This piece is not so much a tribute to Achebe as an interrogation of the mortuary respect that followed his transition with a focus on the contrarian perspectives of Professor Ibrahim Bello-Kano whose intervention was couched in elegant academic aesthetics and published by several print and online media.
Why do the dead, even those we have reservations about when they lived always attract adulation? There are two key explanations – one based on myth and the other on rationality. The rational explanation is that the dead cannot defend themselves while the myth is that if you say evil against the dead their spirit will continue to haunt you until you join them in the hereafter.

Contrary to the belief in some quarters that respect to the dead is a specific African tradition, it is actually a universal practice, dating to antiquity. For instance the phrase ‘mortuary respect’ dates from the 4th century and is often attributed to Diogenes Laërtius’ work ‘Lives and Opinions of Eminent Philosophers’ (ca. AD 300) where a Greek aphorism, ‘Don’t badmouth a dead man’ was attributed to Chilon of Sparta, one of the Seven Sages of ancient Greece. There is also the Latin phrase ‘De mortuis nihil nisi bonum,’ which roughly translates to “Of the dead, nothing unless good”. In English language there are several aphoristic phrases like: “Speak no ill of the dead”, “Of the dead, speak no evil”, and “Do not speak ill of the dead”. The 18th century English writer and poet Samuel Johnson was famously quoted as saying: “He that has too much feeling to speak ill of the dead…will not hesitate…to destroy…the reputation…of the living.”

Should a public intellectual necessarily be bound by the custom of mortuary respect? I do not think so. I believe a public intellectual owes it to his craft (excuse my apparent lack of gender sensitivity here but it is all to make things easier), to detach himself from mass hysteria, outrage or encomium and search for and expand on anything he feels has been missed out in the flourish of emotionally-driven mass euphoria. If a public intellectual’s reasoning and choice of analytical categories lead him to a conclusion contrary to what is regarded as the popular position, then duty calls to take and defend that position. It takes courage to stand alone.

It is in the above respect that the contrarian intervention of Professor Ibrahim Bello-Kano receives my maximum respect. In that intervention, which is written in a compelling language that leaned here and there on the obscurantist literary form, he questioned the literary merits in Achebe’s novels. I agree with most of his comments, including some of his comments on Anthills of Savannah, Achebe’s last novel, generally thought to have been written when Achebe had either lost interest in writing novels or his skills in the craft had gone into terminal decline.

Despite agreeing with most of Professor Bello-Kano’s critical comments on Achebe’s works, I must quickly add that none of those comments is original. As a matter of fact in 2006, my publishing firm, Adonis & Abbey Publishers (www.adonis-abbey.com) – a publisher of academic books and journals since March 2003 – published an even more critical work on Achebe’s writings entitled Achebe: The Man and His Works by Rose Mezu, a Professor of English, Women studies and Comparative Literature at Morgan State University, Baltimore, Maryland, USA. Between 2007 and 2010, the same company incubated and published the academic journal, African Performance Review for the African Theatre Association, where on every issue, I read with relish scholars ‘tearing apart’ the works of such great literary giants as Achebe, Soyinka, Osofisan and Ngugi wa Thiong’o.

Professor Bello-Kano’s critique of Achebe’s Trouble With Nigeria (1983) for neglecting the influence of system dynamics when Achebe claimed that the ‘trouble with Nigeria is squarely that of leadership’, is spot on. But it is also not original. In fact the structure-agency debate in the social sciences (the capacity of individuals to act independently and make free choices contra a patterned set of arrangements which influence or limit available choices and opportunities) has been ongoing since 1903 when the German non-positivist sociologist Georg Simmel published his seminal essay, ‘The Metropolis and Mental Life’. The younger Achebe had in fact in No Longer At Ease (1960), through the character Obi Okonkwo, identified the trouble with Nigeria as being systemic.

In that novel, Obi Okonkwo was such an independently minded character that when his community sent him to England to study law – at a time the voice of the elders approximated the voices of the gods – he disobeyed them, followed his heart and read English. Obi Okonkwo also had the courage to stand alone on several fronts, to the disappointment of his community: He married an ‘osu’- which was an abomination among his people, he refused to use his position in the civil service to favour ‘his people’ in employment and he hated to his marrows the deeply entrenched corruption in public life.

However, despite Obi Okonkwo’s moral Puritanism, he was forced by certain societal pressures to take his own bribe and was caught. In this work therefore Achebe demonstrated that the problem with Nigeria, at least in terms of corruption, was systemic and not that of moral lapse or leadership.

The type of contradiction between what Achebe saw as the ‘trouble with Nigeria’ in No Longer At Ease (1960) and in his booklet of the same title is not uncommon among great thinkers and writers. Karl Marx, generally regarded as one of the greatest political, social and economic thinkers of all time, grappled with such contradictions in his works. For instance in his ‘materialist conception of history’, Marx gave the impression that socialism would succeed capitalism independent of men’s will because capitalism, following the ‘immutable law of history’, would sow the seeds of its own destruction. By the time Marx and Engels published the Communist Manifesto in 1848, Marx had shifted his position and had come to believe that the socialist era would only come about through proletarian revolution.

In the structure-agency debate (on which of the two is the key propellant of history), it could be argued that while the younger Marx, just like the younger Achebe favoured ‘structure’, the older Marx, just like the older Achebe, favoured ‘agency’.

Several of Professor Bello-Kano’s critical comments on Achebe’s last work, There was a Country: A Personal History of Biafra, are legitimate. Certainly the book has flaws – on interpretation, generalizations and even proofreading. However one senses a desire by Professor Bello-Kano to hide behind academic aesthetics to soldier for the North. For instance I find his efforts to smell out any hint of the inferiorization of the North in Anthills of Savannah, quite stretched. The impression one gets is that the whole contrarian piece was inspired and animated by this desire to soldier for ‘his people’. Given the brilliance that shone in the Professor’s piece, this is most disappointing as it is an appropriation of the day-job of ‘area boys’, internet warriors, ethnic-watchers, one-dimensional journalists and such ethnic/regional contraptions as the Arewa Consultative Forum, the Ohaneze, the OPC and others.

