In the late 1980s, I could vividly remember arguing with fellow school mates about the computer, most of us have not seen one physically except in some movies. “Duk Kano babu computer, sai dai ko a gidan gwamna” (there is no computer in the whole of Kano, may be in the government house), said one of us.

To the kid, computer was basically imaginary; it is associated with all sorts of myths. One day while passing by Kantin Kwari market, I overheard one mai waazin kan turmi (street preacher), talking to an assembly of youths, and he mentioned something that left me perplexed. He was talking about a computer that is used to catch fish. People were listening attentively, yet you could see clearly that he was describing a device he has never seen in his life.

But this has changed; we now live in the world where technology is as accessible as drinking water. In a 2001 lecture delivered by Professor Ali Mazrui at the Bayero University, Kano, he mentioned that there are more computers in some universities in the developed world, than in some African countries. Today, it is extremely difficult if such a statement will hold. If there is one segment of the society that has been affected today by the digital revolution, it is no more than our kids. They are growing in the age of laptop, iPad and iPhone.

One scholar who appreciates the changing nature of our kids is Professor Don Tapscott whose book “Grown Up Digital: How the Net Generation Is Changing Your World” explores the attitude and culture of the 21^st century young people, whom he fondly calls the Net Gens. In a review written for the Economist magazine, Professor Tapscott stated that “Net Geners are more active. Almost 80% of them read interactive blogs daily, leaving comments and adding links. They multitask, watching TV while texting, talking on the phone or surfing the Internet. They’re more likely to use their cellphones as everything from alarm clocks to GPS devices. They may even use their phones’ cameras as a kind of instrument for social action, for instance, to document police misconduct. They see the computer as more than a tool, as a place to congregate with friends. Their safe communal spaces aren’t mainly in the physical world, but rather online, on social networking sites like Facebook. Rather than being antisocial, Net Geners are developing an entirely new set of social skills”

South Korea is one country that appreciates this changing nature of young people, and decided to come up with an educational policy that integrates the use of technology in education. As a result of that, children from South Korea are ahead of kids from other countries including European and North American nations.

Of course in developing countries, we are yet to reach a stage where our primary and secondary schools will be digitally revolutionalised, and it will be hasty to pull the trigger without working on some fundamental issues such as teacher training, child poverty etc. Yet for parents who can afford, there are so many useful applications to help their kids learn from their iPad and other devices. The Quiz up app is one example to aid the learning of your children. It can help your children especially with mathematics, history, geography, science, health education and other subjects. In fact your kids can invite children from other places around the world to compete in these subjects and see how far they have mastered the subjects in their school.

Of course supervision from parents will be useful, especially to educate your children on the content of certain subjects that might have cultural implications on your child.  It is important to understand the positive aspect of these devices by parents, so that children do not just use them for games and chatting unnecessarily, while gaining nothing in terms of their intellectual development.

There are many of you out there who are equally concerned as I am, about the leaders of the country continuing to behave like a stubborn mule, creating more problems for the country than solving them. Is all well as the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, EFCC?

Anyone paying attention to the goings-on in the EFCC in the last couple of weeks should pray for an intervention, divine or otherwise, to free the anti-corruption agency from the shackles of government.

I am not in particular, talking only about the rising number of political cases, manifested by increased visitations to states controlled by the so-called “rebel governors”. Why should I make excuses for governors with sticky fingers? Some of them have some explaining to do.

While this is going on, the country continues its increasing reputation as Africa’s hotbed of scams. Africa’s biggest financial and drug crimes originate from here. The most horrific cases of kidnapping, robbery and piracy on the continent come from here. Except when it comes to football, few around the globe call Nigeria in glorious terms and greatness. Many just take us as corrupt and untrustworthy the moment you say here I am, a Nigerian.

It was against the fear of things coming to this sorry pass that they created those bodies – the National Drugs Law Enforcement Agency, NDLEA, the Independent Corrupt Practices Commission, ICPC and the EFCC, which is the body under discussion in this column.

The EFCC wasn’t at all a bad news at the beginning. Then, it had a focus, a vision, and a determination to make a difference. This was helped greatly by dedicated staff, adequate government funding and the boundless international support it enjoyed. A staff at the Nigeria Mission once informed me that from records known to them, the EFCC did not, at that time need government appropriation to carry out its job; they got enough from foreign donors to thrive on their job.

When they mentioned the EFCC at that time, the heartbeat of the guilty dropped by several beats.

