Opinion

Citizen Journalism And Democratic Consolidation

Published

2 years ago

November 24, 2022

NewTimes

Sam Akpe

By Sam Akpe & Mercy Tartsea-Anshase
Almost two centuries ago, a notable French writer, Alexis de Tocqueville, offered a controversial description of the powers of the media in the elevation and sustenance of democracy.

Focusing on the American model which had already reached maturity at that time, he observed that the press was in a marriage of mutual benefits with democracy.

Citizen journalism and Democratic Consolidation

Mercy Tartsea-Anshase

He drew attention to the fact that the press caused “political life to circulate through all the parts of that vast territory (United States). Its eye is constantly open to detect the secret springs of political designs and to summon the leaders of all parties in turn to the bar of public opinion.”

He explained that based on his experiences and observations, the press “rallies the interests of the community round certain principles and draws up the creed of every party; for it affords a means of intercourse between those who hear and address each other without ever coming into immediate contact.”

READ ALSO: This Idea Must Not Die

Alexis’ perception as enshrined in his analysis was that the media wield so much power that they do not only influence but have the capacity to control politics and its key players and connect them to the people.

Perhaps at that time, Alexis was right. But between 1835 when he wrote that piece, and today, the paradigm has shifted over and over. One of the inventions that must have created the shift is called citizen journalism.

Let’s explain that a little. In the 1830s, the press was controlled by those trained, not just in the classroom, but through the mill, to report the news, write analysis and influence the perception of the audience on critical issues.

That was a time journalism was practiced by journalists—those trained in the art and tested in the mill of the profession. It was at such a time that the press could set agenda for public discourse because the profession was socially responsible.

Journalists were made to think and behave as the conscience of the nation; such that whatever people read in the newspapers was regarded as the gospel truth because it was soaked and stewed in the acceptable ingredients of the profession.

Under such atmosphere, the consolidation of democracy as an alternative to authoritarianism was left in the hands of the media. Little wonder, that on January 19, 1787, Thomas Jefferson, the man who authored the document for the Declaration of American Independence in 1776, while serving as America’s minister to France, made that historic and often-quoted statement.

READ ALSO: Hilary Owamah: From Life Storms To Stardom

History records that while in France, Jefferson, in a letter to his friend and political associate, Edward Carrington, declared that given an opportunity to choose between a government instead of newspapers or newspapers in place of government, he would surely opt for the newspapers.

That metaphorically-loaded statement confirmed the inherent powers of the mass media—and of course, the newspaper was the only reigning mass medium at that time.

It was the media that consolidated democracy in the United States. This was when the press could be meaningfully referred to as the Fourth Estate of the Realm—that is, the unofficial but an extremely powerful participant in democracy.

There was a chain of events in the 1970s that accounted for further consolidation of American democracy. We still remember the man called Richard Milhous Nixon, the 37th President of the United States.

On his watch, and to his knowledge, some Republican Party chieftains in his government arranged and supervised the invasion of the Democratic Party office on August 8, 1972. Some of those involved were personal aides who worked closely with him in the White House. The invaders were promptly arrested and interrogated.

As it is with politicians everywhere, Nixon’s spin doctors, comprising political advisers, spokespersons, even some lawmakers, and other political jobbers, denied his involvement.

But the Washington Post newspaper refused to believe the stories. Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein, mentored by the indefatigable Ben Bradlee—the editor—stayed on that story for more than two years.

Within this period, most of Nixon’s political appointees who masterminded the undemocratic act, were jailed. Others resigned in shame. Finally, the ugly incident caused Nixon to declare on June 27, 1974, “I will resign the Presidency effective at noon tomorrow.” And he did.

The moral of this story is that democracy needs the media to live up to its name. Bradlee, in his autobiography observed that though Nixon hated the media since the media made him unpopular, ironically, by his actions, he conferred unprecedented fame on the same media. He “gave the press its finest hour.”

Just imagine what would have happened to American democracy if such dictatorial act by the party in power was swept under the carpet by the media! However, the press was only able to hold the government accountable through undiluted display of professionalism, which meant that it operated within certain normative boundaries.

Let’s take a deep breathe and ask ourselves: in this era of social media-driven information dissemination—when journalism is practiced by quacks masquerading as professionals—how possible is it to consolidate or strengthen democracy in the manner described above? Almost impossible, because you cannot give what you do not have.

The next question is: is there anything wrong with citizen journalism—that is, the so-called journalism practiced by people who are unschooled in the profession, people whose practices are not regulated by ethics? We can only answer this question with another question.

