OPINION
AFRICA IN THE TURBULENCE OF A WORLD IN SEARCH OF DIRECTION
By Benson Upah
I am delighted to be part of the 2023 annual lecture series of the Society for International Relations Awareness (as a discusant) put together by its highly resourceful and energetic President, Comrade Owei Lakemfa, veteran journalist, renowned columnist, a leading socio-political influencer and former General Secretary of OATUU.
It is a fitting tribute to his organisational ability and the growing list of his network that today’s event is being chaired by the highly-regarded Ambassador-Emeritus, His Excellency Ambassador Brownson Dede and another equally highly-regarded Ambassador-Emeritus, His Excellency, Ambassador John Kayode Shinkaiye and His Excellency, Dr Kayode J. Fayemi, immediate past Governor of Ekiti State (now lecturer at one of the ivy-league universities in London) as the lecturer in the massive auditorium of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs brimming with serving and retired diplomats and other distinguished guests. It attests to the seriousness of today’s business.In my view, there are three assumptions pertaining to the topic of discussion, _Africa In The Turbulence of A World In Search of Direction_ .
The first is that the world is in a state of turbulence distinctly unique from previous turbulences. The second is that the world is in need of a direction. The third is where Africa is expected to be in the midst of it all.
Turbulence is a natural phenomenon that has engaged Physics over time and will continue to be of interest to mankind for its “chaotic behaviour” and it’s “complex, a-periodic and deterministic” mood (John Lumley : Cornell University). Turbulence is associated with cataclysm or instability of tsunamic proportions but of transient nature and attributed to “…the instabilities of some basic luminar flow” (Ai-Kady Tsinober: ResearchGate). Serious work on turbulence is said to have begun sometime between 1889 and 1903 (Francois . G. Schmitt).
In summary, “turbulence is a state of confusion and disorganised change” which the Collins Dictionary sums up as “confusion, turmoil, unrest and instability”.
However, we are gathered here today not to talk about geological formations or malformations or physics in quest of predictions or interpretations of their make-up but extreme or severe violent situations or grave multi-dimensional social disorder created by our politics, decisions, greed, selfishness and selfrighteousness.
Indeed there cannot but be turbulence “in a world consumed by displays and the ceaseless chatter of fast inter action, the melodic elegance and emotional symphony”, writes Go-Ramblers.com.
Turbulence occurs as a result of collision of ideas, beliefs, policies, hegemonies or civilisations in pursuit of power. Turbulence has been with us since man started organising himself into society(ies) and conquering his environment. The resultant effects have been massive disruptions of systems, indescribable destructions, and often the collapse of empires and emergence of new ones.
In the 20th century alone there were two world wars that led to consequential global power shift, the collapse of Ottoman and British empires respectively. Preceding the wars were other wars in Europe, Africa and Asia, though of lesser magnitude and destruction but nonetheless of great significance. In the much older world, Mali, Ghana, Songhai empires collapsed as indeed Greek and Roman due to a combination of reasons already adduced, lending credence to the Mats Berdal summation that “Attempts to comprehend, through empirical inquiry and philosophical reflection, the likely effects of deeper, seemingly unstoppable processes of socio-economic change on patterns of violent conflict within and across societies are not new” (How “New” Are “New Wars”? Global Economic Change and the Study of Civil War)
Indeed, under the watch of the UN, we had one of the longest and most intense ideological confrontations in history with over a dozen proxy wars to the bargain…the clash between the West and the East, capitalism and socialism. The collapse of the Soviet Union which effectively marked the end of socialism as a global fighting force did not necessarily lead to a peaceful world either, reinforcing my belief that turbulence is inherently pàrt of human nature. Infact, while Russia was nursing its wounds( from the collapse of Soviet Union), China was re-strategising and re-positioning, preparatory to launching itself on the global stage as an economic super power. Today, it is both an economic and military super power.
From the ashes of the Soviet empire, Putin, a thoughtful and proud Russian, over time rebuilt and repositioned Russia as a global military force to rival the US military might even as Colin Powell (Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff) had said then that only the size of the Russian empire had changed, that Russia had the wherewithal (like the US) to destroy the world within 15 minutes. Today, Russia has a nuclear arsenal second to none. This in itself has always been considered a threat by the West despite the fact that Russia had “opened” up.
Some however, hold the view that the immediate and more significant threat has been the triumphal mentality of the West under the leadership of the US, which against all grains of wisdom and in utter violation of agreement reached with Russia (not to expand the NATO frontiers), has all but annexed the former member-states of the great Soviet Union in the name of NATO membership, a move Russia persistently protested against on the basis of national security concerns but was ignored. Putin captures the mood here thus:”The history of the West is essentially the chronicle of endless expansion. Western influence in the world is an immense military and financial pyramid scheme that constantly needs more “fuel” to support itself, with natural, technological and human resources that belong to others. This is why the West simply cannot and is not going to stop. Our arguments, reasoning, calls for common sense or proposals have simply been ignored” (his address to the plenary session of the 20th meeting of the Valdai International Discussion Club in Sochi 2023).
However, attempts to make Ukraine a NATO member have not gone on very well and today we have a hot war between NATO and Russia in its second year even as Putin exonerates Russia of blame: “We are compelled to respond to ever increasing military and political pressure…It was not us who started the so-called ‘war in Ukraine’…” (his address to the plenary session of the 20th meeting of the Valdai International Discussion Club in Sochi 2023).
It has been a war into which virtually everything (boots, projectiles, technology etc) from at least 35 countries has been thrown (32 from the West and 3 from the East).
And for the first time after Hiroshima and Nagasaki, we have come really close (closer than Cuba) to the possibility of the use of nuclear weapons, close enough for Putin to say the lessons of history have not been learnt:
“In the early 21st century, everybody hoped that states and peoples had learned lessons of the expensive and destructive military and ideological confrontations of the previous century, saw their harmfulness and the fragility and interconnectedness of our planet, and understood that the global problems of humanity call for joint action and the search for collective solutions, while egotism, arrogance and disregard for real challenges would inevitably lead to a dead-end , just like the attempts by more powerful countries to force their opinions and interests onto everyone else. This should have been obvious to everyone. It should have, but it has not. It has not” (Putin’s address to the plenary session of the 20th meeting of the Valdai International Discussion Club in Sochi 2023).
While some might accuse Putin of being sentimental, it is a trite fact that “We learn from history that we do not learn from history” (Georg Hegel).
