Connect with us

Opinion

Àdán:Let The Poor Live!

Published

on

Dele Jegede In Conversation With Prince Yemisi Shyllon
Prof. Toyin Falola

By Toyin Falola

    I must first confess that the feeble-minded do not have any business with leadership, and when Nigeria is put in context, it takes some extraordinary human or individuals to lead the country outstandingly. So, we may cut Bola Ahmed Tinubu (aka BAT) some slack in the coming months. Let him “cook,” and if his cooking is turning into a “cook-a-thon” with no immediate impact, Nigerians, the Netizens, the good and the bad, can let hell loose. He can start with his hot pepper soup; we will add more pepper later.

Our people must know that BAT means àdán in Yoruba—neither a rat nor a bird; the males are smaller than the females, and the funny wings lack fur. Bats are consummate eaters—they can eat flies, beetles, moths and mosquitoes. But our dear BAT is a human, and I will never know why àdán sticks as his name. Bats are not blind, as people at Ife told us when we were consuming roasted bats with palm wine. Bats eat insects, but biologists tell us they create healthy ecosystems by consuming insects. They sleep upside down. 

Does BAT belong to the family of àdán? If so, let me introduce you to hematophagy, a high-sounding word but simple to understand: some members of the bat family eat only the blood of other animals. They are known as vampire bats. Nigeria is a vampire state: its leaders and politicians feed on blood, human blood. Every morning you wake up, pray that Bola Ahmed Tinubu does not change his name to Diaemus Young, Diphylla Ecaudata, or Desmodus Rotundas. These are actual names, but they are the bats whose only food is blood. Pray!

As all the birds and rats fled the jungle, the power got to the turn of BAT, THE “Emilokan”, on the 29th of May, 2023, and Nigerians could not but hope for the best following the despicable outing of Buhari and his fellows that have driven the nation far backwards. Whether you are BATified, Atikulated, Obidient, or whatever, political loyalty you claim, a new sheriff is in town, BAT is your president and his decisions, whether good or bad, would affect you. Àdán is here: if you become an insect, he will eat you. Àdán is not blind, as he keeps an eye on you. Sora se!

    Mr. President, several have searched for ways to describe you. I am using àdán here. E dakun sir! Some have seen you as Chief Awolowo (without the cap), and M. K. O. Abiola reawaken, only that you don’t stammer. Your choice of glasses is further likened to that of the former Western Premier. In essence, many people really plugged into the Renewed Hope Agenda, believe a Lagos-like general development in the country, and could only see the light in the tunnel, even if the uncertain light is the sprinkling light of a possible explosion that will bring the tunnel and those that walk it down. Your Excellency, many do not believe in your leadership. Some are waiting for the final judgment of the Supreme Court, and several others have no positive anticipation. So, it is up to you to prove right or wrong, but remember, there is a Nigeria that belongs to us all.

    The problems of Nigeria are perennial, and the solutions are quite very mysterious. However, the country has suffered more from uncalculated and emotional decisions from its leaders that have put the country in more trouble and backwards. Tinubu must not fall into the trap of mere instantaneous decisions that could turn the people against him. There are already traces of the tendency to make these decisions with good intentions but without calculated approaches and anticipated results. However, the euphoria that preceded the swearing-in celebration was short-lived as soon as the new president reiterated his commitment to removing fuel subsidies. This declaration, despite being unofficial at the moment, created uproars nationwide. Almost immediately, the prices of petrol skyrocketed across the country. And the rush and distress purchases automatically led to an increment in prices and fares. The Nigerian ordeal started again just at a time when the people hoped for that light at the end of the tunnel.

Fortunately, authorities could clamp down on the greedy defaulters while an official release from NNPC was made. In as much as one would love to acknowledge the fact that the removal of subsidy was a very great move by the new administration, it would be gross insensitivity not to acknowledge the fact that these policies, just like the few ones the new administration has put into place came at a time where the masses had no absorber to cushion the effect on their existence. The first few days saw many Nigerians at home due to the high fare prices. Schoolchildren whose parents manage to make ends meet were forced to stay at home till they could afford money to commute themselves to school; after all, most of these kids attend government schools which are usually far from home. No governments have been making efforts to provide palliatives to citizens. 