In advanced countries, Professors of Bello- Kano’s standing try to find new frameworks and theoretical constructs that will raise the level of the conversation and discourse such that bigoted ideas are marginalized. This is why in several such countries, racist organizations like the KKK or British National Party are never banned but the ideas they purvey are equally never mainstreamed because the acceptable analytical categories and frameworks ensure that they will remain marginalized.

By electing to soldier for a piece of geography using the same ethnic and regional pedestals he inveighed against as his tools of counter narratives, Professor Bello-Kano becomes guilty of the same reductionism, of seeing issues mostly in terms of the static binary of ‘we versus them’ which he accused Achebe of. The irony is that most of those who soldier for pieces of geography in every part of the country dare not go to stay for a longer period in their village, and will, in private conversations, frankly tell you that ‘my people are terrible’.

Since the ‘withering away’ of the Nigerian left, there has been a yawning dearth of efforts to develop an alternative vision of society and new analytical constructs away from this essentialist constructions of ethnicity and religion. And when public intellectuals, who ought to know, join the rat race of ethnic and regional finger-pointing, it becomes unfortunate.

Achebe’s last book is flawed but it has already done a great service to the country. War propaganda on both sides of the conflict meant that each side has its own story, including of heroes and villains. Achebe’s book by generating counter narratives, has forced many of us to revise what we thought we knew about the war, which was led mostly by young radicals and rascals in their 20s and early 30s.

In a passionate and unassailable newspaper article against amnesty for Boko Haram, Femi Fani-Koyode wrote, “No one should ever sing the amnesty song again…What do …we tell the families of those slaughtered by Boko Haram? How do we wipe away their tears and ensure that they are given the justice that they desperately seek.”

I am in total agreement with his submission that justice must be done and the tears of the bereaved wiped away (at least, as is humanly possible). An amnesty program for Boko Haram will neither provide justice nor wipe away tears. Actually, it will reward terrorism. Essentially, it will be tantamount to a triumph of terrorism. If the earlier amnesty for Niger Delta militants provides an instructive precedence, amnesty for Boko Haram will entail buying off terrorists at a colossal cost, millions, and possibly, billions of naira.
So, instead of being consigned to jail serving life sentences or awaiting execution, terrorists will be luxuriating on salaries and splurging on different government grants and attending schools and vocational centers at government expense. To coordinate the distribution of these billions of naira, a new ministry will be established. Who knows what the new ministry will be called – Ministry of Boko Haram?

The Nigerian government cannot effectively fight Boko Haram because it is, in itself, is a terrorist group. It should be recognized that a terrorist is not only a gun slinging, bomb strapping murderous rebel on a stealth mission to bomb, kill and maim but anyone or group of people who by their actions cause terror: death, bereavement, intense fright, dread, emotional tumult and social unsettlement.

Apart from the terrorist acts (brutality, murder of the innocent and extra-judicial killings) of the Nigerian police and other government agents, the embezzlement of a significant portion of the national wealth by the ruling elite feeds on the terror (avoidable death, injury, grief and the distraught) of so many Nigerians. So, the Nigerian government, like the Boko Haram (but indirectly) kill Nigerians and relegate many families to sorrow, grief and hopelessness.

The channeling of public funds into personal accounts by the power elite depletes the resources that would have been used to enhance the quality of life for the people. No surprisingly, Nigeria is the only oil rich country that ranks with the poorest and war ravaged countries of the world in terms of life expectancy, child mortality, pregnancy-related deaths and incidence of poverty. A recent study by the Economist Intelligence Unit that used probable welfare of children and the chance for a safe, comfortable, prosperous life as criteria, ranked Nigeria the worst place in the world for a baby to born in 2013

The national health system is in a dreadful state. As such, pregnant women and infants die in droves in Nigerian hospitals. Nigeria has one of the highest pregnancy-related deaths and infant mortality in the world. With 2% of the world’s population, it accounts for 11% of the world’s maternal mortality and 12% of the world’s under-five mortality. The environment is squalid and festering, housing is shoddy and overcrowded and neighborhoods lack clean, drinkable water (just about half the population has access to clean drinking water). Therefore many suffer and die from variegated preventable and treatable overcrowding-induced and dirt and water borne diseases.

Annually, tens of thousands of people are killed and maimed in road accidents. Many of these accidents are attributable to decrepit and dangerous roads and public infrastructure. The roads remain dangerous mostly because the funds budgeted for their repairs and upgrade were stolen the elected and appointed government officials.
An exhaustive enumeration of the deadly consequences of the looting of the treasury by the Nigerian ruling elite is beyond the scope of this article. The point, however, is that the government is terrorist group. By its corruption and theft of public funds, it, obliquely, terrorizes Nigerians

Where is justice for the families of those killed by of lawless and trigger-happy security agents and the government’s indirect terrorist acts? Who is wiping away their tears? Justice is most elusive in Nigeria. Irrespective of the perpetrator of acts of terrorism, the Boko Haram or the government, justice continues to elude the victims and their families.

The dilemma of the Goodluck Jonathan government is how can the government, a purveyor of terror and social injustice extract justice from the Boko Haram, another purveyor of terror and injustice. It cannot. So, it will inescapably pacify Boko Haram with amnesty. Yet, the pacification of Boko Haram will not ensure peace in the country for long because the restive impatience of Nigerians with the status quo will breed new militant/terrorist groups. The antidote to militancy and terrorism is in a principled and more equitable distribution of the national wealth. There can be no social peace without economic justice.

Tochukwu Ezukanma writes from Lagos, Nigeria.
maciln18@yahoo.com
0803 529 2908

Incidence of homosexuality in animals is no basis for its expression in man. Unlike other members of the animal kingdom which are mainly creatures of instinct, Homo sapiens (man with intelligence) has an intellectual and a spiritual side to him. Man as an intellectual and spiritual being is expected to demonstrate a sense of good judgement beyond instinctive behaviour. Homosexuality is a primordial instinct of animality (the animal side of man as opposed to the intellectual and spiritual) which must be subjected to the higher principles of commonsense and conscience.

Only heterosexual union offers the promise of continued preservation of the human species with healthy societies. Same sex unions are simply a means to satisfy warped passions and shameful lusts; they have no potential for positive contribution to society. Regardless of high divorce rate and other challenges associated with conventional (heterosexual) marriage, it remains the most fundamental institution in every society. Downplaying conventional marriage because of the attendant challenges is like discarding computers because of the prevalence of malware.