If Putin’s initial remarks were considered as indirect, he came in the open and unmistakably belligerent in subsequent comments underscoring the gravity of the situation:
” The United States and its satellites have taken a steady course towards hegemony in military affairs, politics, the economy, culture and even morals and values. Since the very beginning, it has been clear to us that attempts to establish a monopoly were doomed to fail. The world is too complicated and diverse to be subjected to one system, even if it is backed by the enormous powers of the West accumulated over the centuries of its colonial policy. Your colleagues as well —-many of them are absent today, but they do not deny that to a significant degree, the prosperity of the West has been achieved by robbing colonies for several centuries. This is a fact. Essentially, this level of development has been achieved by robbing the entire planet”.
Today, another hot war has erupted in the Middle East between Israel and Hamas with their traditional allies in tow and the possibility of the war escalating and spreading to other regions.
The two hot wars are by no means the only flash points in the world. There are a dozen other places considered to be high -risk including Taiwan, South China Sea, North Korea, Iran, Syria, Yemen, etc, prompting the formation of emergency geo-political organisations including AUKUS. At some point, thoughts were had of extenting NATO membership to Japan even as Japan is not contiguous to the North Atlantic! Across Africa and Asia, there have been other wars in various stages prompting some to conclude that the world is in a desperate situation.
However, others argue that “there are no desperate situations; only desperate men” (Joseph Goebbels). Putin seems to share the view that the situation is not desperate even when his actions speak to the contrary. At Sochi, he had said:
“I am confident that humanity is not moving towards fragmentation into rivaling segments, a new confrontation of blocs, what ever their motives, or a soulless universalism of a new globalisation. On the contrary, the world is on its way to a synergy of civilisation-states, large spaces, communities identifying as such”.
In spite of Putin’s seeming optimism, Einstein is among those who subscribe to the notion that “the world is a dangerous place to live, not because of the people who are evil, but because of the people who dont do anything about it” (Albert Einstein).
Not a few share this philosophy including Putin who is seen as having risen to the threat posed by the West, bullet for bullet, projectile for projectile and boot for boot.
The confrontation is by no means limited to the military domain. The US has rallied the West in its policy of containment, curtailment and encirclement of China just as the West has slammed unprecedented sanctions on Russia even as their economies run into recession as a result of these sanctions.
In Africa, there is a renewed rivalry between the West and the East (led by Russia and China) on the one hand and the familiar Western landlords. Political, economic and military advantages are at the heart of it all. There are also wars, insurgencies and other threats internal to these African countries.
In light of these irreconcilable differences around the world with everybody’s finger on the trigger, the world might truly be in some significant danger and accordingly has need of a new direction. But more importantly, where does that leave Africa?
First, the direction the world is presumed to be in need of. In my view the world is in need of more integration, co-operation, and collaboration in all spheres of human endeavour to end hunger, poverty, want, disease, ignorance and discrimination. But wait a minute, this is the view of the doves, and although in the majority, they have little or no say in the affairs of the world even as Putin says, “we stand for equality, for diverse potential of all countries”. In summary therefore, the integrative view will be no more than a sermon preached from the oak-panelled chamber of the United Nations General Assembly which the more powerful countries will shrug off with a familiar smugness.
Accordingly, not a few think the world will increasingly get more violent, bitter and polarised with regional military and socio-economic organisations such as NATO and EU not masking their interests which are often downright insular and selfish. This pits the West against the rest of the world, much of a febrile world. The renewed and unmasked herd behaviour (or gang-up) of Western countries in recent conflicts with literally no dissenting voice from within even when the truth is so obvious, has pushed not a few to the painful realisation that the West only cares about its own skin. This inevitably raises the decibels of bitterness, polarisation and confrontation.
With time, it is most probable that regional organisations such as NATO and EU and their parallels elsewhere will take precedence over the UN which some of us predict will die a slow natural death, more out of its impotence and irrelevance than anything else. The glaring recent herd-behaviour of Western countries under the leadership of the United States and determination of some other countries to no longer “take orders any more or make their interests and needs dependent on anyone, above all on the rich and more powerful” (Putin in Sochi) will be another spark that will ignite a wave of confrontations never before seen. It will similarly trigger the formation of other regional organisations or the strengthening of existing ones like BRICS.
Like in the West, voices of citizens will continue to count for less yielding their pre-eminent position to the voices of regional partisans like Joe Biden of the United States. Resentful citizens and weaker nations will be pacified with more short-term social protection measures and quiet rebukes respectively (to fall in line or be isolated in the group). In a few words, I disagree with Thomas L. Friedman’s assertion that, “We are moving from a world where the heavy eat the light to a world where the light eat the heavy” _(Understanding Globalisation: The Lexus and Olive Tree)_
The domains of confrontation will be expanded from the military to technology, economy, and culture as I have earlier mentioned. I bet this is already happening as chips are not to be sold to China or Russia. The trade in other sensitive military technology has equally been restricted, in spite of the once popular advert in The Washington Post:
“SOONER OR LATER, ALL TYRANNIES CRUMBLE
Those That Keep Putting Their Customers
On Hold Tend to Crumble Sooner” (Thomas . L. Friedman; _Understanding Globalisation: The Lexus and the Olive Tree)__
There will be nuclear proliferation in order to ensure the global spread or balance of terror. At the moment more Western countries have nuclear weapons than other regions of the world. However, a nuclear war will not be fought by the two countries with the most powerful nuclear arsenal, the US and Russia. This, however, does not preclude the use of tactical nuclear strikes on some other vulnerable targets in the manner the US bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
While the possibility of the Russia- US nuclear show-down may be remote, much of it is contingent on the willingness of China to join the fray but it is doubtful that China which uses Russia as a learning curve in practically everything from opening up to taking back a break-away republic, will go for a nuclear war now. Perhaps, in the next seven to ten years when it would have achieved nuclear parity with the US. But then, wars do drop from the skies sometimes. A nuclear war will not be different.
Due to the reckless use of its power of sanctions, conscious and sustainable efforts are already been made and will be further strengthened to downgrade the global dominance of the US Dollar through “strange” alliances. This will take a while and a lot of conversation between common foes such as China and India, Iran and Saudi Arabia and other countries.
The unprecedented sanctions against Russia and its oligarchs invariably pitched the West not just against Russia but the rest of the world as well as presented the former as not a safe sanctuary for storing up fortune. However, what happens next is entirely in the womb of time but it is a certainty that a per cent age of global wealth will move from the West. However, where to and in what form, I do not know.
