Connect with us

Latest News

Buhari, Mismanagement Of Insecurities And Ethnoreligious Vendetta



Africans, Apologize To Family Members For Witchcraft Accusations, Witch Persecution. - AfAW

By Leo Igwe

Nigeria is a deeply divided country and a nation that is polarized along ethnic and religious lines. Even though the various ethnic and religious constituents have coexisted for a long time, there is no love lost among them. Many Nigerians consider ethnicity, and religion before the humanity of their fellow countrymen and women. Nigeria is a nation that is on the edge and prone to ethnoreligious convulsion. The country easily descends into ethnoreligious bloodletting. The creation of the trans-ethnic and trans-religious entity called Nigeria has not helped matters. Instead, it has complicated the situation. The Nigeria project has not diminished or minimized the divisive impact of these centrifugal currents. It has not weaned Nigerians from ethno-religious hatred and bias. And this is unfortunate because Nigeria cannot make any meaningful progress if the various ethnic and religious components cannot cooperate and coexist in peace.

Part of the problem is that Nigerian state actors are hypocrites, and mischievous political opportunists. Nigerian politicians pretend to be statesmen but they are tribesmen. They claim to be democrats but they are theocrats and ethnocrats. They present themselves as detribalized and dereligionized steerers of the Nigerian polity. But the state pretensions are mainly to acquire power, win elections, or lay claim to resources that belong to the people. Many politicians don this garb of one Nigeria so that they would be allowed to champion their ethnoreligious agenda. That is why, once elected to govern, many Nigerian politicians lapse into forgetfulness of the One Nigeria project and promise. They make decisions based on primordial sentiments and parochial loyalties. They use their policies to wage an ethnoreligious vendetta.

It must be noted that even in cases where such pursuits are not intended or orchestrated, decisions and policies of state actors are closely scrutinized and are likely to be given such ethnoreligious interpretations. That is why those who are saddled with the responsibility of governing Nigeria must be careful, mindful, and thoughtful in the decisions that they make and in the way that they go about the business of running the Nigerian state. Sadly, this is not the case with President Muhammadu Buhari. Buhari’s ethnoreligious agenda is glaring. It is no longer an issue of debate. The bias is so obvious. Look, it is either that this man does not care, or he does not know or want to know. Or better, he does not get it.
Buhari has succeeded in weaponizing the Nigerian state and turning state agencies into devices to settle ethnoreligious scores. Put simply, Buhari has turned the Nigerian state against Nigerian citizens. This is evident in his mis/handling of the security challenges in the country and his obstinate refusal to change course despite worsening insecurities and glaring inequities and unevenness in dealing with the crisis.

READ ALSO: Breaking Ancestral Curses, Pentecostal Profiteering And Crisis In Christian Communities

Before he was elected president, Buhari was largely seen as an Islamic fanatic who opposed his predecessor’s handling of the crisis. Some people warned that he would not be a president for all Nigerians. That has become a self-fulfilled prophecy. Other people expected him to tackle and eventually resolve the ‘insurgency’ and other security challenges in a fair manner. But he has not. And from all indications, he will not. Instead, the security problem has worsened because Buhari is more interested in using state structures to settle ethnic, religious, and regional scores than building a nation where all citizens are treated equally.

The approach of his government to the security challenges drips with incompetence, bias, and unfairness. Buhari has compromised the security of Nigerians. He has sown the seeds of mistrust of state agents including the army and the police. In the northern part of the country, his government is rehabilitating Boko Haram militants, and enrolling ‘repentant ones’ in the army and police. Let us say by any stretch of imagination that this is a sound policy. Where else in Nigeria is Buhari using the same measure to address insecurity? Where else in Nigeria is Buhari using government appointments to reward and rehabilitate terrorists? Boko Haram attacks have morphed into banditry in many parts of the North. What has the government of Buhari done to address the metastasized insecurity and criminality in the north?