Concerning the state’s position on the LGBT saga, we must realise that LGBT tendencies have little or nothing to do with the law; and much more to do with discordant personal beliefs and warped value system. Consequently, what we must emphasise is value re-orientation, not legislation. Legislation may work in the short term, but it is sure to fail in the long term. The key to sustainable transformation is re-orientation and right education.

For those who think we must tolerate homosexuality on the basis of “individual liberty”, we must recognise that marriage entails much more than emotional satisfaction. Marriage is not a sexual pleasure centre; it’s a social unit without which the human society cannot exist. Like any other relationship, marriage exists ultimately for the common good of the society, not for selfish gratification of the persons involved. Can we honestly say that homosexual unions have any potential to foster the common good of the society? Isn’t it interesting to note that proponents of same sex union are themselves products of heterosexual union?

Whilst there are tonnes of facts, figures and research findings that clearly elucidate the peril of homosexual relations, it may not be practicable to present them in a 600-word article such as this; it’ll take a treatise or a public debate to do that. I’ll probably do a dissertation on this in the process of time. Until then, I’ll content myself with engaging my audience via tweets, Facebook posts and brief articles. Like I said in my previous piece, LGBT movements have an agenda to topple the very foundations of our society; and they are committed to it. Straight people must be bold enough to pursue an opposing agenda with greater commitment.

Philip Amiola is a teacher, writer and campaigner of empowerment. He writes from Lagos, Nigeria and tweets from @PhilipAmiola.

Not too long ago, I was shown the topics being treated under the subject called “Sexuality Education” or “Sex Eduation” which tender kids in both junior and secondary schools in Nigeria are now being forced to learn. Mere kids, some as young as ten or even nine, are put in the hands of teachers, who deployevery energy, talent and creativity to saturate their tender minds with every detail about sexual immorality and the use of contraceptives.

When I first raised alarm on this issue in my weekly column not too long ago, a concerned parent wrote me to say that the ‘Teacher’s Guide’ given to the Integrated Science teachers (who handle this subject) mandates them “to teach the children that religious teachings on issues like pre-marital sex, contraception, homosexuality, abortion and gender relations are mere opinions and myths! They are also to teach the students how to masturbate and use chemical contraceptives (designed for women in their 30s). The ‘Teachers Guide’ equally lays a big emphasis on values clarification; this empowers teenage children to decide which moral values to choose since the ones parents teach them at home are mere options.”

It is difficult to imagine that anyone outside a mental home could have the mind to design such a subject even for the children of his worst enemy! In my view, this clearly qualifies as child abuse, which, sadly, has been endorsed by the authorities. I have reasons to suspect that what some of the teachers would be giving out would be targeted more at titillating their tender victims than educating them! I can imagine how easy it would now become for a teacher who has been targeting a female student to use his creative elaboration of this subject, to get the girl so overwhelmed she would become easy meat.

I am told that there are two main reasons for the introduction of this subject in our schools. One is to empower school children with adequate knowledge about their bodies and how to “safely” indulge in pre-marital sex without falling victims to teenage pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases, especially HIV/AIDS. The second reason is to demystify fornication, give it a positive image, as something to be cherished and enjoyed without any fear, as long as it is done “safely” and consensually. The belief is that with the age-long “superstition” built around sexual immorality which ‘stigmatizes’ it as an evil and sinful activity, some kids tend to go into it with fear and dread, and so develop psychological problems arising from the guilt they feel afterwards.

But these reasons are simply hollow and unconvincing. They are built on the assumption that in the present age, it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, for unmarried people to abstain from pre-marital sex. Instead of emboldening kids to behave like dogs, why not teach them to value their bodies and maintain their self-esteem by abstaining from immorality as our own parents had taught us? The difference between human beings and animals is the ability to reason and determine the consequences of actions, and then exercise discretion and self-control. Why not tell a kid the consequences of an action and use that to dissuade him from indulging in it?

Looking at the earnestness with which this policy is being pursued despite oppositions to it, one is forced to suspect that there may also be a commercial angle to it. Are we sure that substantial profit is not accruing to the initiators of this programme and their collaborators in government from the sales of the several books being written and printed on the subject? Support may equally be coming from the manufacturers of contraceptives who certainly see in this a lucrative venture to promote and sustain.

Now, how far has this subject helped in reducing teenage pregnancies and STDs in the Western nations where it has been taught, assimilated and practiced for many years now? It is a fact that these teachings have, for instance, been introduced in both the United States and Britain for many years now, but as I write now, I have before me, a BBC report saying that Britain has the highest record of teenage pregnancy in the whole of Western Europe. Also, another report has it that the United States has the highest number of teenage pregnancies in the entire Western world. Again, in the United States, it is reported that new infections of HIV are still on the increase.

That naturally leads us to the contentious issue of “safe sex.” So, what is all this fetish about “safe sex” and how “safe” can sex actually be? The truth is that a lot of studies and findings have effectively punctured the dubious confidence built over the years on condom-use. We know that with an effective magnifying lens, it is easy to see that several objects, especially rubber and plastics, have tiny holes through which very minute micro organisms could pass. I read somewhere recently that “HIV virus is only 0.1 micron in size while the naturally occurring holes in a latex condom is of the order 5 to 50 microns in diameter.” So where then is the “protection” we have heard so much about if the deadly virus can indeed pass through the wall of a condom? Is this not why we have often heard reports of people contracting HIV even though they had practiced the so-called “protected sex”? This is the time to rethink all this stuff behind which some fellows have hidden to pollute the minds of kids with ruinous teachings.

Fortunately, we have one precaution that does not fail. And that is the good old abstinence, which has been proven and tested to be the only reliable protection against deadly STDs and teenage pregnancies? We must hasten to realize that what is at stake here is human life, and should not be toyed with, for whatever reasons. It is becoming increasingly difficult to understand this desperation to create an immoral and ungodly society by misleading the youths? Now, if not for reasons that are less than noble and wholesome, why would Nigeria be eager to import a policy that is failing even in more advanced nations?

