Examining the Sanity of Saner Climes

By: Amir Abdulazeez 

Several decades into the global modern era, Africans, Asians and Latin Americans are continued to be held hostage by their colonially indoctrinated inferior mindsets engineered by the blackmail and mythology of western moral supremacy. This error is not in observing western virtues; many of which are real. The error is in the uncritical veneration that renders their vices invisible and their judgements unchallengeable. It is evident from the events of the last three decades alone, that the so-called saner climes of Western Europe and North America are the primary architects of global chaos and instability of nations, all in the name of injecting sanity into ‘less sane’ societies.

The ongoing US-Israel war on Iran, launched in the midst of Ramadan is a typical doctrine of the saner climes, exhibited in its most naked form. Iran's Foreign Minister had three days before the war declared that a nuclear agreement was 'within reach', after a third round of indirect talks had taken place in Geneva. The IAEA itself confirmed there was no evidence of a structured Iranian nuclear weapons programme at the time of the attack. Yet, the surprise assault assassinated Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, killed his family members and damaged schools, hospitals and even UNESCO-recognized cultural heritage sites. This is a typical catalogue of barbaric war crimes for which the West has condemned others across generations. 

The Donald Trump administration whose seemingly rude, dishonest and arrogant officials, has offered a menu of rationalizations and a handful conflicting justifications for the war. However, when Amnesty International confirmed that the United States was responsible for a strike that killed at least 160 primary school girls, the US officials chose more arrogance through denials instead of remorse. In fact, the Head of the Federal Communications Commission simultaneously intimidated his own press, threatening the withdrawal of broadcast licenses of American news outlets whose war coverage he deemed unfavourable. Another trademark saner-climes mythology, muzzled in a way only a few non-saner climes can imagine. 

Meanwhile, in all these, it is the 'lunatic' Iran that is supposed to apologize and do nothing while it is been attacked. The Iranian Regime, branded autocrats on the premise that it compels women to cover their hairs in public are being lectured by leaders of societies whose women go out naked in the name of civilization and whose governments topple, kill and abduct Heads of States of other countries for recklessly greedy reasons. Now imagine if the erratically behaving Donald Trump was the leader of any African Country, the West would’ve since declared him incoherent and unstable to deal with or labelled his citizens stupid for voting him. Worse still, imagine if the Epstein scandal happened in Asia or Latin America. All these contradictions reveal with crystal clarity that Western principles are instruments of convenience. 

To understand the foundations to all these, let us revisit some history. Britain's Industrial Revolution was fertilised by the profits of the transatlantic slave trade and the systematic plunder of India, a country whose share of global GDP fell from about 25% at the onset of colonial rule to barely 4% at independence. France financed much of its republican grandeur on the forced labour of West Africa and the Caribbean. Belgium's King Leopold II transformed the Congo into a private abattoir, severing the hands of Africans who failed to meet rubber quotas, leaving behind a traumatized country that still bleeds today. To speak of the sanity of these climes without acknowledging that they were partly built from organised insanity inflicted elsewhere is to ignore the background to what we are witnessing today.

In the last fifty years alone, the so-called saner climes have unleashed a level of violence and destabilisation that would shame any regime they have ever deemed fit to condemn. The United States, the self-acclaimed sentinel of the free world, has engineered irrational regime changes in Chile (1973), Iran (1953 and subsequently), Guatemala (1954), Nicaragua, Panama, Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria, among others. The 1973 CIA-backed coup against a democratically elected socialist president of Chile Salvador Allende, installed Augusto Pinochet, under whose reign thousands were tortured, disappeared, or executed. Henry Kissinger, the American architect of that atrocity, received the Nobel Peace Prize from his fellow saner clime comrades. The French Government, through its notorious Françafrique policy, maintained a neocolonial empire across West and Central Africa long after the 1960s, propping up murderous dictators and conducting military interventions to protect economic interests, with a consistency that made a mockery of every democratic principle France professed to uphold.

The invasion of Iraq in 2003 by Western Governments is perhaps the most consequential act of manufactured catastrophe of the modern era. The war resulted in the deaths of an estimated 200,000 to one million Iraqi civilians, the obliteration of the country's infrastructure, the rise of ISIS from the ashes of a disbanded Iraqi army and the triggering of a refugee crisis that continues to destabilise the Middle East. No one was held accountable. George W. Bush and Tony Blair are living happy lives in their saner countries. The International Criminal Court, which has indicted multiple African heads of state on much lesser crimes with considerable alacrity, found no jurisdiction to examine any of them. Meanwhile, the people of Iraq, Syria and Libya who were dismantled in the name of liberation still live in the ruins and pains of what the saner climes call democracy.

While the West was busy bombing the Middle East, Africa, the so-called backward continent, was largely attending to its own affairs of conflict resolution with a remarkable degree of maturity. The African Union mediated crises in Burundi, the Gambia and Lesotho without firing a single bullet. ECOWAS brokered peace agreements in Sierra Leone and Liberia, deployed peacekeeping forces with genuine multilateral mandates without the casual trigger-happiness of Western powers. 

Western attitude towards violence is shamelessly selective. When Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022, the Saner Clime’s response was swift, comprehensive and morally unambiguous: sanctions, weapons, diplomatic isolation and a media chorus of civilizational solidarity. This response was appropriate anyway. But the problem is its stark contrast with the Western posture toward other invasions. When Saudi Arabia launched its war on Yemen in 2015, the United States and the United Kingdom did not merely decline to intervene; they allegedly supplied the bombs, refuelled the warplanes and provided intelligence for strikes that killed thousands of Yemeni civilians and engineered one of the worst humanitarian crises on earth. 

Many argue that the actions of Western Governments isn't a true reflection of what their citizens stand for. This is debatable especially when one examines certain incidences. During the Obama presidency, Edward Snowden revealed that the US National Security Agency was conducting mass, warrantless surveillance of American citizens and foreign governments, including the personal telephone of former German Chancellor Angela Merkel in flagrant violation of constitutional protections and international diplomatic norms. The response was not accountability but exile for Snowden and a classification of his revelations as treason. The United States, has the largest prison population on earth both in absolute numbers and per capita administered under a system in which Black Americans are incarcerated at five times the rate of their white counterparts, in conditions that the United Nations has described as cruel. Since 1968, gun violence has claimed more American lives than all of America's foreign wars combined. One can certainlybe inclined to believe that these are controversies that ordinary western citizens may not approve of.

Climate change is another damning indictment of Western moral authority in the twenty-first century. The Industrial activities enriching Europe and North America still depends on burning carbon at a scale the planet had never experienced. The United States, historically the world's largest cumulative emitter of greenhouse gases, withdrew from the Paris Climate Agreement under Donald Trump. Australia, another clime reputed to be considerably saner than most, has built its prosperity on coal exports and resisted meaningful emissions reduction. Some Pacific Island nations face sea submersions within this century as a consequence of decisions made in saner capitals. When these nations' leaders speak at the United Nations with tears in their voices, the saner climes offer symbolic but empty sympathy before later returning to preserving their industrial prerogatives. 