As with everything in Nigeria today, EFCC’s problem is truly, truly the problem of the ruling party, the Peoples Democratic Party, the PDP.

The PDP has a great deal in common with the cockroaches. A cockroach tries to enter a territory using a countless number of ways – and it succeeds always at your own expense!

The Presidency and the party did not rest until they succeed in turning the agency into matchet held by the country’s ruler, a matchet he used to hack just anyone who fell out of his line. It became a monster run amok. They investigated politicians and opened files on them. If you acted politically correct, your file is rested on the shelves gathering dusts. If you run foul of the President, they dusted off and headed to the courts with charges upon charges. It was in those murky circumstances that the current Chairman, Ibrahim Lamorde, a man said to have been the one who broke most of the success stories in those early days was appointed as Chairman. That thing gave hope to many that  a redeemer had come and the more glorious days of EFCC were set to return.

More than at any time, the EFCC is today right there in the crutches of the President. Current reports say the five PDP governors who decamped to the opposition All Progressives Congress, APC are now priority cases. To be found guilty at all costs.

What is however even more worrisome is the fact that the Commission is itself deeply divided, having become enmeshed in crises engendered by regime interests and the interests of its managers. In the last two weeks, there were reports of violent confrontations between the main Commission and its subsidiary, the Financial Crimes Unit. Reportedly, armed policemen attached to the Commission seized the offices of the FCU, ransacked the place and removed documents. The EFCC has since denied this encounter but they gave themselves away when they removed the head of FCU and replaced him with another. Why did this happen? Nobody, I am talking in particular about the office of the Attorney-General of the Federation who supervises the Commission or the relevant Committees of the National Assembly exercising oversight, has deemed it necessary to talk to Nigerians about what is going on in that place.

In the last one week, we have seen online reports disputing stories that the dozen or so bankers held in EFCC cells, are being detained in connection with one of the political cases I mentioned – that of the children of the Jigawa State Governor. This new report says they are actually being detained in respect of cases to do with the EFCC top brass. Is this true? An accountable government has the duty of offering an explanation to the public on this disquieting situation.

It is obvious that to be an accountable, credible, and unbiased investigator in the fashion of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, FBI, the EFCC should first of all come out of the shadow of the PDP. It should enjoy an autonomous status, free it from successive Presidents, so that it could work without fear or favour toward any political entity.

The National Assembly should also find new ways of appointing the Chairman. A Chairman appointed by the President works for the President alone. This is not about Lamorde. Anyone in that situation will act in the same way. Like the Chief Justice, the Chairman of the Commission may be nominated by the National Judicial Council, NJC, to be ratified by the Senate.

But autonomy for EFCC should be balanced with transparency and accountability. Without this, whoever they put there as head, no matter his pedigree and standing in terms of preparation for the work will achieve nothing.

A starting point in this direction is for both the Attorney-General of the Federation and the relevant National Assembly Committees to open the doors and bring down the high walls of secrecy shrouding the inside happenings in the EFCC. What is cooking inside?

