Recent revelatory events reinforce the thinking that until Nigeria embraces good governance with religious zeal, or more exactly, as a religion, the country may be going nowhere. A striking pointer was last month’s startling  and puzzling appearance of Chief Femi Fani-Kayode, an ex-Aviation Minister, former partisan of the ruling Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) and lately an enthusiastic voice of the opposition in the All Progressives Congress (APC), at the Presidential Villa, Abuja, where he reportedly met with President Goodluck Jonathan behind closed doors. It provided evidence of a misperceived, questionable and regrettably retrogressive  linkage between faith and political performance. Certainly, this is not to deny that religion can be politically influential; rather, the point is that, except perhaps in an extreme theocratic context, the influence of faith on political players is usually tempered by other, or outside, factors.

Interestingly, after familiar but unconvincing bromides about the Presidential Villa being a place where every Nigerian who is welcome can always visit, Fani-Kayode spoke about “the wonderful people here”, a flattering reference that was food for thought, given his known oppositional attitude to the Jonathan administration.  What has changed about the government to prompt the praise, or perhaps to be more precise, what has changed about Fani-Kayode to inspire the new song?

“I won’t go into that,” was his curt reply to reporters who sought information about what he discussed with Jonathan; and when he was asked whether this unexpected meeting was a signal that he was about to exit APC, his answer was pregnant with meaning. He said: “The step I will take will be made known to Nigerians at the right time. The most important thing and I think you are fully aware of this is that I cannot and will not be associated with a situation whereby any group of people is promoting a religion above another.”

It would appear that there was a lot more significance about what he did not say than what he actually said. There was an unmistakable implication that all is not well with his APC-connection.  More importantly, there was also the implied point that religious differences, or differences about perspectives on religion and its political influence, may be why he is rethinking his political affairs. According to him, “I think all of us have gone past the stage of religious politics in this country. We must treat the Muslim community with utmost respect and we must treat the Christian community in the same way, and even the non-religious.”

So who is playing “religious politics” by Fani-Kayode’s definition or standard? It is noteworthy that Jonathan, well before his March visit to Pope Francis, the global head of the Roman Catholic Church, at the Vatican in Rome, which was possibly the ultimate move in a series of churchy activities, faced a barrage of criticism for his overt romance with Christian places of worship in particular and his indecent exploitation of otherwise spiritual space for the strictly secular business of politics.

More concretely, it is logical to situate Fani-Kayode’s fresh exploration of a possible renewal of old political affiliations within the conservative circle. Or could it be better described as an unprincipled pursuit of reunion with his old ideological collaborators? In this connection, it is worth mentioning that his pilgrimage to the Presidential Villa was sequel to his publicised rejection of a speculated APC Muslim/Muslim combination for the 2015 presidential election, which has also been criticised as unrealistic in certain quarters where the accepted wisdom is that a same-faith blend is unworkable and bound to fail in a multi-religious state like Nigeria. Obviously, convenient amnesia is at work here, for such union was a hit in the country’s famous   June 12, 1993, presidential election.

The critical question arising from this stance must be whether such otherwise enlightened critics should be more attentive to so-called “religious politics”, whatever the form or content, rather than the goodness of governance in form and content. Indeed, this consideration is crucial as next year’s general elections draw near. However, it should be admitted that the meat of the matter may not be as clear-cut, and Fani-Kayode’s position as an insider must come with insights that may be obscure to non-participants. Be that as it may, the religious dimension need not be overstretched, particularly to the detriment of reason, by the suggestion that the faith question, or the influence of belief, is of paramount potency in the country’s politics.

To project such unrestrained viewpoint is to insult the concept of good governance, which is neither a function of religiousness nor irreligiosity. As things stand, there is a compelling need to de-religionise the country’s political space, and to relegate religionism and religionists to irrelevance. To put it more accurately, it is time to religionise good governance, which is not to imply the end of spirituality. The idea of secular spirituality, indicative of non-religious worship of eternal virtues and values, should be appealing for its emphasis on solid social-development orientation instead of socially unhelpful misorientation based on religious thinking.

In practical terms, Nigeria’s disgraceful rating as 41st on a 52-country list called the 2013 Ibrahim Index of African Governance (IIAG), a project of the respected Mo Ibrahim Foundation, is gravely instructive. The country not only scored lower than the continental average (51.6), it also ridiculously scored lower than the regional average (52.5) for West Africa. Assessment was based on four key areas: Safety and Rule of Law, Participation and Human Rights, Sustainable Economic Opportunity and Human Development.

It goes without saying that the country desperately needs new paradigms of progressive leadership, particularly in today’s world with its galloping pace of development.  It is a huge shame that the country is still struggling with inexcusable poverty, appalling infrastructure, backward education and primitive health care arrangements, among other inadequacies that make it the butt of jokes in enlightened circles.

The exemplary leaders, focused on excellence in office, which the country desires and deserves, will not emerge as long as religious considerations reign; and it would  amount to undesirable capitulation to visionless mediocrity should  the criteria for high political office be defined in terms of religious balancing rather than an equilibrium of effectiveness.

Demonstrable commitment to good governance and capacity to deliver what the people yearn for should rank among the uppermost qualifications for the type of progressive leadership that would benefit the country at this historical juncture; and religion should belong to the lower rungs as a deciding factor.

Truth, however underdressed, will always be more magnetic than untruth, however overdressed. This truism will be put to the test in the governorship elections in Ekiti State on June 21 and Osun State on August 9. By logical extension, next year’s critical general elections will also provide an opportunity to observe whether the maxim can stand the test of time in the context of political contest across the country.

Specifically on Ekiti, last week’s press release on the chances of the candidates in the approaching poll, issued by ANAP Foundation, was food for thought particularly because its appeal to objectivity seemed to contradict objective reality. It is worth mentioning that the body described itself as a “Non-Profit Organisation that is committed to promoting Good Governance”, with the elaboration that its formal statement on the June 2014 Ekiti election is part of its “Election Series which started in 2011.”  According to the communication, “ANAP Foundation has also been collaborating with NOI Polls Limited to help publicise and institutionalise a polling culture which helps political leaders to be aware and more conscious of the yearnings of the electorate.”

In other words, the publicised result of the poll purportedly conducted in connection with the Ekiti election is possibly intended to encourage a front-runner mentality in the gubernatorial challenger and ex-governor of the state, Ayo Fayose, 53, of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP)   who held the reins of power from May 2003 to October 2006 when his four-year term was abbreviated by impeachment. ANAP claimed that 31 percent of the electorate endorsed Fayose, while 29 percent backed the incumbent governor and second-term aspirant Kayode Fayemi, 49, of the All Progressives Congress (APC).  Three percent reportedly supported Opeyemi Bamidele, 50, of the Labour Party (LP); and Kola Ajayi of Accord Party (AP) had zero. With a trivial difference of two percent supposedly separating the leading candidates, the pollster portrayed the election as a “close race.”

Significantly, the report said that 37 percent were “yet to decide.”   With just over one month to go, it is reasonable to reckon that those allegedly undecided about who to vote for are likely to decide the outcome of the election, if the survey is of unquestionable veracity. But is it? To start with, the methodology adopted by the polling group is unclear, just as the margin of error is uncertain. What is more, there are clear curiosities in the announcement; especially the fact that the female support for Fayemi was put at 24 percent against 34 percent for Fayose, which is strikingly implausible, given the state administration’s widely acclaimed feminine-gender sensitivity due largely to the activism of the governor’s wife, Bisi.

To take the matter further, it is illogical that Fayose who conceded that he had a negative and unattractive track record in office without concrete evidence of reformation would gain acceptance so effortlessly. This is the character who said in a recent interview, ostensibly focused on the electorate, “I am assuring them that the Fayose they were afraid of is a better Fayose. He is more mature and more responsive. If you say I’m a bad man, I say I’ve changed. I am appealing to them that I am a changed man.”  ANAP’s portrayal suspiciously suggests that the electorate has had a change of heart, and Fayose is now in the good books of Ekiti voting population simply on the weak strength of his mere claim that he has improved, which cannot reasonably match Fayemi’s demonstrably persuasive governmental performance.

These points will suffice to illustrate the immense possibility that the ANAP survey is an enlightening instance of hallucinatory realism; it is most likely the effect of a dream-state or fantasy rather than external reality. To put it more simply, it may well be wishful thinking, with the connotation of an agenda-setting venture without actual relevance to real life except perhaps as a lesson in politically motivated falsification. The exercise brings to mind the title of Darrell Huff’s 1954 book, How to Lie with Statistics, although this is not exactly the same thing as lying with cooked-up or doctored statistics.

However, there is an unmistakable and potentially perilous dimension to the phoney -sounding poll result; namely, that it could well be a foretaste of a predetermined electoral outcome, meaning that it might serve as a way of preparing the minds of the people for an eventuality. The fact that the report was signed by Atedo Peterside, the president and founder of ANAP Foundation, whose association with President Goodluck Jonathan is beyond conjecture makes it understandably thought-provoking. It may not be without merit to imagine that a friend of Jonathan would be a partisan of PDP and an antagonist of APC. Furthermore, apparently informed assumption about the ownership of NOI Polls reinforces the possibility of the influence of agents of the PDP-constituted central administration on the survey.

It is instructive that, by way of response, the John Kayode Fayemi (JKF) Campaign Organisation declared, through Dimeji Daniels, “We hereby urge Ekiti people to be vigilant. We wish to state categorically that NOI Polls is nothing but an acronym for Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala Polls, the real owner of the company who is Nigeria’s Minister of Finance and Coordinating Minister for the Economy.” The spokesman added, “Our people would recall that the All Progressives Congress (APC) at the national level has indeed challenged Dr. Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala to publicly deny her ownership of the company. Expectedly, she has kept mum on the matter. We again reiterate that challenge.”  According to him, “NOI Polls is nothing but a front organisation organising voodoo polls to achieve pre-determined ends for the PDP. Indeed, since these folk are the pollsters of the Jonathan administration, Nigerians can now understand why we are in this present mess as this same company organises monthly polls for the Presidency under the close supervision of its owner, Dr.Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala.” No doubt, clarification by the accused would be in order.

It is an eye-opener that the release of ANAP’s statistics coincided with news of APC’s magnetisation of two former PDP members of considerable political stature, particularly a former governor of the state, Segun Oni, whose U-turn is remarkable.  His term was shortened by Fayemi’s victory in 2010 after a three-and-a half-year legal challenge. The other person is a lawmaker in the Ekiti State House of Assembly, Mrs. Bunmi Oriniowo. Oni put the defining desideratum in a capsule, saying, “We must ask ourselves who is in a better position to give Ekiti a better future, the kind of future that we want.”  Certainly, it will be a mission impossible for spin doctors to redefine this clarity for the people.

Even in the context of constant flux and the implication that everything is perpetually evolving, the latest contribution by Lucky Igbinedion, a former governor of Edo State, to the business of image laundering, or more precisely, reputation laundering, stretches imaginative elasticity to yield point.  Ahead of his 57th birthday on May 13, he reportedly declared in an interview with journalists in Abuja, “In the darkest of days when the state was broke and could not pay salaries, I would run to these two people and they would borrow me money. They borrowed the state money.”  The lenders in question,  excuse Igbinedion’s illiterate usage, were his father and Esama of Benin Kingdom, Chief Gabriel Igbinedion, and the Chairman, Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) Board of Trustees, Chief Anthony Anenih. In case anyone needed corroboration, Igbinedion said, “Chief Anenih is around the corner here, you can go and ask him whether I borrowed money from him or not.” What about his dad? Shouldn’t he also be asked whether he actually lent money to Edo State through his son?

His claims prompt disturbing dimensions, including reflections on the riches of the named individuals, their motives, their possible gains from such deals, especially in economic terms as well as in relation to manipulative influence in the corridors of power.  It stands to reason that Igbinedion may have unwittingly provided insights into the phenomenon of “political godfatherism”, long identified as a major drawback of the country’s politics, with negatively weighty implications for socio-economic development.

From a more formal perspective, Igbinedion’s revelations, if they are to be believed, hint at illegalities, particularly on account of the implied non-official nature of the process, which is why they have the character of disclosure.  Apparently, the stated deals were known only to a closed ring of collaborators, outside the view of lawful institutional structures that should otherwise be aware of, if not endorse such course of action.

From the look of things, Igbinedion manifested not only social anxiety, but perhaps also a sense of guilt. Seven years after he left office following two four-year terms from 1999 to 2007, he seems to have suddenly awakened to the fact that his track record may need clarification, especially in the light of superlatively superior governmental performance by Adams Oshiomhole, who has governed the state from 2008 and was elected to a second term in 2012. Indeed, Igbinedion’s power years pale into insignificance, except as a model of ineptitude, when compared with Oshiomhole’s tenure, which is widely acclaimed as demonstrative of good governance and an example of competent administration. Moreover, against this background, it is possible that Igbinedion may have a guilty conscience for frittering away his time in power, which is generally perceived as an era of wastefulness and wasted opportunities. Sadly, he cannot turn back the hands of the clock, but the evidence that it may be on his conscience is, at least, something positive about him, even if inconsequential.

