Thursday, December 29, 2022

The Trial and Conviction of Trayvon Martin: A Common Sense Analysis.

"You can stand your ground if you're white, and you can use a gun to do it. But if you stand your ground with your fists and you're black, you're dead." - David Simon, the Creator of the "Wire" and numerous other TV series. http://tv.yahoo.com/blogs/tv-news/-the-wire--creator-david-simon-on-trayvon-martin-case---ashamed--to-be-an-american-011408813.html


They shot him. They tried him. And they found him guilty. They found him guilty of allegedly inflicting cuts on the head of a racist aggressor masquerading as a vigilante. Yes, Martin was his name - a vivacious young fellow, a child-man with a beautiful heart the whole world has come to know as the unarmed black teenager, ambushed and killed in cold blood by a vigilante Zimmerman for simply being black. 


He was walking along a familiar path that he had every right to be at. Sadly, throughout the trial, the world never had the slightest opportunity - not even by reference - to see the bruised and battered body that shielded the bleeding and mutilated heart of Trayvon Martin. 


The bloody nose of the vigilante bigot was on full display on the TV and on the pages of Newspapers throughout the trial, but nothing was said of the bullet-ridden and mangled heart of an innocent child with no criminal history. No doubt, Trayvon could have been President Barack Obama 35 years ago as the President rightly stated during his address to the nation following the acquittal of Zimmerman. Indeed, Trayvon could have been any black teenager at the moment. And to the black race, there is every Trayvon in every one of us, and that is the more reason that his story is, and will always be our story. 


Twice I tried to watch the trial, and twice I cried. Twice I cried, because guilty or not guilty the world would never see Trayvon again. And that's the tragedy of the story - a vivacious and lovely child man gone so soon. Gone forever through the fatal bullets fired by a trigger-happy vigilante whose responsibility it was to be the “eyes and ears" of the Police and to "report suspicious activities" to law enforcement agencies - not to accost, not to ambush, not to confront, and not to shoot at point-blank at any a "Trayvon Martin" who was not committing any crime. 


Seeing Trayvon, Zimmerman momentarily went blank - he decided to forget the scope of his assignment and what he was trained to do in the circumstance that he was in - report. In addition, Zimmerman failed to heed the timely warning of the 911 Operator who told him DO NOT FOLLOW THE GUY. Zimmerman protested, arguing that 'they always allow these punks' to get away. In his mind, this time, this very one, this Trayvon Martin, is not going away a free man - he is black, and therefore, he is suspicious activity, one intent on committing a crime and deserving of death. He must be stopped. And true he did. 


He confronted Trayvon and he shot and killed him in cold blood while the young man was defending himself. Juror B37 told Anderson Cooper of CNN that Trayvon threw the first punch, therefore, Zimmerman must walk free. And he did walk free. We will come to that later.


Trayvon had every right to be where he was when Zimmerman confronted him - he was walking home minding his own business. Zimmerman knew that he, Zimmerman, was carrying a loaded weapon when he accosted and confronted Trayvon. Zimmerman was never a Police Officer. Besides, Zimmerman, as a private citizen, was not in a position to make a "citizen arrest" when he accosted and confronted Trayvon because Trayvon was not committing any crime. Again, he was simply minding his own business, walking along a familiar path he had every right to be at. In other words, Zimmerman had no right in law,, equity, or morals to confront Trayvon when he did, except of course that he saw a black guy - a punk who "they always allow to get away."


When Zimmerman failed to heed the Godly warning of the 911 Operator, who specifically told him not to follow Trayvon, Zimmerman had his mind made up. This punk, this time, is not getting out of here a free man. Zimmerman parked his car and walked up to Trayvon. A fight ensured, he pulled his semi-automatic weapon and fired at Trayvon, killing him instantly, and in cold blood. Just like that. 


He told the Police that he acted in self-defence, according to the articles of Florida Stand-Your-Ground-Law. The six white Floridan women jury concurred, claiming that Trayvon threw the first punch.  


Trayvon who is dead, and not in a position to tell his side of the story, or to display his bruised and battered body to the jury and the world, was found guilty and convicted of a crime he did not commit - a violent encounter he took all the necessary steps to avoid. "The man keeps following me," he told his friend.


Zimmerman told the world that he was simply defending himself under Florida Stand-Your-Ground-Law and that he was the one who cried for help. The Jury believed him and they set him free. 


From what we have heard so far from Juror B37, she was never in any mood to convict Zimmerman. She had her mind made up from the very beginning of the trial that Zimmerman would walk free. In her calculation, 'Stand Your Ground Law' or not, Trayvon, by birth and by inclination (a black man), was an aggressor, and always a potential aggressor. Proof or no proof, corroboration or no corroboration, he was the aggressor. He must die. And he died.