It appears like the Nigerian federal government, had, by its directive to Vice Chancellors to open the nation’s public universities for academic activities on or before December 4th, had drawn a battle line with the public university lecturers, operating under the canopy of Academic Staff Union of Universities (ASUU), who have kept the nation’s budding youths at home, via their nation-wide strike since July 1st this year. The build-up to such battle line can be illustrated by a personal experience I had as I was growing up. That was way back in 1983 in Kano.
I was driving a new beetle Volkswagen car which I bought a week earlier at the cost of N1,800, along the ever busy Gwammaja road when a young man, riding on a scooter, slightly brushed my car from behind. It happened when he wanted to meander through traffic hold-up. The dent on my car was not visible, but I was so infuriated that I wasn’t prepared to go easy with the young man.
A number of Hausa people, his own ‘Yanwa’ (people) gathered around us and were genuinely begging me to forgive him, with a few of the elderly ones among them even offering to take me to a good panel beater to spray the part of the car that was dented. But I remained adamant and insisted that the young man should pay for the cost of repairing the car.
All of a sudden, all those who gathered around us and who have been begging me to have mercy on the young man turned jelly: they were now insulting me and asking me to go ahead and do my worse. They even threatened to beat me up if I did not go away from there immediately.
I did not need anybody to tell me that I had allowed my over reaction and anger to turn me from aggrieved person to accused.
I left the scene with my bloated ego deflated and in shame.
Yes, members of ASUU had public sympathy and the sympathy of the students they were teaching when they started this strike in July. Even the government, in a way, believed that they were actually wronged and therefore, deserved to express their anger in the way they chose to.
And, in the last two or three months, the government had engaged them in some form of dialogue at various levels. Among the various layers of the dialogue sessions were the one with the Benue state governor, Gabriel Suswam, another one with education minister and yet, another one with Vice President of the country, Mohammed Namadi Sambo while the last one was with the President of the country, Dr. Goodluck Jonathan.
In all these dialogue sessions, one wants to believe that the central issue that ran through them was the promise by the government to address their grievances in more practical way with appeals that they should return to work.
But, while nearly the whole academic year has been wasted with the students sleeping and doing nothing at home, the lecturers appear to be enjoying their unending holiday, showing signs that they don’t care about the consequences of the seed of educational lethargy they are inadvertently, or even knowingly planting.
Nobody doubts that they have a strong case in their struggle for the establishment and promotion of quality university education, but pursuing such genuine case with stubbornness creates an impression that there is just more to the whole thing than an ordinary eyes can see.
Like the Hausa people in Kano who first started to beg me out of sympathy over the scooter young man that brushed my car and later turned violently against me when I became blindly obstinate and stubborn, the striking lecturers may not have known by now that even their ardent sympathizers when they started this course, are now highly disenchanted with them!
Of course, the government was wrong to have reneged on the 2009 agreement it signed with members of ASUU. And, ASUU too is wrong in remaining obstinate and stubborn in the pursuit of their right, per se, even when the ovation that greeted the commencement of their strike has not only died down in troubled silence, but has turned the students whose course they are fighting into weeping.
There is practically no way two wrongs can make a right!

The 2015 electoral contest is one that pitches President Goodluck Jonathan puffed up by his native Ijaw and some of the South-East states- seen to be the biggest beneficiaries of the prevailing order in the country-on the one hand, and a largely disoriented, disorganized but bitterly angry states of Northern Nigeria. Many are already saying that the contest between the two sides will come to be defined by cash, raw emotions and the role of the South-West.

The Governor of Niger State, styled as Chief Servant, Dr. Babangida Aliyu has done the job of organizing Northern politics, economy, peace and security matters as Chairman of the Northern States Governors Forum, NSGF, but seems to have gone over the top in tagging fellow Northerners supporting Dr. Jonathan’s 2015 aspiration as traitors.

In the November 24 edition of the Punch newspapers, the Chief Servant, after taking a hard view of the President’s aspiration for 2015, announced that “over 400 Northerners have betrayed the North after collecting money from mercenaries. He promised to publish the list.

He continued: “We hear rumours of some people who say they have a list of four hundred Northerners that they are going to settle and they are sure if they settle the 400, everything will be okay. We are looking for that list so that we will tell people that these are the people that want to betray you. This sense of betrayal on the Northerners has festered into a groundswell of mistrust.”

The first time I heard of the list of 400 was from an editor of a growing vernacular newspaper who said a former Minster showed it to him. It may have secretly been going round some time and there is the danger I see in what is going on. As the leader of the country, Mr. Jonathan may have made some promises that he has failed to fulfill and could possibly be unelectable on account of his performance in office. It is clearly being talked about all over the country that governance and public service have deteriorated under him in his two terms. Human development and other indices have shown signs of decline. These notwithstanding, he has a right to strategize and seek popular support even if his bid for another term of office is abhorrent to many. The constitution guarantees him the right to freely canvass for support all across the federation and nobody has a right to inhibit him in enjoying his rights under the constitution.

Equally unacceptable is also the attempt to label fellow citizens as traitors on account of the wrong political choices they make, in this case supporting an unpopular President. The coming elections must be fought on the basis of ideas supported by evidence of service delivery. It cannot be won by fighting physically on the ground. That would bring shame to all concerned.

On point of principle, I find it abhorrent that a candidate in a national election be barred from access to all or any section of the voting population. Freedom of choice is the only basis for a free and fair election. Dr. Jonathan may himself not believe in this right of access and freedom of choice as was evident from the last general election, in 2011 which he superintended. I worked for a candidate who was denied access to delegates and in some cases barred physically visiting states in the South-East, and in Bayelsa State in the South-South, the President’s home state. To be met by this aspiring PDP presidential candidate, Bayelsa delegates had to be smuggled out of Yenagoa, to a secret location in Port-Harcourt where the meeting held. I did not see anything Dr. Jonathan did to stop the unwarranted abuse and disregard of the constitution of Nigeria at that time.