READ ALSO: Nigeria: Hushpuppi For President

If journalism is a profession just as medical practice, engineering, architecture, nursing, or being a pilot, how acceptable would it be to have a carpenter walk into a hospital theatre ready to carry out a brain surgery, or a bricklayer jump into aircraft’s cockpit, ready for a flight? This is what citizen journalists are doing to journalism.

In examining citizen journalism as an instrument for the consolidation of democracy, we are trying to establish what aspects of that unprofessional practice can help our democracy to grow. In other words, we are indirectly asking for the advantages of citizen journalism in a democratic environment.

By the way, does this brand of information dissemination qualify to be called journalism? “It is a misnomer to call it journalism,” said Ray Ekpu at a journalism workshop in 2018. He noted that such writing lacks “the rigour, the professionalism, the ethical obligation, truth-telling and the fairness doctrine that journalism is infused with.”

No doubt, citizen journalism or so called, has helped spread information or democratise the process of information dissemination, which is good for democracy. Such information might be false, fake, misleading, purposely mischievous with pre-determined negative implications, but hardly is any information perfectly useless.

There is actually nothing new about citizen journalism except that in modern times, it is technologically-driven. For instance, on November 22, 1963, the day American president, John F. Kennedy was assassinated, it was someone we can today describe as a citizen journalist who captured it on video.

It is still unclear how he did. But Abraham Zapruder documented the bloody incident with his Bell and Howell camera. The video lasted only 26 seconds.

Born in present-day Ukraine, Zapruder was a tailor, not a journalist. He was simply trying to capture the president’s convoy when a bullet tore into the limousine and killed Kennedy.

READ ALSO: The Obidient Movement: An Expert Opinion

Fast-forward to March 13, 1991 when a plumber called George Holliday videoed the beating of Rodney King by certain police officers. The video lasted nine minutes.

Let’s be aware that if both Zapruder and Holliday were not at the scenes of these incidents, those events would not have been recorded. So, do we clap for citizen journalism? Hold on a moment!

The truth is that what is called citizen journalism can only help consolidate democracy in Nigeria if there is a collaboration between it and the mainstream media. In other words, whatever information is gathered by the non-professionals should be subjected to normative assessment by the professionals.

For instance, in the two examples cited above, the recorded videos were handed over to the mainstream media for professional handling. But that has not been the case since the advent of internet technology and the creation of social media platforms.

READ ALSO: What Does Psychiatry Say To Nigerians? Celebrating The Humanity Of Oye Gureje

With citizen journalism, the so-called reporter is also the publisher. He or she reports to nobody. There is no gatekeeping, there is no filtering process, there is no verification, there is no attempt to balance the story. They see it, they report it, they publish it, and life continues.

Some people have argued that the meeting point between the traditional and this new brand of writing is that both produce news. That is absolutely misleading. Reason is that, that thing called news can only be produced by people trained or skilled in the art and practice of journalism; not just anybody.

If citizen journalism is about information dissemination that falls short of what news should be, how does that help in consolidating democracy? Democracy thrives on truth, balanced and objective reporting which form the hallmark of journalism. Anything less is meant to destroy democracy.

Let’s draw a line here, citizen journalism must not be confused with online newspapers owned and operated by core journalism professionals. An online newspaper is different from blogs created by self-proclaimed journalists who are bent on publishing whatever will attract peoples’ attention.

Our conclusion is that, what is called citizen journalism has the capacity to contribute towards the consolidation of Nigeria’s democracy through meaningful information dissemination. But that can only happen based on ethically-driven quality, truthfulness, objectivity and authenticity of such information.

This is only possible if those involved in the trade deliberately undergo training on the rudiments of normative reporting or subject their passion to collaboration with the mainstream media.

Until then, what is being bandied in the social media platforms now, which comprise fake and misleading information, can only destroy instead of consolidating Nigeria’s democracy.

Read more authentic news on our social media platforms

Opinion

Afe Babalola And Dele Farotimi: On Justice, A Just Society And The Nigerian State

Published

2 hours ago

December 22, 2024

NewTimes

Prof. Tunji Olaopa

By Tunji Olaopa

The feud between elder statesman, Chief Afe Babalola and civil rights activist, Mr. Dele Farotimi, is perhaps the most significant discourse that postcolonial Nigerian state has thrown up for the moment, one in a class of those grand defining disputations that surely will gather dust which will take some time to abate. And it is one case that is fraught with all sorts of legal, jurisprudential, moral and political traps and complexities that speak to more than the trivial interventions—leveraged around the David and Goliath motif—that are attending the matter. Those who have been able to go beyond the surface of the case will agree that it goes to the very foundation and founding of the Nigerian society, and the fundamental objective of crafting a good and just society for Nigerians. That the issue revolves around the dispensation of justice immediately alerts us to the deep insinuation about the idea of social justice itself, and how the conception of fairness could be written into the very fabric of the Nigerian society. And yet, the complexity of the case is what makes it a case that is too critical for a public servant like me to dabble in.