Okay, here is another point to ponder: HIV is 500 times smaller than spermatozoa, yet research has established that spermatozoa are able to sometimes pass through the wall of a latex condom to cause conception. Now, if this is the case, are we not by this subject leading our youths through the minefield? The example cited earlier of the worrisome rise in fresh infections of HIV in a place like the US where years of successful sex-education has achieved overwhelming attitudinal change in favour of condom-use should serve to buttress this point.

Now, with this policy in place and flourishing, where is this nation really heading to? What is the use living, if one must live like a dog?

I would, therefore, want to advise the school boy or girl reading this piece to please pause awhile and ask himself or herself what the initiators of this policy hope to achieve in his of her life by giving him or her these teachings? Such a youth should wonder how they still expect him to concentrate on his studies after they have saturated his mind with filthy teachings that only fill his mind with distractive lusts. Now, if his instructors (who are mostly parents) are encouraging him to freely indulge in sexual immorality at this early stage of his life, what type of future leader do they expect him to become? After “empowering” him to go on the rampage, wouldn’t they have succeeded in giving him a disease deadlier than even the AIDS they are presuming to save him from – which is the destruction of his moral fibre? What is the guarantee that he would be able to build a healthy family afterwards, by shunning the promiscuity that this subject is surely preparing him for, and which, as we all know, results in the proliferation of broken homes which has become the nightmare of the Western world?

It is instructive that The Guardian on Sunday, July 18, 1999, carried a report that a cross section of American college (mostly female) students are regretting the limitless freedom their parents had allowed them and have resolved to devote themselves to pursue a “no-sex” campaign. But in Nigeria in 2013, sexual immorality has been deregulated and democratized.

Right now, there appears to be some serious regret soaking the consciousness of many in the Western world, because of the moral wreck many children have become. But they are now helpless, because, it seems to have become too late, and things have gone out of hand. They now wish they never gave a perverted interpretation to freedom at some point in their history.

But poor Nigerians, we are always distinguished by our peculiar eagerness to always gobble up everything Western, no matter how rotten or destructive. Go to the people in Nollywood, and ask them why they are going so wild and immoral and the answer you will get is: That is how they do it in Hollywood. See what I mean?

But concerned Nigerian parents cannot afford to be intimidated and just watch helplessly as some fellows whose intentions are less than noble go all out to ruin their kids for them. And so, they should be able to ask: To what extent should the government interfere in people’s lives and families? Where does the government derive the authority to invade somebody’s home with ungodly teachings and inflict them on the person’s kids, just because he gave his kid to the government to educate in their schools? Shouldn’t an open and clear expression of disaffection towards this gross violation by stakeholders lead to its reappraisal and possible removal from the school curriculum?

Again, and very importantly too; most people have strongly accepted and hold very dear to their hearts the teachings they have received from the religious faith of their choice (which we as civilized people must respect) that sexual immorality which is a grievous sin against God attracts eternal damnation; and they are eager to ensure that both themselves and their kids escape this terrible doom; how then can we accommodate and respect this their belief (which is sacred to them) in this current effort to teach and encourage their children to freely indulge in fornication? Should we just dismiss and callously tear down a belief they hold so sacred and dear, and with which they have determined to successfully raise their children to become morally healthy kids? As if it does not matter?

It is time to rethink this policy and remove it from the school curriculum since it denies a large a number of people the option of choice. Many parents are not even aware that such a teaching is being generously forced down the throats of their precious children, thereby destroying all they have taught them at home.
Certainly, there are centres where some NGOs have established to propagate these pro-pre-marital sex teachings. Interested parents can take their children to those centres, while the objecting parents are spared the trauma of watching their kids being subjected to a menu they firmly believe is terribly unhealthy and ruinous. Their right to dissent must be respected.

—————————————-

Ugochukwu Ejinkeonye
www.ugowrite.blogspot.com
scruples2006@yahoo.com;

For starters, that role has just been filled again via the recent re-election of Pastor Oritsejafor. We join others in sending him our congratulations. According to reports, Pastor Oritsejafor was overwhelmingly supported by his fellow men and women of God that formed the corpus of voting delegates, and he landed a whooping 80 votes, while his only opponent, Rev. Oyekunle, had only four votes. One hopes that the CAN electoral committee will be kind enough to publish the full list of all those delegates that voted during the election.

In 2010, the founder and Senior Pastor of Word of Life Bible Church, Warri, Delta State, was elected with 66 votes. So this is not just a re-election, it is a tangible proof that even more Nigerian church leaders than before endorsed the direction and activities of CAN under the leadership of Pastor Oritsejafor. Luckily, our own CAN is more democratic and more progressive than the Vatican, so we should be able to read a report on the spiritual, theological, moral and political factors that led those 80 men and women of God to reconfirm Pastor Oritsejafor leadership. They have all seen him perform in the last three years, so they clearly know what they voted for.

Even if the role had not just been filled, I doubt a man like Tutu has the kind of fatherly conciliatory government loving temperament our men and women wallow in. He has a lot to learn from Nigerian pastors, rather than merely praying for our leaders and sending messages that it is well with us as individuals, and hoping that somehow it will be well with us as a nation. Tutu actually believes in analysing and judging political parties and politicians by their utterances and performance in office. Without anyone forcing him to take a stand, and rather than just enjoying the privileges of being a friend of those that matter around the world, this old man called Desmond Tutu, for altruistic reasons, took pen and paper to write that he will not be voting ANC in the next elections.

It must be said at this point that very few people have supported the South African ruling party as much as the now Emeritus Archbishop of Cape Town. Yet, based on pure analysis of reality and his empathy with and concern for the suffering masses, Desmond Tutu has had to conclude that the ANC is at best a good freedom-fighting unit, but now incapable of leading a political transition capable of delivering development to South Africa. As a man that knows his country well and possesses a sense of history, Tutu has felt the need to warn his fellow citizens of the need to stop voting with their hearts and to start choosing a government based parties’ policies rather than emotional attachment to the liberation movement. His main areas of concern are the country’s growing inequality, the developing culture of corruption, unaccountability and weakness in the country’s constitution.

So similar are these issues that you might think you were reading about the problems facing Nigeria. It will, however, become clear that you are not reading about Nigeria, when you realise how incomplete the list of problem is. There is no mention of lack of basic infrastructure and essential services, such as education, health, security and electoral malpractices.