His government negotiates with bandits, pays them money and other benefits at the expense of the state. Where else in Nigeria is the Buhari government treating bandits and criminals this way? In the south-east? In the south-south or south-west? Where else in this country do government officials sit and negotiate side by side with those who have kidnapped and murdered Nigerians? Do not get me wrong, there is nothing wrong in using dialogic means to resolve the complicated crisis and insecurity challenges that Nigeria faces. But Buhari has been unfair in his approach. For instance, Buhari proscribed IPOB and sent the army after real and imagined members and other Biafra agitators. What was their crime? Soldiers tortured and killed many that they identified or linked to the Biafra separatist campaign including innocent civilians. Now let us face it, no president would stand by and allow some people to work and campaign to break up a country. Buhari’s government did not explore or use dialogue or negotiations in dealing with suspected IPOB members who have largely waged a nonviolent separatist campaign in response to misgovernance and mismanagement of state resources. Instead, he deployed the soldiers and security agents, some of them are ethnoreligious bigots and ex-Boko Haram members who carried out – and are still perpetrating extrajudicial killings of real and imagined IPOB members in the south-east.

READ ALSO; Why We Banned Crypto Transactions – CBN

Nothing has demonstrated Buhari’s ethnoreligious prejudice more than his handling of the killings by Fulani herdsmen. The conflict between Fulani herders and farmers predates the government of President Muhammadu Buhari. In fact on one occasion some years ago, after some clash between herders and farmers in Oyo, Buhari reportedly travelled down to warn the then governor, Lam Adesina “to stop killing my people”. Since Buhari became the president, the attack by Fulani herdsmen has taken a more vicious dimension. Fulani herdsmen have engaged in savage attacks and bloodletting of persons in different parts of the country. In Benue, suspected herdsmen attacked and killed over 70 persons. Meanwhile, the Buhari government has not sent the army and police to attack or kill the herdsmen. Buhari government has not proscribed Miyetti Allah and other Fulani herdsmen associations that threaten to kill and carry out revenge attacks. Instead, the government deploys the army and police to protect the herdsmen and look the other way while the herdsmen engage in a killing spree of locals. The state agencies take sides with the killer herdsmen while leaving local communities to their fate. Now imagine if these herdsmen were Yorubas or Igbos killing farming Fulani communities in the Katsina and Kano, would the Buhari government respond this way? Just look at how Buhari deployed soldiers who shot, killed and wounded ENDSARS protesters at the Lekki toll gate. What was the offence of the protesters? The Buhari government has refused to arrest and prosecute killer herdsmen in Benue, Oyo, Ondo, etc The Buhari presidency ordered the arrest of Sunday Igboho but has not ordered the arrest of the leaders of Myetti Allah. Buhari sent the army/police to protect the Fulani community in Oyo and Ogun. Is the government of Buhari for the protection of Fulanis or the protection of lives and property of all Nigerians?

I mean, the Buhari government should rethink its mis/management of insecurities in the country. It should desist from using security agencies and the state apparatus to settle scores and wage a vendetta against other ethnoreligious constituencies in Nigeria. Enough is enough!

Read more authentic news on our social media platforms

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Latest News

CAN, Churches Defeat Govt Over CAMA Act



Emefiele Sick, Can't Meet With Reps - CBN
President Buhari

It was victory for the Christian Association of Nigeria (CAN) and churches under it as a Federal High Court, Abuja, on Tuesday, stopped the Corporate Affairs Commission (CAC) from suspending or appointing their trustees.

Justice Inyang Ekwo, in a judgment, held that the provisions of Sections 17 (1), 839 (1) and (7) (a), 842 (1) and (2), 851 and 854 of the Companies and Allied Matters Act (CAMA), 2020 and Regulations 28, 29 and 30 of the Companies Regulations (CR), 2021 were not applicable to CAN and the churches, including mosques, as a religious body.

The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) reports that the Registered Trustees of CAN, in the originating summons marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/84/2022 field by Joe Gadzama, SAN, had sued the CAC and the Minister of Industry, Trade and Investment as 1st and 2nd defendants respectively.