(Un)fortunately, my intellectual maturation, my political science education and my professional endeavor in institutional reform advocacy have prepared me to intervene in this critical matter. I have always been involved with Nigeria, and with reflective thoughts about how to reconstitute her greatness. Three learning encounters with three world-historic icons configured my passion for wanting to see that Nigeria becomes a state we all can be proud of. The first came from my reading of Plato’s Republic. There is a reason that the entire treatise commenced with the question, what is justice? Justice was a fundamental issue in the decline of the ancient Athenian democracy that allowed Socrates to be judicially murdered. The second learning derived from Wole Soyinka’s dense prison memoir, The Man Died. And like most who have read it, Soyinka was troubled by the idea of justice: “For me, justice is the first condition of humanity.” By the time I would be coming to Thomas More’s Utopia, I was already apprised of the connections between my political science education, my professional endeavor as a public servant, and the key elements of institutional reform as a cogent framework for transforming Nigeria.

From Plato to Soyinka, we have a trajectory of political reflection that takes justice seriously as the basis for organizing a just society. This is part of the intellectual frameworks for my undergraduate and graduate studies at the Department of Political Science, University of Ibadan. In one of those explosive seminar classes that played some fundamental role in my intellectual maturation in the graduate school, I had proposed an argument through a seminar paper titled: “Is a revolution an option to fix Nigeria?” The topic was meant to titillate the collective yearning for revolution that would serve as the ultimate mechanism for social change that would flush off all traces of corruption and degeneration in postcolonial Nigeria. Revolutions seem to possess some allure for the masses because they constitute a framework of justice that the constitutional justice mechanism might not be able to handle.

However, as Wole Soyinka, Thomas More, Martin Luther and even Galileo Galilei would realize, the need for radicalism is balanced by the force of establishment orthodoxy. The Nigerian predicament has, as a fundamental foundation, a lot to do with the connection between governance failure and injustice in terms of the persistent and protracted class strife between the haves and the have-nots, between the rich and the poor, indeed, in the final analysis between the government and the governed. And in the case between Afe Babalola and Dele Farotimi, the issues boil down to the administration of justice and the entire edifices and institutions of social justice and the rule of law in Nigeria. And so, in outlining the key issues involved in the matter, we must be careful enough to read between the lines and the noises of analysts who are eager to queue behind their favored protagonists.

First things first. Let us remove the surface debris. Indeed, and in this case, the debris points us in the direction to look for the rot within the matter. First, there is the matter of civil defamation and its legal ramifications. And second, there is the issue of the legal and moral protocols involved in dealing with the pursuit of redress by someone who knows and understands the law. Barrister Farotimi has a legal right to seek redress in court. Chief Babalola has a legal right to defend his reputation in court. In raising the specter of legal prosecution against defamation, I see Chief Babalola as being at the forefront of gatekeeping the legal establishment in terms of what is and is not permissible or possible under the law and its conservative tenets. If you are hurt or an injustice has been done to your person, then the best place to seek redress is not the court of public opinion but the constitutional legal establishment.

Unfortunately for him, Barrister Farotimi’s book, Nigeria and Its Criminal Justice System, impugns the entire legal and judicial establishment up to its apex institution, the Nigerian Supreme Court. However, does radicalism preclude moral decency? A book could be written and allegations made without the complement of atrocious language. Or maybe the rot in the judicial system, and the need for a revolution preclude any niceties, especially with those who are allegedly at the forefront of perpetuating and protecting the rot. But then, how to prove what we all consider to be the norm in terms of legal prosecution of judicial corruption remains a hanging question.

No matter how we look at what we are calling the surface debris, we are redirected deeper and deeper into what lies beneath the surface. The ultimate question is that between Chief Afe Babalola and Barrister Dele Farotimi, what we are asked to contend with is the state of the Nigerian judiciary and the corrupt impediment of social justice, especially for an average Nigerian. What Barrister Dele Farotimi said about the Nigerian judicial system is not new. We are all familiar with the rot within the system. Indeed, this is not the first time an alarm would be raised about what we are all familiar with. Indeed, as far back as 1999, The News magazine carried a most unsalutary headline, “Crooks on the Bench: An Expose on the Rot in the Judiciary.” The magazine headlined the names of 47 judges indicted for judicial corruption. What is new is that Dele Farotimi dared to go so far as to mention specific names, and to confront the big players in the legal establishment. And he did this in a most scurrilous manner targeted at getting maximum traction and attention. It is as if Mr Farotimi, through the public sphere, is throwing the gauntlet to every Nigerian and challenging us on our collective responsibility to clean the Augean stable.

If Barrister Farotimi cannot prove his allegations in court, it would not mean that his charges are false. It might only imply that the system which is supposed to guarantee justice has become too corruptly dense to achieve its mandate. But there is also the chance that since the entire judicial system cannot be tarred so broadly with the same brush, Farotimi’s allegation might receive a dispassionate hearing that might deliver justice as we expect it. This might be a tall expectation. Nigeria’s postcolonial predicament has inevitable consequences on the capacity of the judicial system to facilitate the delivery of justice. And this failure also complicates the capacity of the Nigerian state to deliver on its social contract to Nigerians. This is what makes the Babalola-Farotimi case too complex to be decided either in the constitutional court or the court of public opinion. The burdens of postcolonial disruptions that the Nigerian judiciary system carries are enormous: judicial corruption, miscarriage of judgments, executive lawlessness, delayed trial due to insufficient infrastructure, financial dependence on the executive arm of government.

To outline the fundamental challenges of the judicial system in Nigeria this way is not to give in to cynicism and a deterministic mindset that we might be caught in a vice that is inescapable. It is simply to say that the ongoing uproar between the two dramatis personae demonstrates that the court has been given a chance to reflect on the role that (in)justice plays in the fundamental understanding of the Nigerian postcolonial predicament and the capacity of a democratic system to correct itself. When Chief Afe Babalola and Barrister Dele Farotimi are given their day in court, we will have no choice but to trust that same judicial system to deliver unbiased judgment no matter our misgivings about how objective and untainted that judgment could be. This is just a way of saying that though our judicial system is not perfect; it is still the best that we have.

The last words on this reflection on the connection between the ongoing feud between Babalola and Farotimi and Nigeria’s postcolonial predicament must be given to Haile Sellasie, former emperor of Ethiopia: “Throughout history, it has been the inaction of those who could have acted; the indifference of those who should have known better; the silence of the voice of justice when it mattered most; that has made it possible for evil to triumph.”

Olaopa is the Chairman, Federal Civil Service Commission,Abuja, and Professor of Public Administration.
tolaopa2003@gmail.com

Opinion

Fear Of Witchcraft And Politics In Zambia

Published

1 day ago

December 21, 2024

NewTimes

Witch Burning, Impunity And Abuses Linked to Witchcraft Beliefs In Benue State

Dr Leo Igwe

By Leo Igwe

The Advocacy for Alleged Witches (AfAW) is concerned over the reported arrest of two men accused of being ‘witchdoctors’ in Zambia. The arrest underscores the potency of witchcraft fears and the connection between occult anxieties and the country’s politics. These individuals were accused of trying to bewitch the Zambian president, Hakainde Hichilema. The police claimed that they had charms. They planned to use the charms to harm the president. The report says the two persons have been charged under Zambia’s Witchcraft Act. The Act criminalizes “possession of charms”, “professing knowledge of witchcraft”, and “cruelty to wild animals”. The police found the two with assorted charms, including a live chameleon.

This development is utterly embarrassing and shows that the Zambian government is slowly losing its focus and bearing.The country has many socio-economic challenges. Suspicion of bewitchment or possession of charms should be the least of its worries at this time. There should be no place for witchcraft and possession of charms in modern politics because there is no evidence for these beliefs and practices. Zambian authorities should not weaponize the Witchcraft Act or use it to justify this incident. Zambian law does not recognize witchcraft. Zambia’s Witchcraft Act criminalizes naming or imputing witchcraft. It prohibits accusing or threatening to accuse any person of being a witch or a wizard. In this case, it is the police who are breaking the law.

Otherwise, how did they know the two individuals were ‘witchdoctors’? Did these persons identify as witch doctors? If not, the police are liable because they named and imputed witchcraft and have to prove that these individuals have witch-doctoring powers. The police claimed to have charged these individuals for possessing “assorted charms”, including a chameleon. Really?