Igbinedion’s defensiveness mirrored a subconscious burden conveyed by his words. “For you to loot,” he declared, “there must be something. Edo State had no money to loot.” This latter-day logic is contradicted by the fact that in January 2008 he was declared wanted by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) concerning 142 counts of financial fraud. Specifically, he was alleged to have embezzled $24 million (12 million pounds) using front companies, and he gave himself up in the same month.

Furthermore, in December 2008 he was convicted by the Federal High Court, Enugu, on corruption-related charges.  He was actually fined N3.5million after pleading guilty to a one-count charge of neglecting to make a declaration of his interest in Account No. 4124013983110 in a new generation bank in his declaration of assets form.

Astoundingly, Igbinedion said, “If anything, it is the state that owes me money and not me owing them.”  If the borrowing and lending were open only to him and collaborators, as the picture he painted suggests, it is intriguing that he has an obviously misplaced sense of the state government’s financial indebtedness to him. It is unclear whether he implied that he also lent money to the state, which he did not recover before his exit, a suggestion that is perhaps intended to incorrectly portray him as having a social conscience. He should have been sincere enough, if the quality is not beyond him, to detail the inflow of funds allegedly borrowed from clandestine sources as well as the outflow of payments to the same for public information.

This character took hyperbole to new heights with his claim that somewhere along the line he got tired of the office of governor and desired to quit before the end of his tenure, which would have been unprecedented in the country’s political history and earned him a place in the pantheon of frustrated patriots, if he could be dignified by such description.  According to his tale, “Between you and I, if not for family pressure, I contemplated resigning, especially during my second tenure. I just asked myself why I was going through all these troubles.”   Igbinedion must have scant regard for public intelligence, if he actually believes that the people can be fooled by such sob story.

Then he somersaulted, uttering words that expressed absolute nonsense. “First and foremost,” he began, “you do not have the money to do some of the projects you want to do even though there was no way I would have completed the projects with the whole money in the whole world.”  Tragically, this declaration unveiled his unpreparedness for helmsmanship as well as fundamental visionlessness.  Without intending to do so, he also betrayed the fact that he ran a government of uncompleted projects, meaning that he left a legacy, if it could be so called, of inchoateness, which amounts to nothing.

He was delusional, a condition he is entitled to in his private space, but which is unacceptable in the public sphere and especially when it is about the serious business of governance.  He chose to grade himself, an exercise that is prone to selective perception at best, and total misperception at worst. In Igbinedion’s case, he couldn’t have been more off-track. His self-assessment: “In terms of performance, I am glad history is beginning to reveal itself. I performed credibly well. The perception and expectations are two different things.”   The truth is that most times dirty laundry isn’t a matter of subjectivity and there are times when washing them clean enough could be problematic. This is Igbinedion’s challenge.

If there are no complicating factors, or even despite the possibility that there could be, the campaign to have Akinwunmi Ambode succeed two-term Lagos State Governor Babatunde Fashola in 2015 may well and truly be on a successful course, which is the inescapable implication of his endorsement by Oba Rilwan Akiolu, the preeminent Lagos monarch who may be considered a reliable source of information on the thinking in the charmed circle of political kingmakers in the state. At 70, and having been on the throne as King of Lagos since 2003, Oba Akiolu could not have been speaking flippantly when he declared, “The elders of Lagos have said that Ambode will be governor.” His May 15 utterance at a book launch at the Civic Centre, Victoria Island, Lagos, undoubtedly provided food for thought in  the political sphere in particular and served as a pointer to the fact that the power struggle for the high office had begun in earnest in the All Progressives Congress (APC), even if informally.

Beyond the surface, the book presentation had the quality of a finely planned public relations stunt to sell Ambode’s governorship aspiration, if not his canonisation. Two books, Public Sector Accounting by Ambode who will be 51 next month, and his biography, The Art of Selfless Service by Marina Osoba, were the ostensible reason for the gathering of dignitaries, but Oba Akiolu left no one in doubt about the more significant purpose of the occasion. He said: “It is true that we are launching a book, but we know why we are here. Some aspirants have sent delegations to me…You will still meet in your party and take a decision on who will be governor. But in my capacity and in accordance with the wish of God and the elders around, I will make my position clear on this matter.” The king, in a fashion typical of Yoruba elders, resorted to wise sayings to drive his point home. His words:  “When you see someone that is dancing upstairs, you should know that some people are beating the drums downstairs for him.”  He elaborated, saying, “The elders have been meeting…We review things regularly…The elders have said that Ambode should be the next governor of Lagos. Other aspirants have a right to aspire too.”

It is noteworthy that Oba Akiolu was modest enough to suggest that there was a theoretical possibility that his standpoint could be contradicted by party hierarchs and decision makers, especially given the fact that the party primary would be the ultimate deciding factor. However, the reality is that he was probably being diplomatic, for he said in the same breath, “Those of you who are annoyed, you should be patient. He is a Lagosian and he will be governor.”

Evidently, not everyone shares Oba Akiolu’s conviction, and this actuality was demonstrated by the subsequent appearance of an organisation, the Lagos Development Advocacy Group (LDAG), which not only opposed Oba Akiolu’s position but also proposed a different individual for the position of governor. According to the group, “As we all have observed in recent times, pundits, commentators and even faithful party members have engaged in several analysis and debates on what should qualify any true breed Lagosian for the exalted seat of Lagos State Governor. Some of the issues that kept coming up are senatorial zoning, religious affiliation and many other sectarian and primordial considerations deliberately orchestrated in favour of some individuals eyeing the seat.”  Then it delivered a punch, saying, “After rigorous, conscientious search and consideration amongst the prospective candidates and other public officers, we found Mr. Babatunde Williams Fowler, BWF, as the most qualified in this regard and hereby make a clarion call for him to join the race for the exalted position on the platform of All Progressives Congress, APC, which he belongs to.”

It is ludicrous, to say the least, that the group tried to make a case for an apparently unprepared individual, for that is the connotation of asking Fowler to enter the ring when he has not himself  overtly indicated interest in the position. Or is this his way of declaring his aspiration, meaning that the group could be fronting for him, contrary to the argument that it is calling on him to participate in politicking?   Interestingly, from the look of things, no one is prompting Ambode, in contradistinction to Fowler; rather, he is being promoted, with the important implication that he is already in the race and, therefore, conscious of the demands of such political ambition.

It is instructive that Ambode himself reinforced his preparedness, saying, “When you work under the guidance of these two people, there is no room for failure. The letter of commendation by Fashola is my gold medal for public service.” He was, of course, referring to Asiwaju Bola Tinubu, a former governor of the state and acclaimed architect of the continuing transformation of the megacity, and the incumbent helmsman, Fashola,

Although Oba Akiolu did not elaborate on the perceived qualities that qualified Ambode for governorship in the eyes of “the elders” he referred to, available details about the aspirant’s public service record are impressive and compel attention. Significantly, he was Accountant- General of Lagos State between 2006 and 2012 when he retired voluntarily to pursue other dreams after spending 27 years in the state’s civil service, including a stint as Permanent Secretary, Ministry of Finance, and as Auditor-General for Local Government. This background is striking on account of the fact that it highlights Ambode as probably the most experienced individual in terms of familiarity with the state civil service operations to seek the position of governor since Lagos State was created in 1967.

It is notable that, in reaction to Ambode’s ascendancy, some observers have pointed out that Oba Akiolu’s support may not be the same thing as having the backing of the party supremos. However, it is understandable that the powers that be in the party have not been openly declarative, even if they might also have endorsed Ambode by deduction from the king’s declaration. It is part of the beauty of democracy to keep every aspirant’s dream alive until the axe falls on it, which is a probable reason for seeming public neutrality by the kingmakers. Even though it is a possibility, it is unlikely that they are still undecided, given Oba Akiolu’s confident prophecy, which he is perfectly entitled to. “But all things are in the hands of God Almighty”, the king concluded on a philosophical note, with the clear suggestion that left to man the issue was settled.

So much has been expressed about the limitations of the Jonathan presidency and the governing Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) in the context of so-called state capacity, especially concerning the developing April 15 kidnap drama starring the Islamist militia Boko Haram and over 200 abducted students of the Girls Senior Secondary School, Chibok, Borno State. Perhaps the ultimate codification of the perceived ineffectiveness of the administration in bringing back the girls was supplied by a former United States of America presidential hopeful, Senator John McCain, who instructively declared on Cable News Network (CNN), “We shouldn’t have waited for a practically non-existent government to give us the go-ahead before mounting a humanitarian effort to rescue those girls.”

Such disturbing qualification may be on-target, but it apparently misses the point in a significant sense, which is common to all criticisms of the Jonathan government on the basis of alleged deficiency in state capacity, without considering the obverse, which may be defined as anti-state capacity. In other words, it seems not to be sufficiently appreciated that “a practically non-existent government” is being challenged by a practically existent terror machine.  From all indications, such one-dimensional thinking has been counter-productive because it essentially underrates the opponent and encourages a reactive attitude where it would be useful to be proactive.

It is inconceivable that the insurgents carried out perhaps their most daring and defiant operation since 2009 when they declared war on the state without scenario building. Is it possible that, given the sheer scale of their mission, they did not anticipate the worldwide outrage and condemnation that followed? Is it possible that they did not from the beginning of the plot have a defined purpose for the sensational abduction? Is it possible that now, nearly two months since the unpleasant incident, they have lost control of the narrative?

Certain developments last week reinforced the reality of a terror force that has been inadequately credited with insurgency intelligence and insurgency capacity to the detriment of the government and the country. First, in what seemed like an oblique admission of inadequacy, Chief of Defence Staff, Air Marshal Alex Badeh, made revealing comments at the Defence Headquarters, Abuja, during the visit of a civil society group, the Social Welfare Network Initiative (SWNI), in connection with the public campaign for the girls’ freedom. He said, “We are fighting more than Boko Haram. We are no longer fighting Boko Haram but Al-Qaeda in North and West Africa.”  Then he revealed his fears, but recovered quickly enough to give an appearance of capability. According to him, “Al-Qaeda is formidable, but we will defeat them. As for our girls, we will bring them back.”

Another happening hinted at, if not exposed, the government’s incapacity; but it was interestingly dressed as bigheartedness although it had the look of large foolishness. After signals that the administration was unenthusiastic about the militants’ guerillas-for girls swap proposal, President Goodluck Jonathan introduced a twist on Democracy Day, May 29. He told the anxious populace in a symbolic broadcast, “My government, while pursuing security measures, will explore all options, including readiness to accept unconditional renunciation of violence by insurgents, and to ensure their deradicalisation, rehabilitation and reintegration into the broader society.” In the same breath, he also publicised the planned intensification of counter-terrorism actions, saying, “I have instructed our security forces to launch a full-scale operation to put an end to the impunity of terrorism on our soil. I have also authorised the security forces to use any means necessary under the law to ensure that this is done.”

Jonathan’s amnesty offer to Boko Haram members may just be his own way of deescalating tension in the polity, and shouldn’t be taken seriously. It is easy to imagine the terrorists laughing over the proposal, if not laughing at him. He demonstrated intriguing denialism against the background of the fact that Abubakar Shekau, the militia’s notorious leader, spelt out unambiguous conditions for the release of the caged students.  Shekau said : “All I’m saying is, if you want us to release your girls that we kidnapped, you must release our brethren that are held in Borno, Yobe, Kano, Kaduna, Enugu and Lagos states, as well as Abuja. We know that you have incarcerated our brethren all over this country…We will never release them until our brethren are released.”  Maybe only Jonathan can explain how his amnesty idea could substitute for prisoner exchange.

Perhaps the administration needs to be reminded that it is battling against a murderous group, which has again and again proved to be unpredictable. The inescapable implication is that the government may be running out of time to secure the girls’ freedom, and would need to act expeditiously to prevent the group from having a rethink that might not favour releasing them.

Understandably, Jonathan is most likely anxious to avoid being perceived as  vulnerable to bullying tactics, particularly considering the fact that  he has often been criticised by the country’s political opposition for alleged weak leadership. However, this is a wrong occasion for him to attempt to change that perception, which may indeed be valid.  This is not the time for bluffing. Jonathan’s announced instruction to the armed forces to escalate the conflict sounds pretentious in the context of international assistance regarding the country’s anti-terror effort.

Moreover, given that the concept and practice of prisoner exchange or prisoner swap are not strange, yielding to the idea may not be a bad idea after all. Of relevance to the country’s situation is the model of Humanitarian Exchange or Humanitarian Accord popularised by the experience of Colombia in which the government reached an agreement with guerillas to swap prisoners for hostages, an idea that was pushed by the families of the captives.  It is easy to imagine that in the Chibok case the affected families, if not the empathetic public, would readily endorse such arrangement.

It is a wonder that the administration keeps sending confusing signs about its intention. Jonathan attempted to project empathy when he said last week, “I share the deep pain and anxiety of their parents and guardians and I assure them once again that government will continue to do everything possible to bring our daughters home.” It is unclear what he meant by “everything possible”, but it would appear that possibility is defined outside the framework of humanitarian exchange, which is sad indeed.

