Our early memories, the ones that have probably left the most impact on our lives, have a habit of finding us changed by subsequent experiences. We marvel at how different we are, how changed the world is. Earlier this month, I got into a conversation about where we are headed as a country and what accompanied the usual moaning and groaning about the current state of affairs in our present day was a simple statement that stuck with me:

Growing up, we used to have people to look up to. We don’t have that anymore.

One can argue that there are a number of people to look up to today but this is hardly my point. The statement was merely a trigger for my early memories; the memories of growing up with little idea of any troubling political atmosphere. This month has thus been dedicated to that cross section of memory, experience and impact. Today I would like to recall (and celebrate) those memories that link me to Nigeria and, as I do so, I invite you to do the same.

I remember…

The innocence of career planning at the age of 7, from wanting to be a dentist to an actor, to a screenwriter and finally a movie director.

The hope and belief in the place of my birth, the jingles and PSAs that suggested we were the best nation on earth.

The acceptance that food was served in order of age, the understanding that the youngest was to be pampered.

The hollywood rumors mistaken as facts 

The crossover to two digits: 10 years old! 

The special meals that took forever to make and the adults who visited and finished them

The temporary best friends and secret crushes

The party dresses and tight shoes (the party packs!)

The space to play, the friends to play with

The tales by moonlight series on NTA

The birthdays celebrated at school and the preferential treatment that came with them

The wicked elementary school teachers and the kind ones that made the difference

The sick days that felt like mini holidays

The long weddings and (sometimes sucky) food

The cool aunties & uncles

The long phone calls during summer vacations

The daydreaming 

The dances, the laughs, the crying

The trips to Mr Biggs 

Eavesdropping on conversations

Party jollof rice

The smell of Mama’s homemade chin chin

The sound of “knockouts” during New Year’s Eve

The long afternoons before NTA resumed

The rain…the smell of the rain

The fruits and their seasons 

The cramming, the tests, the days that flowed 

The ability to do anything!

For the sake of brevity, I’ll leave the rest for you! What memories do YOU have of growing up in Nigeria?

“…Nigeria has all the fundamentals to be one of the BRICs… when we take care of several of the constraints… holding our economy back…we are going to be in the low double digits and that will parachute Nigeria into the BRICS…” says Dr. Ngozi Okonjo Iweala, the Harvard-educated Nigerian Finance Minister and co-ordinating Minister for the Economy in a BBC interview, confirming Nigeria’s aspiration to join the league of the BRICS, the association of powerful emerging developing countries. She identifies access to power and electricity as one of the constraints holding back the economy, which President Goodluck Jonathan’s transformation agenda would focus on addressing. It is in a bid to increase economic growth and development commensurate with an emerging power status that the Nigerian government has embarked on reforms and deregulation in the downstream sector of the oil industry and in the power sector. While at surface level, these policy reforms appear to be aimed at increasing efficiency and transforming the economy, the inconsistencies and contradictions inherent in the execution of the policies have created not only confusion but bear some semblance of fiscal conservatism with the potential to create more political challenges for President Jonathan.

As part of a transformation agenda unveiled shortly after victory in the 2011 general elections, President Goodluck Jonathan began reforms aimed at rejuvenating the power sector and the petroleum industry, both of which constitute the very backbone of the Nigerian economy and both of which have been bedevilled by immense challenges. Both sectors are plagued by corruption, fraud and lack of transparency – ills which dog most of Nigeria’s public sector – and are dominated by a cartel of importers. In the case of the power sector, inefficiency and corruption have culminated in poor service delivery – peak output is just over 4,000MW, with per capita power consumption just 3% that of South Africa – manifesting in Nigeria’s infamous power outages and other perennial power problems believed to be perpetuated by a cartel of importers of electricity generating sets on which the bulk of Nigerian households and businesses. In the petroleum industry, a cabal of exclusive fuel importers are believed and identified to be benefiting fraudulently from fuel subsidies at the expense of the masses.

Anti-fuel subsidy removal protesters in January 2012. Lagos, Nigeria

Responding to the urgency for reform to tackle corruption, institute transparency and a departure from a culture of “subsidizing consumption” rather than subsidizing production – in the words of the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) governor, Sanusi Lamido Sanusi — the downstream sector of the oil industry was “deregulated” on New Year’s Day 2012 with the removal of fuel subsidies. The decision was greeted with opprobrium and a public backlash culminating in massive street protests and strikes which paralysed the economy while it lasted, though the government later backtracked and partially restored the subsidies. The recent announcement that deregulation of the power sector would lead to an upward review of electricity tariffs by up to 88% effective April 2012 has also been met with considerable opposition and some protests though hardly on the scale of the fuel subsidy removal proportions.

Child beggars in Maiduguri, North-East Nigeria

The most obvious contradiction within the implementation of these reforms is the strain placed on ordinary Nigerians many of whom live on less than $2 a day while the extravagant remuneration packages of political office holders such as the N1billion feeding allowance for the Presidency and a recent purchase of ultra modern SUVs for federal lawmakers remain intact. It is worth remembering that Nigeria, a resource “rich” country despite its tremendous oil revenues and an economic growth rate averaging 7 to 8% per annum remains on the lowest rung of global development indices. Infant and maternal mortality rates remain abysmally low while unemployment rates hover at around 24% (unofficial unemployment figures are much higher). Recently, the Nigerian National Bureau of Statistics (NBS) reported that the percentage of Nigerians living in absolute poverty rose to 60.9% in 2010, compared with 54.7% in 2004, while the Central Bank of Nigeria governor predicts an increase in poverty levels. The increased scrutiny of the national budget by ordinary citizens has further highlighted these glaring contradictions in the wake of a realization that the State provides barely any social benefits to citizens vis-a-vis the extravagant remuneration packages of political office holders.