The police in Zambia have questions to answer: What are charms? How did they know that what was in their possession were charms, not pets? Is a chameleon a form of charm? What makes possession of a chameleon possession of a charm? When and how does a chameleon become a charm? The police need to answer these questions and more before one takes them seriously.

Again, did the individuals describe what was in possession as ‘charms’? If they did, does confessing or designating something as a charm make it a charm? And if they did not, the police are liable because they need to prove how those possessions translated into charms.

In addition, the police claimed that the duo wanted to bewitch the president. What does that mean? How did they know? Are the police not contravening a provision under the Witchcraft Act by professing knowledge of witchcraft? Can one harm another person using a chameleon? They claimed that the two persons wanted to use the charms in their possession, including the chameleon to harm the president. How did they know that? What is the evidence for that?

The Advocacy for Alleged Witches calls for an end to this state-sponsored witch hunt. There is no evidence of harm through witchcraft or charms. The Zambian government should desist from witchcraft- related infractions and violations including arbitrary arrest, and detention of innocent citizens. These allegations are baseless and absurd. The arrest was politically motivated. This development demonstrates that Zambian authorities are out of sync with their duty and obligation to uphold the rule of law and protect accused persons.

Zambian authorities need to act in compliance with the 2021 UN resolution, which urged states to take measures to combat abuses linked to witchcraft beliefs and ritual attacks. End witchcraft allegations in Zambia. End witch hunts in Africa now!

Dr Igwe directs the Advocacy for Alleged Witches.

Opinion

Burning Issues: (FCT Minister And Paulosa) (2)

Published

3 days ago

December 19, 2024

NewTimes

Prof. Tony Afejuku

By Tony Afejuku

The other burning issue, apart from Farotimi and Babalola’s, which I wish to take a look at – and which I am taking a look at now – relates to what is happening in our capital territory. What is this burning issue – which our human rightists and civil society organisations and personages are surprisingly and un-satisfactorily not inclined to focus attention on and examine as they should? I may be wrong, but it surely seems to me that this issue, this burning issue, which is of more importance than Farotimi and Babalola’s – which has been given undue adulation – is deliberately being neglected and depreciated by proclaimers and heroes and heroines of human rights, justice, equity and equality of rights in your country my country our country. Why, why, why and why, why, why? Anyone who has any iota of patriotic sensibility, feeling and judgment well watered and buttressed by a very great influence upon his or her critical judgment will keep on asking the question I am asking.

Mr. Nyesom Wike, as almost everybody who can read and write a little knows, is the current minister of your, my and our Federal Capital Territory. His post or office is akin to that of a governor of a state. As the immediate past governor of Rivers State who was drafted, after his two terms there expired, to continue in the FCT as its new minister-governor or governor-minister under the auspices of a party he is not a true member of, Mr. Wike cannot but be seen as a lucky man. He is in every possible and impossible way. Minister-Governor Wike is a lucky man and a very fortunate one indeed. No former governor of Rivers State (or of any Nigerian state), as far as I know, has achieved what the famed political rouser of rabbles has achieved in one short gubernatorial life-time, and at a relatively young and fertile age. His dual achievement with and in two different political parties at this delicate point of Nigerian politics indicates to our politicians and us all that there is always time for a reminder that there are ready-made high rewards for arch-angels of betrayals. And Mr. Wike may go down in Rivers and Nigerian history as both an arch-angel and an emperor of betrayal of us all if we attempt to indicate what I have defined here as his dual achievement.

We can roughly divide, briefly, Wike’s political development into two periods. During the first, excluding his lower political positions before he became the governor of Rivers State, he quickly adapted his style to that of an emperor who became a rabble-rouser of rabble-rousers whose gubernatorial efficiency moved from stiffness to stiffness. He did not at any time feel that he needed suppleness to govern Rivers State. “Let the heavens fall if they must fall!” We are not there yet in this attempted analysis of the stiff-hearted and stiff-minded one. True? But he is already demonstrating this characteristic in Abuja. False? Judge and give the answer yourself.

Even after he left Rivers State a short while ago as governor, he is still trying to control happenings there to the political discomfiture of his hand-picked successor, his erstwhile “boy” and “son” – with whom he has fallen out. As the minister-governor or governor-minister of the FCT, Wike is occupied with the other taste of the emperor-juggernaut formulator – doing the work of two key political masters in one room and desk of political jugglery. Since his appearance in the FCT, minister-governor or governor-minister Wike has allegedly attempted to recover or transform for Abuja what is not traditionally or socially Abuja’s, for example, the city’s social idiom and landscape and terrain as well as its environs. In doing this he sometimes over-steps his bounds and mark of human/inhuman decency/indecency and psychological understanding of human nature, if you follow well what I am saying; he has so far become at best not really better than a typical pedestrian Nigerian lawyer and officer of political power: in his explorations so far in the Federal Capital Territory we have come to the realization, as T. S. Eliot would say, that “it is so often true that only by going too far can we find out how far we can go.” But one has to be a very negatively obstinate and self-serving emperor and a thorough-bred arch-angel of betrayal of the people and masses to justify such perilous and perfidious expeditions and adventures.

Last week, I saw on Arise Television “The Morning Show” Chief Rita Lori-Ogbebor, the dutiful widow of the late Nigerian supreme patriot and soldier, Colonel Ogbebor (of Benin stock) battling, so to say, to wrest the legacy of her late husband from the tight grip of the adventurous FCT minister-governor who has registered his name and signature in the hearts and consciousness of the people as the depriver of their possessions. The three anchors of “The Morning Show” were in their respective ways splendid in their structures of remarks and questions to Chief (Mrs.) Rita Lori-Ogbebor whom I have had occasions in times past to call patriotically Rita A-K 47 on account of her natural right to fire her beautiful tongue at any person, usually an enemy, of just actions. When she made the case she made to protect the estate of Paulosa Nigeria Limited, her late husband’s aforesaid legacy in the FCT, she was in her natural territory, habitat and element where even at age eighty-four, she never ever loses her stability – although she unusually restrained herself in the Arise Television appearance. Dr. Reuben Abati, Rufai Oseni, and Ayo Mairo-Ese clearly explored seriously but delightfully the mind of the mother-hen of Warri – my other coinage and appellation I gave her in my poetry. Her “The Morning Show” appearance enabled me to see the poignant cry de profundis of the FCT inhabitants whose property and residences in different guises have been demolished. She did not say anything that was out of joint. She spoke and came out as a mother, protector and symbol of the people who have suffered – and are suffering – from the state of affliction and anguish Wike’s demolitions have placed – and are placing – the people.

Ojy Okpe in her delicious and delectable “What is Trending” slot on the same show, showed without exaggeration but with further elaboration what people in and outside Abuja/FCT think of the mighty Wike’s demolitions, a burning issue that the Senate has asked “Let Heaven Fall” minister-governor Wike to halt as the committee the Senate set up on the issue starts its work. Of course, we cannot but assume that Chief Rita Lori-Ogbebor, Mrs. Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan as well as Mrs. Ireti Kingigbe, the senator representing the FCT in the Senate and other patriotic senators diligently did what they did on the floor of the Senate when the burning issue was tabled for debate with the gracious understanding and authorization of the Senate President.

I need to state further that the “The Morning Show” anchors did well and extremely so by giving the minister-governor the opportunity to air his anti-Paulosa story. His senior special assistant on public communication and social media, Mr. Olalere Olayinka, stood in for him. After he gave the reasons for the clamp-down, his responses to the questions the anchors put to him followed the usual pattern of denials by artificial men in power – denials that they always use to intimidate and betray the people. In fact, Mr. Olayinka’s ploy to ride easily over our dear Rufai Oseni, a wholesome representative of the deprived, that the chap (or is it guy?) and his boss always employ their colloquial speeches and remarks to dishonor, failed. Yes, the ploy failed woefully. In stanza after stanza of the exchanges between Mr. Olayinka and the Arise anchors, he deteriorated – and his deterioration was hall-marked when he unwittingly revealed that the Paulosa land had been acquired by his minister-governor’s close cohort, an act that was nothing short of gross abuse of power and authority.

Because the Senate is already using its authority, power and privilege to resolve the burning issue, hopefully, in a way that the late Colonel Ogbebor’s legacy and family will not be subjected to any kind of degradation, I will utter no more words for now. I trust, however, that the liberties the Senate is taking – or has taken – are for the sake of order to favour the down-trodden.

As for the minister-governor, the PDP emperor at large, here is an immortal quote from Marcus Aurelius, the magnificent and authentic Roman Emperor and philosopher (A.D. 121-180): “If it is not right, do not do it; if it is not true, do not say it.” You lose nothing by giving us a slice of your humanity by your right acts and correct words. Everything changes and passes. Be humane as a human being.

Afejuku can be reached via 08055213059.