Speaking about poverty is understandably easier than experiencing it, especially when the speaker is rich and powerful.  So, Imo State Governor Rochas Okorocha may be forgiven for his apparent claim to knowledge of poverty at the fourth Nigeria Governors’ Forum (NGF) retreat in Port Harcourt, Rivers State on June 6. It was an appropriate platform to ponder poverty, particularly the pauperisation of the people, considering the fact that political governance should be concerned with the activation of “the Greatest Happiness Principle.”

There is no doubt that the ethical principle of working for “the greatest happiness of the greatest number”,   promoted by Jeremy Bentham in his 1776 book, A Fragment on Government, is eternally relevant in the context of politics in particular; and it is lamentable that individuals in the country’s structures of power noticeably trivialise the significance of the pivotal principle in their governmental perspective.

Interestingly, Okocha was quoted as saying that any governor shouldn’t be seen pretending to be poor since the position had nothing to do with poverty. He missed the point. Though it is correct that governorship is not a position of poverty, the status has everything to do with preventing poverty of the governed. According to him, “I was poor and I decided to fight against poverty and nothing will make me, my family and my generation to go back to poverty again. Poverty is worse than HIV. You can’t pretend to be poor.”

It is uncertain how he arrived at the conclusion that poverty is more terrible, or more terrifying, than HIV; but it was insensitive and uncharitable to allude to people living with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), the virus that can lead to Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS), described as “a disease in which there is a severe loss of the body’s cellular immunity, greatly lowering the resistance to infection and malignancy.”  It is worth mentioning that, according to current statistics, the population living with HIV/AIDS in Nigeria is 3.1 million out of the country’s estimated population of 140 million.

It is this pitiable group that the governor flippantly compared with the poor; but there is no basis for such comparison because while HIV transmission is usually a result of specific high-risk behaviours or practices, the United Nations definition says, “Fundamentally, poverty is a denial of choices and opportunities, a violation of human dignity.” In other words, poverty has a deep political dimension, which is not necessarily the case with HIV transmission.

For a picture of the political element, the World Bank’s definition is clarifying. According to the institution, “Poverty is an income level below some minimum level necessary to meet basic needs. This minimum level is usually called the “poverty line”. What is necessary to satisfy basic needs varies across time and societies. Therefore, poverty lines vary in time and place, and each country uses lines which are appropriate to its level of development, societal norms and values. But the content of the needs is more or less the same everywhere. Poverty is hunger. Poverty is lack of shelter. Poverty is being sick and not being able to see a doctor. Poverty is not having access to school and not knowing how to read. Poverty is not having a job, is fear for the future, living one day at a time. Poverty is losing a child to illness brought about by unclean water. Poverty is powerlessness, lack of representation and freedom.”

The obvious implication of this clarity is that governments have an inescapable responsibility to address poverty in society, which is why Okorocha’s personalisation of the issue is not only misguided but also tragically disappointing. Congratulations to him on having risen far above the poverty line, which is implied by his argument against pretended poverty in political office. However, he needs to appreciate that the genuinely poor also deserve opportunities that would raise them above penury, and that is a major purpose of governance.

Of relevance is the observation by the World Bank President Jim Yong Kim at the April IMF/World Bank Spring Meetings, where he restated that Nigeria was among the top five countries with the largest number of the poor. Scandalously, the country ranks third on this list of infamy behind India (with 33 percent of the world’s poor) and China (13 percent). With 7 percent of the “wretched of the earth”, the country is ahead of Bangladesh (6 percent) and the Democratic Republic of Congo (5 percent). Together these countries are home to nearly 760 million impoverished people.

The portrait of indigence is a tragic and inexcusable irony for an oil-rich country, and puts a huge question mark on the quality of governance at all political levels in the country. It goes without saying that the country’s poor deserve an urgent solution. Kim said, “It is imperative not just to lift people out of extreme poverty; it is also important to make sure that, in the long run, they do not get stuck just above the extreme poverty line due to a lack of opportunities that might impede progress toward better livelihoods.”  The overriding concern is whether the people in power are sufficiently interested in providing poverty-reducing opportunities, or even whether they care about anything beyond their pockets.

Remarkably, the NGF event supplied useful insights into the poverty conundrum, especially through the contribution by a former two-term governor of Abia State, Dr. Orji Kalu, who was represented by the Managing Director and Editor-in-Chief of the New Telegraph, Mr. Gabriel Akinadewo. Kalu told the governors: “Know that the burden you will carry as a former governor is for life. Even if you leave office poorer than you went in, a cynical public would never believe you. They believe half of the public treasury is kept in your house.” According to him, “They will come daily to line up, telling one tale of woe after the other. If you give them, they will say they only came to collect what belongs to them. If you don’t give them, they will say you are selfish and stingy.”  In conclusion, Kalu said, “When you become poor, the same people will abuse you of being a foolish man. It is head, you lose; tail you lose.  Public service is truly a thankless job in Nigeria.”

What a sob story! He missed the point pathetically. The questions are: What is responsible for the alleged public perception that political office holders deplete the public purse for personal prosperity? Is it not symptomatic of bad governance and progressive poverty that the people reportedly queue for financial assistance from past governors?

Possibly the most thought-provoking definition of money can be found in the hot book, The Richest Man in Babylon,  by George Samuel Clason.  The author said, “Money is the medium by which earthly success is measured.” News that Forbes, the respected American business magazine, rated Oba Frederick EnitiOlorunda Akinruntan, the Olugbo of Ugbo land, Ondo State, as Nigeria’s richest monarch was food for thought, especially considering the fact  that his wealth was estimated to be $300 million. According to the recent ranking done by Contributor Mfonobong Nsehe, Oba Akinruntan is the second richest African king, ahead of fellow Nigerian Oba Okunade Sijuade, Olubuse II, the Ooni of Ife, Ile-Ife, Osun State, who is ranked third among the first five on the continent and said to be worth $75 million.

These financial figures were not only revelatory; they were also eye-opening and eye-popping. It is remarkable that Akinruntan was quoted as saying that the magazine underestimated his personal wealth. “I know my worth,” he reportedly said in reaction to the publicity, “and I am not surprised to be referred to as a wealthy monarch, but the joy here is that good news is coming from Nigeria and I am sure this will also enhance the status of many monarchs in Nigeria at the international arena.”  He said further, “I didn’t know that any international organisation is conducting any research on my business profile, that’s why I was surprised when a top security officer invited me to his office in Abuja and broke the news. Immediately I entered all of them stood up and hailed me as the richest monarch in Nigeria.” He added, “I asked who did the ranking and the Forbes website was opened for me to see. I began to receive congratulatory messages from all over the world. I feel excited because of my humble beginning. God blessed me and made me a prosperous monarch today.”

His thrill is stupefying, and he obviously considers it a big deal to be numbered among the affluent. He may likely be in the category of those whose goal in life is to be a billionaire, which he has achieved because his estimated fortune in US dollars puts him in the billionaire bracket in Nigeria. His billionaire status is illustrated by the fact that he has reportedly sunk N10 billion into the construction of a so-called ultra-modern palace in Ugbo, which is being built on over seven hectares of land and  ultimately expected to cost N30 billion. However, the absurdity of this particular project can be recognised from the fact that he is a mere mortal and cannot guarantee that he would be around for its completion. What is more, when his reign is over, will his successor be in a position to maintain the expensive white elephant?

Perhaps Oba Akinruntan deserves a bonfire for his vanities; and he apparently has quite a few of them. His narrative about one of his large luxuries provided an enlightening evidence of  extravagant thinking, particularly his emphatic claim that he was the  next to own a Rolls Royce Bentley 2014 model after the Queen of England. He said: “I love Rolls Royce. It is a car for the royalty. Sometime in 2012, I was in England and I saw the latest Rolls Royce car drive pass and I went to the manufacturing company to make enquiries about it, they told me the one I saw belonged to the Queen and the model was to come out in 2014. I said I wanted it and we negotiated, that’s how I was using Bentley 2014 model as early as 2012. I remember when I drove it to the Presidential Villa in Abuja recently; many Presidency staff took photographs with it.”

Again, it is easy to see that he is in seventh heaven over his prized earthly possessions and clearly ecstatic about the flattering attention he claimed to have been getting on account of his treasures.  Of course, there is a subtext to his tale, meaning that the overriding but unstated reason for buying the status symbol was to project his distinction, which represents vanity.

According to Forbes, “Oba Akinruntan is also the founder of OBAT Oil, one of Nigeria’s largest privately-held oil trading companies. He founded the company in 1981 with a single gas station to meet the needs of his family and neighboring community. OBAT Oil now owns more than 50 gas stations across Nigeria as well as one of the largest tank farms in Africa- a modern storage facility that has the capacity to store 65 million liters of petroleum products. He also owns an extensive portfolio of prime commercial and residential real estate in London and Nigeria, including the landmark Febson Hotels and Mall in the Central Business District of Abuja.”

Unquestionably, Oba Akinruntan, who was enthroned in 2009, is entitled to his riches as well as the adulation of people who cannot see beyond the glitter. However, it would be useful to have a comprehensive picture of how well he is giving back to his community from his mind-boggling resources. In other words, what percentage of his prosperity is invested in the lives of his subjects and the development of the community? It is unimpressive to present undetailed information about the extent of people-friendly and poverty-reducing efforts of Oba Akinruntan, which could suggest tokenism.

It is worth stressing that demanding convincing demonstration of social responsibility from Oba Akinruntan is not necessarily to argue for social entitlement. Rather, the point is that his royal office, which implies rulership and governance, should be a fount of measurable communal progress and not meretricious insubstantiality.

More importantly, it is not just about Oba Akinruntan. Individuals of his rank ought to be exposed to the observation by the World Bank President Jim Yong Kim at the April IMF/World Bank Spring Meetings, where he restated that Nigeria was among the top five countries with the largest number of the poor. Scandalously, the country ranks third on this list of infamy behind India (with 33 percent of the world’s poor) and China (13 percent). With 7 percent of the “wretched of the earth”, the country is ahead of Bangladesh (6 percent) and the Democratic Republic of Congo (5 percent). Together these countries are home to nearly 760 million impoverished people. The portrait of indigence is a tragic and inexcusable irony for an oil-rich country, and puts a huge question mark not only on the quality of governance at all political levels in the country, but also on the social conscience of the rich.

Beyond the ceremonialism that highlighted the sensational return of two Benin bronze works removed from the ancient kingdom over a century ago, a creative reading of the subtext could be eye-opening. Perhaps only Dr Adrian Walker, the Briton at the centre of the tale, could shed light on striking grey areas in his reported remarks at the event organised last month to celebrate the homecoming of the long-gone artefacts in Benin City, the Edo State Capital.  He was quoted as saying:  “It is morally wrong and unethical to hold on to works that do not belong to one legally. I was pleased to be in possession of them because they reminded me of my grandparents. I knew I had to do something to protect my children’s future and these artefacts.”  Just one question: Was his intention to protect his children’s future from these artefacts?

Certainly, it is unclear what Walker meant by the reference to his “children’s future,” which was metaphysically suggestive.  However, he was possibly alluding to a sense of poetic justice by which wrongdoers are expected to get their comeuppance in due season.  Was his seeming anxiety or apprehension a consequence of a conscientious view of right and wrong? Or could it have been, more mysteriously, a function of the possible supernatural powers linked with the artefacts?

It may not be exactly farfetched to consider the likely potencies of the artworks, especially given the fact that they were originally created to serve religious and ritualistic purposes.  Lost in the context of  the  historically famous Benin massacre following the 1897 invasion by  British expansionists, the two bronze works, the Ahianmwen-Oro and Egogo, also known as the Ibis and the Bell, had indisputably sacred qualities from the perspective of their provenance.  The description of the works and the inspiration that produced them must be enlightening.

The narrative goes thus: “The Ahianmwen-Oro effigy was first cast during the reign of Oba Esigie after his victory against the people of Idah. It is said that Oba Esigie while in pursuit of Idah rested under an Iroko tree along with his fighters. He heard the bird cry ‘oya-o oya-o’, which sounded like ‘Oya’ in Edo language, meaning suffering and pains. Oba Esigie believed the bird was predicting doom for his army. He ordered the bird killed and proceeded to battle and was victorious.”

The story continues: “He returned to Benin and ordered the Guild of Bronze casters to cast an effigy of the bird in bronze and introduced the Ugie Oro in which a participating chief holds a replica of the bird. The Egogo is used on shrine altars and is used to summon spirits to receive offerings. It is also worn by Benin warriors to keep them safe.”

It is worth contemplating whether Walker was aware of these histories, which may possibly be the case and the calculation behind the apparent rethink of the import of keeping the works with him. He inherited them; his great grandfather, Captain Hubert Walker, was said to be a British spy who was on the punitive expedition that dishonoured the Benin kingdom.  Interestingly, he said of his ancestor, who reportedly kept a diary of events at the time, “The diary is in disrepair and I could not bring it. Other accounts written by white men used derogatory terms to describe the people of Benin but he did not. He described them as gentlemen. My great grandfather seemed to be ahead of his time.”  To go by this filial account, which is unsurprisingly charitable, the Captain may indeed not have been a Negrophobe; but we have only his great grandson’s words to go by.

Still on the probable metaphysical dimension of this intriguing happening, it is remarkable that Walker gave a hint that could be understood outside a strictly physical context. He said: “I am pleased to say that I am here to return two bronzes taken away from Benin. Before my mother died I took the precaution of asking her if I could take care of them. I knew she would not consent to my returning them at that time. She was materialist.”