Contrary to popularly-held notions that governments’ power or influence will be minimised by the combination of multinationals and other social forces, governments in the emerging global order will re-invent themselves through ingenious alliances with dominant forces, good or bad, to perpetuate their strangle-hold on power. It will be a world more Machiavellian and dangerous, from North to South and East to West in the name of preserving or protecting the people or their civilisations. And especially because peer-review platforms or mechanisms will be non-existent, external pressures will count for nothing. It will be a world of bullies where might is right. It will equally be a world of infinite possibilities never before seen, but largely malevolent. And benevolent too! Patricia Clavin, Professor of Modern History at Oxford argues that:
“Turbulence can push individuals, institutions, and states to their limits. History shows that it simultaneously fosters creative, pluralistic and dynamic advocacy that leads to new modes of co-operation, often in history’s darkest hours”.
It could also be a world in transition as there could be a global power shift in line with the view that:
“Power is not eternal. No one in the world can remain strong all the time. Man is first a child, then youth, then maturity, old age. Such is the life expectancy of states as well” (Sheihk Ahmed Yassin, 1998).
While this arguemnt is consistent with historical changes of this magnitude, another school of thought says the West will not relinquish its strangle-hold on global power so easily, not without a fight! Even though Putin says the West has lost it, the odds still favour it.
Back to the question of where Africa will be in the new contestations for power or its aftermath?
Putin gives an idea about how to take advantage of the situation thus:
“Relying on your civilisation is a necessary condition for success in the modern world, unfortunately a disorderly and dangerous world that has lost its bearings. More and more states are coming to this conclusion, becoming aware of their owns interests and needs, opportunities and limitations, their own identity and degree of interconnectedness with the world around them” (Putin in Sochi).
But does Africa have any civilisation left on which to rely as a condition and vehicle for entry and participation in this global ferment or arena?
In my view, Africa will be no more than a map, a patch on the earth—the pliant giant, raped, abused and abandoned by those who love her or despise her. Mario Puzo ( _The Godfather_ ) says that a race that allowed itself to be ground to dust is not one any would worry about.
Africa has attributed its inability to grow or develop like other parts of the world to slavery, colonialism, neo-colonialism (which Nkrumah says is the highest/last stage of imperialism) and much more recently, globalisation.
Although the reading of Karl Marx, Lenin and more recent works such as *How Europe Underdeveloped Africa* (Walter Rodney), *The Wretched of the Earth* (Frantz Fanon), *Globalisation And Its Discontents* ( Joseph Stiglitz) and other titles gives us an insight into the horrors of slavery, colonialism, neo-colonialism and the double-standards of globalisation, it is time to stop complaining about these phenomena. After an average of 60 years of independence, these are no longer acceptable excuses for Africa’s miserable backwardness. We cannot continue to accept the refrain of, “they took us away”. For how long?
They also took the Jews away but they said, “Never again!” The narrative has since changed for them.
It is of great importance to note that Africa’s erstwhile colonial masters were themselves former colonies of other powers, some under colonialism three to five times longer than Africa was. Rather than wallow in self-pity or indulge in blame game (for their misfortunes), they set to work and became dominant world powers. Perhaps, more significant is the fact that some former colonies who got their independence the same time as most African countries have since transformed. Malaysia, Singapore and others are in this class. Although great powers such as India, Pakistan and China got their own independence much earlier but not more than 15 years before Nigeria, for instance. China, the world’s wonder-country was under three different colonial masters!
However, in terms of turning situations around, I would think the US leads the pack. After a violent independence struggle against the British
and a bitter civil war, the US grew sufficiently strong enough to ‘colonise’ Britain, it’s former colonial master as well as dominate the world.
Given these scenarios of turning situations around, I would think Africa has not done enough for itself taking a distant last with no light at the end of the tunnel. At the risk of repetition, Africa is satisfied with blaming others for its woes. When the political elite are in consensus, they blame erstwhile colonial masters. When they are not, they blame opposition politicians or imaginary enemies. Opposition politicians blame witches in their villages. The working class/peasants (in the majority) who have the power to fight or even effect a change of this irredeemably corrupt elite, blame evil spirits and are often divided along primordial lines, rationalising the sins of their leaders. In a few circumstances when they are united, each person waxes into a state of inertia, waiting and hoping for the other person to do something, thus they lose the advantage of collective power of numbers and spark to push. They also lack the power of creative thinking because they are too busy talking or making noise to do anything reasonably meaningful. It is a known axiom that a people who talk too much have little time for thinking or work.
The few geniuses, and “mad” men and women with the will and initiative to triumph, with or without government, are brutally crushed with regulations and gun-toting task forces.
Africa’s problems are largely internal and they are corruption, oppression, repression, unhelpful education and the inability of the victims to effect a change of leadership. We have a predatory and narrow-minded political elite that are unrepetantly selfish and greedy, lazy and unimaginative, brutal and unforgiving (Frantz Fanon puts it more poignantly). They are impatient and intolerant of their people with little thoughts for tomorrow. They have all the vices of colonialists and none of their virtues. Their overwhelming power and influence have a paralysing effect on the people and the land. The people themselves are too docile for a meaningful fight with their traducers.
This elite are more at home with smarter and self-indulgent foreign counterparts than their own people. Often in dark blue suits and black shoes, these foreign collaborators are implacably arrogant and self-conceited. They facilitate the hitch-free movement of the stolen money or resources, provide sanctuary for their safe-keeping, tell the African elite how to spend the money and then turn around to call all of us “fantastically corrupt”.
Yakubu Mohammed underscores the gravity of the role played by the local African elite when he writes:
“Economic textbooks on Africa and other poor continents of the world should be updated to take into account the role of indigenous exploiters who use their positions to pauperise their countries and kill their fellow human beings because of their insatiable appetite for money and the good things money can _bring” ( _The Guardian,_ Wednesday, September 1, 2021).
While the African elite take a significant portion of this blame, time has also come for shared-responsibility between the African political elite and their partners in crime in Western capitals. But can Africa muster the necessary will and courage to demand for the reparation of the illegal wealth stowed away or have it reinvested or will it continue on this path of whinning? Which ever decision Africa takes, it must not, never again allow their silk-suited foreign counterparts pour cigar smoke in our faces while they live off us.
The mentality of political leaders waiting for aid before doing anything, must stop even as no nation can be unto itself an island. Even some liberal scholars attest to this. Giles Bolton for instance avers that, “Aid, no matter how good can do no more than help create the conditions for development. It can’t deliver it” ( _Aid and Other Dirty Business_ ) . My opinion is that aid may be good but it will take us no where for the simple reason that the aid-giver determines not only what we need, it decides what we get, and how we spend it. But that is not the end of the story. The aid-giver help us spend the aid and still asks for something bigger in return.