One example of such was the move by the Kwara State Government to reduce the working days to just three a week. This was done to save the cost of transportation as no new wages or palliative have been put in place. Commercial transport workers and traders alike hiked their prices as expected to meet the new living conditions, but this only resulted in shortchanges. They had little or no patronage. Within two weeks, Nigerians could no longer “f’okanbale”. And truthfully, people experiencing poverty could stop breathing anytime soon.

Subsidy removal is a reality the country must face at one point or the other. It has become a tool for enriching the rich and making the poor poorer to make them live comfortably. It has increased the rate of corruption among politicians, oil industries, and other connected sectors across the county. As of February 2023, Nigeria was paying about 400 billion Naira monthly on fuel subsidies enriching the pockets of a few while other important facilities needed to be tended to. The removal is necessary, and as the last act of President Buhari, still showing the ghost of his administration in the early days of Tinubu’s tenure. Mr President should have, however, realized the effect of the policy and the reiteration during his inauguration speech. Incidental policies and action plans that could make the effect bearable should have been envisioned. Truthfully, Nigerians would adjust; they always do, but at the expense of the lives and futures of some. Mr. President, the country is returning from the trauma of Emefiele-inflicted hell through cash scarcity and unfavourable economic policies that have killed humans and businesses. There are too many on the citizens’ plates; let Nigerians breathe, please don’t suffocate them. Implementing subsidy removal without adequate preparation is suffocating enough.

Another early mistake that could be a source of more trouble and crisis is the supposed promulgation of the Students Loan Act by President Tinubu. This is one of the ideas that have brought individuals in academia into an argument with the government because of the trap the Loans are capable of causing. The family’s average income must not be more than ₦500,000 to qualify for the loan. Considering the possibility of a family having more than one child in school, the Act creates a wide scope for its operation. Anyways, it must. The question is, can the loan solve the problems in the educational sector? Since more than 60% of Nigerias are regarded as poor, there is an expectation that almost everyone at a High-Institution going age would be qualified for the loan. Hence, how much would the country be able to give out, and how many people would benefit from it? Would this not be another “subsidy” situation that sees the allocation of money with almost no effect on the people? Have Nigerians asked how effective the enforcement is? About 33% of Nigerians are unemployed, meaning we pump more people into the labour market without a job.

The fear has been that the purpose of this loan is to have arguments in support of the increment in fees payable at public universities to generate more funds. Most students attending public universities are from poor homes and backgrounds and may not be able to afford an exorbitant increment from fees of around 30,000 Naira to between 100,000 to 300,000 Naira, as the case may be. Even with the current fees, it is not surprising that many students have not been able to meet the supposed meagre fees that the government has been itching to increase. So while you play the game of carrot and cane with students, the nation must understand the further problems they may enter. 

It is not pessimism that the loan cannot be available for up to 10% of the students in theory and less than 5% when one considers the country’s systemic corruption and red-tapism. I agree that education is expensive, but for a nation that wants rapid growth, tertiary education should not be seen as a liability but an investment because it drives innovation and development faster. Hence, the arguments for comparing the fees payable in other parts of the world, especially those regarded as developed, may not be sustainable. How would Iya Risi that sells Iru, locust beans, survive? How will Musa that pushes sugarcane, send any of his 7 kids beyond primary education, knowing that the higher the level, the more impossible educating his child will become?

While Tinubu’s government might have moved into action to hit the ground running, it must be careful not to affect its decisions and their resultant circumstance. The welfare of the people is the greatest responsibility of any government; hence, shifting too much discomfort in the name of for better future may cause damages that may make the government lose its focus. Nigeria is destroyed beyond how it was envisioned in the past, and as such, the nation needs deep, deliberate actions in every single decision made through every level of government and parastatal available. Nigerians have suffered too much; the phrase “suffer some more” may cause more social issues that would attract long-term problems for the nation.