The Western Media’s tactical twisting of narratives regarding other climes is another issue. For example, CNN may not run primetime documentaries on the Swiss banking system's complicity in laundering the proceeds of African kleptocracy, but will rather concentrate on the primary kleptocrats. The BBC does not lead with investigations into the role of British arms dealers in sustaining African conflicts. The New York Times does not dedicate its front page to the tax avoidance schemes through which Western corporations drain billions of dollars annually from African economies (more than the continent receives in foreign aid).

Beside all these, there is something more worrisome. The bulk of support received by these saner climes come from their victims in the third world. In Nigeria for instance, the blind sympathy for religious affiliations drives people to support the brazen oppression and cruel injustices perpetrated by the West. Our solidarities should be among ourselves, not with those who see and treat us as worthless humans and more like animals because of their superior moral hypocrisy. Additionally, our bootlicking governments who are considered close to valueless in the International arena or even insane just like us, must stop intimidating its own citizens who decide to speak up against western double standards. Let’s remember, the phrase "saner climes" is a moral verdict and a devastating condemnation of everywhere else expect Europe and North America. Africans and all peoples of the marginalised world are owed the intellectual inheritance of critical discernment.

The world does not need more or fewer saner climes; it needs a more honest accounting of what sanity actually requires. It requires consistency: the same rules applied to the powerful and the powerless alike. It requires humility: the acknowledgement that no civilisation holds a monopoly on wisdom. And it requires accountability: not the selective justice of indicting the weak and glorifying the mighty, but the universal application of standards that do not bend in the presence of a Security Council veto or the impulse of a self-serving Super power. Until that accounting arrives, the presumption of Western moral authority deserves not deference, but fearless interrogation; the kind that the so-called saner climes have always claimed to celebrate and so rarely been prepared to receive.

23-03-2026

Ballon d’Or and the Credibility Question

By: Amir Abdulazeez

I am writing on this not because I have any significant concern for the award or its credibility or because it has any correlation with the wellbeing of anybody in need (which I am often more concerned about). I am rather doing so due to the massive perennial debate it generates especially among youths in Nigeria as well as the misinformed opinions around it. Again, the Ballon d’Or like football itself has transcended sport to become part of international politics and history. I became shocked when I saw a globally renowned Muslim scholar congratulating Ousmane Dembele for winning the 2025 version and hailing its award to a ‘practicing Muslim’. Obviously, the crown now carries political significance that stretches well beyond the pitch.

Since its inception in 1956, the Ballon d’Or has been regarded as football’s most prestigious individual award. Founded by France Football (conceived by sports writers Gabriel Hanot and Jacques Ferran), the award was initially designed to honour the best European player annually, with Stanley Matthews of Blackpool becoming the pioneer winner. Later, it evolved into a global prize, celebrating many other icons. Many have rightly questioned the credibility of the award but mostly on myopic grounds centred around player and club sentiments. However, as a long time football observer, I believe there are much broader issues regarding the credibility of the award that are worth discussing.

Let us start with the politics. During the Cold War (1947-1991), Eastern European players (more aligned to the Soviet Union) often struggled to receive equal recognition despite dazzling performances, while Western European stars (more aligned to the United States and friends) enjoyed more favourable media attention. Although Russian goalkeeper Lev Yashin won the award in 1963, many argue that his case was only the exception that proved the unwritten rule of ‘politics, geography and media exposure consistently play decisive roles’. Today, the award continues to reflect broader inequalities in football. European clubs dominate global coverage, which inflates the recognition of their stars. Players performing in less visible leagues whether in South America, Africa, or Asia rarely receive consideration, even if their contributions are extraordinary.

Another concern is the award’s inconsistent eligibility rules over time. Until 1995, only European players competing in European clubs were considered, excluding legendary figures like Pelé and Diego Maradona from getting even a nomination. It was only after a rule change that non-Europeans in European leagues became eligible, allowing George Weah to win in 1995. Yet, by then, the award had already excluded decades of worthy non-European and non-European based winners. Mild allegations of racism also cast a dark shadow over the award. Many believe players like Didier Drogba, Samuel Eto’o, Yaya Touré, Sadio Mané and Mohammed Salah were routinely ranked below their pedigree. In 2021, French pundit Emmanuel Petit openly questioned whether African players were judged by double standards.

The selection of voters itself raises concerns. Initially restricted to journalists, it later expanded between 2010 and 2015 after a merger with FIFA’s “World Player of the Year,” adding coaches and captains to the electorate whose votes often reflected tribal, national or club loyalties rather than merit. The 2016 reversion to journalist-only voting is perhaps a tacit admission of voting flaws thereby creating difficulties in comparisons across eras. For example, Lionel Messi’s consecutive wins (2009-2013) under a global, mixed electorate cannot be objectively compared to Michel Platini’s (1983-1985) under a European-only jury. The current co-organization with UEFA, which began in 2024, signifies another attempt to lend the award more institutional weight. However, the constant changes in its format and governing alliances suggest an award in search of a stable identity, struggling to balance its commercial ambitions with its original purpose.

Bias towards attacking players has been an emerging hallmark of Ballon d’Or selections. Legendary defenders like Paolo Maldini, Alessandro Nesta, Sergio Ramos and Roberto Carlos, who defined an era of defensive excellence, always fell short. The exception of Fabio Cannavaro in 2006 along with few others in the past, after a World Cup-winning campaign with Italy, serves as a testament to the rarity of a defender being recognized. More recently, Virgil van Dijk’s 2019 narrow runner-up finish sparked debate about whether non-attacking players could ever realistically win in a sport increasingly obsessed with goals and flair. The award relies heavily on football journalists who often prioritize goal highlight reels, statistics and global recognition over tactical nuance and defensive brilliance. Strikers and playmakers dominate the headlines that directly feeds into voting behaviour.

To combat positional bias, a more revolutionary approach could be implemented; nomination by quota. Why not have separate shortlists and voting panels for goalkeepers, defenders, midfielders and forwards? The top three or five of these categories could then be considered for the overall voting and eventual award. This would ensure that the unique skills of each position are evaluated by those who best understand them, guaranteeing that players are judged on their specializations rather than against others with contrasting roles.

The criteria for judgment also lack clarity and consistency. Officially, the award considers individual performance, team achievements, talent, fair play and career consistency. In practice, however, voters often seem swayed by a single outstanding tournament or by sentimental narratives. Luka Modrić’s 2018 victory after Croatia’s World Cup run exemplified this. While Modrić was superb, critics argued that other players had stronger year-round performances, but the emotional weight of Croatia’s fairy tale run tilted the scales. But how comes, this same emotion did not sway voters to select any player from Leicester City’s 2016 Premier League incredible winning team? A pervasive, though often unstated, criterion for many voters is team success. To win the Champions League or a major international tournament has become almost a prerequisite for contention. This creates an inherent unfairness, elevating players in dominant teams while punishing extraordinary individuals in less successful sides. This inconsistency reveals a fundamental confusion: is the award for the "best player", “most popular player” or the "most successful player"?