It is a compelling consideration, the idea that Walker’s hi-tech western environment and its suggestion of spiritual exclusion could habour what the unenlightened may call a superstitious imagination, which is the larger implication of his definition of his mother as “materialist” as against his own possible non-materialism, or perhaps spiritualism.

The fact that he took personal action that led to an internet research on Benin bronzes, which culminated in awareness gained from the Richard Lander website,  apparently demonstrates his conviction that the works were not only in a wrong place, they were in wrong hands as well. “I contacted them on the return of the bronzes,” he said. “They arranged for a visit to the Nigerian High Commission in London and we are here to return them to a place where they could be of great cultural and historical significance.”

Perhaps regrettably, the artefacts were returned to a place that had evolved 117 years beyond the historic confrontation between the Benin warriors and the British invaders. Definitely, things are no longer the same, which may be a euphemistic way of saying that things have fallen apart; and despite the euphoric expressions on the receiving end, it is apt to wonder whether the entire episode could transcend ordinary symbolism.

Ironically, in today’s  global village, against the background of western cultural dominance and the systematic loss of ethnic values across the country, and the serious complication arising from the pauperisation of the people, it does not require looters from foreign lands to carry away cultural treasures. For instance, men of the Nigeria Customs Service recently seized 18 artefacts from local smugglers at Seme, the country’s border with Benin Republic. It is easy to imagine that illegal trafficking of cultural objects by the natives themselves must be happening on an industrial scale.

It is instructive that an art historian, Philip J. C. Dark, in his work titled, “Benin Bronze Heads: Styles and Chronology,” said that about 6, 500 Benin artefacts could be found in an estimated 77 places across the world.  Of this number, the British Museum is believed to be in possession of 700 while the Ethnology Museum in Berlin holds over 500.

It would appear that the campaign to bring back these cultural gems, among others, may be no more than sentimentalism; and tragically, they may be better appreciated where they are. It is sad that they were lost in the first place, and even more pathetic that the loss is progressive. It might just be wishful thinking that more people in possession of such artefacts would learn positive lessons from Dr Walker’s example

No leap of the imagination can conclusively clarify the mind-boggling assault perpetrated by 21-year-old Tolani Ajayi against his 64-year-old father.  It is enlightening that even Tolani himself is unable to fully illuminate his dark atrocity.   The 300-level student of History and International Relations at the faith-based Redeemer’s University (RUN), Ogun State, has been arrested by the police for the self-confessed murder of his dad, Mr. Charles Ajayi, a lawyer who had been decorated as a Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN); and, whatever happens, his history has been fundamentally marred by his unacceptably poor management of the son-father relationship.

Perhaps wise after the fact of his scandalous act, he was quoted as saying, “He was a good father and actually took care of us well. I never lacked anything. I was just angry that day.” He also said: “I have prayed since I killed my dad and asked God for forgiveness because I actually regret that I killed him.” It was terrible enough that Tolani killed his father, but even more repugnant was the manner of the murder. By his account, “I used normal small kitchen knife. Later, I used a cutlass to attack him.”  He dismembered his father’s body and dumped the pieces in a bush. Just a thought: What if the butchered body was never discovered, and Tolani correctly linked with the killing?

Ironically, these evils happened within the expansive Redemption Camp of the Redeemed Christian Church of God (RCCG) on the Lagos-Ibadan Expressway.  Remarkably, only father and son can tell the sequence of events that culminated in the shocking death; and since dead men tell no tales, Tolani would want the world to believe his own version.  His narrative: “The incident happened around 1.00am…There was an argument between us and I stood up to him. He beat me with a stick and bit me with his teeth. Just the two us were at home…My father went to the kitchen and fetched a wooden spoon. He just used it to beat me repeatedly and I tried to defend myself. Then he bit me on the shoulder and I got angry.”  Faith may have been at the centre of the clash as Tolani reportedly elaborated that his father attacked him because he was allegedly cold during a prayer session on the fateful night.

However, it is intriguing that Tolani said his father was not in the habit of beating him or biting him before that time, which seems to contradict the dramatic picture of beating and biting that he had painted; but this is not to deny the possibility altogether. It is understandable, and perhaps to be expected, that the narrator-participant presented the story to reflect provocation, as if that could be redeeming.  “Drugs did not push me to kill my father,” he declared, possibly in an effort to promote something akin to self-defence. There is no doubt that his denial of the suggestion that he might have been under an abnormal influence further complicates the case. Against the background of his admitted romance with drugs, it would have been easy to link his violence to mind-bending substances had he not emphatically denied such connection.  Or was he living in denial?

Logically, questions about parenting and socialisation will arise from Tolani’s extreme and excessive expression of anger.  But, at bottom, his murderous rage must be firmly analysed within the context of personal responsibility. The truth is that whatever the inadequacies of his upbringing and the defects of his social integration, it should be reasonably expected that with his education and implied exposure to civility, he ought not to be associated with patricide.

Interestingly, he claimed to have a girlfriend and other friends in school, which should be unsurprising; the real surprise would be if his friends can understand or explain his crime.  Not only his friends. What about the entire university community?  Many observers are likely to wonder why the Christian orientation of his university turned out to be insufficient as a means of humanisation, which would amount to undervaluing, if not overlooking, the more important dimension of personal accountability.  It is instructive that, in a moment of introspective insight, Tolani himself was quoted as saying, “It is not about church, but only God knows why.”  It can only be imagined how the members of his family would interpret this double tragedy, the murder and the murderer.

If, indeed, anger was the determining factor in this tragic manifestation of unrefined bestiality, then it is most apt to reflect on not only the psychology of anger, but also  the sociology of anger, particularly in the Nigerian context with all its anger-inducing realities. It is noteworthy that a specific individual in power, speaking of Delta State Governor Emmanuel Uduaghan, has focused his thoughts on this destructive phenomenon, which is generally understated until something as jolting as Tolani’s outrageousness surfaces. Uduaghan may be an unlikely source of a philosophically perceptive view on anger, particularly because of the political nuances of his position, with reference to the country’s ruling Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) where he belongs, and the rival All Progressives Congress (APC), but his perspective is nevertheless useful.

In a recent interview, Uduaghan said: “Now I am trying to organise a workshop or summit on anger management. We are a country today and virtually everybody is angry with the other person. People are angry with the president, they are angry with PDP, angry with APC, one ethnic person is angry with the other ethnic person. You are driving on the road and one driver is angry with the other driver, okada rider is angry with the police and the police are angry.” He went on: “So we are a country where virtually every person is angry with the other person. So what is happening? We need to sit down and look at why people are angry. Why are we angry with each other? When you read 10 columnists, you will see that eight are writing out of anger. We just get angry with one another.”

Tolani, clearly now clear-eyed, can see the futility of anger. Sadly, it took patricide, in which he was the protagonist, to open his eyes. “There is no way Nigerians can help me,” he said with touching stoicism. “I am going to face my judgment. I am meant to pay for what I have done. It is not as if I am ready. It is something that is inevitable; something that is going to happen. I am just waiting for the time.”  The enduring moral of this sad and saddening story is: Control your anger before it controls you.

It is laughable, not to say nonsensical, that the Goodluck Jonathan presidency, in an apparently desperate pursuit of image laundering, has reportedly contracted an American communications firm to cosmeticise its performance. The news is that Levick Strategic Communications has been hired, with effect from June 16, to employ its public relations expertise to make the government smell like roses.  According to the contract, Levick will be paid $100,000 (almost N16 million) monthly as professional fees, totalling N275 million for the initial one-year deal.

Other costs to be billed to the government include a sub-contract to Perseus Strategies; travel-related expenses and meals; fees for other services such as paid media, video production and web development; and long distance or conference calling charges incurred on behalf of the client. In addition, the government is expected to bear the cost of private newswire, outsourced printing, copy jobs, and significant expenses for postage and handling.

The report said: “Under the scope of services, Levick is to provide government affairs and communications counsel with the primary objective of changing the international and local media narrative related to: the Government of Nigeria’s efforts to find and safely return the more than 200 girls abducted by the terrorist organisation, Boko Haram, in Chibok; assisting the government’s efforts to mobilise international support in fighting Boko Haram as part of the greater global war on terror; and communicating the President Goodluck Jonathan’s administration’s past, present and future priority to foster transparency, democracy and the rule of law throughout Nigeria.”

Irrespective of the puzzling goals, it is pertinent to wonder why this particular job was given to a foreign firm, despite the government’s mantra about its commitment to the promotion of local content and local value across the country’s various sectors. Would it have been unreasonably costlier to use a local communications company for these objectives?  Or did the externalisation of the campaign mean that it couldn’t be handled locally with the desired competency?  It would be interesting to know the details of the process that produced Levick. Could the US firm be fronting for local interests?

Perhaps what makes this image-management project especially intriguing is the inclusion of the continuing tragedy of the still-missing Chibok schoolgirls who have spent over 100 days in captivity since they were kidnapped on April 15. It is difficult to comprehend how PR can change the reality of their disappearance and the government’s unimpressive demonstration of incapacity to change the picture. Maybe there is a need for a reminder: This traumatising issue will not just vanish; and then everyone will live happily ever after. There is no doubt that the hashtag #Bring Back Our Girls is unlikely to become impotent and irrelevant without a desirable closure; specifically, the safe return of the captives.

It is remarkable, and relevant to the Levick contract, that a report released last week by a UK-based risk consultancy, Maplecroft, ranked Nigeria as a global leader in “terrorism fatalities.”  The report on the country’s terrorism and security situation, based on 146 terror attacks recorded between January and June, indicated that there was an average of 24 deaths per incident, while the global average is two deaths per attack.  More disturbing is the information that the latest figures represent a doubling of the 1,735 deaths recorded within the same period in 2013. In other words, according to the report, “Nigeria, Africa’s biggest economy, recorded 3,477 deaths in those attacks as violence by the Boko Haram Islamist militants grew in scale and sophistication.”  The consultancy concluded: “The increased capacity of Boko Haram is likely to lead to a further loss of investor confidence.”

Although it could be said that the Levick contract mirrors the government’s anxiety, the truth is that PR cannot be the solution. For the avoidance of doubt, truth-based PR cannot deny the actualities, or erase them.  For instance, can any creativity disprove the fact that shocking twin explosions in Kaduna on July 23 reportedly killed 82 people and nearly claimed the life of   Gen. (retd) Muhammadu Buhari, a former military Head of State?  Or what inventiveness can contradict the fact that, the following day, another explosion at a popular motor park in Sabon Gari, Kano, took five lives?

These tragedies and others are intensified by the self-acknowledged cluelessness of the country’s military. By a significant coincidence, on the very day of the double bombings in Kaduna, the Chief of Army Staff, Lt Gen. Kenneth Minimah, expressed the force’s helplessness while addressing some soldiers at the 9 Brigade, Ikeja Cantonment, Lagos, during a familiarisation tour. He rationalised the army’s failure, saying, “Boko Haram terrorists come to die not fight. It is a new warfare which military personnel are not trained in. They carry explosives to blow up anyone around. They load Hilux with bombs and run into troops with them. It is not a conventional war. You do not see nor know the enemy you are fighting.”

Minimah’s sob-story is inexcusable, considering the fact that this guerilla force has been terrorising the country since 2009 with escalating hardheartedness. It rings hollow, this repetitive definition of the battle as unconventional. It is worth reflecting on the training the soldiers get, whether it lacks content relating to guerilla warfare; and if so, whether it should.  What wonders can PR achieve in the context?  It must be the height of wishful thinking to imagine that foreign soldiers would be willing to die for the country when its own soldiers are busy making excuses.

On the scale of absurdity, the public relations goal of earning public respect for the Jonathan administration based on perceived transparency, democratic practice and adherence to the rule of law must be the most ridiculous. There is an elementary lesson provided by bestselling authors and PR strategists Al and Laura Ries in their insightful 2002 book, The Fall of Advertising and the Rise of PR, which is instructive in appreciating the fundamental flaw in the campaign. Central to successful PR, the experts argue, is the idea that “publicity possibilities” should be fully exploited. The question is: where are the “publicity possibilities” that the administration can effectively take advantage of?

Let the truth be told: The history of the administration is a concatenation of minuses, including unconscionable official corruption, bare-faced anti-democratic tendencies and abysmal disrespect for the law. Certainly, these can offer no helpful promotional material; and it remains to be seen how well PR can work as a redemption tool for a change-resistant government.

It is telling that a radio debate organised for the candidates in the Osun State governorship election on August 9 turned out to be a one-man show after all. A statement by the Director of Publicity, Research and Strategy of the All Progressives Congress (APC) in the state, Mr. Kunle Oyatomi, painted a picture of the event sponsored by the International Republican Institute, which is based in America. He said: “But it turned out to be almost an interview and not a debate because Omisore ran away.”   In other words, Senator Iyiola Omisore, the candidate of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) and the main challenger of the incumbent governor who is seeking re-election for another four years, Ogbeni Rauf Aregbesola, was not present at the debate, which was billed to be broadcast live on July 26 by the Osun State Broadcasting Corporation, Osogbo. Against the background that the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) released a list of the 20 political parties and governorship candidates that will be contesting in the poll, Aregbesola’s sole participation in the radio programme was symbolic of the weakness of his opponents.