Aside from calculative actions, you must remember to be the epitome of unity in a divided nation. You are the President of South-East, South-South, South-West, North- Central, North-West, and North-East. Security must be the priority to reduce apprehensions affecting all sectors of the nation. Corruption must be reduced to the minimum, knowing that it is the root of the problems in which many policies are wrongly made with the oblivion of the root. You are the president, so you must let low-income people breathe.

Àdán is not blind. Don’t let us believe the lie! Bats can see.

Ahmed, don’t become Diaemus Young 

Bola, don’t change your name to Diphylla Ecaudata

Tinubu, don’t become Desmodus Rotundas

 

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Opinion

Faith In God Or Guns: Priests, And Divine Protection On Trial

Published

on

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

By Leo Igwe

A recent case where a Catholic priest shot and killed a member of his parish in Imo State in southern Nigeria has occasioned a crisis of faith. The incident has compelled people, believers, and non-believers to raise fundamental questions about the conduct of clerics, and faith in divine protection. As was reported, this Catholic priest shot and killed a church member on December 31, 2024. The church member allegedly threw a knockout or banger at him during an end-of-the-year activity, and in return, the priest shot and killed him. The police are investigating the matter, and the Catholic priest is currently in custody.

Some people said the action of the priest was  not intentional, that he shot the guy in self-defense. That he did not know that what the guy threw at him was a knockout.

Others said it was an accidental discharge. Whatever the case, whether the shooting was deliberate or not, the fact is that this priest shot and killed his church member. And people are asking many questions. People are trying to make sense of this tragic event. A key question in the minds of many people is this: What is a Catholic priest doing with a gun in a church? Think about it. This is a valid question. What was this guy doing with a gun in a house of god? Some are wondering: Does it mean that the priest does not believe in divine protection?

The Catholic church will have to confront these questions for the foreseeable future because this incident highlights some crises, contradictions, and hypocrisies. The killing has caused many to be confused and conflicted in their faith. Look, many people go to church to seek divine protection because they believe that there is a god and that god, not guns would protect them. Priests claim to embody and dispense divine power and protection. Priests, like this cleric who shot his parishioner, are paid to pray and deliver divine protection to the people. The political economy of clerics is largely based on ensuring and trading divine protection. Now, in this case, this priest used the money he got from praying for divine protection to purchase a gun to protect himself. Is that not a contradiction? Is that not deceitful?

Clearly, this priest had more faith in his gun than in god. He does not believe in divine protection of either himself or of others hence he bought a gun to protect himself.

Meanwhile, he profits and professionally thrives on selling faith in god and divine protection to the people. His main business is preaching to people most of them have no guns or cannot afford a firearm that god would protect them.

What priests and other clerics preach and practice do not add up; they do not align. Clerics make their members and followers believe that there is a god who protects them and that they, the clerics, represent that god. They make people trust god or rely on god, not on worldly guns for protection. Clerics make people pay or provide for them in exchange for prayers and assurances of divine protection, which as this case shows they do not believe in. This hypocrisy is not peculiar to the Catholic church or Catholic priests. The contradiction is religion-wide. Prominent religious leaders move around with gun-tottling police officers and soldiers. Armed personnel guard many churches, mosques, and other so-called houses of god.

So the message is clear. It is either there is no god to protect anyone as atheists popularly believe or such a god is too weak and impotent, such a god is so ungodly to effectively guard his houses or protect his people, and estate.

Igwe, PhD , is an ex- Catholic seminarian from Imo State.