To attain and maintain the moral high ground, those victims of the President’s excesses must not lower themselves into doing the same things he did to others. The Constitution must in all cases be allowed to prevail.

My other worry is about secret lists being circulated. Whoever has a hint of how Nazi Germany was run and the genocidal activity undertaken; how more than 100,000 Bosnians-mostly Muslims were killed under Serbian ethnic cleansing and in Rwanda where nearly a Million Tutsi and moderate Hutus were killed should shriek when they hear words like “collaborators” and “traitors” being used against fellow citizens. In all these instances, secret lists of men and women who had helped the Nazis, or having had secret deals with the invader or one side or the other of the conflict were cited as legitimate bases upon which arson and killing were carried out.

Although the North under men such as Babangida Aliyu have both mandate and legitimacy to give Dr. Jonathan a good fight for 2015, this battle must be fought on development issues with civility and utmost decorum. History has always had a way of dealing with people who sided with rulers to decimate (Nigerian) nationalism.

A failed politician, Vidkan Quisling cut a secret deal with the Nazi but they betrayed him after invading Norway in 1940. Another failed politician, Anton Musset, had a thirst for power that led him to make a pact with the Nazis to the point of pledging personal allegiance to Hitler. Hitler turned the table against him when it mattered to him the most.

Here at home, if you look at all those who are crying the loudest about injustice in the Jonathan regime, are they not those who made him President, against the wishes of their own people?

Of recent, it is noticed that the advanced world and its agencies have suddenly developed phobia or love for the number: 100 Million, especially within the context of analyzing situation in Nigeria.
Only last week, representative of the World Bank came up with the fact that 100 Million Nigerians live in destitution and abject poverty, which of course, the Presidency promptly discounted.
On Monday, another international agency: United Nations Children Education Fund (UNICEF) came up with a story that 100 million Nigerians lack access to toilet facilities which is why there has been increase in the spread of diseases in the country.
Though, it is not clear whether the UNICEF was collaborating the figure quoted by the World Bank, one is getting the feeling that arm chair calculators have been at work.
In other words, it is becoming clearer that international organizations are joining their local counterparts in cutting any figure for situation reports on Nigeria without any scientific proof.
In deed, one always wonders the criteria used by such organizations or even government agencies to arrive at a definite figure which they quote copiously, realizing the fact that most Nigerians reside in remote villages and hamlets, some of which are inaccessible to auto vehicles.
One is not contesting the general matter-of-fact in the area of spread of poverty across the land, especially, in recent time, but, the figure being brandished by the world Bank may be more or less a conjecture, because there is no scientific method to confirm it.
Of course, the defence put forward by Nigeria, to the effect that if the world Bank’s definition of poverty is based on person earning less than $1 per day and in the case of Nigeria N200 per day, then virtually no Nigeria is ridden with abject poverty, is valid. The World Bank may have shot itself in the foot in the context of this definition, because, majority of Nigerians earn more than N200 per day, considering the basic cost of common staple food, even bread. The Nigeria socio-economic reality today makes the N200 per day to be a laughable proposition.
As a matter of fact, what this means is that N200 or less than $1 translates into slave earning, especially for Nigerians who are lucky to even get menial jobs like office cleaning, street sweeping, errand job and the likes. People working in this category earn about N7000 per month (about N210 per day). And what is N7000 per month in a country where a significant few spend more than that just to refuel their cars at one-stop?
While the government hide under the World Bank $1 dollar a day to beat its chest that Nigerians are not in abject poverty because they earn over $1 dollar per day, the government may be deluding itself to think that Nigerians are enjoying simply because they are able to buy recharge cards in their cellphones or eat loaf of bread every day. Fact remains that there is palpable poverty walking tall on the Nigerian soil presently.
There is, in deed, terrible financial hardships that have been defining the lives of most Nigerians now. Even, the middle class Nigerians have now been mangled into the lower class so much that the two classes now wreath in truly abject poverty.
So, it is not the figure on how many Nigerians that are being ridden with destitution and poverty; the issue is the reality on the ground.