It is curious that Omisore failed to take advantage of this obvious opportunity to further promote his candidacy and sell the election manifesto he has presumably been busy projecting during electioneering. Ordinarily, he was expected to use the platform, which provided a chance for a frontal interaction with Aregbesola, to demonstrate that he had a competitive edge and should be elected to take his place. In particular, it was an occasion that he could have seized to drive his point home about the alleged unsuitability of Aregbesola.

Oyatomi observed: “Osun citizens had waited with bated breath to hear Omisore articulate his accusations against the governor on such issues as the debt profile of the state, the school reform programme and the vexed issue of capital flight.”  His non-attendance was, therefore, bewildering and suggestive of the possibility that he himself did not believe his criticisms of Aregbesola. Perhaps more importantly, he probably realised that the forum would have exposed his fakery.  So, it would appear that his non-participation was tactical; but it was ultimately tactless as the people are unlikely to be fooled.

Omisore’s trickery was evident from the laughable excuse he offered for his absence, after having agreed initially to be on the show.  Listen to him: “How can I be afraid of engaging him in a debate? But when argument is being drawn between two unequal parties, the weaker of the two may resort to physical assault and harassment. We don’t want this to happen…So, we need an assurance that Ogbeni will not resort to physical assault if he is confronted with hard facts, with evidence.”   Considering the apparent conviction with which he pushed this position, it may not be out of place to suspect that Omisore must be living with GD, that is, grandiose delusions.

Ironically, he appeared to be correct in recognising the fact of “two unequal parties”, but was pitiably confused about the identity of “the weaker of the two”.  Similarly, he was mistaken in thinking that his own standard of decent conduct is appealing to others. Speaking of thuggish behaviour, perhaps Omisore needs to be reminded of his publicised crudeness in a recent encounter with Isiaka Adeleke, a former governor of Osun State, in the context of an intra-party struggle for the candidature.   The portrait of behind-the-scenes bestiality painted by Adeleke was damning and disqualifying.  He alleged that he was dangerously manhandled by Omisore and Minister of Police Affairs Jelili Adesiyan, possibly to discourage him, and described his attackers as “unfit to live in a civilised society.”

In an unwitting self-endorsement of this characterisation, Omisore subsequently terrorised the populace, at least psychologically, by the alarming use of a masked and armed security guard during his election campaign. By a creative interpretation, it is possible that the presence of the masked protector was nothing more than a publicity stunt by a candidate who is under pressure to be noticed. If that was the case, the trick worked, given the attention he received on account of the oddity. However, it was a desperately short-sighted promotional approach because it was overloaded with negativity. Certainly, there was no need to introduce a mask, with all the rattling implications, except there was a hidden motive, which is imaginable. No doubt, a power-seeking individual who is not personally repulsed by the very thought of a mask-wearing defender ought to be viewed with suspicion, if not trepidation. It represented a dangerous signal not only about his personality, but also about his values.

Still on masks, now consider the import of the report that the masked musician Lagbaja rejected in strong terms an offer by Omisore’s campaign organisation to perform at his final rally in Osogbo, which is expected to be witnessed by President Goodluck Jonathan who is a member of the same political party. Lagbaja was quoted as saying in response to the invitation: “Though the court of the land discharged and acquitted you (Omisore) in the murder case against the former Minister of Justice in Nigeria, the late Cicero of Esa-Oke and foremost nationalist, Chief Bola Ige, I have deep-rooted innermost conviction that you are culpable in the death of my mentor and benefactor. If you offer me all the allocation of Osun State during your four-year-tenure peradventure you win (which I seriously doubt), I will not perform for Iyiola Omisore governorship election.”

Clearly, anyone who is looking for instances of ridiculous but thought-provoking staginess in Omisore’s campaign will find them in abundance. Perhaps the most inane are the images of him as a passenger on a commercial motorcycle, popularly called Okada, and of him eating roasted corn in a campaign convoy, all in a futile effort to convince the people that he is a grassroots politician. Considering the fact that he was a deputy governor of Osun State from 1999 to 2003 and two-term senator from 2003 to 2007 and 2007 to 2011, it is enlightening that he is still struggling, albeit clownishly, to connect with the people.

To go by the latest opinion poll on the coming election conducted by TSN-RSM, his histrionics have not swayed the electorate. The research firm, a member of Gallup International, said: “The APC continues to dominate the political landscape in Osun State, judging by its performance on key indicators evaluated. It scored highest and increased in rating on first mention, sympathy and voting intention.”

Of course, the heroes of this political battle will be the  majority of the electorate, who will expectedly vote against the opposite of heroism, and hopefully defend the decision.

Perhaps the most striking and fascinating preventive calculation in the Ebola battle is the informal restriction of Prophet Temitope Joshua of the Synagogue Church of All Nations (SCOAN), Lagos, who has been told  to limit his faith-healing activities to cases other than the deadly Ebola Virus Disease (EVD). Although the Lagos State Commissioner for Health, Dr. Jide Idris, who led a team that visited Joshua in his church, played down what amounted to a governmental interference, there were no questions about the import and the desired effect of the move.  Interestingly, his explanation that the visit was an extension of the state government’s enlightenment campaign prompted by the international colour of the church’s flock and Joshua’s image as a magnetic faith healer sounded like an unwitting endorsement.

Idris said diplomatically to Joshua: “We have our strategies that we intend to share with you. Again, we need to know the resources you have here because whether it is one or two cases, if they are allowed to get out, it is a major problem. We are here to work together on how to contain this disease.” For the avoidance of doubt, it was another member of the delegation and Director, Centre for Disease Control (CDC), Prof. Abdulahi Nasidi, who expressed in more precise and enlightening terms just how Joshua is perceived even by the scientifically minded among the visitors. Nasidi, an epidemiologist and a virologist, described the meeting as a “positive engagement mission.” He told Joshua: “We are here to engage you positively. We know the powers of this House and your powers, and we are duty-bound to protect you and your congregation. We have no doubt the power God has given you; we can’t do that, but we want to help and make it stronger.” It is unclear what he meant by helping to reinforce Joshua’s capacity, but he provided food for thought about the possibility of a working and winning partnership between science and religion.

In a profound sense, this event could be interpreted as a potent publicity plus for both Joshua and SCOAN, and it is likely that those who have been suspicious of the faith-healing reports emanating from the church must be wondering why the government, maybe unintentionally, seemed to have lent credence to the prophet’s claimed spiritual healing power. Unsurprisingly, Joshua took advantage of the promotional value of the event and implied acknowledgment of his supposed healing ability by assuring the delegation that he would take preventive measures to arrest the spread of EVD in the country. In particular, and understandably with an eye on glory, he explained  that he would not entertain visits by foreigners who may come to the country seeking healing for EVD, and added that he would instead visit countries affected by EVD  for the purpose of  miracle healing. He was quoted as saying to members of the team: “I am ready to work with you. I love my country and I will be ready to work with you.”

The questions must be asked: How many more churches and faith healers will the group visit in furtherance of the campaign, and how will these be determined? What about mosques and indigenous religion temples, which are also places where people usually look for divine intervention in health-related cases?  If Joshua turns out to be a solitary and singular instance, it will further make the group’s operation opaque.

More importantly, the suggested denial of the possibility of spiritual healing in EVD cases, which may be appealing in certain quarters, could actually represent an ignorant narrow view. The discernible truth is that although we live in a world of extraordinary advances in the realm of science, we cannot afford to be slaves of scientism. If, for example, it is accepted that Joshua is possibly effective as a faith healer regarding other health conditions, including life-threatening ones, why is he being doubted in the Ebola drama? Of course, this poser is not to suggest that Joshua’s healing claims are for real, but to stress that faith healing could be real.

It is significant that medical science, despite its touted and demonstrable efficacy, is far from a solution to Ebola. Considering that the virus, which causes a haemorrhagic fever that can kill infected people in a week, first appeared in Zaire in 1976, the continuing search for a cure demonstrates the scale of the scientific challenge. It is noteworthy that the United States is expected to launch an early-stage trial of an experimental vaccine against Ebola in September, and if successful such vaccine might be available in 2015 for health workers who are exposed to extreme risk in the treatment of Ebola patients.

Also important is the work of a six-man committee set up by the Federal Ministry of Health to carry out research into the Ebola virus and possible treatment of EVD. It is interesting that this body includes Prof. Maurice Iwu who in 1999 was involved in a study of Ebola with American researchers concerning the use of bitter kola as a curative fruit. In this connection, the observation by the Health Minister, Prof. Onyebuchi Chukwu, is instructive because it tends to hint at the idea that the route to a solution remains an open question. He said: “There is no scientific proof yet to suggest that if you eat bitter kola you will prevent the disease or where you have it, it will help to cure it.”  The positive implication of his statement is that there is a possibility of potency, even if there is no proof as yet.

Current knowledge indicates that the animal-borne virus can infect humans through contact with or consumption of the host animal; this is apart from the possibility of infection from the blood or bodily fluids and secretions of people who have the virus.

It is alarming, to say the least, that the Ebola virus has officially found its way into the country; and the horrifying news of the July 25  death of Patrick Sawyer, a naturalised American of Liberian origin, from EVD at First Consultant Medical Centre in Obalende, Lagos, was a wake-up call. The subsequent death of a Nigerian female nurse who treated him, the  first known Nigerian to die of the disease, and the confirmed infection of five other health workers who had primary contact with the late Sawyer, have raised the frightening possibility of a local epidemic if swift  action is not taken to arrest the spread of the virus.

Of relevance are startling figures released by the World Health Organisation (WHO), which indicate that so far, related to the current outbreak in West Africa, mostly affecting Guinea, Liberia and Sierra-Leone, 932 people have died. The degree of the problem, which has thrown the West African sub-region into reasonable apprehension, is highlighted by the fact that a WHO  emergency committee is expected to determine whether it constitutes a public health crisis of international concern and to recommend measures to tackle it.

This latest outbreak of Ebola, regarded as the worst since the virus first surfaced, will most likely require lateral thinking in the search for a lasting remedy; and myopia will not help matters.

It was a phone conversation as narrated by a witty personality who was being celebrated for his services to the world of letters. Ambassador Oladapo Olusola Fafowora, 73, was speaking on behalf of the new Fellows of the Nigerian Academy of Letters (NAL) after their decoration, and he told the audience about a conversation he had with his grandchild who lives in England. “I am being honoured today,” he had said to the grandchild. In reply, he got a question: “For what?”  Answer: “My investiture as a Fellow of the Nigerian Academy of Letters will take place today.”  Response: “So, you’ve been writing letters. And you’ve not written any to us.”

Unsurprisingly, the tickled members of the audience greeted Fafowora’s brief account with laughter, and he went on to thank the NAL for the greatness thrust upon him and five others at the body’s 16th Convocation and the Investiture of New Fellows, which took place at the Main Auditorium, University of Lagos, on August 14. For clarification, it is important to note that these recipients had achieved greatness on their various paths, and the NAL crown simply represented a further validation.  But it was sufficiently significant for Fafowora who described the academy as a “prestigious club”. He said with convincing feeling: “I felt immensely proud that I had been considered.”

Inaugurated in 1991, the Nigerian Academy of Letters is positioned as “an apex organisation of Nigerian academics and scholars in the Humanities to promote, maintain and encourage excellence in all branches of humanistic studies”; “and is intended to cater for a very important body of disciplines of vital importance to the development and refinement of Nigerian Society.”

The ceremony of decorating the stars was marked by serious grandeur, which was fitting for a festivity of cerebral fecundity. The orator and a NAL Fellow, Professor Olu Obafemi, read the citations to an impressed and admiring audience, and each recipient mounted the stage to be dressed in a red-and-gold gown and a black cap reflecting the new status. Two of them, Prof. Festus Agboola Adesanoye and Prof. Philip Adedotun Ogundeji, were honoured as Regular Fellows. Prof. Olabiyi Yai was decorated as an Overseas Fellow.  Three others were categorised as Honorary Fellows: Dr. (Mrs.) Virginia Anohu, Amb. Oladapo Olusola  Fafowora and Olori (Dr.) Olatokunbo Gbadebo.

The orator highlighted Adesanoye’s scholarship in Communication and Language Arts, and described Ogundeji as a “Yoruba theatre aesthete and theorist.” Yai was called “a veritable and versatile polyglot; literary and stylistics scholar and a global intellectual.” Fafowora was painted as “a distinguished and seasoned diplomat with high-profile intimidating engagements.” Gbadebo’s portrait was that of “a scholar, publisher and an entrepreneur with a chequered professional profile.” Interestingly, when it was her turn to receive the scroll of honour, royal trumpeters spiced the ceremony with significative notes that bespoke her standing as a queen, the wife of the Alake of Egbaland, Oba Adedotun Gbadebo.  Anohu was not present, and it would have been interesting to know why she was considered for the garland.

Perhaps appropriately, the ceremonial aspects of the event were effectively underscored by the convocation lecture which provided an unambiguously intellectual flavour. The lecturer and a NAL Fellow, Prof. Francis Egbokhare, focused on the theme, “Ethical Dimensions of Citizenship.” It is a testimony to the relevance of the academy that it came up with such a critical subject matter in the context of centrifugal tensions in the polity. It was instructive that Fafowora described the lecture as “very illuminating”, and praised Egbokhare for his coruscating brilliance and multidimensional method. Fafowora, who holds a PhD and has a History background, said: “I think History is now better approached from a multidisciplinary point of view.”

Indeed, Egbokhare’s lecture did not betray his specialisation in Linguistics as he traversed various disciplines, including history, political science, sociology, anthropology, philosophy and literature. Fundamentally, he argued that ethnic pluralism has been negatively exploited by the country’s ruling elite and educated elite, and stressed that “the problem basically is not ethnicity.”

So, what is the problem? Egbokhare tried to establish a relationship between “the citizenship question, the national question and the leadership question,” and arrived at the conclusion that “leadership is the bonding glue, the inspiration that drives nationalism.” He said: “Everything boils down to leadership.”

Also, he explored the concept of “ethical citizenship,” and argued that it could not be divorced from “the worth of the individual.” He asked: “What is the worth of Nigerian citizenship?” His answer to the question was that the citizenship value was defined by the country’s Human Development Indices, and in this regard the picture is lamentably ugly.

It is noteworthy and thought-provoking that the NAL President, Prof. Munzali Jibril, made striking remarks on the country’s position on the human development ladder in his presidential address at the event in which he referred to the 2013  Ibrahim Index of African Governance (IIAG), a  project of the respected Mo Ibrahim Foundation. Nigeria was disgracefully ranked 41st on the 52-country IIAG list, reflecting a country whose leaders enjoy the flattering tag, “giant of Africa”, without thinking like giants. The country not only scored lower than the continental average (51.6), it also ridiculously scored lower than the regional average (52.5) for West Africa. Assessment was based on four key areas: Safety and Rule of Law, Participation and Human Rights, Sustainable Economic Opportunity and Human Development.

It is also relevant to draw attention to the observation by the World Bank President Jim Yong Kim at the April IMF/World Bank Spring Meetings, where he restated that Nigeria was among the top five countries with the largest number of the poor. Scandalously, the country ranks third on this list of infamy behind India (with 33 percent of the world’s poor) and China (13 percent). With 7 percent of the “wretched of the earth”, the country is ahead of Bangladesh (6 percent) and the Democratic Republic of Congo (5 percent). Together these countries are home to nearly 760 million impoverished people. The portrait of indigence is a tragically inexcusable irony for an oil-rich country, and puts a huge question mark on the quality of governance at all political levels in the country.

It is enlightening that Egbokhare identified what he called “the unholy trinity” as a grave impediment to the country’s progress. The unhelpful trio: “lack of knowledge of history; lack of understanding of history; and lack of application of the lessons of history.”  He reasoned that a correction of this chain of retrogression would hopefully bring about “an ethically-balanced leadership and an informed people,” which would result in the country’s transformational glory. What a dream!

God is my father

Nature is my mother

The Universe is my way

Eternity is my Kingdom

Immortality is my Life

The Mind is my house

Truth is my worship

Love is my Law

Form is my manifestation

Conscience is my guide

Peace is my shelter

Experience is my school

Obstacle is my lesson

Difficulty is my stimulant

Joy is my hymn

Pain is my warning

Work is my blessing

Light is my realisation

Friend is my companion

Adversary is my instructor

Neighbour is my brother

Struggle is my opportunity

Future Time is my promise

Equilibrium is my attitude

Order is my path

Beauty is my Ideal

Perfection is my Destiny

For years, these lines greeted anyone who arrived on Frank Olusola Macaulay’s doorstep at Yaba, Lagos. The first-person expressions, which had the quality of affirmations, were unattributed. The paper on which they were typed was framed and the compelling communication hung on the wall near the door. It provided a memorable insight into Macaulay’s make-up.

Inside the house, various thought-provoking messages enjoyed visibility. Even the lavatory had space for a message. Using the toilet meant the user would see this: “Lesser minds discuss people. Ordinary minds discuss events. Great minds discuss ideas. Greater minds discuss humanity.”

Macaulay often said, “Life is interesting, and we are here to learn.” Learning, for him, included but transcended the material world. He was a lifelong truth-seeker and God-seeker, and his spiritual training and practice took him beyond the formal and rigid structures of organised religion. He regarded every man and woman as a brother or sister with whom he shared a common humanity, and was a loyal friend to those he bonded with.

“He profits most who serves best” is another of his deeply-held beliefs; and his life of service was exemplary. He made and kept copious notes that reflected his intense interest in the fundamental questions of life, especially those that had to do with the place and purpose of man in creation, the earthly journey and life after death.  This quotation from his notes is illustrative: “How do you beautify the Earth?  You do this by the Good Thought, which comes from you, by the assistance you give your brother-man to rise, materially and spiritually, and by the assistance you give other life than man to be more beautiful than you met it – IN SHORT, SERVICE TO MANKIND IN LOVE.”

He once gave me a small book in which I came across a striking and unforgettable answer to a question on how to remain on the spiritual path. The teacher said: “Give all, love much, speak little, judge not, and keep on keeping on.” His life mirrored this teaching. He was a man of few words who demonstrated tremendous sacrificial love. He was eternally optimistic and unbowed by misfortune. He manifested an abiding faith in the idea, “Trials sent to us as cords of love.” He marched on till the end.

When he died on August 22, 2013, at the St. Nicholas Hospital, Lagos, it was 24 days to his 84th birthday on September 16. He earnestly believed that he would attain age 85, and always maintained that his faith was Bible-supported. “Ask, and you shall receive” was his mantra whenever anyone questioned his projection of certainty about how long he would live. On his birthday, he would remind his family and others of how many years he supposedly had left.

Whenever Macaulay asked, “How are you, today?” he laid an unmistakable stress on the word “today”. That was his way of highlighting the reality of a new day, different from past days, filled with fresh possibilities. The greeting carried a spiritual import, saying to the recipient that the new day brought new grace, new hope, new strength, and new ideas, which could spark a new song and new joy. This unshakable conviction about the constant flux, conveyed through his emphasis on “today”, is a positive lesson for the living.

He was born in Lagos in 1929, and his grandfather, Frank Gurney Venn Macaulay, was the younger brother of Herbert Macaulay, the illustrious Nigerian nationalist. His great grandfather was Rev. Thomas Babington Macaulay, founder and first principal of the CMS Grammar School, Lagos, the oldest secondary school in Nigeria, started in 1859; and his great grandmother, Abigail Macaulay, was the daughter of Rt. Rev. Samuel Ajayi Crowther, the acclaimed first African Bishop of the Church of England, and the first to translate the Bible into Yoruba.

This family background inspired Macaulay throughout his lifetime. He was proud of his roots and heritage without being pompous. His sense of family was instructive, and he was passionate about the Crowther/Macaulay Descendants’ Union and its motto, “In Unity we stand, divided we fall.” He served enthusiastically and energetically as Secretary of the group for many years, and technically retained the position until his exit. He was always aware of the location of family members and their contact details, and was generally relied upon to play a linking role whenever there was a need for family gathering.

I remember him every now and again; and sometimes the irreversibility of his passing is paralysing. This was the man who shaped my writing life, even if perhaps innocently. He provided a stimulating home for informal learning and made it easy for his household and even outsiders to keep abreast of the news by consistently ensuring a supply of newspapers and magazines. He also kept a useful library. In my secondary school years, I looked forward to a good number of western comics and educational publications every Friday. My father never failed to deliver. This was in addition to supplying all the major newspapers of the period, courtesy of his position in Shell’s Public and Government Affairs department. It was at Shell that he bloomed and he retired after 30 years at the company. As a Shell pensioner, he was a keen unofficial ambassador and projected a positive image of the company.

He knew when to raise the game; and by the time I completed my secondary education, he introduced Time and Newsweek to me. In these two respected international magazines, I met inspiring writers and saw stirring styles. Till today, the Time celebration of writing in a long-running advertisement remains one of my favourite quotations. The magazine quoted John Sheffield: “Of all those arts in which the wise excel, Nature’s chief masterpiece is writing well.”

My tears may not be visible, but I am still crying. I lost a gem. I wonder about genetic continuity and how much of his genetic material is active in me.   

In the context of the reality that words have denotative value, it is worth contemplating the import of a particular letter of commendation and its remarkable testimonial quality. It was written by the Lagos State Governor, Babatunde Fashola, and the recipient was Akinwunmi Ambode who had retired voluntarily after a 27-year career in the civil service, including stints as the Accountant- General of Lagos State from 2006 and 2012, Permanent Secretary, Ministry of Finance, and Auditor-General for Local Government. This background is striking because it highlights Ambode, who left to pursue other dreams,  as probably the most experienced individual in terms of familiarity with the state civil service operations to seek the position of governor since Lagos State was created in 1967.

Fashola reportedly wrote: “I write on behalf of the people of Lagos to commend your high sense of dedication, selflessness and integrity which you brought to bear on the civil service. I wish to specifically remark that working closely with you has been of tremendous mutual benefit, particularly in the present administration.” He continued: “You have displayed high sense of professionalism and have been a good team player, guided by the philosophy of a true public officer, who must place himself last while rendering service to the public. We are convinced that your brilliance and zeal will make you excel in your future endeavours.”

Who wouldn’t be proud of such a glowing portrayal? Unsurprisingly, Ambode, 51, the Chief Executive Officer of Brandsmiths Consulting, made a passing reference to the characterisation at his May 15 book launch at the Civic Centre, Lagos.  The presentation of two books, Public Sector Accounting by Ambode, and his biography, The Art of Selfless Service by Marina Osoba, provided a fitting forum for him to bask in the glory of his recognition.   “The letter of commendation by Fashola is my gold medal for public service,” Ambode said at the event.

Of course, the letter may be inadequate to catapult him to the high political office of governor which he seeks; nevertheless, it is a sufficient pointer to his competence. Indeed, the writer of the letter himself also deserves commendation. There is no doubt that Fashola was in a position to know and evaluate Ambode’s contribution, and it is to his credit that he was straightforward in his depiction of  Ambode’s worth. He could have chosen to downplay the man’s role and his observed performance, especially given the fact that the letter’s commendatory content could always be quoted to advance the recipient’s interest. A self-absorbed autotheistic leader would not have written in such a manner about someone else; and such leaders abound who go about with a destructive mentality. So, Fashola deserves respect for his demonstration of disinterestedness.

Did Fashola have an idea of Ambode’s ambition to succeed him as governor? Was the song of praise calculated to help him achieve his aspiration through an implied endorsement?  Or it just didn’t matter to Fashola what Ambode’s next move might be after leaving the civil service, and however he might exploit the laudatory comments for self-advancement.

It is interesting that Ambode, a would-be governor and a member of the All Progressives Congress (APC),  on August 21 presented a paper  titled “Public Finance: Probity and Accountability” during  a two-day workshop organised by the Lagos State Government and the Lagos Business School at the Pan-African University, Lagos. He spoke to 300 youths from tertiary educational institutions across the state, and told them: “If we take the concept of resource generation, allocation and distribution into cognisance and apply the principles of good governance, we will achieve economic growth and development.”

He was on familiar turf. Ambode is credited with designing a system that increased the state’s revenue generation from N600 million to N10 billion. A related excerpt from his biography is illustrative of his expertise: “In a popular business newspaper, Business Day, of Tuesday 2nd July 2013, it was reported that Fiscal Management in Lagos State had surpassed that of the Federal Government and internally generated revenue from taxes has touched the 75% mark in stark contrast to the Federal Government’s 20%. Also, the paper further stated that Lagos State makes up to 20% of total Nigerian GDP and 40% of non-oil GDP.”

The narrative continued: “All these gains from the smallest state geographically (that is in terms of  size) showing that Lagos State which is without any of the rich mineral resources that other states have in abundance can think outside the box and create wealth using what little it has and building on its commercial base.  These great strides are particularly noted to have happened in the last six years (2006-2012) during which Akin headed the State Treasury Office (STO).”

The importance of wealth creation to “the authoritative allocation of values” cannot be overemphasised; and it may well be good luck for the state to have a governor whose competency in this critical sphere has been established beyond any iota of contradiction.

However, the megacity would require more than a mechanistic attention to figures; and it would appear that Ambode also has a humanistic appeal. Such a fusion is not always available in the power ring. Ambode’s definition of leadership is enlightening, although it could be said that words are never enough and would always need the potency of demonstrativeness. He said: “A true leader sees his work as selfless service towards a higher purpose. A true leader should be judged by what he has not – ego, arrogance and self-interest.”

Demonstrable commitment to good governance and ability to deliver what the people yearn for should rank among the uppermost qualifications for the type of progressive leadership that would benefit the state at this juncture. As Fashola prepares to leave the stage next year, the state deserves an exemplary successor who will be focused on excellence in office informed by a mastery of wealth creation and a humanitarian orientation.

The question of who should rule remains fundamental in the society’s search for leaders who have  not only the  capacity to make a difference but also the enthusiasm to do so; and it is always agonising whenever the wrong individual emerges and works against good governance. A square peg in a round hole would most likely reshape the hole; and it would then require far more effort to recreate a round hole.

Interestingly, a public notice published in newspapers obliquely concretised earlier reports of an impending legalised split between Rev. Chris Oyakhilome and his wife, Anita. The 50-year-old charismatic founder of Believers’ Love World Incorporated, a Lagos-based church popularly known as Christ Embassy, was reportedly served with divorce papers in a UK hotel room.

In the accompanying confusion, a statement by his lawyers, Pinheiro & Company, said: “The attention of our client, (Rev. Chris Oyakhilome and the Church, the CHRIST EMBASSY (“the Church”) has been drawn to the wave of false, malicious and fabricated stories being published in the print and electronic media about his person, the Church and a matrimonial cause between him and his wife.” Also, the lawyers accused “the concerned publishers” of “malicious falsehood”, saying, “It is our client’s instructions to inform the members of the public and particularly warn the concerned media houses that the news or story presently circulating in the media is nothing but a complete distortion of the facts in the pending proceedings in the United Kingdom, to the knowledge of the publishers.”

It is significantly revealing that the statement referred to “a matrimonial cause between him and his wife” and “pending proceedings in the United Kingdom”, which would appear to constitute a sufficient validation of the reports that things had indeed gone awry between Chris and Anita. It is possible that the development spawned salacious story angles that may have been inaccurately presented; nevertheless, the overriding consideration should be whether there are incontrovertible realities in this riveting drama of love gone cold or frozen romance.

It is noteworthy that a report said: “According to an online newspaper, The Cable, the divorce case, with Suit No FD14DO1650, was filed on April 9, 2014 at Divorce Section A, Central Family Court, First Avenue House, High Holborn, London, the United Kingdom, on Anita’s behalf by Attwaters Jameson Hill Solicitors, a firm with expertise in commercial law, family, wills and estate, personal injury and medical negligence.”

Also deserving of attention is the information that Chris was served with a decree nisi, which is “an order from a court that a marriage will end after a fixed amount of time unless there is a good reason why it should not.”  It is unclear how long the court may have allowed for the pursuit of possible reconciliation, but it is clear enough that in the event of irreconcilability the court will most likely issue a decree absolute, which is “an order from a court that finally ends a marriage, making the two people divorced.”

Perhaps pathetically, there is a seemingly remote possibility that the couple will kiss and make up. The next episode may well be the working out of the terms of the divorce by the lawyers on both sides, which would be a sad ending to a love story that had the inspiring appearance of a fairy tale. Anita has reportedly ruled out an out-of-court settlement; and PREMIUM TIMES quoted her lawyers as saying that the estranged couple was on such bad terms that there was no chance that the personalities would ever return to the status of husband and wife. The online publication presented a response by Stephen Goddard, Business Development Manager of Attwaters Jameson Hill Solicitors: “It is with great sadness that our client, Pastor Anita Oyakhilome, has come to the conclusion that her marriage to Pastor Christian Oyakhilome has irretrievably broken down and regrettably there is no hope of any reconciliation.”

The approaching inevitability is particularly disquieting not only because it involves Christian pastors who are also media magnets; before the storm, Chris and Anita enjoyed the titles of President and Vice-President of the Christian ministry respectively.

More importantly, the picture of irresolvable conflict is a devastating blow to the noblest virtues of Christian faith and matrimony.

To go by the reports, Anita’s anger has to do with issues defined as “unreasonable behaviour” and “adultery.”  Given that the details of her charges against Chris are not in the public square, it would be unreasonably and unhelpfully speculative to explore the accusations and even the counter-accusations.

In the context of Pentecostalism, which Christ Embassy represents, it is useful to consider Biblical teachings related to divorce. First, reflect on the words of Apostle Paul: “And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband: But and if she depart let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband; and let not the husband put away his wife.”(1 Corinthians 7:10-11) Next, think about the idea of Jesus himself: “And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery.” (Mark 10:12)

The unmistakable import of this background is the unacceptability of divorce in the framework of the faith. If there is a regrettably casual attitude to divorce in the secular world, church leaders whose stance should be informed by spiritual integrity ought to project a better example, especially considering that all eyes are on them. There is no doubt that divorce is understandably an expanding problem in the modern world with its anti-family tensions and tendencies; and it should be recognised as potentially anti-social.

Of course, a marriage may break down “irretrievably” just as suggested by the Chris and Anita developing story, and priesthood may not automatically confer immunity from marital troubles on individuals. However, the beauty of a matrimonial union must be its capacity for marathonic endurance, among other fundamentals.

Chris and Anita have two grown-up daughters who must be watching intently as their parents romance the depressing option of divorce; that is exactly what it is, an option, meaning there is possibly another one in the direction of unity. Will they understand how love disappeared, replaced by an intensely frontal and unmediated hostility?  How will this experience shape their emotional relationships, even their spiritual directions? Beyond these, what will happen to the image of the ministry, and even to the personal and pastoral brands of Chris and Anita?

Why is forgiveness apparently no longer possible in this case? This is the chief reason for its ugliness, the exclusion of the grace of forgiveness, which can always result from charity. Paul again: “Charity never faileth.” (1 Corinthians 13: 8) But pastors in particular should know this, which is why Chris and Anita need enlightenment.

Wat does it mean to be characterised as angelic? Illumination came at the solemn Night of Tributes and Service of Songs organised to say a formal and final farewell to the departed Dr. Ameyo Stella Adadevoh who patriotically and heroically gave her life to save the country from a possible viral catastrophe.

It was perhaps fitting that a team of ladies screened people with gadgets at the entrance and supplied sanitisers for use as the venue filled up gradually, which were obvious precautionary measures in the face of the ongoing battle with a killer virus.  By 6pm on September 11, Harbour Point, Victoria Island, Lagos, was ready for a review of the life and times of the doctor who succumbed to the deadly Ebola Virus Disease (EVD) which she had contracted in the course of treating the country’s first case of the bug, Patrick Sawyer, the Liberian-American who died of EVD on July 25. Tragically, Adadevoh herself passed away on August 19, less than one month after her life-threatening encounter with Sawyer.

Adadevoh gazed at the population in the expansive space. She was frozen on a canvass framed with a garland of white, cream and green flowers; she wore a doctor’s white overcoat and a stethoscope was around her neck. Her striking portrait formed the background on the stage which had a table and chairs for three white-robed priests and a green-robed one. An orchestra of violinists and hornsmen performed impressively on the side and a choir in a colour-mix of blue, red and white completed the musical ensemble.

Two large screens presented pictorial highlights of Adadevoh’s earthly journey, which were greeted by a gripping contemplative silence from the crowd. Her childhood years, growing up, her graduation from medical school in red gown and cap with scroll in hand, her wedding, motherhood, family life and social life, rolled out in photos before attentive and sorrowful eyes.

“There is no doubt that her death is hurtful and painful,” said the priest who delivered the homily.

“She sacrificed her life,” he stressed, “and saved the country from an uncontrollable disaster”; but, he added, “she was not an accidental heroine.” He pointed out: “Sacrifice was her second nature and character.”  In his view, she had “a glorious exit” in the truest sense of the phrase, different from the clichéd use of the expression.

The tribute session was revealing. Dr. Bode Karunwi, her mate in primary school and medical college, spoke about their 50-year friendship and called her “a faithful friend” in addition to being “a first-class physician.” It was Dr. Efunbo Dosekun who provided a penetrating glimpse of her final moments as she struggled with EVD while quarantined. Dosekun described their last interaction “before she slipped into coma.” In a moving narration, she painted a picture of how she had to speak to Adadevoh through the window because of quarantine regulations. She said Adadavoh had told Sawyer: “I won’t let you go because you would spread this virus far and wide.” Significantly, a Havard University medical professor whose tribute was read on the occasion touchingly said he hoped “Nigeria will one day reflect on her heroism and sacrifice in containing a deadly epidemic.”  So far, figures released by the World Health Organisation (WHO) indicate that eight people have died of EVD out of 21 cases.

Adadevoh’s death was especially pathetic because she was, ironically, a victim of her professionalism, dedication to work and concern for the sick. A family member was quoted as saying, “She was not on duty on the day Mr. Sawyer was brought to the hospital, but she responded to the emergency. She left what she was doing to save a life.”

Her commendably rare demonstration of respect for the Hippocratic Oath of her profession was noted by the Lagos State Commissioner for Health, Dr. Jide Idris. Following her death, he said of her role: “She it was who took the initiative to intimate the ministry concerning the index case; and substantially to her credit, the moderate containment achieved we owe to her and her colleagues.” Speaking of containment efforts, it was reported that Adadevoh had to “physically restrain” the infected patient from escaping from the hospital after he had been diagnosed with EVD.

It is impossible to build scenarios or to imagine the scale of the public health crisis that would most likely have developed in the country in the absence of the thorough diagnostic efforts and a firm application of safety measures and standards, without a huge sense of gratitude to Adadevoh and others who worked with her in the management of Sawyer’s case.  There is no doubt that the professional intervention of Adadevoh and other health workers greatly reduced the  high possibility of a wide-spread dispersal of the virus, which  causes a haemorrhagic fever that can kill infected people in a week, although patients reportedly begin to show symptoms within three weeks of infection.

“Our tribute to her is our school song,” said an old girl of Queen’s School, Ede/Ibadan, Adadevoh’s alma mater, and the alumnae gave an enthusiastic rendition of the school song to end the chain of tributes. “Pass on the Torch”, they sang, in reference to the school motto.

It is heartwarming that Adadevoh’s torch will be kept burning by a newly founded organisation, the Dr. Ameyo Stella Adadevoh Health Trust, which has been set up in honour of “her life of service to profession, community and humanity.” The source of the information announced that   “it will be a professionally run charity” dedicated to her ideals; and there was an approving applause at Harbour Point. He gave a contact email address: drasatrust@gmail .com.

Before her death, Adadevoh, 57, had worked for 21 years at First Consultants Medical Centre, Obalende, Lagos, and became the Lead Consultant Physician and Endocrinologist. Interestingly, that evening at Habour Point, those who spoke called her Ameyo, which is a Ewe name for girls meaning “Girl born on Saturday.” Also, some of them called her an angel, which suggests a guardian angel.

In particular, the representative of the association of endocrinologists said, “Our society will pursue national recognition which she so deserves”; and the people clapped.  It is noteworthy that a new petition on Change.org is asking the government to “honour the memory of Adadevoh with a National Posthumous Award”.  However, such consideration should apply not only to her. A nurse at the same hospital also died from EVD. Those who paid the ultimate price while carrying out their duties and saved many lives from Ebola even without having contact with them deserve credit.  A grateful country should reward their heroic self-sacrifice.

Although it sounded like incremental repetition, it added little to the state of things and ultimately proved to be effectively unuseful.  If the ambition of Nobelist Wole Soyinka was to concretely reinforce the allegations by Australian Stephen Davis concerning certain perceived local pillars of the rampaging Islamist guerilla force Boko Haram, his intervention did not match his purpose.

It was disappointing that the tigrish public intellectual apparently fell below his own standards as his lent his influential voice to the urgent project of unveiling those who nourish the terrorists. In his publicised statement on the characters named by Davis, titled “The wages of impunity,” Soyinka unbelievably chose the path of harmless assault. In particular, his mention of Senator Ali Modu Sheriff, a former governor of Borno State, merely followed the beaten track.

Intriguingly, the literary champion failed to supply the missing letters that would have defined the identity of the unnamed senior official of the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) fingered by Davis. This lost opportunity to provide additional information of a radical nature, which the moment represented, may never be regained.

It is apt to wonder whether similar reasons informed the conscious silence of the two men, and what those grounds could be. Between Davis, the foreign “negotiator”, and Soyinka, the native mediator, was a common ground of mystifying unspecificity. In the case of the famed writer, his pauses were especially perturbing because of his dramatised conviction. He said: “Finally, Stephen Davis also mentions a Boko Haram financier within the Nigerian Central Bank. Independently, we are able to give backing to that claim, even to the extent of naming the individual. In the process of our enquiries, we solicited the help of a foreign embassy whose government, we learnt, was actually on the same trail, thanks to its independent investigation into some money laundering that involved the Central Bank.”

Having gone so far in building a base for his insight, Soyinka was expected to carry the architecture of truth to a logical conclusion. But he acted against his own construction. The same man said in the statement: “Truth – in all available detail – is in the interest, not only of Nigeria, the sub-region and the continent, but of the international community whose aid we so belatedly moved to seek.” Or perhaps it was a different mind that promoted unrestrained truthfulness in the context of the socially tormenting terror war.

The truth is that an anti-climactic treatment of the idea of full disclosure, such as Soyinka demonstrated, cannot be in the country’s interest, both in local and international terms; and it is puzzling that the master of fiction, which is known as  “the truthful lie”, did not pursue non-fictional truth to its fullest extent.

In what was tantamount to ridiculous buck passing, Soyinka said: “That name, we confidently learnt, has also been passed on to President Jonathan. When he is ready to abandon his accommodating policy towards the implicated, even the criminalized, an attitude that owes so much to his re-election desperation, when he moves from a passive “letting the law to take its course” to galvanizing the law to take its course, we shall gladly supply that name.”