To compound matters at such a critical time, the little social safety nets to cushion the effects of deregulation — which in the best of times places immense pressure on ordinary citizens — have been withdrawn. The Subsidy Reinvestment and Empowerment Programme (SURE) unveiled in January to  monitor the petroleum subsidy savings funds and to ensure effective implementation of projects from the funds was scrapped by Jonathan just a month later, on the basis of it being “unrealistic”. Analysts are of the opinion that in the face of dwindling revenues, especially after the costly 2011 general elections, the most expensive in the nation’s history, and the various leakages which characterize government and public sector operations, the government is “broke” in the words of former federal minister and now chieftain of a key opposition party, Mallam Nasir El-Rufai. Rolling back the little state benefits at the expense of ordinary citizens seem like austerity measures to the general public, by a government eager to cut costs and raise revenues.

What lends credence to this argument is the government’s haste in deregulating without outlining concrete frameworks for the purported reforms and the administration’s perceived reluctance in apprehending and prosecuting the powerful interests behind most of the leakages, cronyism and corruption in both the oil and power sectors. The government’s lavish recurrent expenditure and its perceived lack of transparency while citizens are burdened with increased costs of living have further eroded the already fragile public trust in government. The fact that various government agencies cannot agree on the official amount spent on fuel subsidies in 2011 – The Minister of Finance, quoted N1.3trillion, the Minister for Petroleum quoted N1.5trillion and the CBN governor quoted N1.74trillion – for instance further highlights the transparency deficit.

It is not all doom and gloom though, as there might be genuine reasons to be optimistic. The recent House of Representatives investigative panel on the petroleum industry indicate some seriousness on the part of the government to address the rot and fraud in the sector. The appointment of former anti-corruption tsar, Mallam Nuhu Ribadu, the pioneer chairman of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) to head a Petroleum Revenue Special Task Force established to “enthrone transparency and accountability in the petroleum industry” provides concrete basis for optimism. In addition, the relative successes scored by the Police Force and the State Security Services on the security front in capturing the mastermind of the Christmas day bombings and in apprehending the spokesperson of the dreaded Boko Haram sect, Abul Qaqa could boost critically needed investor confidence especially in the power sector.

Finally, the successes of these reforms depend to a great extent on the government’s ability to boost not just investor confidence but more importantly, inspire and rebuild trust amongst ordinary Nigerians. This can be achieved by foremost exerting the needed political will in tackling the powerful, entrenched corrupt interests constraining the transition from genuine intentions for reform to concrete, tangible actions. This could entail allowing the various committees, task forces and existing anti-corruption agencies the free rein to act accordingly without undue political interference and most importantly for the government to be more open, transparent and consistent in the implementation of its reform policies. These would be steps forward in assuring ordinary Nigerians and the wary middle class that President Jonathan’s reforms are not austerity measures disguised as deregulation.

It seems Africans in the Diaspora generally and Nigerians in particular have reached a saturation point where any public event which features high profile African guests or speakers especially public office holders, is regarded with a “so what”, “what’s new” and “haven’t we heard it all before” attitude. This much was somewhat palpable in the atmosphere at the Eirenicon-Africa Lecture on 27^th March 2012 titled “Neither the Washington nor the Beijing Consensus: A New Developmental Paradigm to fit African Realities and Cultures” which, as the title implies, was meant to discuss the way forward for Africa in terms of economic and socio-political development. One can hardly blame those who take this cynical stand point though, given that a number of African policy makers only tend to put on their thinking caps at such public events and put them away once the event is done as they resume “business-as-usual”. However, this event — one of a series of lectures organized by Eirenicon-Africa, a league of established young forward-thinking Africans — and the themes of the discussions focusing on home-grown solutions arguably signal a gradual change from the norm.

Distinguished Speakers/Guests:

Mallam Sanusi Lamido Sanusi, the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) Governor was the keynote speaker, a fancy term denoting that Sanusi did most of the talking for the duration of the event. Sanusi is a man famous not only for his radical banking reforms, but increasingly for his exceptional oratorical skills because, as the moderator of the gathering accurately described, “…whatever he says is always fascinating”.  The two respondents at the Lecture were Ambassador Tesfamicael Gerahtu, the Eritrean Ambassador to the UK and Ireland who exuded tremendous passion and nationalistic fervour for his country – though many an Eritrean activist in the audience held different opinions – and Professor Paul Collier, the distinguished Professor of Economics and Director of the Centre for the Study of African Economies at Oxford University who became (in)famous amongst Nigerians in January this year, for an article he wrote in which he used unsavoury terms to strongly condemn the nation-wide protests against the removal of fuel subsidies in Nigeria. The moderator was China Danforth Onyemelukwe, Managing Director responsible for Africa coverage at Goldman Sachs in London. Each of the speakers took turns outlining what they perceived to be the challenges inhibiting Africa’s development and how they felt Africa could unclasp those fetters.

Challenges Inhibiting African Development:

Mallam Sanusi

All three guests seemed to have a problem with the title of the event especially the reference to development models: the Washington and the Beijing Consensus. The CBN governor Sanusi for instance stated that there is nothing like the Beijing Consensus because the Chinese “didn’t go round begging people to adopt their own model” as was the case with the Washington Consensus. Ambassador Gerhatu underscored his aversion to such development models which he regards as “myths rather than reality” because they do not sufficiently capture the diversity in Africa and even within a country like China which he states “doesn’t have one single economic system, but has a diverse system”. Collier was in agreement with Gerhatu’s assessment that development is based on internal dynamics which vary from country to country and little to do with models and ideologies.