Someone asked the academic question of whether Presidents can stop being President for reasons of politics and it didn’t take a while for the answer to come from the leaders of our country.
The Punch newspaper dated November 14, 2013 reported President Goodluck Jonathan announcing that he abandoned the 2013 Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in Colombo, Sri-Lanka to campaign for the Peoples Democratic Party, PDP candidate, Mr. Tony Nwoye in the failed November 16 governorship election in Anambra State.
Speaking at the campaign rally in Onitsha last Wednesday, the President as quoted by the newspaper said: “I had to cancel my trip to attend the CHOGM to be at this rally to, underscore the importance he attached to election and the “need to push Anambra forward.”
There are many Nigerians, especially his own supporters in the ruling party who would praise him for this decision, moreso when it is considered that the Commonwealth has insignificantly declined in its influence in global affairs. History has written that it is the poor masses of the poorest members-states who are footing the bill for the British nostalgic nonsense called the Commonwealth. The President may even argue that what he stood to gain by his attendance may be achieved in any case bilaterally or through other channels. So, why anyone bother?
It is one thing for his admirers to empathize, but the larger national interest must at all time weigh more than political compulsions.
The President may equally have pleased the very vocal and powerful financiers of the PDP in Anambra but his non-participation at the CHOGM was not a correct political decision. But let me not make pretences about not knowing how politically important Anambra is in the country’s political equation. This tiny state has perhaps more educated Nigerians and more billionaires in cash estimates than any state or territory in Nigeria. They say politics in this state is such that a man with a business turn-over of over a billion Naira will throw himself into a serious contest for appointment as Special Assistant to Governor – just for the pleasure of combining money and power. In Anambra State, politics has never been for the chicken-hearted.
For many, this CHOGM was an excellent opportunity to reflect and discuss with other heads of state. It was an opportunity that may have been used to seek a review of the cases of thousands of Nigerians held in overseas prisons with many of them believing that they had been unjustly incarcerated, or to have sought the support of member states for international help to fight the insurgency, ravaging the North-East, piracy in the South-South and kidnapping for ransom – a massive phenomenon in the South and now creeping into Northern Nigeria. How about elections, a critical pillar of a democracy in which several Commonwealth countries have excelled? Even Ghana has achieved a form of equilibrium in that regard but Nigeria continues to wobble and fail. Anambra was an unmitigated disaster. Sadly for the country, the Independent National Electoral Commission, INEC themselves, not any other person or body promised that this would be their best foot forward in any election. They said that this would showcase what they have in stock for the country in 2015 general elections. After what we saw last weekend, everyone is now asking whether we will ever get this right. In the words of Mr. Clement Nwankwo, head, Nigeria Civil Society Election Situation Room, “the way INEC conducted the election posed serious concerns ahead of the 2015 elections.”
“INEC’s assertion that this would be a litmus test of its preparation for 2015 general elections has not been fully realized.” As it is, the absence of our government at the highest level means that the door to these opportunities has been shut.
What is even worse is the perception out everywhere that the President missing at the CHOGM may have been a signal for a paralysis of our foreign policy or of the government, and a clear indication that the weakness of the administration at home are creeping into foreign policy as well.
By succumbing to party wishes to avail himself and his precious times for the political rally, another message he stuck out is that government is only interested in clinging to power even at the cost of the country’s interest both domestically and internationally. This suggests that the President’s services are more required by his own political party to save its candidate in Anambra than our foreign relations and government as whole, both of which have entered a paralytical mode with substantial time still left for the bigger elections to come.