Little surprise though, Desmond Tutu is not new to such positions. He after all made his mark internationally not for owing a jet or performing miracles, but through his knowledge of theology, standing up for the oppressed and speaking the truth to power. Listen to him when in 1975 he became the Anglican Dean of Johannesburg: “I realise that I had been given a platform that was not readily available to many… Well, I’m going to use this to seek to try to articulate our aspirations and the anguishes of our people”.

Little surprise indeed, long after Tutu showed the world how the church can help people against tyranny and bad governance, Nigerians had to deal with brutal military regimes and corruption, and we are yet to discover the positions of many of our most prominent men and their women of God against those that oppress and abuse power.

Thatcher was Britain’s first woman premier, a right-wing colossus and key figure in the Cold War. She led Britain from 1979 to 1990. Since her exit from power, the “Iron Lady” had been experiencing varying health which included dementia that caused her to make a rare appearance in public in recent years.

She was last in hospital in December for a minor operation to remove a growth from her bladder. The former Conservative Party leader remains the only female premier in British history and was the 20th century’s longest continuous occupant of Downing Street.

Shocked by the news of her death, several world leaders sent in tributes. Elisabeth, the Queen of England, put her condolence across in the following words:

“The queen was sad to hear the news of the death of Baroness Thatcher. Her majesty will be sending a private message of sympathy to the family”

British Prime Minister, David Cameron said: “It was with great sadness that I learned of the death of Lady Thatcher. We have lost a great leader, a great Prime Minister and a great Briton.” United States of America President, Barak Obama, condoled the government and people of Britain and described Thatcher as a great friend of US.

Michael Howard, the leader of late Thatcher’s Conservative Party between 2003 and 2005 also said in his condolence message: “It is terribly sad news. She was a titan in British politics. I believe she saved the country, she transformed our economy and I believe she will go in history as one of our very greatest prime ministers”.

President Goodluck Jonathan also joined world leaders in mourning the death of the former prime minister. In his condolence message, Jonathan described Thatcher as one of the greatest world leaders of our time.

“Having already attained a legendary status in her lifetime after positively transforming Britain in her eleven and half years as prime minister, Baroness Thatcher will, with her passage today, formerly take her place in history as one of the greatest world leaders of our time”, said the Nigerian leader.

Right- Wingers, particularly her Conservative Party members, hailed her as pulling Britain out of the economic doldrums. However, the left wing disagreed and accused her of dismantling traditional industry, claiming her reforms aided in unpicking the fabric of society.

Much as the opinions of both the Right and Left wings on the late prime minister’s administration may count for something, one thing is clear and that is that Thatcher built a closer tie and “special relationship” with late US President Ronald Reagan which helped to bring the curtain down on Soviet Communism.

Her enduring legacy can be summed up as “Thatcherism” which represents a set of policies that her supporters claim promoted personal freedom and broken down class divisions that had characterised Britain for centuries. She was also known for her tough policies which pitched her government into a string of tough battles.

One of such policies was her stand on Falkland Islands. When Argentina invaded this remote British territory in 1982, Thatcher dispatched troops and ships and secured victory in two months.

The late Baroness showed early signs of strong inclination towards partisan politics in her student days. She will especially be remembered for her first recorded political speech while she was a student of Oxford University in June 1945.

“…. I speak as a very young Tory and we are entitled to speak, for it is the people of my generation who will bear the brunt of the change from the trials of the past into calmer channels.”

One thing that characterised the late Baroness was her tough stand on issues which eventually earned her the sobriquet, “Iron Lady” by a Russian journalist. She was very controversial. Indeed controversy was but a stimulus for her to stick evermore strongly to her moral and political convictions. This is not strange because she was born into an old tradition. She came from a family that was embedded in the old traditions and heritage that once made Britain truly great.

Her moral stance, her personal habits of thrift and hard work all stemmed from a sound schooling by her father in the basic conservative approach to issues.

It is interesting to note that Britain’s initial launching into its period of greatness, its consummation as the greatest empire in history, and its latter-day revival from economic doldrums to a tour de force were all accomplished under the influence of late Margaret Thatcher among other women.

Queen Victoria reigned over the British empire throughout its period of greatness, giving the crown the stability it attained. However, in the later half of the 20th century, the rise of Thatcher in the political ranks of the Conservatives in Britain primed her for her role as a three-term Prime Minister.

Between the time of her election in 1979 and her forced resignation from the office of Prime Minister in 1990, Mrs Thatcher’s economic policies transformed the British economy from its 1970s state of listless drifting to one of the strongest of global economies.

NATO’s Secretary- General, Anders Fog Rasmussen, summed up Mrs Thatcher’s leadership of Britain in the following terms:

“Baroness Thatcher was an extraordinary politician who was a staunch defender of freedom, a powerful advocate of NATO and the transatlantic bond. She strongly supported NATO values and principles, believed in a strong defence and played a leading role in ending the Cold War. Throughout her tenure as Britain Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher stood on principle and showed great courage, vision and leadership.”

Thatcher was born Margaret Hilda Roberts on October 13, 1925 in Grantham eastern England. She was the daughter of a grocer. After her secondary education and a degree in chemistry at Oxford University, she married businessman Denis in 1951 and two years later had twins, Carol and Mark.

She was first elected to the House of Commons in 1959 and succeeded former Prime Minister Edward Health, as opposition Conservative leader in 1975 before becoming premier four years later.

The “Iron Lady,” had been adjudged the best leader Britain has ever produced after Winston Churchill. Now she is dead. With her dies the final slice of real, courageous British political leadership. But the questions many ask are, will her exit mark the end of the quality of Britishness? Has she died with the age of true leadership in Britain? Time will tell.

There is no disputing the fact that the paths leading to the appointment or re-appointment of a Vice Chancellor in most Nigerian universities today is highly contentious and not without its ups and downs. The Rivers State University of Science and Technology (RSUST), Port Harcourt is an obvious example of a university enmeshed in crisis over the re-appointment of Prof. Barineme Fakae as the Vice Chancellor of the institution. Many others abound which not only portends danger for the academic sustainability of our universities but also affects innocent students who are made to bear the brunt of the face-off between government on the one hand and the academic unions on the other. It is therefore, the reason our academic institutions must be devoid of political interference, else the crisis of academic scholarship and dwindling fortunes of Nigerian university education may be a major issue we may not be able to contend with for years to come.