The plaintiff, in the suit, had posed five questions for determination.

CAN had asked the court to determine that whether Section 839, Subsections (1), (7) (a) and (10) of the CAMA, 2020 and regulations 28 – 30 of the CR, 2021 are inconsistent with Sections 4 (8), 6 (6) (b) and 40 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) which guarantees the its right to freedom of association and the right to seek redress in court, among others.

It, therefore, sought 13 reliefs which include a declaration that Section 839 (1), (7) (a) and (10) of the CAMA and Sections 28 – 30 of the CR are inconsistent with |Section 40 of the 1999 Constitution, and thus unconstitutional, null and void.

“An order striking down Sections 839(1), (7) (a) and (10), 842(1) and (2), 843, 851 and 854 of the CAMA for being unconstitutional.

“A declaration that Section 17(2) (a) and (d) of the CAMA demand an impossible and impracticable action; thus, void and for being impracticable and unknown to Law.”

CAN also prayed for an order of perpetual injunction restraining and barring the defendants from taking any step to give effect to the provisions of Sections 17(2) (a) and (d), 839(1), 842(1) and (2), 842(1) and (2), 842, 843, 851 and 854 of the CAMA against it as mentioned in Article 4 of its constitution, to prevent further contravention of the provisions of Sections 4(8), 6(6)(b), 251(1)(e) and 251(3) of the 1999 Constitution.

It argued if CAC was allowed to suspend its trustees and appoint interim managers to manage its affairs, it would be usurping its powers under the constitution and the powers of the standing committee and the plenary session which would not be in line with the constitution.

Delivering the judgment, Justice Ekwo said that the CAC did not controvert the averment of CAN that it was constituted by the churches.

“It is settled law that averments without contradicting evidence or averments are deemed admitted.

“There is a need at this point to define what a church is in order to see how applicable the provisions of the CAMA 2020 can be applicable to it,” he said.

Citing a previous case, the judge said “a church in its true definition is the body of Christ. One person cannot constitute the body of Christ; it connotes a congregation, an assembly of people. An individual cannot own a church. A church property must be the collective responsibility of all the members.”

He said the summary of the above was that “the church is an ecclesiastical being.

“Each church is characterised by its distinct dogma or creed and same for each congregation and denomination that constitute the church.

“It is on this ground that it is impossible for one church to be administered by another church and the church being what it is for the soul of man, the doctrinal distinctness and difference must be respected by the authorities within and without.

“This being so, it is then impracticable for the church or a denomination thereof to be administered by secular arrangement such as interim manager or managers stated in

Section 839 of the CAMA 2020 or any other arrangement put in place by the CAMA which does not take into account the doctrinal composition of the church.

“It is also my opinion that to suspend the trustees and appoint an interim manager or managers to manage the affairs of the church will conflict with the sacerdotal order of its divine administration and desecrate same.”

Justice Ekwo, who observed that the Minister of Trade (2nd defendant) neither filed any application nor represented in court despite being served by the plaintiff, held that the effect of the failure of a defendant to file pleadings is that the assertions of the claimant stands unchallenged and are deemed admitted and established.

According to him, therefore, the case of the plaintiff succeeds on the merit.

The judge, consequently, made a seven declarations, which include a declaration that Section 839 (1), (7) (a) and (10) of the CAMA 2020 and Regulations 28, 29 and 30 of the CR , 2021 are not applicable to religious organisation as CAN and the churches as they violated the right to worship guaranteed by Section 40 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended).

He also made an order of perpetual Injunction, “restraining the defendants from taking any step to give effect to or implementing and/or continuing with any act to implement the provisions of Sections 839 (1), 842 (1) and (2), 842, 843, 851 and 854 of the CAMA 2020.

Justice Ekwo, however, did not make the generic order striking down the sections of the CAMA 2020 as prayed by the plaintiff.

He said such an order would affect other bodies and organisations registered under Part F of the Act.