Continue Reading

Opinion

M. Yayale Ahmed: Filling Gaps In Nigeria’s Administrative Reform History

Published

on

Prof. Tunji Olaopa

By Tunji Olaopa

This piece was meant to be my address and reflection during a planned courtesy visit in 2024 to the Federal Civil Service Commission of my old boss, Mahmud Yayale Ahmed, commander of the federal republic (CFR), former Head of Service of the Federation, former SGF and Hon. Minister, Ajiyan Katagum, and Chairman of the Governing Council, Ahmadu Bello Univerity, Zaria; a visit, which objective indeed was achieved by other means. When a personality like Mahmud Yayale Ahmed decides to pay a visit to an organization like the Federal Civil Service Commission (FCSC) to honour his mentee, then such a visit is far from being a mere courtesy visit. Such visitation generates reflections and discourses, and activate possibilities. That is the kind of personality Yayale Ahmed is. And such a visit especially to the FCSC carries both the burden of administrative history and reform possibilities. Yayale Ahmed was not just my former boss, he is also a veritable mentor; I owe a significant portion of my trajectory into becoming a bureaucrat-scholar-reformer to his mentorship. He had a fundamental impact in shaping my foray into the maelstrom of public service institutional reform programme management in the federal service. Having such an old boss visit his boy at the FCSC is an event in itself, one that is sufficient to make me tremble at the possible comments I would receive.

However, when he is visiting in his capacity as the national chairman of the Council for Retired Federal Permanent Secretaries (CORFEPS), the matter becomes even more critical. CORFEPS is the association of retired administrative professionals that has been throwing the weight of its institutional memory and competences behind the ongoing efforts to transform the dwindling status and reputation of public administration and the capacity readiness of the public service in Nigeria. Thus, when CORFEPS meets FCSC, we are already not only laying the templates for all hands to be on deck, but also articulating the critical historical and administrative records that must undergird the necessity of institutionally rehabilitating Nigeria’s public administration architecture.

When CORFEPS held its maiden colloquium on 5-7 March, 2024, and had in attendance the administrative bigwigs—from HRM Olu Falae to Amb. Babagana Kingibe and, Dr. Bukar Usman, as lead speaker—the association demonstrates that the past administrative leadership cannot be retired out of the collective responsibility of institutional reform that the public administration and public service sorely need in Nigeria. Indeed, that maiden colloquium brought a new energy into the functionality of the communities of practice and service—retired heads of service and permanent secretaries at both the federal and state levels, platforms of retired directors, pensioners, Nigerian Association of Public Administration and Management (NAPAM), etc.—and the strategic and restorative responsibility for the institutional repositioning of public administration as a noble vocation in Nigeria. And the fundamental objective is clear: how the Nigerian public administration framework, and the public service system, can be reformed to jumpstart Nigeria’s strategic inclusion in the fourth industrial revolution and its implication for infrastructural development to service the wellbeing of Nigerians.

In this piece, my objective is to insert the administrative personality of Mahmud Yayale Ahmed into the reform trajectory of the Nigerian civil service system during the Olusegun Obasanjo presidency. This is with the aim of filling out some missing gaps in the reform experiment at the commencement of Nigeria’s democratic governance in 1999. His proactive role as an institutional reformer par excellence also constitutes the occasion to ask fundamental question about the capacity of the civil service system to reform itself. This will eventually not only provide a historical and administrative basis for situating his significance in Nigeria’s reform progress, but also his current role as the chairperson of CORFEPS and its ongoing efforts to backstop restorative institutional reform.

The years between 2000 and 2007 were significant in Nigeria’s administrative and reform history because they present a moment of a major paradigm shift in change management praxis that contributed a fundamental template of reform progress to Nigeria’s reform architecture and achievements. And Yayale Ahmed was right in the centre of the critical efforts to lay the foundation of a world class civil service institution for the Nigerian state. It was at a critical juncture that Yayale Ahmed took over the reins of administrative affairs of a civil service system that had weathered several reform commissions and reports meant to translate the fortunes of the system into concrete administrative advances that Nigerians can relate with in terms of service delivery. The Udoji Commission (1974), Dotun Phillips Study Team (1984) and Ayida Review Panel (1994), all attempted to ground the public service on a pedestal of managerial efficiency and effectiveness that delivers the goods and the services.