In light of this, the turbulence into which we are getting is a great opportunity for Africa to die a permanent death or to break even, get even….steal, take by force (if it has the courage) but certainly, to stop begging, to stop blaming! It is for weaklings. Development cannot come to Africa on the basis of pity or charity. It will come on chariot wheels with flaming fire!
There are theories and models of development but I have chosen to reduce them to two here; Market and State. Of state model, the assumption is that, “no developmental state, no development [as] the idea of a developmental state puts robust, competent public institutions at the centre of the developmental matrix” (Peter Evans 2010: quoted by Omano Edigheji in his book, _Nigeria: Democracy Without Development: How to Fix It_ ).
He similarly quotes Nasir Ahmad el-Rufai, a market-minded politician thus:
“Societies make progress when visionary leaders emerge to organise and direct collective actions for peaceful co-existence, with sensible rules, clear incentives and sanctions that enable individuals to realize their full potential”.
This is illustrated further as follows:
“…countries escape poverty only when they have appropriate economic institutions, especially private property and competition….countries are more likely to develop the right institutions when they have an open pluralistic political system with competition for political office, a widespread electorate, and openness to new political leaders” (Gary S. Becker, Nobel laureate in economics in _Why Nations Fail)_
Which ever model Africa chooses to use, we should stop destroying our indigenous technology, no matter how crude. Enough of razing to the ground artisinal refineries when our sophisticated refineries cannot yield a drop of refined oil. Enough of destroying our local gun factories when our Defence Industries Corporation can only boast of beds, bolts and nuts after 50 years while it’s counterparts in Brazil and elsewhere are building fighter jets. Enough of destroying other private initiatives. Enough of parading jaded market cliches like “government has no busisness in business”. Indeed, government has every business in business!With an inherently weak and dubious organised private sector (Mbeki-Report On Illicit Financial Flows in Africa) we do not need a soothsayer to tell us that government and organised private sector must of necessity create a synergy.
The turbulence has and will take many dimensions including attempts to re-colonise Africa by both the West and the East. It is a golden opportunity for Africa to play the beautiful bride and for it to know there are no benevolent colonial masters or foreign partners. It is important for Africa to know that diplomacy or international co-operation is not about chastity or charity naivety. Everybody takes what they can and move on.
It is equally important for African countries to note that they do not need hymnal or harmonic peace to develop but blood and grit! I propose the emergence of sub-regional powers with the wherewithal to inspire development across their sub-regions as well as whip into line smaller or weaker nations.
Africa must decide for itself where it wants to be by making smart choices. Africa should not be scared to venture. After all, strength comes from rubble (Napoleon). “And out of the rubble comes peace” ( Marwa Al-Sabouni, a Syrian Architect).
At the beginning of this presentation, I did say that there were three possible assumptions with the first being that the world is in a state of turbulence distinctly different from the regular turbulence we know. Developments as earlier enunciated point to this. I have talked about multi-dimensional confrontations across the world in multiple domains and their potential effects including major destructions and emergence of new global power centres. In spite of the potential magnitude of the changes expected, this may be no more than a phase in the global cycle of power and therefore not extraordinarily unique after all.
The second assumption is that the world is in need of a direction. My thoughts on this àre similar to the first assumption. The world has never been a perfect place even during the Eden Garden era and the so-called Golden Age or Age of Enlightenment. The world has been in search of direction from its birth to the first industrial revolution, the second and third and then the fourth. Only “recently” in its relentlessly quest, it “found” itself on the brink of a self-destructive world of Artificial Intelligence realising just in time to step back.
The world will therefore keep on searching for a direction because it has no light of its own. The only light it gets, comes from the sun, and only for a few hours a day.
The third assumption is where Africa will be or expected to be during or after the turbulence. My take is, Africa is not new to turbulence. It was the centre of creation (Serengeti) and creation didn’t happen peacefully (using the big-bang theory). Africa is one of the few places on earth that an ocean turned into a desert, and with tempratures hitting the roof in the Mediterranean/Red Sea nowadays, who knows what will happen next. Africa experienced slavery twice (first came the desert and then the ocean). Africa came under ruthless colonialism by Western powers (with the Belgian Beasts leading the pack) and at the moment coping with neo-colonialism, globalisation, disease, poverty and underdevelopment. The expected turbulence in Africa could range from nature-made to man-made. The “rebellions” in Francophone Africa are some of the things we expect aside from being sucked into the vortex of violence arising from a global military confrontation.
The point being made here is that the new turbulence ought not shock or awe or paralyse Africa (given its history) even as no two turbulence are ever the same. Nonetheless, how it weathers this new turbulence will entirely be determined by the decisions or choices Africa makes since this is expected to be some kind of participatory colonialism in which Africa is expected to have a voice if it choose to, unlike Berlin Conference of 1884 where there was no African.
Finally, in the emerging world order, in spite of the growing resentment of the weaker nations (for being bullied), and commitment of the powerful nations to be more accommodating, few powerful nations, if any, are prepared to share the perch with the weaker ones….except for the vote or the cheer from the sidelines. Weaker nations will always be reminded of the risks they face from the enemy camp if they don’t fall into line in their own camp. Similarly, they would be reminded of potential isolation from their own camp, and lastly, their own people, especially during elections. Afterall, powerful countries can make things happen in weaker nations.
The last line is that all the three assumptions might seem unique and extraordinary on a scale possibly never before seen but in the cold and remorseless trudge of time, all this might be no more than another phase of existence…waiting for another phase.
_Benson Upah, a Public Affairs and Leadership Analyst, writes from bensonupah@gmail.com_
OPINION
Tinubu and the Future of ECOWAS
By Reuben Abati
Two major meetings were held over the weekend that just passed that have implications for the future of the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) and the possible resolution or otherwise of political developments among member-states in the last two to three years, with implications for the future of the sub-regional organisation.
ECOWAS was established in May 1975, when 15 West African states signed the Treaty of Lagos to establish a platform for the promotion of economic integration. This particular treaty was revised on July 24 1993, but the essential purpose of ECOWAS has remained consistent: trade facilitation, free movement of persons and goods, solidarity, promotion of human rights and peace.The sixteenth member joined in 1977, making the membership 16. In addition to its many guidelines and principles, ECOWAS has a general framework which also guides protocols and relations among members. In July 1991, it adopted the Declaration of Political Principles as a cardinal rule, and in 2001, the ECOWAS Supplementary Protocol on Democracy and Good Governance. One of those protocols is the underlying trigger for this commentary, to wit: the principle of customary international law enshrined in Article 2 (4) of the 1945 UN Charter which binds member-states against the use of force as a means of changing governments, in the absence of armed attack or self-defence.