The timing and calendar controversies is another issue. International tournaments occur every two years, creating periods where national team success heavily influences voting. World Cup years traditionally favour tournament winners, regardless of club form. The recent calendar change to August-July aimed to address this imbalance but created new problems, with voters now contending with assessing performances from overlapping seasons and tournaments. This temporal confusion affects not just voting patterns but public understanding of what the award actually represents; is it recognition for calendar year performance, season achievement or tournament success? The 2013 Ballon d'Or win by Cristiano Ronaldo was critiqued following timing inconsistencies from odd deadline extensions. The current system, which can see a player win a major tournament in the summer and have their performance rewarded a year later, creates a disjointed narrative.

The question of authority is another big one. FIFA represents 211 national associations, UEFA oversees European football's institutional framework, yet it is a private French publication that bestow football's most prestigious individual honour. The comparison with FIFA’s The Best awards and UEFA’s Player of the Year exposes this imbalance. This raises the paradox: why should a magazine possess such outsized influence in determining football’s most prestigious individual accolade, overshadowing awards backed by governing institutions? While there is nothing fundamentally wrong with this, it only emphasizes the need for France Football to show more responsibility by sanitizing and standardizing its award.

I am not in a position to coach France Football on how to reform its awards to minimize the credibility dilemma, they have much better experts who can do that. My concern is to see young football followers and analysts become more informed and equipped for deeper debates that are beyond sentiments. My other concern which has little to do with the Ballon d’Or is to see football giving a little back to its estimated 3.5 billion fans that have made it powerful. While fans give it a lot, the sport appears to be giving almost nothing significant in return. It is sad to see football remaining silent, bias and indifferent in the face of global oppression and injustice. While it took FIFA and UEFA just four days to suspend Russia after its invasion of Ukraine in 2022, both bodies have remained criminally silent over two years since Israel launched its genocide on the football supporting people of Palestine.

 

24-09-2025

The United Nations and Eight Decades of Impotence

 13^th September, 2025

By: Amir Abdulazeez

The United Nations is currently holding its 80^th General Assembly sessions in New York. Some days earlier, the U.S. State Department, under the pretext of national security and anti-terrorism laws, revoked visas for dozens of Palestinian officials, including President Mahmoud Abbas slated to participate, at the General Assembly and a high-level two-state conference. This move drew criticism from the UN itself, EU and some human-rights groups, with calls to relocate Palestinian-related meetings outside New York. This echoes historical precedents, notably the 1988 visa denial to Late Yasser Arafat, which forced the UN to shift one of its sessions to Geneva to allow him participate.

Although the 1947 ‘Headquarters Agreement’ obliges the United States to admit all UN participants, Washington occasionally and selectively invoke security and legal excuses to discriminate between entrants. Such practices explain how the UN’s operations remain vulnerable to U.S. control, thereby undermining its independence, authority and credibility. As the UN marks the 80^th anniversary of the ratification of its charter on 24^th October 2025, the organization which was founded on the ashes of World War II in 1945 faces an existential crisis of credibility and effectiveness.

While it has achieved notable successes in humanitarian aid, educational research and global environmental and health initiatives, its core mission of maintaining international peace and security has been repeatedly undermined by structural and diplomatic flaws. The organization's inability to meaningfully respond to crises from Syria to Ukraine and most visibly in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, has exposed fundamental weaknesses that warrant urgent reform. The UN’s record is one of profound paradox: a body designed for action but often defined by its inaction. Nowhere is this impotence more starkly illustrated than in its 70 years’ failure to resolve the Palestinian question or to hold Israel accountable for its international impunities.

From the outset of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the United Nations assumed a central role by proposing the 1947 Partition Plan, which sought to establish separate independent states for both parties. Although initially conceived as a potential path to peace, the plan was never enforced and the UN has since struggled to translate its own decisions into reality. Further failures are documented in a paper trail of unimplemented resolutions: Security Council Resolution 242 (1967) called for Israel’s withdrawal from territories occupied during the Six-Day War; Resolution 338 (1973) and countless subsequent resolutions reaffirmed this demand that was not only ignored but instead empowered Israel’s massive expansion of illegal settlements.

Beyond the unimplemented resolutions, a critical UN failure in this regard is that of narrative framing. It has been unable to consistently enforce a foundational principle: that the right to self-determination for one people (Israelis) cannot be predicated on the denial of that same right to another (Palestinians). The organization's various bodies often treat the conflict as a symmetrical dispute between two equal parties, rather than an asymmetrical struggle between a nuclear-armed occupying power and a stateless, occupied population living under a brutal blockade.

The core of the UN’s ineffectiveness lies in the flawed decision-making structure of its Security Council, where the five permanent members (United States, Russia, China, France and United Kingdom) hold the autocratic privilege of veto power. This system of outdated World War II geopolitics has frequently paralyzed the organization in hours of need. Since 1946, the veto has been selfishly exercised about 300 times. Between 2011 and 2023, Russia and China blocked 16 resolutions on Syria, enabling the Assad regime’s brutal campaign against civilians. The United States, meanwhile, has used its veto more than 50 times to shield Israel from accountability, making Palestine the single most vetoed issue in UN history. Instead of serving as a platform for global security, the Council has become an arena for shameless and hypocritical power politics.

The General Assembly, despite representing all 193 member states equally, has been relegated to a largely ceremonial role in matters of international peace and security. While the Assembly can pass resolutions by majority vote, these carry no binding legal force and are routinely ignored by powerful nations. The 2012 resolution calling for an arms embargo on Syria passed with 133 votes but had no practical effect, as Russia continued supplying weapons to the Assad government. This has created a two-tiered system where the views of the international majority are systematically subordinated to the interests of Security Council Super Powers.

The selective enforcement of international law has become a defining hallmark of UN impotence. While the organization has at times demonstrated resolve such as coordinating global sanctions against apartheid South Africa in the 1980s or authorizing military intervention in Libya in 2011, its responses to other similar crises have been inconsistent and politically driven. Similarly, the International Criminal Court, often operating with UN support, swiftly indicted leaders of Liberia, Sudan and Libya, yet no Western or allied leaders like George W. Bush or Tony Blair have been held to account for baseless interventions in Iraq, Afghanistan or Yemen. These double standards have eroded the UN’s credibility and moral authority, particularly in the Global South, where it is increasingly viewed as an instrument of Western hegemony.

The UN's peacekeeping apparatus, while successful in some contexts, has also demonstrated significant limitations when confronting determined state actors. The United Nations Disengagement Observer Force (UNDOF) on the Golan Heights and the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) have maintained buffer zones during their operations, but have been powerless to prevent violations by all parties. During the 2006 Lebanon War and subsequent conflicts, these forces could only observe and report violations rather than enforce compliance.

Financial manipulation has emerged as another tool of selective pressure within the UN system. The United States, which contributes 22% of the UN's regular budget, has repeatedly withheld or threatened to withhold funding to pressure the organization on specific issues. In 2018, the Trump administration cut $285 million from UN peacekeeping operations and reduced contributions to various UN agencies. The UN's human rights mechanisms face similar challenges of selective application and political manipulation. The Human Rights Council, reformed in 2006 to address criticisms of its predecessor, continues to be influenced by bloc voting and political considerations rather than objective human rights assessments. Countries with questionable human rights records have served on the Council while using their positions to deflect criticism and protect allies.

Critics argue that the UN has become a stage for symbolic debates while real decisions and tangible actions are outsourced to global bullies like the US, less formal coalitions like the NATO and regional actors like the EU. For example, the U.S.-brokered Abraham Accords normalized relations between Israel and several Arab states without addressing core Palestinian concerns while side-lining the UN. Similarly, its response to Russia's invasion of Ukraine in 2022 was limited to humanitarian aid and symbolic condemnation, as bodies like EU looked more relevant and assertive.

The rise of new global powers and changing geopolitical realities have rendered the UN's 1945 structure increasingly obsolete. Reform proposals have circulated for decades but have consistently failed due to the resistance of existing power holders. Things have changed since World War II, nations have evolved, others have declined and hence the UN must be reformed to reflect current realities. The permanency of the Security council membership must be reviewed and the senseless veto authority must be abolished or modified along the lines of justice and accountability. As the United Nations approaches its 80th anniversary, the choice is clear: fundamental reform or continued irrelevance.

Maintaining the United Nations system costs about $50–55 billion per year, not counting military deployments and opportunity costs. Beyond money, states commit significant diplomatic, military, humanitarian and bureaucratic resources to maintain their participation. This makes the UN one of the most resource-intensive international organizations ever created. Without serious reforms to address structural inequalities, eliminate veto abuse and restore the primacy of international law over great power politics, the UN risks becoming a historical footnote rather than the cornerstone of the global governance its founders envisioned. The international community must decide whether it will tolerate continued dysfunction or demand the transformative changes necessary to address 21^st century challenges.

A Nostalgic Tribute to Muhammadu Buhari

 July 15, 2025

 

By: Amir Abdulazeez

During the early and mid-months of 2002, I usually visit an uncle (now late) who generously provided me with newspapers often before he even read them himself. On one such visit, I picked up a copy of the Daily Trust, a relatively new publication at the time, and while flipping through its pages, I read the delightful news that not only made me happy but also propelled me into a brief career in partisan politics. Retired General Muhammadu Buhari had decided to join democratic politics and announced his entry into the All Nigerian Peoples Party (ANPP).

At the time, the Obasanjo-led administration was widely perceived to be underperforming, failing to sincerely address Nigeria’s mounting challenges. The PDP had morphed into a formidable political giant, while the ANPP was weakening steadily; other newly registered parties existed only in the briefcases of their founders.  Buhari's decision to join politics at that time represented the single most decisive decision that changed the Nigerian democratic landscape in the last 25 years. Youths, pensioners, activists, comrades, veterans and even fence-sitters found a new rallying point and almost everyone else joined the new messiah.

Although many harbored reservations about Buhari; especially those whose interests had been hurt during his military regime or the post-1999 established elite who saw him as a threat, I was among the countless young Nigerians who adored Buhari to a fault. My admiration for him was so intense that another uncle once felt compelled to caution me. It was just before the 2003 presidential election when he walked into my room, saw a large framed portrait of Buhari on my wall, smiled, and advised me to moderate my obsession.

My love for Buhari began about 30 years ago. The establishment of the Petroleum Trust Fund (PTF) by General Sani Abacha's administration in 1994 coincided with our early years in secondary school. By the time the Fund was a year old in 1995, the name of Muhammadu Buhari was on the lips of virtually all Nigerians. In my estimation then, he was the only tangible good thing about the Abacha government. In fact, he appeared to be more popular than Abacha himself; a hypothesis that reportedly inspired Obasanjo to scrap the Fund in 1999 to avoid ‘running a government inside a government’.

I vividly recall a day in 1995 or 1996 when I accompanied my father to a bookshop. The PTF low-price edition of every book we went to buy was available at a 50% or so discount without any compromise in quality. While paying the money, I could see the smile on my father's face reflecting deep satisfaction and appreciation for the work of the PTF. That was the first time in my life I truly felt and understood the direct impact of government on the people. In pharmacies, PTF drugs were sold at subsidized rates. There was no propaganda, rhetoric, cosmetics, or media packaging; the work of Buhari's PTF was there for everyone to see and touch. I was lucky as a young lad to join elders in travels across the country from 1995-1997. I got tired of seeing the PTF road projects that I once asked: "Why won't this Buhari return as president to fix Nigeria?"

Muhammadu Buhari, a constant figure in Nigerian political discourse since 1983, is now gone. Few anticipated his death, as the brief illness he suffered in London seemed either a rumor or a routine medical trip. Ironically, many of his detractors had "killed" him multiple times in the past; some of them dying before he did. In 2014, former Ekiti State governor Ayo Fayose ran a notorious advert predicting Buhari wouldn’t last months in office if elected. Yet he won, served for eight years, and died just months short of turning 83.

Buhari lived a long, dedicated, and enduring life of service and commitment to Nigeria, spanning about six decades in both military and civilian capacities. Save perhaps for Obasanjo, there’s no Nigerian, dead or alive, matches his array of public portfolios. His personal reputation for discipline, honesty, integrity, and austerity endured throughout his public life. He stood as a symbol of principled and stoic leadership and left behind a legacy that will continue to resonate for generations.

Just before his death, the debate of who made him president in 2015 resurfaced with an exchange of tantrums between some pro-Tinubu and pro-Buhari gladiators. While I found the debate outdated, my position remains that Buhari ought to have become president 12 years earlier. For the avoidance of doubt, Muhammadu Buhari did not lose the 2003 presidential elections, it was brutally rigged to return Obasanjo for a second term. That year’s election ranks among the most fraudulent in modern global history. In 2007, the presidential election results were simply fabricated, so we can't even call that an election, not to talk of who won or lost.

Despite my immense love for Buhari, I was left with no choice but to join his critics after 2015. Less than a year in, it became clear that his government lacked the vision and effectiveness many had hoped for. In 2015, I queued until about 10:00 p.m. to vote for him, believing he was Nigeria’s last chance. By 2018, disappointed, I called for him to serve just one term. I argued then that if he couldn’t lead like Nelson Mandela, he could at least exit like Mandela. By 2021, while in his second term, I was so disillusioned that I openly advocated for his impeachment.