When I met Yayale Ahmed, it was right in the midst of the unfolding reform efforts at making sense of the public service system within Nigeria’s democratic experiment. He was the permanent secretary at the federal ministry of education when I was the head of the policy division, as well as the special assistant to Prof. Tunde Adeniran who later mentioned me to his successor (the late Prof. Babalola Borishade). I was later introduced by the late Prof. Akin Mabogunje to Chief Olusegun Obasanjo who then seconded me, on the strength of my articulation through a concept note of the institutional reform challenges and direction of the civil service, to serve as the technical head of the secretariat of the strategy team located within the Management Services Office. I reported directly to the permanent secretary, the late Mr. O. O. Oyelakin, who reported directly to the head of Service, Alhaji Yayale Ahmed.

Given the reputation of someone that the president, Olusegun Obasanjo, referred to as “Mr. Civil Servant,” his in-depth grounding in the dynamics of the system, as well as the crucial understanding of the democratic imperative underlying institutional change, Yayale Ahmed was able to courageously articulate a reform methodology that jumpstarted a new era of administrative reforms in Nigeria. In 2001, as the second phase of the implementation of the Ayida Report was underway, Alhaji Yayale Ahmed faced the federal executive council presided over by President Olusegun Obasanjo, and boldly asserted that the civil service possessed the sufficient resident capacity to diagnose its institutional debilitation, articulate a reform strategy and oversee its own reform. And this revolutionary declaration was coming at a time when skeptics were not sure anything good could ever come out of the civil service.
Indeed, I strongly believed that it was part of the determination to prove the strength of his conviction about the system’s capability to reform itself that facilitated the broadminded learning and proactive space that led to the institutional and professional maturation of someone like me and my eventual transformation into a bureaucrat-scholar. What I mean to say is that under Yayale Ahmed’s watch, I saw the evolution and full maturation of my growing research expertise that came at a crucial point when the diagnostic study and strategic development of the reform methodology was unfolding. No wonder therefore that it was under his ambitious, firm and visionary headship that one of the largest reform programs in the annals of change management in Nigeria was successfully implemented.

Yayale Ahmed’s stature as a public servant cannot be properly decided outside of the reform architecture during his time as the head of service. Indeed, his reputation is tied in with the establishment and fortune of the Bureau of Public Service Reform (BPSR) which is supposed to be the arrowhead of the courageous assertion that the civil service is able to diagnose and reform itself. The BPSR was established in 2003 as the lead reform implementation and monitoring coordinating agency armed with the objective of managing and sustaining service-wide reforms agenda of the Obasanjo administration, while also ensuring that the reform mandate was implemented in the Ministries, Departments and Agencies (MDAs), the operational units carrying out government business. The three major justification for the existence of the BPSR are: The need to create a clearing house, a one-stop-shop of a sort, where all stakeholders could receive information and guidance on all the reform programmes of the Federal Government; the strong conviction that the reforms objectives will not be realized in the long term, through an ad-hoc committee or task force; and the need to have an “engine room” that is enabled with the required capability and resources to leverage local and international knowledge networks and communities of public administration best practices, to support policy, institutional and governance reform processes with required expertise, and good practices on an on-going basis (http://www.bpsr.gov.ng/index.php).

However, the trajectory of the operational dynamics of the BPSR since 2007 has been less than optimal. And so, the question of whether it has been able to live up to its mandate is a difficult one to answer. And this is because of so many crippling circumstances, bureaucratic and political, that attended its operations. Since 2008, the capacity of the BPSR to manage and sustain institutional reforms has been stunted. For instance, by transferring its supervision from the Head of the Civil Service of the Federation (HCSF) to the OSGF, its mandate was though expanded from being confined solely to the core civil service rather than the wider public service, but at that it lost the required professional supervision it needs so badly to function. And it also implies that it would henceforth be managed as an appendage of the OSGF rather than as an active player in the few significant initiatives that have taken place in the civil/public service since then.