In 1978, ECOWAS signed a protocol on non-aggression against member states and in 1981, members agreed that in the event of any act of aggression against a member, they would come together in mutual self-defence and protect the victim-state to ensure peace, security and stability, by military means if possible and if inevitable, as seen in the interventions of ECOMOG in Liberia (1990) and Sierra Leone (1998). Even the African Union (AU) enabled by its Article 4(h) can be called upon to intervene when the basic protocols have been breached. This however is a slightly complicated area of the subject which we need not bring into this commentary.
What we know is that ECOWAS specifically sees pro-democratic intervention as its bounden duty, but the effectuation of this has been a problem in the sub-region over the years and to cite a recent example, in 2016, when ECOWAS threatened to deploy a standby ECOWAS force in The Gambia to restore the people’s wish if Yahya Jammeh refused to leave office. Jammeh was eased out and a standby force did not have to intervene.
But a turning point came for ECOWAS when the military seized power in Mali in 2020 and 2021, Guinea in 2021, Burkina Faso in 2022, and Niger in July 2023. ECOWAS, with Nigeria’s President Bola Tinubu as Chair, thought it needed to intervene to return these countries to democracy, the rise of military juntas in the sub-region being a threat to democratic consolidation. ECOWAS suspended the states in line with its protocols and proceeded to impose political and economic sanctions. It threatened to deploy troops if it became necessary. This was an act of political miscalculation.
In the four countries, there were civilian protests against ECOWAS, particularly in former French colonies of Burkina Faso, Niger and Mali. The more interesting part of it is that the ECOWAS was accused of being too pro-French. In Burkina Faso, Mali and Niger, the people publicly denounced continued association with France and specifically in Niger, the people openly waved Russian flags and pulled down French flags.
From Senegal to Niger, a wave of rebellion erupted in the former colonies, in what signalled a creeping failure of French relations with its former colonies in Africa. Senegal has had to shut down French military bases to assert its sovereignty, in Burkina Faso the military junta revoked gold permits that had been awarded to French companies, in Niger, the government similarly cancelled the mining permit of Orano, the French nuclear producer that runs the uranium mines in that country.
In addition, Niger revoked its tax co-operation treaties with France as also did Mali, which broke off from its defence accord with France, and its 11 colonial agreements with the former overlord. In the vacuum created by these new realities, Russia and its Wagner group became the favourite partner of former French colonies in West Africa. The Sahel region has been a hotbed of violence and terrorism and naturally, there were concerns about the implications of the presence of Russia and Wagner in the sub-region and the festering anti-West sentiments in the backyard of ECOWAS members. ECOWAS eventually had to review its threat of sanctions, and military action and adopted the options of diplomacy and dialogue.
This achieved little or nothing. In January 2024, Burkina Faso, Mali and Niger announced their decision to quit ECOWAS. They formed the Alliance of Sahel States (AES) as their own confederation as an alternative to ECOWAS. Their departure under Article 91 of the Revised ECOWAS Treaty would become effective on January 29, 2025. The resort to diplomacy, an afterthought by ECOWAS also yielded no results. In July, ECOWAS appointed President Bassirou Faye of Senegal as the mediator with the aggrieved countries. President Faure Gnassingbe of Togo was also sent on diplomatic shuttles to Niger. President Tinubu as ECOWAS Chairman, also sent other envoys to the Sahel.
Barely a month before the January deadline, there was a meeting of Ministers of Burkina Faso, Niger and Mali in Niamey last Saturday, December 14, where they reiterated that the departure of the three countries from ECOWAS, effective January 29, 2025, is “irreversible.” They however also resolved that the three countries would remain visa-free for all ECOWAS countries after the exit. While the latter resolution may alleviate fears about the free movement of goods and services, there is still the residual challenge of insecurity in the Sahel and the threat of a further tumultuous season in that part of West Africa with wider implications for regional peace.
It is perhaps out of this realisation that the Authority of Heads of State and Governments at its 66th Ordinary Summit last weekend, Sunday, December 15 at the State House in Abuja, decided to vary Article 91 of the Revised Treaty and granted the departing trio an extension of six months from January 29 to July 29. This is basically to create room for further diplomatic negotiations in the hope that the three countries can be brought back into the fold. In Niamey, on Saturday, the AES Ministers still made it clear that ECOWAS leaders are too subservient to France.
Without being specific, they may well have been referring to President Tinubu who recently returned from France where he was treated to a lavish and grand reception by President Emmanuel Macron. It remains to be seen whether the AES would reverse itself. It is a long wait but as certain as daylight, July 29, 2025 would soon be upon us. In the meantime, the ECOWAS Commission has been directed to begin work on the necessary withdrawal formalities, while the mediator continues with last-ditch efforts to keep the dream of the founding fathers of ECOWAS alive, giving the AES an opportunity to have a re-think.
It is further instructive that at the ECOWAS meeting of Heads of States and Governments, President Tinubu, Chairman, took time out to praise the just concluded general elections in Ghana and parliamentary elections in Senegal. He even praised Ghana’s Vice President Mahamudu Bawumia of the ruling New Patriotic Party (NPP) who conceded defeat to the candidate of the opposition, President John Mahama of the National Democratic Congress (NDC). He praised the government and people of Ghana for their maturity. This was a subtle dig at the leaders of the West African countries where the military chose to resort to force and aggression. Without a doubt, the rise of military juntas poses a threat to democracy in West Africa and peace in the region. The romance of the juntas with Russia and China dangerously positions the region as a territory for proxy conflicts among major Western powers. It is an ill-wind. ECOWAS needs to do more to persuade the errant countries to restore constitutional order. The leaders also need to reinvent and retool the organisation.
By next July, it will be 50 years since ECOWAS was established. It would be pertinent to ask: how has the body fared? Has it so far fulfilled the ambitions of its founding fathers? Today, only one of those leaders who established ECOWAS in 1975 is still alive. Would General Yakubu Gowon of Nigeria be proud of what ECOWAS has become? What are the challenges facing the body? How can it be reformed? Mutual suspicion among the various blocs: Anglophone, Francophone and Lusophone has been a major issue for ECOWAS: how can the goal of integration be better realised? In 50 years, whatever the challenges may have been, it can be said that ECOWAS has been pivotal in forging cooperation, integration and trade within the region. ECOWAS in 2010 adopted Vision 2020, and also later a Vision 2050 roadmap to deepen the original objectives of the association.