I remember April 22 1990 vividly. I was set for church service with members of my family on that Sunday morning when a friend called; he wanted me to tune to my radio as there was a coup in the country.
I tuned on my radio but what I heard was no coup speech. Even with my limited understanding of Nigeria, I came to the conclusion that this was nothing but a declaration of war! What to do in far away Yola with my little children? I sought divine intervention, pretended there was nothing a miss, dropped my family in the church and sped off.
At the Governor’s residence in Yola, I met the Military Governor, Group Captain Salihu Abubakar and some other top government officials discussing the strange developments. The military chaps present with our governor knew the officer making the declaration of war. They gave sketchy details of his career and expressed surprise at his rather bizarre action.
I also knew him. Gideon Orkar was the young lad we called Gwaza when we attended Apir Primary School together. His father, Mr. Orkar Chi was from Yaikyo village and our teacher at the Primary School. Gwaza went to Gindiri while I went to Bristow, schools that were run by American Missionaries. His senior brother, John Ngusha Orkar was a Phd student in America at the time and the missionaries sent him to teach our class at Bristow African history.
As I listened to Gwaza’s long, winding, senseless speech, I kept asking myself what could have turned my childhood friend into such a bad boy. Is it the injection we were told they administer on soldiers that turned his head?
His father was a God fearing and peaceful man-same with John, the historian. How could a child from such a Godly background declare war on his country, just like that?
Gideon Orkar was a Tiv man from the middle belt of Nigeria. His rambling declaration of war in Nigeria tried to advocate a case for the middle belt and the south. He was obviously trying to cash on the good will of the middle belt struggle of the late fifties and early 60’s. But he got it all wrong.
The middle belt struggle which was led by JS Tarka, a Tiv man did not call for dismemberment of Nigeria. The British charged him to court for ‘levying war against the Queen of England’ – the first and the last Nigerian to be so charged – but the charge could not hold. The call for a middle belt state was rational, patriotic and popular because the old north was too large and unwieldy as an administrative unit. In fact it dwarfed the other two regions put together thus making the federation lopsided and unsteady.
The decision by Orkar and his group to expel Sokoto, Borno, Katsina, Kano and Bauchi, states that have a predominant Muslim population from the Federal Republic of Nigeria was an indication that the coup was against Islam. On the other hand, the middle belt struggle of Tarka accommodated Muslims. In fact, when Ibrahim Imam, a Muslim and radical politician from Borno could not contest elections in his home state, Tarka brought him to Benue, gave him a Tiv name and a constituency where he contested and won. My big brother and friend in my Yola days, Ibrahim Jalingo, a Muslim, was National Secretary of the UMBC. No, the middle belt struggle of Tarka and the Tiv was not a struggle against Islam. It was a struggle for the fundamental human rights of all oppressed people of the north – Christians and Muslims.
If Orkar’s declaration of war on Nigeria was against the tenets of his family and his ethnic group, where did he get the poisonous idea? A few days after the failure of the coup, the names of the other coup makers were published. One name there – Col Nyam – caught my attention. I thought he was a Tiv man as Nyam means meat in the Tiv language. But he turned out to be a man from Cross River State. When he got wind of the imminent failure of the coup, he took to his heels and fled. I understand Gwaza had a chance to tow that line of cowardice but decided to face the music.
Col Nyam has never regretted the havoc he and his group caused the corporate existence of Nigeria by their lunacy of April 22 1990. From his exile, he kept rationalizing and even justifying the insanity of April 22.
On his return to Nigeria after state pardon, he has neither renounced the madness nor apologized to those who were unfairly murdered by his group. I understand he made peace with General Babangida whose bedroom he invaded that night and nearly killed the man and his lovable wife. If Babangida has forgiven him, that is their own problem. The man has been overwhelmed by his name that is literally translated to mean a man with a big heart.
Some of us who have no other country to run to and have no big hearts still have one or two issues with Col. Nyam and his promoters. Does he believe that this country is for all of us, Muslims, Christians, believers in various African traditional religions?
From all his pronouncements in exile and return to Nigeria, he appears not to give a damn about Nigeria as one country.
If he does not believe in Nigeria, why did President Goodluck Jonathan put him on a panel to discuss the future of Nigeria? And having watched him trying to engage Comrade Adams Oshiomole in a boxing bout in public, what stopped the President from giving him the sack?
Did the bad boy let the cat out of the bag, perhaps too soon?