It still remains a mystery how our much beloved, tested and trusted (his campaign slogan in 2003) Buhari failed fell so short of expectations. Some blamed his arrogant and underperforming appointees; others cited a fractured and directionless party. But ultimately, he bore the responsibility. His inability or unwillingness to discipline ineffective ministers eroded his credibility. In 2022, during the eight-month strike by university lecturers, I contacted one of his aides (a relative), who confirmed that it was Buhari’s ministers not Buhari himself who opposed paying the lecturers. Another indicator that he wasn’t really in charge.

In the midst of the storm, Buhari's administration managed to attain some landmark achievements and notable milestones in infrastructure, social welfare, and the fight against terrorism. He delivered the elusive Second Niger Bridge, the Lagos-Ibadan and Abuja-Kaduna railways and upgraded numerous critical road networks. His government implemented the Treasury Single Account (TSA), which significantly improved public financial transparency and curbed leakages. Buhari's war against Boko Haram yielded mixed results but succeeded in reclaiming substantial territory from insurgents. He introduced arguably the largest Social Investment Program in the history of Africa, targeting millions of beneficiaries through initiatives like N-Power, Trader Moni, Survival Fund, Anchor Borrowers Scheme, and conditional cash transfers.

Nigerians are free to hold divergent views on Buhari. But there should be decency in how we express those views. No one is without flaws; we all have our good and bad sides. One day, we too shall pass, and others will speak of us. Buhari had both triumphs and failings; some reaped benefits, others suffered losses. If you can pray for him, please do. If not, be measured in your words.

The past few days have witnessed a flurry of deaths, a sobering reminder that life is fleeting and death inevitable. Today’s giants will one day lie lifeless. When Garba Shehu broke the news of Buhari's death, I immediately made up my mind to put up a tribute. A few minutes after the announcement, I went to his Wikipedia page to corroborate some information about the general. To my surprise, the information about his death had already been updated: "Muhammadu Buhari (1942-2025)"—so swiftly? I said to myself. Baba is gone. May Allah forgive and grant him Jannatul-Firdaus.

Twitter: @AmirAbdulazeez

 

The Proliferation of National ‘Honours’

15^th June, 2025

By: Amir Abdulazeez

If we can recall, on 7^th October, 2015 a 19-year-old student, Hassan Mohammed Damagum sacrificed himself to save others from a suicide bomber who attempted to attack a mosque during the Subh (Dawn) prayer at Buhari Housing Estate in Yobe State. Hassan had sensed that the individual standing next to him was a suicide bomber trying to kill people. The boy was said to have confronted the bomber which blew both of them off. Again, on 25^th January 2017, Yakubu Fannami, another student from Borno State who was just in SS1 died a hero while preventing a suicide bomber from entering at the Darrusalam Science and Islamic Academy in Maiduguri. Fannami tackled the female suicide bomber, preventing her from reaching the mosque and detonating her explosives, thus saving the lives of many worshippers.

To the best of my research which may be inadequate, none of the two boys were publicly given a significant national recognition. The story of Nigeria is replete with the neglect of brave and heroic citizens who had sacrificed a lot and even laid down their lives to save others. Since 1999, Nigeria has always chosen to reward and honour many lazy elites who had contributed virtually nothing, but rather became huge beneficiaries of government patronage and corruption. Every President has made it a duty to dash out national honours to his choice elites in a manner one would do with his personal property.

In line with the routine tradition of his predecessors, President Bola Tinubu used the June 12, 2025 Democracy Day to confer over 100 national honours—some of them posthumously. As expected, many awardees are members of his administration and personalities very close to him. A section of the awardees list portrays a belated compensation package to a gang of Abacha victims, who actually need justice more than honour. While people like Prof. Humphrey Nwosu (CON), Prof. Wole Soyinka (GCON), Alhaji Balarabe Musa (CFR), Bishop Matthew Hassan Kukah (CON) and Femi Falana, SAN (CON) truly deserve their awards, it would have been wiser and more balanced to include people like Late Bashir Tofa (Abiola’s NRC opponent), Late Abubakar Rimi and Magaji Abdullahi (two important SDP figures who miraculously delivered Kano, Tofa’s State to Abiola) and of course M.D. Yusufu, the presidential candidate of MDJ who was Abacha’s sole challenger in his bid to undemocratically transform to a civilian president, among others. Perhaps, they would be remembered by this or another President in the next set of awards, for at this rate, every political household name, dead or alive, may soon have a national honour in Nigeria by 2030.

What exactly is this national honour and who are those who deserve it? The honouring system was originally envisioned as a prestigious recognition of exceptional service to the nation and was formally established by the National Honours Act No. 5 of 1964 to inspire patriotism, reward merit and foster national unity. The structure of national honours, divided into two orders (Order of the Federal Republic and Order of the Niger) and eight ranks (GCFR, GCON, CFR, CON, OFR, OON, MFR, MON), was designed to reflect degrees of national impact. However, the system’s proliferation and indiscriminate distribution have undermined these distinctions, often placing true heroes, statesmen and national icons equal or below some presidential sycophants, political loyalists and officeholders, regardless of their performance or public standing.

The early years of Nigeria's national honours system reflected its original purpose. Recipients such as Dr. Nnamdi Azikiwe, Sir Ahmadu Bello, Chief Obafemi Awolowo and Mrs. Funmilayo Ransome-Kuti were honoured for verifiable and transformative contributions. However, over time, the politicization and personalization of the awards diminished its integrity, giving way to an annual ritual often characterised by hundreds of questionable awardees whose contributions to the nation are neither tangible nor verifiable. In the past 15 years, things have gotten worse as the selection system itself have been incompetently reduced to a mechanism marred by political patronage, duplication and credibility crises.

Today, the integrity of this noble initiative is in serious jeopardy, with widespread skepticism about its selection process and relevance. Ideally, recipients should be individuals whose lives exemplify ethical integrity, measurable public impact and selfless service. However, the current trend favours tenure over achievement and proximity to power over merit. Politicians under corruption investigation, individuals with no tangible contributions and business moguls with opaque wealth have all made their way into the honours roll. Prominent Nigerians have rejected national honours in protest. Chinua Achebe, Gani Fawehinmi and Wole Soyinka famously turned down honours in the past, citing corruption, misgovernance and the lack of transparency in the process. Their principled refusals sent powerful messages about the need to restore the credibility of the system. As Achebe aptly put it, ‘a government that fails its people cannot in good conscience bestow honours’.

Numerous scandals have exposed the flaws of the system. In 2022, the conferment of awards to serving ministers during a prolonged ASUU strike and the inclusion of people accused of corruption represented a new low. Even more embarrassing were administrative blunders such as conferring posthumous awards to please certain intersts and duplication of awards to the same person under different titles. Meanwhile, countless unsung heroes remain ignored. Rural teachers shaping future generations, healthcare workers battling epidemics without protection and community leaders mediating conflicts receive no recognition.