Sanusi speaking with an economist’s slant pointed to the “structurally deformed” economies in many African countries, with particular reference to Nigeria, and the problem of “value linkages” as the fetters to development. He refers to the Nigerian economy as that which “imports everything we produce and export what we don’t produce… even democracy” referring to how the Nigerian Military government under late General Abacha conducted free and fair elections in Liberia. He added that in Nigeria “we literally consume our GDP” and goes on to cite examples of how Nigerians consume meat from cattle (beef) along with the skin (kpomo, a delicacy), rather than using hides and skins to produce leather. He further stated that no country in the world developed from exporting primary commodities such as crude oil, mineral resources or cash crops — despite the prospects of earning foreign exchange — but that development comes from building the economy and from industrialization.

Sanusi attributed this structural deformity of African economies to both internal and external factors. Internally, he blames the rentier status of resource-rich countries like Nigeria and the attendant rent-seeking behaviour of the society and the political elite in particular, which is “not productive like primitive accumulation” as the acquired wealth is squandered. External factors he cited include the difficult uncompetitive position of many African economies in the global economy, aggravated by Washington Consensus policies driven by the US, World Bank and IMF to liberalize trade (free trade), take huge loans, remove subsidies etc. Interestingly, Sanusi noted the unfair prescription by the Washington Consensus policies and their drivers, for African countries to remove subsidies especially on agriculture while the US and Europe heavily subsidize agriculture – for example, Sanusi says cotton and cattle, the main exports of Mali are uncompetitive in the global market because a subsidy of 300 Euros per cow in Europe is higher than the per capita income in Mali, while the subsidies given to the US farmers is higher than the GDP of Mali. He however believes fuel subsidies are an exception, which as he argued in a talk at the London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE) in January this year, amounts to “subsidizing consumption” when developing country governments should be “subsidizing production” instead. Thus harping on this kicking-the-ladder argument, Sanusi said “every (developed) country builds its country, its economy and productive capacities, based on protectionism, then preaches free market.”

Gerhatu speaking from a socio-political perspective attributed the challenges to development in Africa to that of nation-building, the fact that “nation-building has not been properly consummated in Africa” thus affecting the prospects for creating “viable states, sound economies and a viable future for Africa”. He however placed more emphasis on external factors, the “geo-political influences and world agendas” which have “held back” developing countries and African development in particular, such as the Cold War, the Digital Divide and Globalization.

Collier regards the failure of African development as a failure to build a sense of national identity as Gerhatu noted, but rather than attributing these to global geo-political agendas, he blamed the attitude of African political elite, mainly the “plundering of resources” by the political leadership in many resource rich countries. He also underscores the weak institutions and rules in such societies which make it difficult to efficiently harness and manage resources.

The Way Forward:

As was the case with outlining the problems, the speakers differed on some points and converged on others. Sanusi advocates for African economies to be built on comparative advantage based on their factor endowments — agriculture and extractive industries for instance — and creation of better value chains within individual economies; a change that regards Africa as the prime market for African countries; greater integration between African countries by building first class infrastructure in Africa which would make African exports competitive against non-African exports on the continent; investing in technical training to make African labour competitive; and importantly encouraging Foreign Direct Investments (FDI) which build productive capacities and discouraging foreign firms which import goods: whether Europe, China or the US he fimly notes, “imperialism is imperialism”.

Gerhatu on his own part advocates for “ownership of decisions and solutions for the sake of national interests” by Africans in order to create self reliance and capacity. He also emphasizes on economic liberation by ensuring a paradigm shift from a system of dependence on foreign aid which he regards as “a system of practice, a system of thinking and a system of organization which does not help… NGOs create parallel systems of administration” therefore “we cannot make aid effective”. He referred to Eritrea not only as a country where international NGOs have NOT been active since 1995, but also as an example of successful economic diversification where “agriculture has been the target of structural transformation…” According to the Ambassador, Eritrea’s increased agricultural productivity ensured the country was not affected by the Horn of Africa famine, in his words: “despite what you have heard on CNN, BBC or from the Secretary of State Hilary Clinton” referring to “efforts and conspiracies” aimed at destabilizing Eritrea’s successes in the name of Al-Shabab or Somalia which have been largely unsuccessful.

Professor Paul Collier

Professor Collier posited that the challenge for Africans is to “avoid repeating the same mistake”. This he believes could be achieved by taking the “never-again” approach Germany took, to resuscitate its flailing economy after World War II, such that it is now the best run economy in Europe. Translating this “never-again” feeling to reality Collier asserted can be achieved by:

(i) Legislating economic rules for decisions, for instance Ghana last year legislated that 30% of oil revenues have to be saved for the future;

(ii) Creating dedicated institutions for these rules;

(iii) Existence of a critical mass of citizens who understand why the rules and institutions matter.

It was tempting to ask whether this three-pronged process was feasible given that those in authority who will legislate these rules and ensure the institutions work are sometimes not particularly interested in doing so, but thankfully Collier explained that young people in North Africa using technology to coordinate, presented positive prospects as young people in the rest of Africa are waking up to the reality around them.