There may have been challenges: insecurity in the Sahel, Boko Haram in the Lake Chad Basin, Ebola, COVID-19 and the emergent threat of military juntas, but on the whole, the main achievements of the body deserve to be celebrated. ECOWAS fought to restore peace in Liberia and Sierra Leone, and has been vocal in insisting on good governance. There are hitches in person-to-person relations within the body, over trade, commerce and space, but the free movement of goods and services has been largely beneficial. ECOWAS ranks probably as the most successful regional economic bloc in the continent, in terms of conflict management.
But ECOWAS has lost steam. It needs re-organisation. It is unfortunate that the same ECOWAS that acted decisively in Liberia, Sierra Leone and The Gambia is now the same body that is now being treated scornfully by a group of military adventurists who have reversed democratic progress in the Sahel. Their effrontery is fuelled by the descent into poverty and anomie in their countries. The clamour for change that compelled the people of Burkina Faso, Mali, Guinea and Niger to embrace the military is simply their frustration with the leaders in those countries. The people seek change and they embrace it in whatever shape it presents itself, with high expectations too, because they no longer trust their leaders who have alienated them and placed a greater accent on their own elite well-being rather than the common good for the people’s benefit.
The people are led by persons who promote injustice, inequality, and nepotism. They rig elections and do not allow the people’s votes to count. When the military intervenes, the people see the intervention as a form of liberation from the shackles of oppression. In Burkina Faso, Niger and Mali, they trooped to the streets in jubilation, almost like the situation today in Syria with the fall of Bashar Assad and the Assad dynasty, one of the most murderous ruling houses in the Middle East which clung to power for 54 years. In Mali in August 2020, when Mali’s President Ibrahim Boubacar Keita was removed in a military coup over allegations of corruption, fraud and electoral violence, the people were joyous. They carried placards saying “This isn’t a coup. It is a Revolution”. There was yet another coup in May 2021. Similarly in Niger in 2023, thousands of people gathered to hail the generals who led the coup in that country. The urgent matter that West Africa needs to resolve is the challenge of good leadership and governance.
There is a need at the organisational level for a re-dedication to the ideals of ECOWAS, and to develop a higher sense of belonging among the member-states and the over 420 million people that make up the region. As ECOWAS steps into its 50th year, it is in urgent need of reform and we need to see the members being faithful. At the last meeting of the ECOWAS Authority of Heads of States and Governments, Omar Alieu Touray, President of the ECOWAS Commission, commended Nigeria for having paid up its community levies for 2023, with the 2024 levy paid up to July this year. He advised other member states to emulate Nigeria’s example. I guess it has become a habit among ECOWAS members to allow Nigeria to do the heavy lifting in terms of funding while others tag along and yet enjoy the benefits of membership.
It is important that all parties pay their levies as and when due. The various structures of the body must be overhauled to ensure equity and deepen trade facilitation. The ideals of free movement of persons across the region should be enhanced. It must be possible for any national of an ECOWAS state to live and work in any of the member states without being subjected to undue discrimination or harassment. The celebration of ECOWAS at 50 must be an occasion for sober reflection and renewal. President Bola Tinubu was elected for a second term as chairman of ECOWAS in July 2024. He would preside over the 50th-anniversary celebrations before handing over the seat in July 2025. He may have listed some of his achievements as ECOWAS chairman at the 66th Ordinary session in Abuja; he would be required to give a fuller account of his tenure and the status of ECOWAS as part of the 50th anniversary. There is a lot more that can be done.
OPINION
Still on State Police
By Dakuku Peterside
When a policy fails to factor in public response to its benefits and drawbacks, success takes the backseat. Ignoring public behaviour often results in poor implementation and unintended consequences.
In Nigeria, a nation grappling with complex and diverse security challenges, the limitations of centralised policing have become glaringly evident.
Rising crime rates, from terrorism and banditry to cybercrime and kidnapping, expose the inadequacies of the current federal system. The call for state police is not just a matter of political discourse; it is a necessary step toward securing the lives and property of Nigerians.This proposal has gained unprecedented traction across regional and political divides, signalling that the time is ripe for this crucial reform.
The urgency of decentralising policing by introducing state police could provide the much-needed local focus to counter insecurity while fostering accountability and community trust. This vision aligns with global best practices and offers hope for a safer and more prosperous Nigeria, where localised and specialised law enforcement can effectively address the diverse security needs of the population.Throughout history, nations have recognised the need for adaptable and localised law enforcement structures. In the early 20th century, the United States established state police forces to address rising crime and extend law enforcement beyond the capabilities of local authorities. The Pennsylvania State Police, formed in 1905, became the first uniformed state law enforcement agency in the U.S., designed to handle challenges that local sheriffs and municipal officers could not adequately address. This included labour unrest in coal mines and maintaining order in rural areas without sufficient local law enforcement. Over time, state police forces such as the Texas Rangers and California Highway Patrol expanded their scope, dealing with issues from highway safety to organised crime. These forces were pivotal in ensuring law enforcement matched the complexities of an industrialising and urbanising society.
The U.S. experience provides a critical lesson for Nigeria: decentralisation enhances law enforcement’s ability to respond to local needs. For instance, during the Prohibition era, state police units were instrumental in curbing illicit alcohol trade in their jurisdictions, a task federal authorities alone needed help to handle effectively. Similarly, the adaptability of state police allowed them to pioneer specialised units, such as cybercrime task forces in recent decades, which have become crucial in tackling modern criminal activities.
Nigeria’s security challenges, including insurgencies in the North and urban crimes in Lagos and Abuja, could greatly benefit from similar localised and specialised approaches. For instance, a state police unit in Lagos could prioritise urban crimes such as theft and traffic-related offences, while a unit in Borno might focus on counterterrorism efforts against Boko Haram insurgents. This targeted approach could lead to more effective solutions than a one-size-fits-all federal system.
Globally, decentralised policing systems offer valuable lessons. Countries like Canada, India, and South Africa demonstrate how local accountability and responsiveness enhance security. Canada’s provincial police forces work collaboratively with municipal and federal agencies to address diverse security needs. In India, state police forces are indispensable in combating localised crimes and maintaining law and order, especially in states with unique cultural and geographical contexts.