Reform efforts before the BPSR have always been hampered by an oscillation between comprehensiveness and selectivity in the choice of methodology for pushing reform through. And that indecisiveness also played out within the operational dynamics of the BPSR. But then the many attempts at pushing the BPSR into strategic irrelevance could not diminish a paradigmatic reform methodology: there was a decisive transition away from a decade of episodic structural review of the civil service system to a methodological perception of administrative reform as one trajectory of continuous learning and incremental improvement. And this is where the BPSR proved its most fundamental importance in providing the organizing framework for enhancing this paradigmatic reform methodology. It did this by developing a generic guideline for restructuring, streamlining and monitoring the operational bases of the MDAs.

Pilot MDA reforms were carried out as the basis for measuring and documenting the administrative challenges confronted by the public service that undermine its performance efficiency. The pilot study also enabled the scaling up of the reform implementation strategy to other MDAs at: (a) service-wide systemic reform level, (b) the MDAs’ specific level which entails the implementation of performance improvement plans and the deepening and consolidation of reforms as it concerns cross-cutting reform programs with instruments such as challenge and performance improvement funds, and (c) the implementation of such reform programs as pension reform, national health insurance scheme, statistical reform, pay reform, SERVICOM, to name just a few.

It was therefore broad-based analyses of the fundamental assumptions, presuppositions, indications, deductions and findings from the pilot MDAs study that generated the initiatives for designing and firming up the irreducible national strategy for public service reform (NSPSR). The document constitutes a fundamental reform blueprint for articulating the trajectory of reform management in Nigeria. The significance of the NSPSR derives from the host of reform initiatives and achievements that its methodological emergence made possible, especially post-Yayale Ahmed. I could mention a few. There was the finalization of the African Public Service Charter that encompass a continental administrative blueprint around which the NSPSR could also be mainstreamed. There was also a concerted and genuine effort to resurrect the National Association for Public Administration and Management (NAPAM) which fell through because of a lack of push-through by the bureaucratic leadership. We cannot but mention the service-wide significance of the tenure policy and the concern to contain the exploding but unsustainable institutional redundancies that birthed the Oronsaye panel on the rationalization of agencies and parastatals that became a poster initiative for the post-Obasanjo reform era. That reform policy is still the focal point of every effort to deal with the cost of governance problem that bedevils the public service. We must also signal the introduction of the ministerial scorecard as a managerial strategy for performance management under the Goodluck Jonathan administration. This is complemented by other initiatives like online training programme which has been expanded into the formidable Leadership Enhancement and Development Programme (LEAD-P).

In retrospect, the courage displayed by Yayale in insisting that the civil service possesses the capacity to reform itself, and the series of administrative incidences that attended the BPSR’s effort to championing that argument, only makes the issue even more cogent. All across the world, there is healthy scepticism around the possibility of a bureaucracy leading its own administrative reform. And the jury is still out on whether the Yayale Ahmed’s leadership of the civil service was able to undermine that skepticism enough given the undercurrent of the battle-royal between the federal service and the economic management team during the President Obasanjo second-term. And this generates more questions and discourses that public administration theorists and institutional reformers in Nigeria cannot run away from. Institutional reform in Nigeria always appears Sisyphean, as if the reformers are confronted with the task of rolling the boulder of administrative reform up a hill only to watch it roll back down perpetually. So, why is the task of institutional reform a series of motions without many substantive movements? In concrete terms, why is it the case that despite the numerous service-wide reform initiatives from 1999 to date, the federal civil service system is still, on balance, progressively declining in some critical performance indicators and parameters that overall, limit its capability readiness to sustain service delivery to Nigerians?