“These provisions are applicable in respect of the administration, supervision and regulation of other bodies like company, limited liability partnership, business name or incorporated trustee registered for other purposes stated in Section 823 (1) of the CAMA 2020.

“The court is also unable to strike down the provision of Section 17 (2) (a) and (d) of the CAMA 2020 which provides for mandatory pre-action notice to the 1st defendant, as prayed, as the practicability of compliance with such provision depends on the circumstance of each case thereby affected,” he said.

Continue Reading

Latest News

BREAKING:Confusion As INEC Rejects Irregular Votes In Abia, Enugu Governorship Election Results



INEC Chairman Mahmood Yakubu

There is confusion over the governorship election results of Enugu and Abia States as the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) has rejected some votes it considered irregular.

The Labour Party agents and governorship candidate in Enugu State opposed results collation of Nkanu East council, claiming that the votes were padded.

This was as political thugs reportedly disrupted collation of results in Obingwa council area of Abia State.

These have led to the suspension of the exercise by the electoral umpire on Sunday in the two states.

An INEC official said that the commission had rejected the allegedly padded results after a careful review of the exercise on Tuesday, and wanted the right things to be done.

“For Abia State, INEC ordered that the results should be announced based on the accredited voters,” the source said.

On Enugu’s case, the commission according to the source has similarly ordered the review of the results of the Enugu State Governorship Election of last Saturday.

The collation was suspended following controversy over the alleged padding of results from Nkanu East Council, which returned over 30,000 votes in favour of Peoples Democratic Party candidate, Mr Peter Mbah, while only about 7,000 voters were accredited in the area by the Bimodal Voter Accreditation System (BVAS).

The suspension of the announcement of results of Abia and Enugu gubernatorial elections had heightened tension in the two states.

The supporters of PDP’s Mbah have been calling on INEC to announce the results that had been collated and declare their candidate the winner, saying those who opposed the result should go to court.

In Abia, Dr Alex Otti of the Labour Party had won a total of 10 out of the 16 Local Government Area results so far declared by INEC, while his counterpart in Enugu, Hon Chijioke Edeoga, has won nine local governments and is currently in the lead in the state.

Continue Reading

Latest News

Why We Won’t Congratulate Oborevwori On Delta Gubernatorial Victory – Deta APC



URS Congratulates Omo-Agege, Oborevwori On Becoming Governorship Candidates
Omo-Agege and Oborevwori

The Delta All Progressives Congress, (APC), Campaign Council will not congratulate Sheriff Oborevwori on his winning the state gubernatorial election.

To the APC, Oborevwori’s victory at the gubernatorial election held on 18 March, as announced by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) is false and thus it stands rejected.

In a statement, Director, Communications and Media Strategy of the council, Ima Niboro, said that Oborevwori’s victory would be overturned by the sheer weight of evidence against it.

The candidate of the PDP, Sheriff Oborevwori, was on Monday, declared winner of the election by INEC.

Mr Oborevwori polled a total of 360,234 votes to defeat his closest opponent, Ovie Omo-Agege of the APC who scored 240,229 votes.

The APC campaign council said it has evidence that the process was characterised by irregularities and that the people of the state were denied the right to freely expressed their will.

“We have an entire arsenal of evidence showing the disenfranchisement of the people, non use of, and tampering with BVAS machines, declaring double results at polling units, issuing of fake result sheets to agents and uploading cooked up results into the BVAS.

“We also have evidence of widespread vote suppression, voter intimidation, thuggery and violence against our supporters. The PDP was at its worst during the election: wickedly denying the people of their will freely expressed at the polls.

“Look at the streets of Delta today. It is gloom everywhere. Our people are wearing long, mournful faces. No sign of jubilation anywhere. Our streets would have been throbbing with life, song and dance, were this the will of the people.This rape of the will of the people will not stand. It must not be allowed to stand,” it said

“We call on our party faithful and supporters to remain calm. Weeping may endure for the night, but joy cometh in the morning,” it said.

Continue Reading

Top Stories

%d bloggers like this: