When Politics Becomes a Game of Platforms, Not Principles

In Nigeria today, the practice of jumping from one political party to another in pursuit of personal ambition has become not just commonplace, but almost celebrated. The notion of ideological identity, once a hallmark of serious political engagement, has all but vanished. Terms like "Liberal," "Progressive," "Conservative," or "Socialist" no longer carry any real meaning in our political discourse. Politicians merely use party platforms as vehicles of convenience, abandoning them at will when their personal ambitions are threatened.

Rather than submit to the outcome of democratic primaries, many simply defect, shopping for alternative platforms that will grant them the opportunity to remain politically relevant. This fluidity, or more aptly, opportunism, speaks to a deeper crisis: the absence of conviction, of vision, and of loyalty—not to parties, but to the people.

It was not always like this. A look into Nigeria’s political history reveals a time when ideology mattered, when leaders walked away from power rather than compromise on core principles.

In the First Republic, Chief Obafemi Awolowo of the Action Group (AG) attempted to form an alliance with Sir Ahmadu Bello of the Northern People’s Congress (NPC). The negotiations broke down primarily because of Awolowo’s insistence on implementing his progressive agenda: free education at all levels and free healthcare for the underprivileged. Bello and his allies refused, and Awolowo chose to walk away rather than betray the very ideas that brought him into politics.

The NPC later turned to Dr. Nnamdi Azikiwe of the National Council of Nigeria and the Cameroons (NCNC), who agreed to an alliance. As compensation, he was offered the ceremonial role of President, while Tafawa Balewa assumed the more powerful position of Prime Minister.

The same scenario replayed itself during the Second Republic. Awolowo, now leading the Unity Party of Nigeria (UPN), once again pushed his agenda of free education and healthcare in negotiations with the ruling National Party of Nigeria (NPN), led by Alhaji Shehu Shagari. Again, the talks collapsed when the NPN refused to adopt his policies. Awolowo walked away.

Predictably, the NPN sought another alliance, this time with Azikiwe’s Nigerian People's Party (NPP). That union led to the infamous "Accord Concordiale," a compromise that handed a few ministerial posts to the NPP but offered little in terms of ideological alignment or national vision.

Chief Awolowo’s consistency and unwavering commitment to the common good earned him enduring respect. Just before his passing, Dan Agbese of Newswatch magazine wrote that Awolowo would be remembered as the best president Nigeria never had. Upon his death, the Ikemba of Nnewi, Odumegwu Ojukwu, echoed that sentiment. Awolowo’s legacy, many years later, remains unmatched because he stood for something bigger than himself.

That is the essence of principled leadership: standing firm on convictions, even when the path of compromise appears easier. Awolowo never entered into any coalition without insisting on his core policies. It was never about securing power for himself or rewarding political loyalists; it was about delivering real value to the people.

Today, that kind of leadership is sorely missing in our politics. What we see instead is an unrelenting scramble for power, devoid of purpose, philosophy, or integrity.

Let the opportunists dance naked. Perhaps, in doing so, they will expose not just themselves, but the structural hollowness of our current political culture. And maybe—just maybe—that that spectacle will serve as a deterrent to others who think politics is a game to be played without conscience.

March 16, 2022

Decentralisation Without Disintegration: A Pathway to True Federalism and Restructuring in Nigeria.

Title: Decentralisation Without Disintegration: A Pathway to True Federalism and Restructuring in Nigeria. - February 20, 2022

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This essay argues that Nigeria's current federal structure is fundamentally flawed, operating more like a unitary system. It calls for urgent decentralisation of power from the central government to the federating states to foster efficiency, accountability, and equity in governance.

The author highlights that restructuring is often mischaracterised, particularly by Northern elites, as a Southern plot to fragment the nation. In reality, restructuring is a necessary reform to correct long-standing imbalances and foster national unity. Drawing parallels with the dismantling of the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia, the essay shows that decentralisation can prevent collapse and encourage local development.

Historically, Nigeria’s federalism was distorted by political figures and later entrenched by successive military regimes. These distortions created a system where the centre holds disproportionate power, resulting in inefficiency, corruption, and regional dependency on federal allocations.

Citing the views of respected figures such as Wole Soyinka, Babatunde Fashola, Rotimi Amaechi, and Nasir El-Rufai, the essay reinforces the case for devolution of power. These leaders, across regions and political lines, have previously endorsed true federalism and resource control—even if they are now publicly silent.

Key Recommendations:

Decentralisation of Powers: Shift key responsibilities such as policing, resource management, and infrastructure from the federal government to the states.

State Police: Establish state-controlled police forces, with federal units focused on national security and federal assets.

Resource Control: Grant states control over onshore mineral resources within their territories, while offshore deposits remain federally managed. Encourage PPPS and FDI for exploration.

Constitutional Reform: Realign Nigeria’s governance with the principles of the 1963 Republican Constitution, allowing each region to develop according to its potential.

The essay concludes that Nigeria's leadership crisis is a structural problem. By fixing the structure through decentralisation, the country can reduce tensions, encourage healthy competition among states, and reclaim the promise of federalism envisioned by its founders.

Barr Alex Ehi Aidaghese

Saving Northern Nigeria.

It Pays Well to be a Bandit.

You're never prosecuted.

One of their own is the President.

That defines our helplessness.

Which Strengthens their Resolve.

No one gets caught. They enjoy unqualified (without limit) immunity. And no arrest is ever contemplated. The family of the victims and the security agencies negotiate with the Bandits/Terrorists openly. Therefore, the talk of being caught is simply an oxymoron. And that's the Nigeria of Sheikh Ahmad Gumi - the apostle of kidnap-for-ransom.

We didn't send them to school, comes a bizarre narrative. Thus, they are prevented from participating directly in the social and economic largesse available to other Nigerians. False. In other words, they are simply harnessing their shares of the national cake by any means necessary. That's what Dr. Gumi wants the world to believe.

Yet, none of them, not even Sheikh Gumi, a Medical Doctor, had the scruples to raise a voice of dissent when President Buhari's administration abandoned the Almajiri Educational Initiative begun by President Goodluck Jonathan.

Guess what, the almajiri of today is the hoodlum, the bandit, the terrorist, the kidnapper, and the Boko Haram sect of tomorrow under the incitement and tutelage of highly placed community and political leaders.

Meanwhile, hundreds of other Nigerian youths are wasting their lives, dying painful deaths every day while traversing the hostile terrain of the Sahara Desert and the unfriendly waves of the Mediterranean Sea, trying to make it to Europe in search of greener pastures and a better life for their family members back home.

No one, no other tribe, is having it on a platter of gold in Nigeria, except the privileged few like Dr. Gumi. So, what's all this fuss about bandits being left out of the economic equations?

And he has threatened Armageddon if the bandits are ever prosecuted or killed by the military. You can understand why the Presidency or Aso Rock is yet to declare the group a terrorist organisation and why they have been able to continuously obtain their ransom and disappear into thin air effortlessly. Only to come back again and again for more kidnapping and much more ransom.

The leadership knows what to do to stem the tide of terrorism and banditry in Nigeria. Political correctness aside, if it were another tribe or region where this lawlessness is happening, President Buhari would have long ago ordered ground, sea, and air bombardments on the entire tribe and the territory until no one is left standing.

President Idris Debby of Chad came to Nigeria and gave the Boko Haram sect members a bloody nose - hundreds of them were killed and hundreds of weapons were confiscated. Where is Mr. Debby today? Assassinated in a bloody coup orchestrated by the same people he tried to vanquish in Nigeria.

And that's the extent of the immunity they enjoy, bolstered by the pronouncements and conduct of a President who has difficulties separating ethnic chauvinism and bigotry from national pride. The "we are untouchable" philosophy that underscores their actions began to gain currency under the present administration.

You cannot serve God and mammon. You are either a Nigerian, serving the interest of Nigeria and protecting lives and properties in Nigeria, or you park and go and leave us to fight our war our own way and for the best interest of all Nigerians. Nigeria is greater than all the Dr. Gumi and Bandit and Boko Haram sympathisers, and the interests they represent.

The President should stop being neutral and deliberately indecisive. If we can boast of the technological expertise that culminated in the kidnapping and shipment of Nnamdi Kanu from Nairobi to Abuja, with or without the knowledge of the Kenyan security agencies, certainly we can round up all the bandits and kidnappers who have turned Nigeria into a war zone.