The theatre of war created by Boko Haram is so gravely threatening that the kind of dramatic suspense employed by Soyinka is not only dangerous and unacceptable; it raises the serious suspicion that the script may be a travesty of truth. If, truly, the pluralistic entity Soyinka credited with possession of the truth knows these things, why wait for Jonathan to act on the same information that has allegedly been passed on to him? Does Jonathan actually have this information?

In a profound sense, by keeping his cards close to his chest on such a burning issue, Soyinka can be reasonably criticised for adopting an “accommodating” approach towards the inculpated, the same accusation he made against Jonathan.  Evidently, this is a case in which illumination is accompanied by opacity; for it would appear that Soyinka does not see the concealment of identity as suggestive of subtle complicity. It is a tragic unawareness for a critic who reasoned that “The unleashing of a viperous cult like Boko Haram on peaceful citizens qualifies as a crime against humanity.”

Armed with a claimed knowledge of the friends of terrorisers in high places, particularly those who fund terroristic activities, which is invaluable information that can assist in the resolution of the crisis, it is untenable to conveniently accuse someone else of alleged lethargy, or even an abandonment of responsibility. It may not be far-fetched to qualify such attitude as vicariously guilty of a crime against humanity.  By supplying “that name”, it is possible to galvanize the law from the outside, without necessarily attributing such responsibility exclusively to Jonathan. Assuming that the information is available to Jonathan, what if he eventually ignored it for whatever reason?  How long will others in possession of the same detail wait to reveal it?

It mirrors a clear contradiction for Soyinka to express intense unease about the situation, yet indirectly contribute to its perpetuation by this deafening quiet. Should he be taken seriously then, and his observation, “we twiddle our thumbs, wondering when and how this nightmare will end, and time rapidly runs out”?

Naming the mysterious individual shouldn’t be such a big deal, unless there is perhaps something else Soyinka knows which makes him tongue-tied; the same reflection applies to Davis. If the individual is not nameless, and therefore nameable, what is the import of this performance of silence? To expect the presidency, and possibly the CBN, to react to nothingness, which the unspecificness represents, when they could be more stingingly pricked by a direct, detailed and explicit picture, amounts to a denial of personal responsibility, which is distinct from institutional responsibility; and it is also a ludicrous trivialisation of the confrontation with evil.

There is no doubt about Soyinka’s tigerishness and dazzling track record as a conscientious opposer of evil, but at 80 years of age it is probable that his claws are blunted and only an impotent rage is left. If a personality of his stature will not name names when it is socially redemptive to do so, then the society is in abysmal trouble.

Beyond President Goodluck Jonathan’s unprecedented exclusive endorsement for re-election by the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) state governors, Board of Trustees and National Executive Committee, which has practically foreclosed the conventional Presidential Primary to choose a candidate, his choreographic skill and promotional ability were perhaps more strikingly exhibited  in the matter of the reported N10, 000 donated in support of his campaign by a certain Ezemagu Sunday Nnamadi, a member of the National Youth Service Corps (NYSC).

Intriguingly, the portrait of this newsmaking donor described as “a young Nigerian” was unhelpfully indistinct. He appeared to belong to a shadowy world, without concrete details of his background. For instance, it would be interesting to know where he was schooled and what he studied, even where he was posted for his NYSC year.

The presidency must have considered such clarifying pieces of information needless, not to say useless. All that mattered should be the celebrated donation, not the circumstances of the donor, the president’s communication handlers must have reasoned. This would explain why the statement on the gift issued by Jonathan’s Special Adviser on Media and Publicity, Dr. Reuben Abati,  reportedly focused on his gratitude. Jonathan’s letter of thanks, according to Abati, said: “Your gracious gesture is particularly gratifying, coming as it does from one of our nation’s vibrant and gifted youth who are our successor generation and for whom our administration is unequivocally committed to providing the requisite environment to optimally realise their tremendous creative and productive potential.”

The letter continued:” As I carry on with the task of positively transforming our country for its God-ordained greatness and prosperity, I will continue to count on the goodwill as well as the practical and prayerful support of patriots like you.”

Realistically, the said donation, if not a publicity stunt, was a publicity opportunity that ought to be exploited maximally, but the issue is that it seemed suspiciously simulated, a possibility that speaks volumes about the capacity for creative orchestration in the presidential corridor. Is Jonathan projecting the idea that he does not have an intimidating war chest?  It is noteworthy how the letter of appreciation dripped with self-glorification. In particular, the suggestion of continuity was attractively dressed, or to put it in another fashion, the intention of extension was charmingly undressed.

From the look of things, Jonathan could be dreaming of a day when the entire country would rise as one and crown him without opposition.  That dream is a grandiose delusion. But it would be unsurprising if the next episode in the long-running entertainment show featured enthusiastic sycophants begging him to agree to be the PDP presidential candidate in the 2015 general elections. Not that such a development would be entirely new, only that this time it may likely involve people kneeling before him and prostrating themselves before him in unbelievable submission.

Add to this picture the reinforcing activities of the obsessive self-defined non-governmental organisation known as Transformation Ambassadors of Nigeria (TAN) which insists on an   incomprehensible objective: “the continuation of transformation by President Goodluck Ebele Jonathan (GEJ).”  What the group makes of the concept of “transformational government” remains a puzzle because the Jonathan administration has been anything but that. However, TAN’s promotional train is on course and its region-by-region approach is expected to climax in the federal capital, Abuja, on September 30.

Also in the picture is the screening and evaluation of the various Jonathan support groups for the battle ahead. Instructively, Jonathan’s Political Adviser, Prof. Rufai Alkali, who coordinated the activities, said:  “As 2015 approaches, we note that the circumstances and fundamentals facing us are somewhat different. The opposition is different; the political landscape is different; the players are different and the issues are different.”   Alkali continued: “To address these issues, the reorganisation of the Goodluck Support Group (GSG) has become imperative. I have, therefore, decided to set up a special GSG reorganisation committee to study all issues concerning the organisation and propose a reorganisation structure that will allow us position for 2015.”

Considering the scale of the preparation indicated by these developments, it is both puzzling and laughable that the character whose interest is being promoted by these actions continues to pretend that he may not be interested in a second term as president after all. In the light of all that is visible, Jonathan’s attitude is nothing short of self-deception, if he thinks that the people are in the dark. There is a certain reptilian sneakiness to his conduct.  What is he waiting for, particularly given all the signs that continue to betray his aspiration?

But Jonathan would want observers to believe that this background, as persuasive as it is, may not be enough to make him interested in re-election. He seems determined not to be seen as desperate for a second term in office, which may be a reasonable projection; but it is impossible to hide his ambition. Indeed, in a telling irony, the harder he struggles to mask his aspiration, the more he gives himself away.

Strikingly, when he appeared at his party’s September 20 “Southwest sensitisation rally,” he could not resist wearing that familiar mask of deception. In his speech on the occasion, he referred to the various endorsements and introduced a suspicious complication. He said: “I also have the right of refusal and I thank the party for giving me the opportunity.”

The question is: Would he exercise this right and refuse?  Jonathan, perhaps unwittingly, but more likely not innocently, supplied the answer, albeit in a coded communication. He boasted about the establishment of a Presidential Jobs Board which would “create three million jobs in the next one year.” He reasoned:  “That means in a few years, we would solve the problem of unemployment.”  Then he added: “We continue to promise to transform Nigeria; make changes and never go back. We need all Nigerians to work with us. In the next few years, unemployment will continue to drop. We are totally committed to changing all sectors of the Nigerian economy.”

Read between the lines. Does he sound like a man who would say “No”?  He must be self- deluded to imagine that his game of laboured suspense is beyond public comprehension. On the contrary, whatever game he is playing appears so cheap and degrading, not to say nauseating.

Jonathan has proved to be a master choreographer, perhaps contradicting the view of his antagonists that he is clueless. When it comes to stage-managing for political success at any cost, he may be the ultimate power-hungry schemer.

It is imaginable that she was an unseen presence at the show, and possibly other ethereal beings were in attendance.  “Why not now?” she might have wondered.  Those in a position to answer the question could easily have acted in a way that would have made the poser out of the question. But because they didn’t, the September 29 National Honours’ investiture seemed like an event that had lost its soul and had become soulless; these two conditions may not be the same.

Speaking of souls, particularly the souls of the dead, perhaps such apparitions were at the venue, International Conference Centre, Abuja, just to see the spectacle organised by the living dead.  Or is there a better description for those who are biologically alive but morally dead?

The celebration of deadened consciousness, which the event projected on account of glaring and jarring omissions in the list of awardees, represented yet another instance of institutional insensitivity. In this specific case, the institution is no other than the country’s presidency, or more precisely, the Goodluck Jonathan administration.

It would take a phenomenal leap of the imagination to grasp the administration’s tactless treatment of the memory of those who recently paid the ultimate price and made a supreme sacrifice for the country. It would probably be more appropriate to call it an egregious insult which the departed do not deserve.

What is even more unacceptably unthinking and unfeeling is the brusque defence by Dr Doyin Okupe, Senior Special Assistant on Public Affairs to President Jonathan, who reportedly said via his Twitter account that the national honours were not given posthumously.  It is instructive that between September 19 when the full list of awardees was publicised and September 29 when they were decorated, there were loud calls from concerned quarters highlighting the nauseating exclusion.

Two of such wake-up calls will suffice. The Chairman, Nigeria Medical Association (NMA), Cross River State chapter, Dr. Callistus Enyuma, said: “One would expect that she should not be neglected when honours are given. I believe it is not too late for her to be included on the honours’ list. She must have that honour.” Next, the President of Jojaina Deck of the National Association of Seadogs, Mr. Fabian Avoh, said: “Let us ask the Federal Government or precisely the presidency what yardstick was used in including all sorts of people on the list of the highest honour in the land when Adadevoh, who sacrificed her life, was not on the list.”

In a reasonable context, the inclusion of Dr. Ameyo Stella Adadevoh who died on August 19 should have been beyond question, even if by way of special mention at the event and by immortalising her.  She was the most prominent among the country’s health care workers who died of Ebola Virus Disease (EVD) after contracting it from the Liberian- American Patrick Sawyer who brought it into the country and died from it on July 25. It is noteworthy that the Lagos State Commissioner for Health, Dr. Jide Idris, said of her role: “She it was who took the initiative to intimate the ministry concerning the index case; and substantially to her credit, the moderate containment achieved we owe to her and her colleagues.” There is no doubt that the professional intervention of Adadevoh and others arrested the possibility of a wide-spread dispersal of the deadly virus. The Jonathan administration must be suffering from inattentional blindness.

Even more intriguing is the likelihood that the government may also be afflicted with complicated confusion. Two days after the disquieting silence on the EVD-related deaths of health care personnel who worked at First Consultants Medical Centre, Obalende, Lagos, Jonathan referred to the tragedies superficially. He said in his October 1 address on the country’s 54th Independence Day: “I appreciate and welcome the spirit of collaboration, unity and partnership with which we confronted the threat of the Ebola Virus Disease. I thank all Nigerians for working together to prevent what could have become a major epidemic. I particularly thank the medical personnel, some of whom paid the ultimate sacrifice.” Could this be interpreted as thanking the dead for dying?   What a way to reward heroic self-sacrifice!

Interestingly, Jonathan’s idea of reward seemed suspect, if not mischievous, especially in connection with three personalities who made this year’s national honours’ list of 305 awardees: the National Chairman of the All Progressives Congress (APC) and a former governor of Edo State, Chief John Odigie-Oyegun; the Ogun State Governor, Senator Ibikunle Amosun; and the Ekiti State Governor, Dr. Kayode Fayemi, who is on his way out, having lost controversially in the June governorship election to Ayo Fayose of the ruling Peoples Democratic Party(PDP) . Considering that the men are members of the APC, the intensely critical opposition party with a strong ambition to rule the country, their inclusion may have been no more than a wily attempt to present the Jonathan administration and the PDP as perhaps dispassionate and uninfluenced by zero-sum mentality. They were given the title, Commander of the Order of the Niger (CON).

It is food for thought that these particular honourees, who could have exploited the publicity opportunity to further rubbish the administration and what it stands for by maintaining a respectable distance, chose the path of counter-productive accommodation. Odigie-Oyegun was represented at the ceremony. Fayemi, rather than be in Abuja to receive the national honour, attended the opening ceremony of the Bisi Adeleye-Fayemi Centre for Gender and Social Policy Studies donated by his wife to the Obafemi Awolwo University, Ile-Ife, Osun State. He was quoted as saying: “It is thus at great cost that I am here in demonstration of my dedication to a worthy cause. Nothing can be more important than this. The CON can be posted to me by courier, but nobody can post this to me.”  In both cases, there was a sufficient indication of acceptance.

Amosun surpassed them by displaying a petty ecstasy. Not only did he attend the investiture, he apparently got carried away. Listen to him: “When you are given an award like this, you are honoured; it is a call for more service. It is like describing an elephant; it is from the perspective from which you are looking at it. Yes, there may be one or two misgivings about it; people will talk anyway. I think whoever is given, it is a call to serve more, render selfless service to the nation and to our different states.”

It would appear that Amosun may not have reflected on the governmental performance of the giver. Has Jonathan himself shown a satisfactory understanding of the concept of service in political office?  Why would he desire to encourage what may be indeed alien to him? What is the subtext of this dramatic political scheming?