Be that as it may, the appointment of a new V.C for Osun State University (UNIOSUN) has been a long one. Since the tenure of its pioneer V.C came to an end last year and the appointment of a new one due by August 1, 2012, the situation has been one of anxiety and hope that the university will be put on the right track by the Visitor, Ogbeni Rauf Aregbesola. In fact, the absence for long of a new Governing Council coupled with its late inauguration late last year by the Osun State Government raised a lot of pertinent questions as to what direction UNIOSUN was taking. One of such was how quickly the appointment of a new V.C who will steer the wheel of the 5 year old university will come.

The Governing Council led by Professor Gabriel Olawoyin (SAN) was saddled with the responsibility of performing the selection process and shortlisting of candidates for the much coveted V.C seat. The process was, however, not without controversy as series of issues by stakeholders within and without the university were raised, most especially on the processes that led to the shortlisting of seven candidates who applied for the V.C seat. Some of the candidates who were not shortlisted were believed to have accused the Governing Council of unfairness and non-compliance with due process. They hinged their accusations on the premise that there had been subtle attempts to manipulate Osun State University Law 2006 to favour some vested interests within and without the university. They noted that the UNIOSUN Law 2006 was clear on issues pertaining to the selection and final appointment of the V.C which they argued ought to be upheld and respected by Council for the sake of justice, fairness and sustainability of the new university.

Despite the intricacies and intrigues surrounding the selection process, the Professor Gabriel Olawoyin-led Governing Council eventually shortlisted three candidates. Prof. Oladiran Famurewa – a Prof. of Microbiology, Prof. Bashir Adekunle Okesina – a Prof. of Chemical Pathology and Prof. Funmi Togonu-Bickersteth made the list. Having presented the names to the Visitor of the University, Governor Rauf Aregbesola approved the appointment of Prof. Bashir Adekunle Okesina as the second Vice- Chancellor of Osun State University, Osogbo.

Prof. Okesina, a Chemical Pathologist, was born on October 11, 1954. He graduated with Bachelor of Medicine and Bachelor of Surgery (MBBS) in 1980 from the University of Lagos in 1980. He became a Fellow of Postgraduate Medical College of Nigeria in 1988 and Fellow of West African College of Physicians in 1989. He did clinical attachment at the Institute of Neurology Queen Square, London and East Surrey Hospital between 1987 and 1988. From 1991 to 1993, he was a Commonwealth Medical Research Fellow in Clinical Endocrinology at Hammersmith Hospital and Royal Postgraduate Medical College in London. He was appointed Lecturer I at the University of Ilorin in 1989, Reader in 1994 and Professor of Chemical Pathology in 2000. He was appointed Consultant, Chemical Pathology to the University of Ilorin Teaching Hospital in 1989. Prof. Okesina became Head of Department in 2000-2004 and Dean, Faculty of Basic Medical Science, College of Medicine, University of Ilorin from 2004 – 2007. In 2007, he was appointed foundation Deputy Vice-Chancellor of Osun State University from 2007 to 2011. Prof. Okesina has many scholastic publications in local and international Medical Journals. He received International Federation of Clinical Chemistry International Bursary Award 1996; Commonwealth Medical Fellowship Award 1991; National Honours Award (Post NYSC) 1982; Oyo State Merit Award scholarship for University Education 1976 and Odo-Otin Local Government Scholarship for Secondary Education in 1968. He has supervised several Fellowship Dissertations and has over seventy publications.
Prof. Okesina is coming with a huge wealth of experience having served as a pioneer V.C of UNIOSUN and seen it all since 2007 when the university began its academic session.

The Professor Gabriel Olawoyin-led Governing Council with this appointment has won a major coup by the way it went all out in ensuring that persons who are very knowledgeable about the culture of the university, its organisation, administration and aspirations expressly hold the role of the V.C. For those who may not be in the know, since the tenure of the Pioneer Council of the university led by Professor Peter Okebukola ended few years back, the university has not been the same again. The vision of the founding fathers to make the university world class is fast dwindling because those who matter in the continuity of this dream have been displaced and replaced with individuals who do not share the same dreams as its original founders.

The appointment of Prof. Okesina is no doubt a good choice and it is hoped that he will take the university towards greatness. His leadership skills, administrative acumen and his ever listening ears is needed at this critical period in the history of the university in making it once again a world class institution it prides itself as. UNIOSUN has come to stay and is fast becoming a major player among comity of vibrant and academically viable universities in Nigeria. On behalf of all the students, staff and alumni of the university, we congratulate Prof. Okesina on his well-deserved appointment. We also use this opportunity to wish him a wonderful tenure in office.

RAHEEM OLUWAFUNMINIYI is a social commentator and political affairs analyst who wrote the Professor Gabriel Olawoyin-led Governing Council via creativitysells@gmail.com

During the week”…Former President Olusegun Obasanjo called on the Federal Government to develop the agricultural sector of the Nigerian economy in order to create job opportunities for the youth.

Delivering a lecture entitled ‘Managing agriculture as a business to unlock Nigeria’s agricultural potential’ at the Agricultural and Rural Management Training Institute (ARMTI), Ilorin Mr. Obasanjo said going by the number of graduates produced in Nigeria annually, the government must develop new ways of job creation…”

He summed it up saying “Nigeria was sitting on keg of gun powder”. The fact is that whether we like it or not even the devil tells irrefutable truth, the motive is the only thing that can be questioned.

There is a growing ‘unemployment haram’, it is not just about unlocking the agricultural sector, it is about virtually all socio-economic and ethno-political sphere of the nation in terms of youthful productivity.

I hardly take to heart when past leaders talk about matters they had opportunities to have addressed yet failed to solve. The  tip of the iceberg however is that if we look at  this, we know it is worse……the National Population Commission (NPC) has said the country’s population has risen from the 140,431,790, to 167,912,561 as at October 2011.This represents an annual population growth rate of 5.6 million people.

The Ministry of Youth Development, added that there are 68 million unemployed youths in Nigeria, that’s like some 43% youth population.