Interesting Highlights:

As is usual with such events, some of the most intriguing points were made during the Q & A session. One of the most profound points made was Sanusi’s reflection over the Nigerian fuel subsidy protests in January as comprising of two conversations: the removal of subsidy itself and government accountability. He throws the poser on why it had to take the removal of fuel subsidy to start the conversation on corruption and accountability by ordinary Nigerians and the civil society and why this conversation stopped after the protests. Sanusi indicts civil society in Nigeria of shirking their responsibility in keeping the political elite in check as he believes Nigerian politicians are not more corrupt than those in US or Europe, but that the difference lies in the fact that Americans and Europeans do not tolerate lack of accountability from their leaders. He stresses on the need for those conversations started by Occupy Nigeria to be kept alive by civil society in order to bring about the change Nigerians yearn for.

During the event, reference was made to African countries such as Botswana and Ghana which are “working” relative to others which aren’t, so this writer posed a question: that perhaps the reason why countries like Ghana and Botswana are relatively successful is because they are smaller in terms of size and population with relative homogeneity compared to large countries such as Nigeria and Kenya which arguably have been unable to successfully harness and manage their diversity thereby obstructing the process of nation-building and economic development. To this, Sanusi responded by blaming the competition for rent-seeking by the political elite and the failure of the elite to “allow us develop our national identity” in their rent-seeking quests. He advocates for social justice and pursuit of a path even development in order to give everyone a sense of belonging.

Lastly, if it is any consolation to Nigerians who were deeply irked by Collier’s op-ed piece, in which he compared the mass protests in Nigeria to the Tea Party movement in America, and referred to Occupy Nigeria protesters as “loudmouths of the street” and “opportunists”, Collier acknowledged receipt of angry emails, the fiercest and most overwhelming feedback he has ever received on any write up. We can smile smugly in satisfaction to that.

Overall, one could argue that events such as the Eirenicon-Africa lecture series organized and hosted by up and coming Africans, featuring African decision-makers, discussing home-grown solutions to the challenges bedevilling the continent’s development present bright prospects for the future, and a clean break from the norm, as more Africans are realizing the need to effectively arise and take charge of their destinies.

Over the last three weeks, I attended a leadership course here in Lagos and between the characters I came across, the feeling of going to school all over again, and note passing (business owners used this as a marketing medium…swimming instructors, event planners), I learned enough to want to share something on here. While it’s impossible to distill a three week course into an article, I intend to leave you with 5 points on what it means to live a life of excellence in our (less than excellent) country. Before I start, I’ll provide the definition of what I refer to as “excellence.” From what I have learned, it is a state of mind that requires the constant effort of being the best person you can be; this spans from the way you treat yourself to the way you treat others.

I’ve spent majority of my life comparing the difference between Nigeria and other (more developed) countries but it never dawned on me to create my own standard of excellence. Regardless of the state of my country, I am responsible for my role in society. So please stay on this tab and let me know what you think :)

1. Get your act together. When I started writing these articles, I made an effort to avoid sounding like a broken record or coming off as preachy. I’m beginning to see how important it is to do background work before declaring something to the world. For 3 weeks, I listened to people from different backgrounds (finance, legal issues, counseling, business, ministry etc) and they were able to leave an impact because they were well-versed in their field. Getting your act together just means dedicating time to yourself. Read more books, attend more conferences, learn to set quiet time for yourself to mediate. This will lead you to new insights that will, hopefully, change your perspective on the type of impact you would like to make on the world.

2. Develop a plan. It’s all nice and dandy to have a vague idea of what you would like to do (e.g. change the world, be a leader etc) but you’ll need a plan. It means setting your priorities straight. There’s a quote by Dorothy Canfield Fisher that captures this point:  “If we would only give the same amount of reflection to what we want out of life that we give to the question of what to do with two weeks’ vacation, we would be startled at our false standards and the aimless procession of our busy days.” Amazing, but true. Changing the world is very possible if you first start out with a plan. Set goals and objectives for your time on earth.

3. Act. A point that stuck with me during this course was the fact that Nigeria has problems and, with this, the opportunity for problem solvers to come to work. The big picture is daunting but when you approach things from your point of view (the value you would like to add), life is a breeze. For example, ignorance and illiteracy are problems that writers and filmmakers can also solve. We’re all teachers in our own right.

4. Get back up. Setting a plan is useless if you haven’t figured out how to be flexible. Plans only work if you know how to adapt them. Most successful people today point out that failure is inevitable and the wisdom gained from the lessons learned propelled them to success. Are there times you want to throw in the towel? Times when traffic, temperamental electricity and corruption stop you in your tracks? Stand up and walk to your prize. Henry Ford once said: Obstacles are those frightful things you see when you take your eyes off your goal. Get back up and be focussed.

5 Lead by example. Very early in the course, it was established that majority* of our leaders in the political sphere were not role models. So what happens when you have no one to look up to? Or when bad examples are set before you? Some people give up on the whole system, while others follow the bad footsteps. I’m here to say that your choice begins with you. Leading by example is not acting like you are the next Obama or forcing your ideals down other’s people throat. It’s coming to terms with the person you are and developing the light within you. It is getting help when you need to and helping out when you can. Commit yourself to excellence and people will be drawn to that.

*there are also a number of public figures who have set a good example!

Just in case you still aren’t sure whether you saw the word “border” or not, or you think this is some rather early April Fool’s prank or that perhaps your eyes are playing tricks on you, its none of those things. This is actually Nigeria’s border with Niger Republic, at a small border town called Birnin Kuka in the North-Western state of Katsina. The person on the left wearing red and white trousers is an officer of the Nigeria Customs Service (NCS) while the one on the right is a “Camp boy”, a term describing locals of any border post or out station recruited by officers of NCS. And what you’re thinking at this moment is right on point: the tree logs in the pictures literally demarcate Nigeria from Niger Republic; crossing the logs means you’ve crossed over to the other country!