Jean-Baptiste Alphonse Karr, the French satirist, once remarked: ‘The more things change, the more they stay the same.” In change management terms, this is a crippling observation that not only inhibits the capacity of the system to backstop Nigeria’s democratic governance, but also glosses over, in an unfair manner, the enormous and paradigmatic efforts of institutional reformers like my old boss, Yayale Ahmed. I am however optimistic that Nigeria’s change management discourse will receive a new lease of life. For one, Alhaji Yayale Ahmed is not one to give up easily. His chairmanship of CORFEPS is just one significant indication of that. Second, the collaboration between CORFEPS and the Federal service, if concretized, portends a fundamental direction that brings the institutional experiences of retired permanent secretaries and heads of service in a critical conversation with successive serving administrative leadership in time and space to move the civil service forward. This is why I am excited that my old boss had chosen to reach out to his mentee at the FCSC the way he did.

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

Continue Reading

Opinion

Professor Nuhu Yaqub, 1951 To 2025: The Departure Of A Great Man

Published

on

Dele Jegede In Conversation With Prince Yemisi Shyllon

By Toyin Falola

December 8, 2024: Professor Nuhu Yaqub was with us in Abuja, in the company of great minds—Jibrin Ibrahim, Yakubu Ochefu, Chris Ogbogbo, Aisha Maikudi, Chido Onuma, Tunji Olaopa, Paul and Paula Edeh, Adagio, Okello Oculi, John Odah and many more. We did a mini-seminar on Jibrin Ibrahim. I invited Nuhu Yaqub to speak, and he gave a great speech, starting with his introduction to Marxism. Days after, we spoke twice on the phone. An active and healthy man was gone within three days of sickness, leaving us and the world on Saturday, January 4. I was hit by his departure with an emotional anguish that is taking a longer time to heal.

I have known him for decades. As the Vice-Chancellor of the University of Abuja, he invited me twice to give two Keynote Addresses. As the pioneer Vice-Chancellor of Sokoto State University, he and Professor Malami Buba, his Deputy, invited me to give the University’s first Distinguished Lecture. We exchanged family visits in Austin and Abuja. A candid man, he did not require efforts for him to stay in mind on all aspects of national issues.

The phenomenon of death remains one mystery that humans, and maybe all living creatures, may not understand for its strange nature. At the superficial level, death signifies the finitude to everything living, and it is in this category of interpretation that we humans lurk ourselves, not because we are sometimes not inclined to see beyond the anguish that is brought when we lose people who are dear to us, but because the human mind is not conditioned to process the shock, the urgency, and the forever delinking which occurs when we lose individuals or cherished pets.

Death is a leveller, for it takes the lives of everything without concerns about the irreparable damage that it does to the people behind it. Losing a giant intellectual and humanitarian energy such as Professor Yaqub has dug yet another deep hole in our national heart and left a hollow space that may be difficult to fill. We feel this way because we consider his demise not as a transition into another phase of human existence, which it originally signifies, but as a finitude to the material importance for which the man is known to his immediate family, academic family and national brotherhood.

To say that I am overwhelmed is to mildly describe my emotional state at the breaking of the news that the selfless individual has passed on. It is such a case for me because, in academic brotherhood, it is not only difficult to come across people genuinely committed to a lifelong philosophy, but it is almost impossible to come across individuals who have the mental energy or the political goodwill to effect changes when they could walk their talk.

But then I am only consoled by the understanding that although Professor Yaqub’s transition might have done unprintable damage to our emotional health because of the various shared ideas, values and virtues, his passing on has foregrounded the irreplaceable importance of committing oneself to a meaningful philosophy. It is on this basis that I highlight the exceptional contributions that this individual made to the human world before his transition.

As a political scientist, it has been established that Nuhu Yaqub devoted his intellectual ambition towards the actualization of better national conditions by facilitating a radical evolution of Nigeria’s political system in ways that address its specific and unique peculiarities. Aware of its diversity, the outstanding Professor had campaigned for inclusive leadership to be embraced by the political players in the country in the spirit of creating a haven for the citizens and forging a country that is capable of answering to the wishes and aspirations of everyone.

To become a national hero in my book, what matters is to demonstrate some consistency in one’s philosophical conviction as long as it does not endanger the human family. I can say confidently that this man was not only consistent about his conviction but also invested in it in every sense. I remember clearly how he staunchly argued and equally supported courses of action that would see to the rapid departure from the colonially imposed political culture in exchange for one that would fix the country and free people from the shackles of ideological suppression.
Unlike many other academics, Yaqub was very practical with his solutions, especially because he understood that the possibility of achieving greatness lies especially in the ability to be deliberate and disciplined. Perhaps this would explain why he irrevocably supported the idea of clinical scholarship, research, and intellectual engagements that would lead to the enthronement of an academic culture that is both vibrant and resilient. He has never refused to educate anyone who cares to listen that research engagement is at the centre of Nigeria’s and Africa’s political transformation, revealing why it is dangerous to compromise on such a commitment.

Would it not be surprising that such a man was foresighted in his examination of our basic sociological and sociopolitical fate, so much so that he campaigned that education was a necessity for everyone if the country would evolve to become a force in the global society? He was motivated to say this because he understood the underlying potential that is lurking in the human and natural resources that the country is blessed with.

To become an important force in the world, people have always been required to evaluate events from an impartial angle, and that can only be possible on the occasion that people are given a solid education. It is understandable because many issues that are causing problems in the country are founded on the beliefs that are imposed by individuals who constantly take away the right to education of their citizens.

You would begin to understand and not underestimate his position when you appreciate the place of education in the formulation of policies that are needed for the transformation of a country. I have held numerous dialogues with him, and at every opportunity, no matter how little, he would strike up conversations about national issues that are pivotal to the country’s civilizational advancement. In any case, what dominates such conversations is that education is needed in policy formulation because it is through policies that humans transfer their refined ideas to organized guidelines to be used in guiding the decisions of the government to achieve great outcomes. If people are uneducated, there is a possibility that they will be micromanaged by others who have that advantage. This is the fear of the righteous man who committed to such a just cause. He has maintained over time that when people are intellectually refined enough to contribute to the debate of welfare improvement, especially as it relates to them, they would, therefore, be encouraged to participate in the affairs of the country if they are given the fair atmosphere where they can thrive without any external threat.

Away from the strictly professional life that this successful man lived, it would be strange that people of his educational and administrative stature still maintained a life of humility and embrace, as he did not consider himself as being superior to people on account of his giant strides in life. Evidence of his selflessness and humility abounds as people with whom he shared one thing or the other have attested to how he opened his space to anyone who wants to experience it.
For a man who was erstwhile Vice Chancellor of the University of Abuja, the information about how to manage opposing opinions to drive the monumental changes that are recorded in the academic institution today cannot cease to amaze people. More than anything, they are indicators that he was professionally inclined and discharged his very responsibility with a great sense of commitment and demeanour. It cannot be overemphasized how his simple nature infected many of the people who have come across the man in different spheres of existence. I cannot stress enough how his sudden demise has brought some hard reality that is difficult to swallow.

How else can we describe the individual as great, especially in the course of academic liberation, if not through a series of great initiatives he made to improve the conditions of things? It was under him as a Vice Chancellor that the University moved out from their temporary site to the permanent one, which required a great deal of sacrifice from members of staff, and he championed it. Not minding the personal and professional costs that this demanded, Professor Yaqub became an important figure in shaping the university. It is no coincidence that his death has sparked a national reflection as people who have either benefited from the largesse of his professional responsibilities or those who had personal relationships with him continue to reveal how his demise has become a national melancholy.

It is understandable for them to feel this way. I have become so engrossed in his scholarly interests and contributions that his sudden departure to the great beyond has dug a hole in my heart.
اللَّهُمَّ اغْفِرْ لَهُ وَارْحَمْهُ وَأَدْخِلْهُ فِي جَنَّتِكَ
Allahummaghfir lahu warhamhu wa adkhilhu fee jannatika.

Translation: O Allah, forgive him, have mercy on him, and admit him into Your Paradise.

Continue Reading

Top Stories