For example, Maharashtra’s state police in India have implemented technology-driven initiatives to combat cybercrime, which would be impossible under a rigid centralised system. These systems are bolstered by robust oversight mechanisms to prevent misuse, ensuring their effectiveness and integrity. Nigeria can draw inspiration from these examples, adapting these practices to suit its unique challenges. This global perspective further strengthens the argument for the state police proposal in Nigeria.
The current structure of Nigeria’s federal police reveals its limitations. With approximately 370,000 officers, the police-citizen ratio is about 1:650, significantly higher than the UN-recommended ratio of 1:450. This shortfall is glaring in a nation of over 220 million people, where security challenges vary dramatically across geopolitical zones. The Inspector-General of Police has highlighted the need for an additional 190,000 personnel, yet estimates suggest that Nigeria requires up to 2.5 million officers for effective policing. Over the past decade, crime rates have surged by over 30%, with kidnapping, banditry, terrorism, and cybercrime becoming increasingly sophisticated and prevalent. In 2022 alone, there were over 3,500 reported kidnapping incidents nationwide, underlining the urgent need for localised and agile policing responses. The introduction of state police could help address this issue by allowing for a more targeted allocation of resources based on regional security needs, potentially improving the police-citizen ratio and overall security.
Support for state police has grown significantly among policymakers, security experts, and civil society groups. A growing consensus is that decentralising policing would empower local authorities and enhance operational efficiency. Even state governors from historically divided northern and southern regions have united in supporting state police. One significant highlight of the 147th National Economic Council (NEC) is a new consensus by all state governments on establishing state police. However, this initiative requires a more robust but speedy engagement to align it with the local cultural context, ensuring that it is appreciated and supported by the citizens it aims to serve. Citizen engagement is not just a formality, but a crucial step to ensure public understanding and support for the state police proposal.
Building trust between state police and local communities is a crucial advantage of this reform. Effective local policing initiatives can foster relationships that build trust and cooperation, especially in Nigeria, where the trust deficit is high. Trust is an essential component of crime fighting. Innovative local community-police liaison arrangements and other community-focused programs can strengthen these ties, creating an environment of mutual respect and collaboration. When police officers understand their communities’ cultural and societal dynamics, they are better equipped to address security challenges and maintain peace. The active participation and trust of the Nigerian public in this reform process are crucial for its success.
Concerns about the potential misuse of state police for political purposes are valid but can be systematically addressed. Abuse of State Independent Electoral Commissions (SIEC) by state governors is often cited. This is another reason why extensive and targeted citizen engagement is key before putting the law in place. Safeguards must be designed and implemented to prevent governors from exploiting state police for political and electoral manipulation purposes, personal gain, or to feed their authoritarian appetite.
Laws prohibiting state police involvement in electoral matters and empowering oversight bodies can ensure neutrality. Clear delineation of the roles and responsibilities of state and federal police will also be essential to avoid jurisdictional conflicts. Establishing a framework for collaboration and information-sharing between the two levels of law enforcement will further enhance effectiveness. However, these measures will require careful planning and execution to ensure their efficacy and address potential challenges such as resistance to change and extensive training and capacity building.
Independent regulatory bodies are critical to ensuring accountability and preventing abuse. A State Police Security Commission (SPSC), comprising representatives from civil society, established professional bodies, legal experts, and public security professionals, could oversee state police operations. Regular audits and public reporting ensure transparency. Additionally, a robust judiciary is essential to protect citizens from potential abuses. Judicial reforms that enhance the independence and efficiency of courts would be vital in supporting this transition. For instance, in Canada, provincial ombudspersons have played pivotal roles in monitoring police misconduct, providing Nigeria with a possible blueprint for ensuring accountability.
Strengthening relationships between police and communities through genuine engagement and collaborative problem-solving must remain a priority. Establishing community advisory boards can provide platforms for dialogue and accountability. Actionable trust-building initiatives, such as open-door policies and periodic town hall meetings, should replace superficial slogans like “Police is your friend.”
Addressing insecurity also requires holistic solutions. Investments in education, healthcare, and youth empowerment are essential for tackling the root causes of crime. Integrating vocational training and social services into crime prevention strategies would complement policing reforms, creating a foundation for sustainable security. For example, a similar approach in India’s Kerala state led to a 40% reduction in youth crime over a decade.
Introducing state police in Nigeria represents a transformative opportunity to address the nation’s security crisis. While challenges are inevitable, they should not deter progress. Beginning the decentralisation process will allow for the identification and resolution of potential issues as they arise. The widespread consensus around reforming Nigeria’s policing architecture underscores the urgency of this change. With proper safeguards, political will, and public support, state police can become a cornerstone of a more secure, equitable, and prosperous Nigeria.
A prerequisite is the government’s robust public engagement and orientation programme to get the complete buy-in of all stakeholders, including the National Assembly, the state assembly and the masses. The time to act is now, and this reform must be embraced as a step toward a brighter and safer future for all Nigerians. Establishing state police would signify a shift in policy and a bold reimagining of Nigeria’s approach to security—one that prioritises the people, respects regional diversity, and lays the foundation for sustainable peace and progress.
OPINION
A Reflection on Daily Trust’s Tension with Tinubu
By Farooq Kperogi
As a media scholar who engages with Nigeria’s media landscape from the safe yet impassioned perch of the diaspora, I have found 2024 to be particularly illuminating in the annals of government-media relations. It presented a study in tension, turmoil, and eventual catharsis.
If the media is society’s mirror, then its cracks often reveal not just distortions but deeper fissures in the polity it reflects.
And nowhere was this more evident than in the July 4 report by Daily Trust, which set the Nigerian public sphere ablaze with moral indignation and, in a twist befitting a Greek tragedy, threatened lives.The Daily Trust report in question bore the sensational headline: “LGBT: Nigeria Signs $150 Billion Samoa Deal.
” In one fell swoop, it conjured a narrative wherein the Bola Ahmed Tinubu administration had purportedly traded Nigeria’s moral sanctity for European coffers flush with foreign currency. It was a claim unburdened by evidence but rich with emotional currency.In its aftermath, it left ripples of moral panic, social turbulence, and political fallout, especially in the Muslim North where issues bordering on religious morality inflame our passions and mentally transport us to celestial realms.
Clerics swiftly mobilized their pulpits and invoked ominous maledictions. Their invocations of divine ire resonated not only within mosques but deep into the social sinews of a people already hampered by mistrust.
Prominent Northerners in the Tinubu administration became objects of incendiary wrath, targets of whispered curses and objects of overt death threats. Family members became collateral damage in this frenzy.