These pictures were sent by a source at the NCS and are very much authentic. The source  confirmed that apparently, with as little as N100 (less than $1), anyone can conveniently and comfortably cross the border to the other side.

So if like me, you’ve been wondering how the North African affiliate of Al-Qaeda, the “Al-Qaeda in the land beyond the Sahel” (AQIM) wormed its way into Nigeria especially in light of the recent abduction and murder of the British and Italian hostages and the recent capture of a German hostage in Kano, then this is your answer right here. A large white mammoth from the prehistoric era could traverse this boundary without anyone raising an eye brow. So, for a highly sophisticated and secretive terrorist organization like Al-Qaeda, it would literally be a walk in the park, or in this case, a stroll in the desert!

Let me state categorically that not all of Nigeria’s border towns or entry points are this disorganized, poorly managed, poorly manned, insecure, and a throw-back to the medieval era. For instance the more well-known entry and exit points like the Seme border in Lagos, the Jibiya border station in the same Katsina state and a number of others are far more organized and relatively more secure than the Birnin-Kuka border in terms of having a proper border station, guards, sentries and immigration/customs/border officials and all the works. However, many of the less-known boundaries are like the Birnin-Kuka border post: poorly manned or in some cases just wide open, probably due to the lack of sufficient and trained officers, paucity of funds (But the government earmarked N922 billion or $6 billion for security in this year’s budget!) and just nonchalance and lack of foresight on the part of the authorities, that is the Nigeria Customs and Immigration Services respectively.

My source confirmed that even the relatively more organized border posts like the Jibiya station below “are OPEN” but in this case not to everyday individuals who can pay N100 but especially to “big men” and  ”smugglers”. The source made particular reference to a renown, wealthy and influential smuggler whose trade is now flourishing more than ever as scores of his trucks laden with smuggled goods pass through weekly without being inspected.

The source further confirmed that “Big Men are dreaded by officer(s)” who “earn little” and as for the renown smugglers, if an officer insists on searching their trucks, you “search and you risk getting sacked”.

The perviousness and porousness of Nigeria’s borders are an addition to the litany of shortcomings the Nigerian state is facing towards addressing security challenges. Already there’s the incapacity and mediocrity of the police and security agencies, dearth of intelligence gathering, politicization of insecurity by politicians, pervasive corruption and mismanagement of funds, widespread public paranoia and now to crown all these are our very porous borders.

These depressing facts further reveal the government’s weak position in combating the growing terrorist insurgency in Nigeria. For that, I’ve let my imagination become very active envisioning (nay hoping) a scenario unfolds where the various terrorist groups — the main Boko Haram, its various factions and AQIM — clash over turf and territory, and such turf war becomes very bloody where they mutually annihilate each other. This is a bit of a stretch I know, but you know how the saying goes: desperate times…!!

The insecurity in Nigeria especially with the orgy of violence unleashed by the group Jama’atu Ahlis Sunna Lidda’awati Wal-Jihad popularly known as Boko Haram, or what I prefer to call the Boko Haram plague has been escalating as the group’s tactics have similarly evolved. Local and international media agencies have been falling over themselves to report (accurately and inaccurately) the group’s deadliest and bloodiest attacks. Journalists, columnists, pundits, analysts, experts, and bloggers all claiming some knowledge and expertise over the group’s activities, it can be argued, have covered all possible angles of the Boko Haram insurgency. However, what Andrew Stroehlein seems to have done differently is to go straight to the heart of the issue without looking at any angle per se. He focuses on the cold hard facts and that is why his sounds like the gospel truth to many. The four salient points which I believe the author strongly makes are:

First of all, he desists from treading the simplistic path taken by many foreign “analysts” and “experts” of depicting Nigeria as hopelessly polarized along a “predominantly Muslim North and Christian South” fault line, subtly implying the two parts are irreconcilable and probably better off apart than together. Consequently, Stroehlein does not succumb to the tendency to portray Boko Haram as a manifestation of a disgruntled and increasingly alienated “Muslim-North” unhappy with and trying to undermine the Federal government largely under the control of the “Christian-South”. He says: “Like other political and armed movements that have sprung up in this country, including the recent fuel subsidy protests that brought the country to a standstill, Boko Haram is just a symptom of the crumbling Nigerian state.” He does admit that: “…the vast majority of Nigerians do not turn to armed militancy, of the Islamist variety or any other…” By so doing, Stroehlein depicts Boko Haram rightly, as a bye product of state failure, bad governance and especially rampant corruption which he argues needs to be addressed by pouring “the oil wealth into government services rather than officials’ overseas bank accounts”. This is one point many analysts have alluded to, but perhaps because of the high level of tension and paranoia in the Nigerian public sphere, those who have made this argument have been rashly labelled as Boko Haram supporters or “sympathisers”. This fierce rejection of alternative narratives reminds me of journalist Richard Hall’s op-ed on the UK riots last year, where he makes a clear distinction between attempting to understand something and condoning it. In particular, Hall says:

“The impression appears to be that the crimes committed were so great and so senseless that to try and understand them is to condone them… Any discussion about the potential causes of the riots become indistinguishable from excusing those who carried them out, and those who attempt to analyse become apologists.”

In Nigeria, sadly this seems to be the case.

Secondly, the author points out that Boko Haram should be dealt with as criminals and also harps on an urgent need for reform of the Police, the intelligence agencies and strengthening the Judiciary’s independence to deal with such criminal challenges. Even though, Stroehlein links Boko Haram to the wider problems of poverty, corruption, bad governance and predatory management of state funds, he avoids the pitfall many foreign analysts fall into of advocating for an “appeasement” of the “marginalized” Northern-Muslim establishment (purportedly the sponsors of Boko Haram) who lost out in the current political dispensation as a way of mitigating and addressing the Boko Haram plague.

Alleged Christian Bombers arrested in Bauchi. Photo, courtesy Dailytimes Nigeria

Thirdly, the author corroborates what many have said before, especially those with first-hand knowledge of the North, that there are splinter groups of Boko Haram and that “Boko Haram” is now a cover for criminal activity across a wide spectrum. Stroehlein notes: “anything that turns violent can be blamed on the Islamist movement, whether it has a link to it or not. It is a perfect alibi, one that prevents further questioning. Bank robbery? Boko Haram. Attack on political opponents? Boko Haram.”  This became more evident in the recent high-profile abduction and murder of the British and Italian hostages, the group’s denial of its culpability given that it wastes no time in bragging about its violent attacks and the emergence of a new player, Al Qaeda in the land beyond the Sahel (AQIM) claiming responsibility for the abduction and murder. The argument about the existence of Boko Haram copycats is also given more credence especially when one considers that many of those caught-in-the-act whilst trying to burn churches in Bauchi in August 2011 and again in February 2012 and Bayelsa for instance are aggrieved church members or those who do not fit the typical Boko Haram profile.

Fourthly, Stroehlein makes a damning indictment of the media — both local and international — as concerned with being very sensationalist by misinformation and spreading fear and paranoia in covering the insurgency in Nigeria, typically spreading the now trite narrative that Boko Haram is a manifestation of the promise made by prominent “disgruntled Northern politicians who have vowed to make the country ungovernable for Goodluck Jonathan”. Stroehlein says: “the hype in much of the Nigerian media also contributes to the problem, as many media outlets chasing sales seem all too willing to fall for unsubstantiated rumour and outright lies proffered by political trouble-makers — or by nobody at all”. Of international media, he asserts their reports have: “also been more scare-mongering than substance, presenting this as a new terrorist threat to the West, when it is fundamentally a Nigerian issue.”

From these thrusts of Andrew Stroehlein’s piece and the reactions the article has elicited, it can be inferred that there is a deep-seated lack of trust in Nigeria between ordinary Nigerians of each other and of the government, fanned, aggravated and enabled by the local media feeding fat on public paranoia. The mutual distrust is symptomatic of the deep cleavages in Nigeria which have extended to the public sphere such that any attempt by traditional or religious leaders especially from the North where Boko Haram is most active to explain the context of group’s activity is misconstrued by a militant and sectional press, members of the public and even some politicians as trying to rationalise, sympathise or justify Boko Haram’s activities. Those who been persistently calling for dialogue with the group have been labelled Boko Haram “apologists“, even though the Federal Government has recently began talks with the group ostensibly out of realization that the purely militarized approach has done little if anything to contain the insurgency. Conversely, the general perception in the North, is that Boko Haram’s activities are a deliberate and calculated attempt at sabotage and destruction of the economy and social cohesion of the region from elsewhere.

The danger here is that this distrust is increasingly preventing sincere, meaningful, fruitful national discourse in the Nigerian public sphere on Boko Haram and insecurity in Nigeria. Consequently, analysts like Stroehlein who sum the facts we are all aware of and state the obvious are seen to have said something spectacular (and it is in many respects) precisely because in our national subconscious Stroehlein falls outside the categories and labels we are increasingly allowing ourselves to be boxed into — “Christian”, “Muslim”, “Northerner”, “Southerner” “Core North”, “Middle Belt”, “Minority” etc — he is regarded as a neutral party more capable of stating the unbiased facts apparent to everyone better than Nigerians themselves.

Effectively tackling Boko Haram requires a strategic, concerted, collective and coordinated action by all and sundry: not just the government and security agencies, but traditional and religious leaders, the media and members of the public. This would entail an adept combination of the military approach, dialogue and any other effective tactic as is required and is deemed fit. Unless Nigerians come to the realization that everyone is a stakeholder when it comes to Boko Haram and appreciate the need to engage in meaningful discourse on what Boko Haram stands for, the threats it poses to national security and social cohesion and ways of halting the orgy of violence, Boko Haram will continue “winning” against Nigerians.

SEC boss Arunma Oteh exposes Hon. Hembe

Speaking up and loud

This is the stuff great people are made of, fearlessness in the face of persecution and boldness to speak truth to power.

I have many a time been perturbed by the cost of our democracy and the stranglehold corruption seems to have on every facet of life in Nigeria.

Yesterday brought in a number of interesting revelations, whilst many sanctimoniously concentrated on the sensational, the bigger issue was the insight into the workings of our legislature, the committee system and the bottom-feeding frenzy of rent-seeking legislators steeped in despicable malfeasance playing to the gallery pretending to unimpeachable conduct.

Sensational allegations

The Director General of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), Ms. Arunma Oteh was appearing before the House Committee on Capital Markets chaired by “Honourable” Herman Hembe – the title must be in quotes until it is regained by a fair assessment of the allegations made and the man is proven completely innocent of the claims.

During the day we were regaled with tales of the profligate excesses of the Ms. Oteh, that she had stayed in  5-star hotel accommodation for 8 months instead of the regulatory one month, that she has spent NGN 850,000 ($5,391) on dinner and everyone ran to town with it. There some dispute as to whether it was NGN 850,000 or NGN 85,000 ($539.10), in either case, this was piffle, almost of no consequence in the scheme of things, the way the country is bilked and milked by all those in political office.

