alliance with the Northern Elements Progressive Union (NEPU), won 89 seats, the Action Group (AG), in alliance with United Middle Belt Congress (UMBC), won 75 seats. None won the required majority to form a government. The NPC and NCNC consequently went into an alliance and formed the Independence government of 1960. That was how Dr. Nnamdi Azikiwe of NCNC, became the first president of Nigeria (although ceremonial) and Tafawa Balewa of NPC, the first Prime Minister.