As I pointed out in my July 6, 2024, column titled “LGBTQ Storm in $150 Billion Samoa Deal Teacup,” what Daily Trust did exemplified the literary and journalistic sin of circular reporting, a rhetorical sleight-of-hand where unsuspecting people are fed with false information, made to spout it back, which then gets established as the source of the information.
Alex Haley’s Roots is one of the most prominent examples of circular reporting. Haley’s wildly celebrated epic, initially marketed as historical truth about the life of Kunta Kinte, an 18th-century Mandinka who was captured and sold into slavery in America, was later unmasked as a potpourri of embellished fiction and poorly-sourced “facts.”
In his eagerness to find validation, Haley planted narratives into the mouths of griots in the Gambia, only to repackage their guided, predetermined responses as original confirmation of his fabricated story.
In a parallel act, Daily Trust ignited outrage by feeding its sources erroneous claims about the Samoa Agreement, then turned their emotionally charged responses into a “story”—a journalistic ouroboros swallowing its own tail.
Yet unlike Haley’s indulgence in narrative fiction, Daily Trust’s misstep wasn’t victimless. It carried real and immediate consequences: Vice President Kashim Shettima, the son of a revered Maiduguri Islamic scholar, and Nuhu Ribadu, scion of a distinguished Adamawa family with deep Islamic roots, became unwilling lightning rods for holy vitriol.
Minister of Information Mohammed Idris, himself a bridge between Nupe and Fulani Muslim cultures, found himself straddling a tempest from all corners. All northern Muslims in the Tinubu administration became objects of unappeasable fury.
The Minister’s Delicate Maneuver
Confronted with this escalating storm, Information Minister Mohammed Idris exhibited both restraint and strategic acumen. It would have been easy, even tempting, to unleash the full punitive might of the state upon Daily Trust.
After all, if recent history is any guide, Nigerian courts beckon eagerly to governments eager for retribution. Yet Idris wisely chose not to enter the arena of litigation, where victors are often the defeated in the court of public opinion. To sue would have been to martyr the newspaper, inflame its supporters, and escalate the matter beyond the bounds of reason.
Instead, Idris turned to a tool of elegant resolve: the National Media Complaints Commission (NMCC), Nigeria’s fledgling experiment in self-regulation. Incidentally, it is a forum that was conceived, in a delicious twist of fate, by none other than Idris himself (as publisher of Blueprint, an Abuja-based daily) alongside Media Trust’s Chairman, Malam Kabiru Yusuf.
Together, in the more harmonious days of 2021, after Yusuf’s and Idris’ December 2020 election as chairman and general secretary respectively of the Newspapers Publishers Association of Nigeria (NPAN), they planted the seeds of this Ombudsman, a voluntary watchdog designed to enforce media ethics with an invisible hand.
By July 8, Idris’ ministry formally petitioned the NMCC, requesting an inquiry into Daily Trust’s reckless reportorial infraction that endangered the lives of people in government. It demanded a retraction, an apology, and stricter editorial safeguards against future transgressions.
The NMCC, under the leadership of Emeka Izeze, former MD of the Guardian and widely admired figure in Nigerian journalism, undertook its task with measured diligence. On September 23, the commission issued a 19-page report that cut through the fog of misinformation.
The commission found that although earlier versions of the Samoa Agreement did include provisions for the protection of sexual minorities and marginal gender identities (which many countries, including Nigeria, had rejected), the final 403-page agreement that Nigeria signed did not require any commitments on the part of countries that signed the agreement to codify LGBTQ rights in their law books.
The NMCC’s findings were refreshingly even-handed: while Daily Trust was found guilty of violating Article 2.1 of the Revised Code of Journalism Ethics—a clause that enshrines accuracy as the bedrock of reporting—the commission gently admonished the government for its opacity surrounding the Samoa Agreement. Transparency, it suggested, would have preempted much of the hysteria.
Thus, the judgment did more than hold a newspaper accountable; it underlined an eternal truth about public trust: opacity begets speculation and speculation births chaos.
A Redemption through Humility
On October 2, 2024, Daily Trust rose to the moment with an unreserved apology: “We accept the verdict of the NMCC without equivocation… We apologize to the Federal Government for any inconvenience the story might have caused.”
In the apology, Daily Trust commended the “thorough and professional approach” of the National Media Complaints Commission (NMCC) and expressed gratitude to Information Minister Mohammed Idris “for his professional and democratic approach to this incident.”
In its humility, Daily Trust not only mended fences with its readership but also fortified its credibility. Self-correction is not a weakness but the wellspring of enduring strength.
After all, as the New York Times demonstrated when it corrected a 161-year-old error in 2014, the integrity of any news organization lies not in its infallibility but in its courage to admit when it stumbles. To err may be human, but to apologize—and to do so with grace—is the hallmark of institutional maturity.
Lessons Learned: Self-Regulation as Democratic Vigilance
This episode is a timely moral tale for Nigeria’s democracy and media ecosystem. For too long, the relationship between Nigerian governments and the media has oscillated between adversarial hostility and co-opted complicity.
This case reveals the potential for a middle path, that is, a relationship characterized by accountability without authoritarianism, and freedom tempered by responsibility.
The NMCC’s successful arbitration places Nigeria alongside countries like the United Kingdom, where the Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO) maintains order in the wake of scandal; Germany, where the Deutscher Presserat enforces rigor; South Africa, whose Press Council safeguards post-apartheid press freedoms; and several other examples.
As Thomas Jefferson once wrote, “The only security of all is in a free press.” But press freedom, like all freedoms, carries obligations—chief among them the pursuit of truth. To borrow Edmund Burke’s metaphor of the Fourth Estate, if journalists sit atop their watchtower as society’s sentinels, they must keep their eyes unclouded by haste, bias, or error.
In the final analysis, both Minister Idris and Daily Trust deserve commendation for their conduct. The minister’s refusal to wield the bludgeon of state power speaks to his understanding of democracy’s delicate balance.
Daily Trust’s forthright apology reaffirms its place as an honorable newspaper committed to ethical journalism, even when it falters like we all do.
Errors, after all, are the cracked kegs of palm wine through which wisdom occasionally trickles. It is what we do with the lessons—how we patch the cracks and safeguard against future spills—that determines whether we remain custodians of public trust or mere peddlers of ink-stained chaos.
This case tells us that the relationship between the government and the media need not always be a drumbeat of conflict; it can, when guided by mechanisms like the NMCC, achieve the harmony of a well-tuned orchestra where every note serves the greater good of truth, transparency, and trust.
In 2024, Nigeria glimpsed that harmony.