She stoops to conquer

Nigerian politicians are given to bluster and grandiloquence arrogating to themselves privileges, emoluments and untrammelled fiat to bludgeon people who appear before their committees without due courtesies and respect to the attendees.

Ms. Oteh ran the gauntlet of being questioned about her qualifications to fill her position and her ability to perform, it was an inquisition so disgraceful and unbecoming of anyone who deigns to be recognised in polite society but that was Day One.

When Ms. Oteh appeared on Day Two, she was battle-axe ready, fuming, agitated and shooting all guns with deathly accuracy in what might become the biggest political earthquake of our democratic experiment, I should expect aftershocks of similar magnitude to follow.

Explosive political bombshells

She alleged with dates that the Committee Chairman had received moneys to attend a conference that he eventually did not attend and did not refund the expense. She also alleged that he had asked the SEC to fund the activities of the committee to the tune of NGN 39,000,000 ($247,376) and then another demand was made for NGN 5,000,000 ($31,714.80).

She questioned the integrity of the chairman and his credibility to sit in judgement with unclean hands and his maturity in commenting on issues related to the SEC without first verifying the facts possibly with the view to undermine, discredit and contemn Ms. Oteh.

More importantly, she pointedly accused the chairman of corruption and in the court of public opinion challenged the chairman to defend himself against the claims whilst making the case for fairness and better adherence to democratic principles. The raw emotion was palpable as she trembled and her voice quavered with each forceful statement, the discomfiture of the committee was quite evident.

Noisy body talk

The body language of the chairman was like an open book screaming out the words as he swivelled in his chair in pendulumic consonance squirming with embarrassment as he tried to fend off the allegations, twisting Ms. Oteh’s words and playfully making light of the situation but before the whole world, this was a most uncomfortable moment.

In a display of braggadocio he mandated the anti-corruption agencies to investigate the claims, but we Nigerians have very little confidence in the ability of these institutions to follow through to conclusion any allegations, charges or indictments made on senior politicians in Nigeria – it was both a dare and a moot point, if anything comes of it, we will be in for an unusual surprise.

He was obviously rattled that he forgot his manners when he told and not asked Ms. Oteh to turn off her microphone. In a society where character, reputation and integrity matters, where a senior official is besmirched with allegations of corruption, one would expect him to recuse himself and not bring the activities of the committee and the House of Representatives into disrepute, but impunity without consequence is the name of the game in Nigeria, he reasserted his questionable authority and banged the gavel – the seal of authoritative corruption and obvious indifference.

Ms. Oteh – the big spender?

So many things stand out from the events of that day which I will attempt to address one at a time.

Could Ms. Oteh have spent $539 on dinner? Very likely, it would probably have covered a meal with friends and considering the cost of living in Nigeria especially in luxury settings, the prices are unbelievably steep for what we would get at a reasonable cost in Europe. It is quite doubtful that she spent $5,391 at one sitting, it reads like a very tall tale exposed to ridicule and embarrass her – The SEC has asserted the lower figure but why let the truth get in the way of a sensational exposé?

That Ms. Oteh stayed in 5-star accommodation for a whole 8 months is quite beyond the pale but then one can understand that enjoying luxury at the expense of others can be a difficult and herculean task to wean yourself of off, in some ways she was being both a chancer and human – people have done worse, she has been in her position for over two years now, which means alternative lodgings have been arranged for at least 16 months.

Report or proclaim?

Certain people have wondered why Ms. Oteh did not take her allegations of corruption to the anti-corruption agencies. For reasons I have stated before, they have not excelled in their briefs, literally everyone of political clout in Nigerian has gummed up the system and deftly used the judiciary to extricate themselves from the clutches of due process of investigation and administration of justice.

In my view, that public forum was the best place to make those allegations and with it in the open, force many more voices to demand action be taken. If the chairman feels he has been besmirched and libelled he can easily seek redress in the courts but I doubt he has the courage to be exposed to the scrutiny of his cupboard of rampaging skeletons. Compromised legislators grandstanding in public will from now on have to thread carefully.

Estacode abuse

One area of patronage and source of corruption that needs to be reviewed reformed and better regulated is the use and abuse of estacode – funds intended to cover traveling costs by public servants and politicians. Politicians, especially in Nigeria are quite handsomely remunerated; they should not be receiving hand-outs before they have completed whatever missions they embark on.

In the private sector, a modicum of control is exercised on spending because the money first comes out of the pocket and the person is later reimbursed on the presentation of receipts and audited review of the expenses.

Though that process can also be abused, with the presentation of false documents or through collusion, it will not result in profligacy and excessive pre-compensation and the person will be more accountable for their spend. That the chairman received moneys and did not use it for the intended purpose is at best dishonest, if not fraudulent.

Conflicts of interest

The operation of committees needs to be reviewed, the independence of a committee will always be compromised and the perception of its ability to function transparently and fairly will be suspect if the committee and its members receive favours from the institutions they have oversight of. It is befuddling that the concept of conflict of interest has not become part of the framework of the fabric of our democracy.

The legislature has its budget and it must operate within its means without seeking emoluments and sponsorship of external organisations that can exact influence on the probity, transparency and integrity of the committees in some quid pro quo arrangement – this must be deemed illegal, corrupt and outlawed. Perceptions matter, always.