And with approximately 300,000 graduates enrolled in the NYSC scheme, excluding the number of graduates that do not make it for various reasons, the real haram is simply building up.

Today we are engrossed in the amnesty for Boko Haram, when the truth remains that a larger Haram is staring at us in the face, and I honestly hope we will be able to provide amnesty.

I need not remind us of the rise in the rate of criminality, vices and bestial acts. However the worrying part is, that 7 out of 10 apprehended criminals ‘have seemingly’ legitimate reasons for their crimes of theft, robbery and kidnap and are graduates of one form or the other.

Our system is not working from South-North, Onitsha-Kano, Kaduna-Abeokuta, it is full of fallacy, and new universities are not in any way the solution, as the established ones keep dropping in standard.

Questions have been asked regarding the curriculum of our schools in relation to job preparedness and entrepreneurial skills teaching. While most schools are now teaching courses in peace studies, conflict negotiation and terrorism, very few are preparing employable products.

After an average of six years for a four year programme of study, a young grad can barely do a resume/curriculum vitae, he simply copies a template. If given a take-off grant she barely knows what to do beyond a Blackberry Smartphone and Brazilian hair.

Permit me to ask, where do you live, have you noticed the flock of young people around–they are defined by the phrase “I am waiting for admission, I am waiting for NYSC, I am hoping I get the job”. They are increasing, from ages 18-35; some still with their parents, no hope, no hopeless, best describes the situation, idle hands waiting the devil’s instruction, with the proliferation of Small Arms; there is a willing population growing and the repercussions are better imagined.

The growing haram of unemployment is not just about the government providing jobs, not at all, it is about an enabling environment that facilitates private enterprise that encourages entrepreneurial spirit without a monopoly.

We have a population that can be our blessing or ultimately our undoing.  The government through its spokes-people should stop all the lies and know that there is no disappearing trick better than the availability of a dense forest to disappear into; projections to create 4 million jobs in two years, and significantly grow the economy according to Olusegu Aganga is a fat lie.

Let me end with this insightful story, a man and his friend was in a city, walking through the street. It was during the noon lunch hour and the streets were filled with people. Cars were blowing their horns, taxis were squealing around corners, sirens were wailing, and the sounds of the city were almost deafening. Suddenly, the man said to his friend, “I hear a cricket.”

His friend said, “What? You must be crazy. You couldn’t possibly hear a cricket in all of this noise!” “No, I’m sure of it,” the man said, “I heard a cricket.”

“That’s crazy,” said the friend.

The man listened carefully for a moment, and then walked across the street to a big cement planter where some shrubs were growing. He looked into the bushes, beneath the branches, and sure enough, he located a small cricket. His friend was utterly amazed. “That’s incredible,” said his friend. “You must have super-human ears!”

“No,” said the man. “My ears are no different from yours. It all depends on what you’re listening for.”

“But that can’t be!” said the friend. “I could never hear a cricket in this noise.”

“Yes, it’s true,” came the reply. “It depends on what is really important to you. Here, let me show you.”

He reached into his pocket, pulled out a few coins, and discreetly dropped them on the sidewalk. And then, with the noise of the crowded street still blaring in their ears, they noticed every head within twenty meters turn and look to see if the money that tinkled on the pavement was theirs.

“See what I mean?” asked the man.

“It all depends on what’s important to you.”

As a people for now we are a nation, till otherwise, let us focus our attention and minds on the more important aspects of life, it is not about the likes of ‘liebaran’ Maku, who heard that a total of 195,534 jobs were generated in 2012 by the Federal Government of Nigeria via several contracts awarded by the Federal Executive Council (FEC) or Northern thieving governors, Southern mugu parks, and a vast number of dishonoured legislators that only hear their greed.

Sometimes we hear but do not listen; the haram is closing in on us, the axiom I started with simply implies that practical and realistic moves are more reliable than mysterious expectations. We still can, if we want to, but only time will tell.

Prince Charles Dickson

Editor,  burningpot.com

Nigeria’s 1st Online Newspaper

Yours In High Regards

234-08033311301, 08057152301

Visit http://burningpot.com

http://amebosayso.wordpress.com/

http://www.gamji.com/dickson/dickson.htm

http://burningpot.wordpress.com/

What Exactly Is The Problem With Nigeria? We… Let’s Work At Solving It

Jos, Nigeria / April 23, 2013 -

Given such reality, a question arises: Should we just accept things the way they are and try to adapt? Some people say yes because they truly feel overwhelmed by a sense of helplessness and all they can do is hope for a miracle to change the system. Some people say yes because they are cunningly and ferociously waiting for their own turn to do the same (like senior boys do to junior ones in school) or to have some one from or friendly to their ethnic or political tribe in power to manoeuvre things in their favour. I say no. That will turn us into a S.T.A.D Nation (So They All Do); we must resist such trajectory.

When confronted with the mess in the country, many of those in a position of authority or responsibility seem not to know where to start. With his now notorious exuberant mode of operating and lately speaking, Governor Godswill Akpabio has done us all a favour by giving a possibility and a challenge to those who really understand what democracy and commonwealth mean and care about these ideals to stand up and act in their defence.

With his self-incriminating declaration and consequent clumsy attempt to deny that he personally overturned the results of party primary senatorial elections in his State, many now have the opportunity to explore the essence of our democracy, and fix some essential far from perfect components within the system.

For anyone that missed it, and just to be clear for all, we now have Governor Godswill Akpabio on record (audio and video) saying: “I used my own hand to strike out the name of the person who has won before, and I said it is important for me to give that [Ikono and Ini Local Government Areas] region a Senator in 2007, and I produced Senator Aloysius Etuk for you; that’s where he comes from.”

Thanks to Governor Godswill Akpabio, activists, analysts, public commentators and teachers if worthy of such designations now have the opportunity and duty to explain to Nigerians the importance of primary elections and how they should be conducted in the country. Contrary to the nonsense some are saying either out or sheer ignorance or with a conscious effort to deceive many into believing that primary elections are just mere internal party rituals, the whole of process of representative democracy actually starts from and depends a lot on primary elections and caucuses. These processes are in fact the essential condition without which we cannot have the emergence of a capable and committed political class that is not involved in or compromised by corruption disguised as generosity or servilisim misconstrued as loyalty.