Some few non-elitist Nigerians have been reluctantly recognized by the establishment in the past. The belated honour to Dr. Ameyo Stella Adadevoh (posthumous OON, 2022), whose sacrifice averted an Ebola catastrophe in August, 2014, only came after sustained public pressure for about eight years. In August, 2018, then President Muhammadu Buhari and the United States Embassy honoured the Bauchi State-born 83-year old Malam Abubakar Abdullahi, a Muslim Imam in a village in Plateau State. He sheltered and fed 300 Christians for five days to prevent them from being killed in an uprising. The old man ran from one corner to the other stopping youths who wanted to break into the mosque to get hold of his guests. Eventually, they gave up after realizing that the only way to execute their evil plan was to kill the old man. That was how he saved their lives. I am not sure whether the man was given any national honour beyond that presidential acknowledgement.

If we are to continue like this, I will suggest the renaming of the awards to “Special Presidential Honours”.  The National Honours Act, last revised in 2004, offers the President near-total discretion, with little room for public input or institutional checks. With time, it has been turned to a presidential farewell affair as outgoing Presidents routinely populate honours lists upon leaving office to payback loyalists. Recent attempts at reform, such as the proposed National Honours and Merit Award Commission, represent a step forward but are insufficient on their own. Far-reaching legislative and administrative reforms are needed to restore the honours’ integrity. This includes public nominations, independent vetting panels, open selection criteria and mandatory justification of award decisions.

A critical reform must also introduce public objections and transparency mechanisms, such as publishing nominee shortlists and designing revocation protocols. Honours should be rescinded from individuals found guilty of crimes or misconduct post-conferment. The system should no longer shield disgraced figures or treat national honours as irrevocable symbols of status regardless of later behaviour. Furthermore, awards should be capped annually to preserve their exclusivity. Honouring fewer, more deserving Nigerians will increase the prestige of the titles and prevent undeserving awards Most importantly, the honours system must reconnect with the grassroots. By recognising farmers, nurses, teachers, inventors and humanitarian workers, Nigeria can turn the system into a true tool of national inspiration.

All these are by the way as ordinary Nigerians no longer care about leaders honouring themselves and their cronies. No impoverished Nigerian has the luxury of waiting to be honoured by someone whose honour is questionable himself. All Nigerians are asking for is guaranteed security to farm, stable power supply to produce, quality and affordable education to learn, reliable healthcare to survive and stable economy to thrive. When they can provide this, they can go on naming and renaming national monuments after their wives and continue with the vicious cycle of self-glorification in the name of national honours.

 

Twitter: @AmirAbdulazeez

The Politics of Autobiographies

 20^th February, 2025

 By: Amir Abdulazeez

In ancient times and through the Middle ages, people used autobiographies to share hidden truths, make confessions and communicate genuine experiences. Nowadays, they are used by politicians and world leaders for self-justification and self-glorification. Whether in the West, across Africa, or within Nigeria, the pattern remains the same—political figures use autobiographies to rewrite history in their favour, often ignoring their failures or controversies.

Between 1948 to 1954, former British Prime Minister, Winston Churchill, published multiple volumes of memoirs that portrayed him as the hero of World War II. While Churchill was undeniably a key figure in the war, his narratives downplayed criticisms of his leadership, including his alleged role in the Bengal Famine of 1943, which resulted in the deaths of millions. His autobiographical works cemented his legacy as a wartime leader while sidestepping his more controversial decisions.

Modern political memoirs have increasingly become exercises in selective storytelling, where leaders carefully articulate their narratives to present themselves in the most favourable light possible. Former United States President, Richard Nixon used his autobiography, ‘The Memoirs of Richard Nixon’, to repair his image after the Watergate scandal. After lying about the possession of weapons of mass destruction as a justification to invade, Tony Blair's ‘A Journey’ and George W. Bush's ‘Decision Points’, cruelly and shamelessly attempted to justify their baseless war in Iraq in 2003.

Across Africa, many leaders have also engaged in this practice of using autobiographies to deny or justify their shortcomings. As good as they were, even the likes of Ghana’s Kwame Nkrumah, Zambia’s Kenneth Kaunda, Tanzania’s Julius Nyerere and Kenya’s Jomo Kenyatta have all been accused of using autobiographies to exaggerate their legacies, downplay their shortcomings and ignore controversies around their stewardships.

In Nigeria, Olusegun Obasanjo’s ‘My Watch’, published in 2014 have been widely criticized for being self-serving. While Obasanjo paints himself as a patriot and a visionary leader, he conveniently overlooked the authoritarian tendencies and allegations of corruption and electoral frauds during his tenure.  Despite all the glaring circumstances that led to the decisive defeat of Dr. Goodluck Jonathan in the 2015 Presidential elections, in his 2018 book ‘My Transition Hours’, he tried so hard to justify and downplay the very actions that led to his downfall while also constructing different conspiracy theories that gave the impression he didn’t lose the elections freely and fairly.

Just, when we thought we have had enough of all these politicized autobiographies, former Military President General Ibrahim Badamasi Babangida has released his own memoirs. While being often and correctly presented as one of Nigeria’s finest soldiers, strongest leaders and elder statesmen, we can by no means expect his memoirs to be significantly different from that of other Nigerian, African and world leaders. IBB is unlucky to be one of the most studied and documented Nigerian leaders and there are so many controversies, inconsistencies and tactical deceptions associated to his tenure which no autobiography can reconcile.

One major criticism of IBB’s memoir is its timing. The delayed release suggests a strategic waiting period for public emotions to cool and memories to fade. Apart from the main actors, many other people in the position to validate or refute whatever he might say in his book are dead. In fact, majority of the current generation of Nigerians were not even born when he left power in 1993. In a nutshell, while Babangida’s autobiography may attempt to rationalize many of his decisions, the scars left by the events he presided like the Structural Adjustment programme, state executions, public corruption, endless and wasteful transition programme will remain fresh in the country’s memory.

In Nigeria, what have these autobiographies taught us? Many leaders and political actors have left terrible legacies which they cannot risk leaving in the hands of neutral story tellers. While they should spend the rest of their lives in regret and retrospection, they will rather add salt to injury by releasing half-truths and falsehoods as autobiographies. When they do so, they always have other elitist co-conspirators that benefited from their actions and inactions in power that will gather and celebrate them like heroes.

As a former Nigerian leader, once you are alive and influential, you can always find a way of redeeming your image inspite of your atrocities. I always ask people to imagine if General Sani Abacha was still alive, who will dare recover any foreign loot associated to him? Who doesn’t have skeletons in their cupboards? Unfortunately for Abacha, apart from been dead, he had also stepped on most, if not all of the toes that would’ve protected him and again, one of the most affected became President just 11 months after his death.

Not all are the same. There are patriotic Nigerian leaders, statesmen and freedom fighters who deserve to write autobiographies. Unfortunately, when they do, theirs get drowned in the ocean of the negative ones who are richer and more popular. By tradition, you know Nigerians will always promote and accept something that is popular and elegant instead of one that is truthful and honest. This is why you don’t hear trending biographies about Gani Fawehinmi, Abdulkadir Balarabe Musa, etc.

All in all, everyone has a right to his own opinion and narrative of events the way he wants people to view them. While autobiographies provide valuable insights into the minds of world leaders, they must be read with a critical eye. Readers must recognize that these books are not always honest reflections of history but are, more often than not, carefully crafted narratives designed to preserve a leader’s legacy. Memoirs of political leaders often serve more as instruments of image control than as genuine historical accounts. The ultimate judgment of political leaders should rest not in the pages of their autobiographies but rather in the lived experiences of their citizens and the tangible impacts of their policies.

I read three autobiographies recently and I found them to be outstanding and honest; Sir Ahmadu Bello’s ‘My Life’, Nelson Mandela’s ‘Long Walk to Freedom’ and Mahatma Gandhi’s ‘The Stories of My Experiments with Truth’. Sardauna’s was simple, least self-glorifying and occasionally self-critical. Mandela’s was strictly a chronicle of collective struggles, only mentioning but leaving out details about subjective issues and cleverly terminating his story to the point he was inaugurated as President. He left the story of his presidency to be told by others. Gandhi’s was the best; when he was literally forced to write his memoirs in 1925, he rather named it ‘my experiments’, it was the translators that added the word ‘autobiography’. He never wanted to write because he believes if your actions are right, there is nothing to boast about it, for the wrong ones, there will always be many people to help you write them.

 

Twitter: @AmirAbdulazeez

A Personal Tribute to Ghali Na’abba

 27^th December, 2023

By: Amir Abdulazeez

 

S

ometime in 2006, I walked into the popular Gidan Akida building, the then Kano State headquarters of the Advanced Congress of Democrats (ACD), a new party formed by the breakaway PDP faction. I was there to inquire on how lowly placed people like us can actively participate in the development of the party. The State Public Relations Officer told me that I have the option of choosing to belong to any of the four main houses within the party; Muhammad Abubakar Rimi, Malam Musa Gwadabe, Alhaji Gwadabe Satatima and Ghali Umar Na’abba.

 When the PRO heard that I cherished them all, but I wanted to work in the Na’abba camp, he congratulated me for choosing to work under a disciplined, courageous and principled politician. Unknown to him, I had already known Ghali Na;abba some ten years before, may be earlier. Apart from being too young to practically know much about the other three political leaders, I have taken time to follow the stewardship of Ghali Na’abba as the Speaker of Nigeria’s House of Representatives for the better part of 1999-2003.

In that same year of 2006, Na’abba declared for the Kano State Governorship. I was genuinely convinced that if elected, he will make Kano one of the most disciplined and organized states in Nigeria. His discipline, confidence and organization have often been misunderstood as arrogance. On this, he has cleared the air on many occasions. From what I know of him, he is a man of few words expressed only when necessary, he has a gentle and reserved personality, the kind of which makes him to never delve into affairs that doesn’t concerns him.

I remember working with like-minds to engage in one of the best intellectual mobilizations any young undergraduates could do to garner support for Na’abba to become Governor at that time. Unfortunately, he withdrew from the governorship race some weeks to the primary elections of the Action Congress (AC), the new party which was the product of a merger between ACD, Bola Tinubu’s Alliance for Democracy (AD) and other groups. Ghali’s withdrawal speech wasn’t detailed, but his arguments were that the process is too manipulated for any honest and disciplined aspirant to withstand. I think that was the last time Ghali contested for any position in his political career. 

Ghali Umar Na’abba was more than a political figure—he was a beacon of integrity, courage, and unwavering dedication to Nigeria. As a former Speaker of the House of Representatives, his legacy resonates far beyond his political tenure. Na’abba's commitment to democratic values and principles shaped the course of Nigeria's political landscape. His leadership during a critical juncture in Nigeria's history marked him as a staunch advocate for transparency and accountability. Beyond politics, he was a symbol of resilience and fearlessness, unafraid to challenge the status quo for the betterment of his nation. His vision for a prosperous, united Nigeria was evident in every action he took and every word he spoke.

Na’abba's tenure as the Speaker of the House of Representatives marked a significant chapter in Nigeria's political history. He was known for his principled stance and his assertive approach in upholding the legislature's independence and separation of powers, particularly in the face of President Olusegun Obasanjo's bullish administration. The Fourth Republic in Nigeria was still in its infancy when Na’abba assumed the role of Speaker. With the country transitioning from years of military rule to a democratic system, the political landscape was rife with challenges. However, Na’abba brought to the forefront a blend of experience, political acumen, and a commitment to legislative oversight. He staunchly believed in the autonomy of the legislative arm of government and its pivotal role in checking the excesses of the executive. This belief set the stage for numerous clashes between the National Assembly, under Na’abba's leadership, and President Obasanjo's administration.

Obasanjo could not have the audacity to unleash his anti-democratic tendencies until Na’abba left the Speakership in 2003. Every Nigerian who witnessed the two tenures of Obasanjo (1999-2007) will testify to this. During his tenure, Na’abba led the House of Representatives with a firm hand, asserting the legislature's independence and challenging executive actions that were deemed against the national interest. One of the notable confrontations arose from the legislature's insistence on its oversight function. Na’abba's House of Representatives was resolute in investigating various issues, including allegations of corruption within the government, regardless of pressure from the executive arm.

It is sad that the many young political followers of today did not have the opportunity to witness and be inspired by the era of great and principled leaders like Ghali Na’abba. They are unlucky and unfortunate to find themselves supporting reckless crooks and shameless greedy people who have turned them to sycophants, social media warriors and other roles that have kept them perpetually stupid. These are some of the reasons that have kept Na’abba on the sidelines since 2007. 

Since 2007, whenever Ghali makes any attempt to reactive his participation in Nigeria’s political landscape, he immediately realizes that there is no space for disciplined people like him. Rather than adjust and follow the trend, he simply retreats and face his private issues. He had always chosen integrity over selfishness. In 2011, his house was burned down in Kano by hooligans because he supported President Jonathan. I have never heard him complain publicly on this treatment meted on him by his own people. As always, he was calm, reserved and simply forged ahead. That was how he permanently minded his business away from the murky, dirty and irresponsible waters of Nigerian partisan politics.