Under American criminal law, an aggressor cannot plead self-defence, unless the aggressor (that's the one who initiated the confrontation) successfully renounces the aggression or totalling withdraws from the aggression. Here, Zimmerman who parked his vehicle walked towards the innocent child, and started a fight did not at any time beat a retreat until he shot Trayvon to death.  


Juror B37 told Anderson Cooper of CNN that Trayvon threw the first punch. Really? Madam, were you there? She laboured disdainfully to find all the excuses in the book to empathize with Zimmerman and to justify his action - Trayvon threw the first punch, and he must die. Zimmerman went beyond the scope of his brief and defied instructions. 


As a vigilante, Zimmerman was not making any ‘citizen arrest’ when he confronted Trayvon because he was not in a position to do so – Trayvon was not committing any crime.


If race was not a factor as Juror B37 is telling the whole world, the question still is: what was Zimmerman’s reason for accosting Trayvon? Truth is being black, in the instant case, made Trayvon a suspicious activity/object. Same reason that Zimmerman defied standing order as he was trained to do. In the mind of Zimmerman, killing an unarmed black teenager is no big deal. 


Zimmerman was trained to be the "eyes and ears" of the Police and to "report any suspicious activities" accordingly. Confronting Trayvon he didn't remember all that. He accosted him and shot him in cold blood, even when the 911 Operator told him not to follow Trayvon. It is the same reason that Juror B37 could not find grace in her soul to empathize with the departing soul of Trayvon and his family. 


Race was why Juror B37 and her colleagues found no scruple concluding that Trayvon threw the first punch and deserved to die. 


Trayvon told his friend on the phone about someone trailing him and he cannot evade him. That someone is Zimmerman, who eventually came down from his car and confronted the helpless black teen, despite a standing order not to do so. 


It was all about hatred and malice. But the jurors pretended that the circumstances of the case did not present malice. In their so-called colour-blind reasoning, Zimmerman was simply doing his job the wrong way - just living his passion for hatred of people like Trayvon Martin. Punks who always get away. 


Trayvon was where he had all the rights in the world to be - walking home, minding his own business. And he died in cold blood from the fatal and unkind bullet fired by a heartless vigilante who told Sean Hannity of Fox News Network that God wants it that way. 


No. God did not want it that way, Zimmerman. God did intervene to save Trayvon and set him free when the 911 Operator told you not to follow the teenager. 


You confronted Trayvon and initiated a fight knowing full well that you had a loaded semi-automatic weapon to accomplish your goal. What were you trying to do when you parked your car and confronted Trayvon? You're not a Police Officer trying to arrest a suspect running from a crime scene.


Was Trayvon committing any crime? Did you see him running away from a crime scene? Did Trayvon pull you out from inside of your moving vehicle to start "banging your head at the sidewalk?" 


Would you have confronted him if you were not carrying a loaded weapon? Trayvon was never in a position to "bang your head at the sidewalk" - if that was the case - but for the fact that you came down from your vehicle and initiated a fight. 


What exactly were you trying to accomplish when you parked your vehicle and walked up to him? To arrest him or to throw him out of the complex? At what point did the first punch land? Was it when you were interrogating him or when you were trying to force him out of the Apartment Complex?


Jury B37 cooked up a bogus and unsubstantiated theory to set Zimmerman free - Trayvon threw the first punch. So he must die. 


From the onset, her goal was to set Zimmerman free and write a bestseller. In the end, she prevailed on other jurors to abandon facts for fiction in the hope of securing a bestseller deal, to profit financially from the gruesome killing of an unarmed Trayvon. The whole world said no to her calculated mischief. You cannot profit from the blood of a helpless soul, killed for doing nothing wrong. 


Stand-Your-Ground-Law, good or bad, was meant to protect those who are in the precarious situation that Trayvon found himself in; not a Zimmerman who was fishing for chances to unload his loaded weapon on any moving black object. Zimmerman's conduct was calculated - a deliberative malicious act, without question. 


Now, only Zimmerman can say exactly what went wrong and why he discharged his weapon on an innocent Trayvon. Juror B37 and her unwilling colleagues did not take into account how Zimmerman instigated the confrontation. It came up to be about the first punch. 


At this juncture, what is not contentious is the fact that Zimmerman does murder sleep and he shall sleep no more. The blood and the bleeding heart of Trayvon are on his head. The smile that was on his face the very moment the jury announced that he, Zimmerman, did not commit any crime is going to be his last public smile. Those who live by the sword shall die by the sword. 


We cannot stop being black. We are created black and we are proud of our blackness. At this moment we have every right to defend ourselves by any means necessary and to stop the like of Zimmerman who thinks and believes that being black is a suspicious activity. Enough is enough. 


To be continued -

Wednesday, March 16, 2022

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

Friday, February 25, 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

  Public Statement on the Humanitarian Crisis in Gaza This essay has been motivated by the feedback received earlier today in response to ...