It is not by accident that under the electoral acts that governs political parties and with which INEC functions, the regulator’s monitoring powers over political parties allows the commission to observe primaries and as it deems fit, either to accept or reject the outcomes.

The deafening silence of INEC on this issue is to say the least unbearable. In a normal country, the organisation officially charged with regulating electoral matters should by now be investigating an election about which someone in the position of the Akwa Ibom Governor has made such statements. Governor Godswill Akpabio has done us all favour by giving a possibility and a challenge to examine the role and function of INEC in our democracy and see how fit it is for purpose.

Where do the judiciary and our security forces stand on this matter? Don’t they read the papers? Where is the press? After Governor Akpabio reported himself, we should be now have feature stories on whose name he struck off that list, how did such candidate react, and what is he doing now and intends to do?
It must be said that in making these incriminating declaration, the Governor’s intent was to demonstrate his fairness and generosity to the people of Ikono and Ini Local Government Areas by righting a wrong and putting one of their own into power.

Now let us for a moment blindly and dangerously assume that Governor Akpabio is a completely righteous and exceptionally competent politician whose actions are solely dictated by the good of his state and that he genuinely meant well, even in such scenario, what he should have done is to openly canvass for and make a case for the candidate he deems best for the post.

Elected officials ought to remember that their tenure in office is only for a limited period of time. They ought to bear in mind that after them, a self-serving scoundrel or a lucky imbecile might just come into power and consequently, it is their duty, today, to create precedents and discontinue patterns that, for any reason in the world, might allow others to abuse power.

Governor Akpabio has done us all the favour of reminding us of the need to remind them of this duty.

It is important to note that the root causes of the Boko Haram are social injustice and misgovernment. The Nigerian masses, for long, have been trampled over by the “iron feet of oppression” and deprivation. That indefatigable iconoclast, Fela Anikilakpo-Kuti, in one of his instructive songs, summed up the situation of most Nigerians, “dem go be slaves for dem land to make ends meet”. Invariably, exploitation and enslavement breed discontent.

Nigerians are disgruntled by an unconscionable economic system that panders to the inordinate wealth of an elite few at the economic strangulation of the masses. It is a horrible system that denies the masses the basic necessities in other to reinforce the luxurious and wasteful lifestyle of the elite. One percent of Nigerians control 80% of the national wealth and a disproportionate percentage of the remaining 99% waste away in gateless poverty, shackling ignorance, poor housing and homelessness, etc.
Due to corruption, arrogance of power and aggressiveness of wealth, there is no equality of all before the law. The elite rarely get punished for their theft of public funds and other multifarious crimes. As such, the law in Nigeria is not the law (in the strict sense of the word) but an oppressive mechanism for the oppression of the poor and the weak. The police, that barometer of the attitude of the governing towards the governed, are brutal, trigger-happy and extortionist and routinely detain, torture and murder the innocent.

Not surprisingly, Nigeria is brimming with discontent. Boko Haram is a vent for long suppressed, smothering discontent. A Human Right Watch researcher, Eric Guttschuss, stated that Yusuf (the assassinated leader of Boko Haram) successfully attracted followers from unemployed youth “by speaking out against police and political corruption.” According to Abdulkarim Mohammed, a researcher on Boko Haram, violent uprisings in Nigeria are ultimately due to “the fallout of frustration with corruption and the attendant social malaise of poverty and unemployment.”

Chris Kwaja, a Nigerian university lecturer and researcher, asserts that “religious dimensions of the conflict have been misconstrued as the primary driver of violence when, in fact, disenfranchisement and inequality are the root causes”.

The objectives of Boko Haram became broader, nebulous and more complicated after Goodluck Jonathan truncated Northern power by usurping the presidency that was zoned to the North. The political disenchantment of the North increased the support for Boko Haram in some parts of northern Nigeria and got many interests, with diverse programs and purposes, operating under the rubric of Boko Haram .

The election of Goodluck Jonathan as the president of Nigeria was a staggering political mistake. Already, he has proven to be the worst Nigerian president. His administration is visionless and moribund. It has failed in very aspect of governance. It cannot maintain law and order and protect the lives and property of Nigerian citizens. It is loosing the war against terrorism. Therefore, there is a desperate need for the government to negotiate with Boko Haram. Whether the outcome of the negotiation will include amnesty for members of Bokom Haram will be a question of details.

Many Nigerians are opposed to granting amnesty to members of Boko Haram. In a newspaper article, the former Nigerian Aviation Minister, Femi Fani-Kayode, in his opposition to the amnesty option, wrote, “My solution to the Boko Haram scourge is simple and clear. The President, the Federal Government and the people of Nigeria must join hands together, rise up as one and seek them, their backers and their secret sponsors out. They must be unmasked, brought to justice, systematically eliminated and sent to hell where they belong.” Those are wonderful, impressive and passionate, almost lapidary, prose.

However, it is reckless optimism, if nor malarial fantasies to believe that the federal government in concert with the people of Nigeria can utterly defeat Boko Haram and get its combatants and their supporters “unmasked, brought to justice, systematically eliminated and sent to hell where they belong”. This is because Goodluck Jonathan is not a leader. He lacks the powerful ego, moral courage and political will to lead Nigeria out of any of her myriads of problems.

Secondly, the law enforcement agencies are corrupt, ill-motivated, wrongly orientated, and consequently, inefficient. In addition, the Nigerian populace is distrustful of their governments, enervated by poverty and the cruel grind for daily survival and cowered by years of insensitive government policies. Consequently, we lack a sense of civic responsibility, the spirit of volunteerism and will for sacrifice required in a protracted fight against a terrorist movement.

On the other hand, the ranks of Boko Haram are steadily being augmented by new volunteers. Its attacks are getting more sophisticated and better coordinated. And its network of supporters and financial sponsors are expanding. The government of Goodluck Jonathan cannot contain Boko Haram. Therefore, negotiating with Boko Haram, and possibly, granting it amnesty is not doing it a favor. Essentially, that will extricate a weak, dithering presidency from an overwhelming security problem and secure the peace of the country.
.
Tochukwu Ezukanma writes from Lagos, Nigeria
maciln18@yahoo.com
0803 529 2908