Let me start by saying that the title of this contribution is not mine. It is the title of a chapter in the book “Eye Witness to Power” written by Professor David Gergen. Certainly if you watch CNN and perhaps other American networks, Professor David Gergen may not be new to you. He is one of the leading pundits on American politics. So what is interesting about this gentleman? Well he is basically what in countries like Nigeria would be called AGIP (any government in power), but perhaps, David Gergen is not the typical AGIP, as his approach to politics may be different from what we know in other countries.
I came across the book under discussion in 2008 during a conference in Boston, organized by the American Political Science Association (APSA).
After purchasing the book, I met a former Nigerian minister at the house of a friend, who by coincidence was pursuing a postgraduate degree at Harvard University, and was taught by Professor Gergen. After a brief discussion about the book, while enjoying the hospitality of our host, who provided a superb tuwon shinkafa and miyar taushe  (pounded rice and vegetable soup), which even as a Bakano (someone from Kano), I must confess that I enjoyed the delicious food provided by our host from Zaria, whose house has become an assembly point for Nigerians in Boston.
The former minister said that “Eye Witness to Power” is a must read for everyone trying to understand the challenges of leadership. I couldn’t wait longer to finish the book. I do not necessarily agree with everything that Professor Gergen said in the book, especially his comparison of Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan. But the meat of the book is in the last chapter which is the subject of this article.
David Gergen had the opportunity to serve four American Presidents: Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, Ronald Regan and Bill Clinton as an adviser. After retiring from government, he took a Professorial Chair at Harvard University’s school of Government. Part of his contribution was to write this book which essentially is a summary of his experience in the White House. The last chapter of the book, “Seven lessons of leadership” is his thesis on the qualities a leader should possess, and the lessons to learn from the hassles of leadership, if the leader is to be successful, based on what he observed from the four leaders he served.
I chose this topic because of the politicking one is seeing in different African countries. Since many, if not most African leaders are products of Western educational system. It is perhaps important to remind them about their role and responsibility using the language they understand and the countries they look up to.
The first leadership lesson of leadership according to Professor Gergen is that “leadership starts from within.”
From what Professor Gergen observes, a leader should understand himself first. According to him one thing he observes is that American Presidents are well read, and “politically savy” yet those of them who failed were the architects of their downfall.
“The inner soul of a president flows into every aspect of his leadership far more than is generally recognised” said Professor Gergen.
“His passions in life usually form the basis for his central mission in office”, he added.
Here it is interesting to note that the personal characteristic of a leader stems from his character, upbringing and interest. One question I would like to ask is whether political parties, and other stakeholders consider the passion of a politician before giving him the chance to lead people?
Of course I can be academic here looking at the reality in African nations, but that does not take away the relevance of the question, because inadvertently, the interest of the leader and his passion in life would have bearing consequences in the way he leads.I found one example cited by Gergen about Bill Clinton. He stated that despite what Gergen described as “the flows in his character,” Bill Clinton is well read, and during meetings, he normally makes reference to issues he reads about countries, his travels and the rest, which sometimes can checkmate advisers who would like to mislead the leader.
So use your judgement to weigh the consequences of having a leader who is not well read, and does not understand the world we live in. The example of Bill Clinton’s successor is still fresh in the memory of the world. One interesting issue mentioned by Gergen at the end of the first quality of leadership is that “No one can succeed in today’s politics unless he or she is prepared to fall on a sword in a good cause.”
To be continued
(Views expressed in this and other opinion articles are strictly personal)

As much as one would like to detach oneself from comments on Nigeria politics, it would amount to self censor for one to see a clear danger being nurtured and promoted by the self-acclaimed largest political party in Africa and the ruling party, the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) and remaining silence or sitting on the fence.
It is no longer news that PDP went asunder, dividing into two on the day it held its special national convention a couple of months ago.
Of course, talking about the circumstances that led to such balkernisation would amount to belabouring the issue, but the obvious resort to lampooning the nation’s judiciary in any form portends danger which the party itself cannot run away from.
Of course, for the purpose of this piece, when one talks about PDP, one is referring to Bamanga Tukur led PDP.
Tukur and members of his National Working Committee (NWC) went to town with celebration the day a court of competent jurisdiction declared that his faction was the genuine PDP.
Two scenario played out from the point the court affirmed the authenticity of Tukur PDP and yesterday, Monday’s announced suspension of Baraje and some members of the new PDP from the party.
The first scenario was when the court delivered a judgment affirming that Tukur is the authentic national chairman of the PDP. From the moment that court declaration was made, the Tukur PDP would not want to hear of any gathering of anybody, including the G7 governors anywhere on the Nigerian soil. Police men were used to even enter the confined sitting room of one of the governors were a meeting was being held, to stop the meeting. All that happened in spite of the constitutional provision that allows for freedom of association and gathering among others. And the fact that the governors were not in any way disrupting any public peace!
To Bamanga Tukur, harassing even governors in the name of court ruling, a few hours after such ruling was made was perfectly in order.
The second scenario came as an opposite of the first and it tested the maturity of the Bamanga Tukur leadership. That was another court ruling that reinstated Olagunsoye Oyinlola, who was part of the break-away PDP, as national secretary of the mainstream PDP, i.e. Tukur led PDP.
Since the judgment was delivered by the appeal court, Tukur PDP has been restless and ruthless. While his leadership went swiftly to implement the first court ruling that favoured his side, he went gaga and dares even the court which asked that the sacked Oyinlola should be returned to his post as national secretary.
Besides turning the running of the party into a kind of master-servant relationship or a large private corporation (where he is the chief executive handing down disciplinary measures on the ‘bloody’ subordinates’), Bamanga Tukur has finally shown his lack of decorum and respect for the views of others, even the court.
It is even laughable that the PDP suspended Oyinlola who in civilized democracy, where the rule of law and court ruling is respected, should be back in his office, even if supreme court later rules that he should remain sacked as secretary.
It is ridiculous for a person to be suspended from the party to which a competent court of the land has, currently, legally asked to be its national secretary, and when there is not yet a move by the party leadership to respect such court ruling.
Is it a case of choosing which court ruling that should be respected and implemented with gusto and which one to reject with impunity and contempt? Where would that kind of impunity lead Nigeria as a nation to?

In the midst of the unsavoury debate over the rightfulness of a six month’s extension of emergency rule on Adamawa, Borno and Yobe States, I hope the government is listening to Governor Ibrahim Geidam’s mantra for curbing the Boko Haram insurgency in the North-East.

Nigerians of various hue, including parliamentarians who gave a go-ahead for the extension of the emergency rule have been asking the question over and over again if this rule had provided the answer for violence. We are daily witnessing acts of violence involving robbery, decoitry, kidnapping, and murder everywhere. In the North and other parts of the country, people are amassing illicit arms and ammunition. The forces of hate and violence are becoming more and more entrenched, almost becoming impenetrable to the security force. With the deadly onslaught of Boko Haram particularly in Borno and Yobe, Nigerians have every reason to be skeptical about the strategies in place for curbing insurgency and crime.

Until it chose a nationalistic approach to the problem, the administration at the centre had dismissed suggestions of security lapses out of hand, and pushed conspiracy theories against political opponents in the North. Things have now eased up a great deal. The government no longer jumped the gun with name-calling before it became clear who is to blame for incidents of terror. May be they have begun to put national interest first.

News Agency of Nigeria quoted a member of the House of Representatives, Honourable Goni Haruna, (APC, Yobe) decrying the six months extension, saying “100 percent of the state, including myself and the Governor (Ibrahim Geidam), say no to the extension of emergency rule in the state”.

He said since the emergency rule was declared, the people of the state had come under severe attacks by the Boko Haram group.

He further stated that the state had been unable to provide the dividends of democracy to its people because much of the resources available to the government was being spent providing security.

The Governor in his reaction asserted that it was not the extension of emergency rule that would end insurgency but a full-throttled army push to quell the Boko Haram. To do other than this, he said, would amount to “motion without movement”.

In the opinion of the Governor, members of the insurgent group were in possession of superior weapons than the army. He then advised that “the Federal Government must provide high caliber arms and weapons to succeed in the fight against terrorism. Until the country’s security outfit is fully equipped with more superior arms, equipment and reinforced manpower, we may have slim chances of winning the fight against terrorism.”

This is a new and dramatic turn in the entire debate. It brings to the fore, the issue of the responsibility of leaders to the armed personnel they send to fight for the country. In this war against insurgency, what is often forgotten is the thousands of men (and women) who gave up, and are still giving up their lives to see Nigeria is united and safe. It is to this issue that Gov. Geidam spoke. His was a clever speech that resonated will with many in the region.

Politics in Nigeria can get tweaked and twisted and this happens all the time. But no right-thinking government can risk a situation in which its army is the under-dog in this kind of war. Army’s reputation for their ability to restore law and order whenever the police fails continues to take a big hit in, not only the North-East but in North Central States of Plateau and Benue. No national army wants to be the under-dog in this kind of situation and our leaders must act to reverse this.

Having noted this, it is important that the engagement with the insurgents is not reduced to the level of bullets and guns alone, as many have repeatedly said. Even after making much hue and cry about human rights violations, civil society groups and most of the citizens do appreciate the good work of the security agencies. There is no known method yet, by which heavily-armed insurgents can be contained without a resort to arms even in situations of self-defence. But beyond this, government policies should begin with honest intentions to aim at changing the lives of the poor inhabitants of these strife-torn areas. As everyone agrees, poverty lies at the heart of all the violence. In addition to the creation of job opportunities, education and socio-economic empowerment, government should start taking the right messages to the people.

Do poor Muslims want to fight poor Christians or fight poverty? Do poor Beroms want to fight poor Fulanis or fight poverty? With civic education using radio, classrooms, churches and mosques, political and other social gatherings, poor Nigerians will come to know that the battle we have to fight is to become richer, not to shoot at or slit one another’s throat.