Today, 27^th December, 2023, we have lost Ghali Na’abba, some few months after turning 65 and almost exactly one year part from the death of his mother, another woman of trust, integrity and kindness. May Allah have mercy on them both. Though he may have left this world, his legacy lives on as an inspiration to current and future leaders. Ghali Umar Na’abba's contributions to Nigeria's democratic journey will forever be remembered and cherished, a testament to the enduring power of principle-driven leadership. 

At a point when Kano’s reputation was soared by the Salisu Buhari Toronto certificate scandal, Ghali Naaba, his successor as Speaker worked diligently to give the state a good name nationally and even globally. His active career was short-lived, but he managed to enter the comity of the political all-time greats in the history of Kano State. It now remains to see how the current custodians of the state will work to have his name honoured and legacies preserved.

After surviving numerous blackmails, countless threats and many impeachment attempts as Speaker, President Obasanjo later ganged up with his foot soldiers and garrison commanders in Kano to deny him a return to the National Assembly in 2003. First they failed to stopped him from getting the Kano Municipal PDP ticket and then they later ganged up to work against him and their own party in the General Elections and they succeeded. The fall of Ghali Naabba marked an abrupt end to the era of Legislative Independence and Political courage in Nigeria.

  

Twitter: @AmirAbdulazeez

NYSC: A National Integrator at 50

 25^th May, 2023

By: Amir Abdulazeez

Nigeria is among the leading countries in Africa and the world that have invested so much on national integration over the last 50 years. For the past 10 years, I have been opportune to study different efforts by African, Asian and South American countries towards national unity. For example, Rwanda has achieved a lot with some of its post-genocide reconciliatory schemes. In Nigeria, the NYSC is one policy that has stood the test of time. Although the Nigerian diversity and complexity has proven to be beyond the capacity of the scheme to contain, NYSC had done well by navigating through these years.

This week, the National Youth Service Corps (NYSC) marked its 50^th anniversary. It was established in 1973 by the government of General Yakubu Gowon as an aftermath of the Nigerian Civil War. Over the years, the NYSC has become a household symbol and integral part of Nigerian national life. Different families and institutions produce young graduates from different parts of the country who come together to serve their fatherland. They are exposed to diverse cultures and traditions, which promotes understanding and national unity. The scheme has also helped to promote socio-economic development in rural areas, where most corps members are deployed to serve.

The achievements of the NYSC over the past 50 years are numerous. It has produced thousands of corps members who have excelled in various fields of endeavor. Many of them have become successful entrepreneurs, leading politicians, respected academics, and high-ranking civil servants. From one batch of corps members per year, it has now become three batches of multiple streams every year. The scheme is believed by many to have contributed significantly to nation-building by promoting the values of unity, patriotism, and selflessness among Nigerian youths.

NYSC is a unique program that sets it apart from other national service programs in the world. One of the unique aspects of the NYSC program is that it requires all Nigerian graduates to participate, regardless of their social status, religion, or ethnicity. This creates a level playing field where everyone is given an opportunity to serve their country and gain experience. Another unique feature of the NYSC program is that it involves a three-week orientation course for participants, which is held in a campsite away from their homes. During the orientation course, participants are exposed to different cultures, beliefs, traditions, and languages of Nigeria. To some extent, this helps to foster tolerance, understanding and a sense of belonging among participants.

NYSC also promotes national development through its activities. Corps members are posted to different parts of Nigeria to work in various sectors, including education, health, agriculture, and infrastructural development. The program helps to address manpower shortages in rural areas, which helps to bridge the gap between urban and rural development. Furthermore, the NYSC program provides an opportunity for Nigerian graduates to acquire new skills, develop leadership qualities, and gain work experience. This helps to boost their employability and increase their chances of becoming successful in their chosen fields.

However, there have been some challenges over the years. Fifty years after, the achievements of NYSC still look more abstract and vague than tangible and substantial; meaning that Nigeria is yet to see the real impact of the scheme on national development. Some critics have argued that it has outlived its usefulness and is no longer necessary. They claim that the country should by now move beyond the era of national integration and that the resources invested in the NYSC could be better utilized in other areas. Some believe that the NYSC has proven unable to achieve its objectives. Infact, it has started compounding some of the very problems it was initially established to address. In addition to this, there are specific challenges troubling the NYSC.

One of the most significant issues facing the NYSC is security. Over the years, corps members have been victims of various forms of violence, including kidnappings, armed robbery, and assaults. Many parts of the country are considered unsafe for corps members, and this has resulted in the loss of lives and property. The frequent plying of dangerous roads by corps members is another issue. Many young and promising Nigerians have been wasted in the course of serving during the scheme.

Another critical issue is corruption. The NYSC is receiving funding and support from the Federal and State governments as well as some corporate organizations. Despite huge sums of money being budgeted for the scheme, there is lack of essential facilities and resources, including adequate accommodation, transportation, and medical services. Some corps members have been forced to sleep in unfurnished classrooms, while others have to travel long distances to access health care services. In addition, corrupt NYSC officials have rubbished the scheme by conniving with corps members who don’t wish to stay and serve. Allegations of favouritism in posting corps members to lucrative areas of primary assignments in exchange for bribes are everywhere.

After several years of existence, many of the orientation camps lack basic amenities such as electricity, water supply, and sanitation facilities. This has resulted in unsanitary conditions that have led to outbreaks of diseases such as diarrhoea, cholera, and typhoid. There is a need for the government to invest in upgrading the facilities at the orientation camps and ensure that they meet the required standards.

Lack of community support due to ethnic and religious factors and degradation of the once existing respect and welcoming attitude towards corps members have demoralized many.  I remember during our days as corps member in Osun State, some of our colleagues were treated woefully by people who supposed to protect them. Low morale among corps members have thus become a significant challenge. Many corps members are dissatisfied with their conditions of service, including inadequate allowances, harsh living conditions, and poor treatment by some government officials. This has resulted in a decline in the motivation levels of some corps members, which affects their performance and contribution to national development.

Over the years, there have been different criticisms against the NYSC. Many stakeholders and volunteers have made proposals on how the scheme can be reformed. To be fair to the handlers of the scheme, there have been a lot of innovations and improvements over the last 10 years. However, there is still much left to be done. NYSC's 50^th anniversary presents an opportunity for reflection and celebration.  The Federal Government should sit down with stakeholders and conduct a critical review of the scheme and address its challenges. It should receive all the necessary adjustments and modifications that will make it truly impacting on national development and mechanisms should be introduced to measure and evaluate its performance.

On a general note, for the NYSC and any other scheme to succeed in Nigeria, our leaders must have to change their attitudes. While the scheme is working to integrate the country, our leaders are working to divide it for political advantage. While ordinary Nigerians are asked to serve their country with all their strengths, their leaders are serving themselves and their families with all our wealth. While our corps member are told in camp to be good and responsible citizens, their leaders are openly stealing the wealth meant for the betterment of the future. We cannot succeed this way and in a situation like this, no scheme can achieve national integration, not even the NYSC.

 

Twitter: @AmirAbdulazeez