A new breed of public servant

One other interesting point is that Ms. Oteh appeared to be quite combative and it is interesting that on Day One the proceedings were not given a public hearing and then the damaging allegations of living large seemed to set the stage for the committee to embarrass the lady for not playing ball with a live and televised hearing which now seems to have back-fired on the legislators.

If you are called to public service in Nigeria – Do not be assimilated and do not be intimidated. Arunma Oteh is a class act.

There is no doubt that our legislature would prefer Nigerians were not privy to the machinations of corruption, pay-for-play, bribery and other despicable practices that have been rumoured about but never verified. With Ms. Oteh’s very public assailing of these rent-seekers there is very little damage limitation that can be done to restore the public’s confidence in our democracy.

We need to put the feet of these people to the fire and apply more pressure on the system to change, to reform and to root out the atrocious wolves in sheep’s clothing who are selfish, self-conceited and greedily feeding on the system with ravenously gluttonous appetites.

If we are to learn anything from Ms. Oteh, our democracy is in need of an urgent reset.

References

Oteh’s bribery allegation: Reps battle to save face | Vanguard Nigeria

Nigeria: Capital Market Probe – Oteh Accuses Committee Chair of Demanding N39 Million for Members

Nigeria: Ministries banned from funding National Assembly – Written in 2008 about conflicts of interested between the legislature and executive.

Russian president-elect Vladmir Putin crying at his "victory" speech, with outgoing president Dmitry Medvedev standing behind him

With tears streaming down his cheeks, Vladmir Putin outgoing Prime Minister and now President-elect of Russia declared with great conviction, that his victory in the just concluded presidential elections was the outcome of an “open and honest battle”. While his speech attracted cheers and ovation from many supporters, members of the opposition like prominent anti-corruption blogger Alexei Navalny, claim that Putin shed crocodile tears out of fear of public backlash from elections marred by irregularities. Not surprisingly, the international media has placed the Russian elections in the spotlight albeit with a cynical slant of how they were skewed heavily in favour of an easy Putin victory over other candidates. In all this, African observers like me on the fringe cannot help wondering if half of the critical scrutiny were directed towards elections in many Sub Saharan African countries, where it is needed most, then perhaps there might be considerable improvements in aspects of our electoral democracy in Africa.

Of course it will be naive to dismiss the importance of Russia as a major global player. Despite the collapse and disintegration of the defunct Soviet Republic into present day Russia and several other countries and its downgrade from a near equal of the US during the Cold War era Russia to middle income, developing country status, Russia is still the largest country in the world in terms of land mass; it has a huge population; it is one of the five permanent member of the United Nations Security Council and one of the BRICS. Russia is a major player in geo politics especially due to its typically diametric stance with many Western countries on key issues in international security such as Iran’s nuclear activity. Thus, elections in Russia are bound to attract global attention and scrutiny compared to say, elections in Malawi, Gambia or Cameroon.

The 85 year old incumbent President Abdoulaye Wade of Senegal. It is widely believed that he is much older than he claims to be.

That said, the victory of Putin in the elections came as no surprise to any keen observer of events in Russia, whom it is widely believed was the real power wielder as Prime Minister to Dmitry Medvedev. According to a poll conducted in September 2009 by the Levada Center in which 1,600 Russians took part, 13% believed Medvedev held the most power, 32% Putin, and 48% both. Nevertheless, Putin’s overbearing influence and authority pale into insignificance in comparison with some of our octogenarian, yet energetic African despots – the Wades, the Biyas and the Mugabes. Incumbent President Abdoulaye Wade of Senegal for instance, despite being well over 85 years old and having exhausted his constitutionally permitted term limits, went to great lengths to ensure he contested in the February 26^th 2012 Presidential elections. Wade altered the constitution in 2011 to enable him contest for a third term, and banned some rival candidates like Grammy award-winning singer Youssou N’dour from contesting. Wade’s violent crackdown on mass protests that trailed his refusal to back down which led to deaths of innocent, unarmed civilians betray his desperation to cling to power against popular will, willing to risk to his democratic credentials as a democratic reformer, jeopardizing the stability and cohesion of Senegal which has been a beacon of democratic stability in the region. Wade remains adamant despite entreaties by other African strong-men like former Nigerian President, Olusegun Obasanjo who have tested, tried and given up on the tenure elongation bid.

Certainly Putin’s strong-man tactics, “creeping authoritarianism”, and manipulation of the political system comes nowhere near Wade’s open secretive plans of paving the way for his son to ascend the Presidency once he secures his re-election bid constitutionally or extra-constitutionally. Nor does it compare with Joseph Kabila’s blatant nepotism in ensuring that his twin sister and brother were both elected to the parliament of the Democratic Republic of Congo in January 2012 in elections described as flawed and “chaotic” by local and international observers.

The criticism of the presidential elections in Russia stem from procedural and “voting irregularities” which ensured Putin’s victory was secured by fair or foul means, mostly the latter in the eyes of the international media, international election observers and Western governments. These irregularities included the “limited electoral choice” for the electorate according to Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) monitors, “the conditions under which the campaign was conducted, the partisan use of government resources and procedural irregularities on election day” according to the official US statement, the dominance of the media and campaign space by Putin to the detriment of other candidates, and heavy handed tactics by the security forces towards those protesting the results. Despite analysts’ and pundits’ claims that the margin of Putin’s victory was inflated and about 50% and not the 64% of the vote, it will by no means compare to the audacious inflation of figures in some parts of Nigeria during the 2011 Presidential elections. Some states in the South-East and South-South – the incumbent’s home base – recorded between 86%, according to the EU election monitors and up to 98% voter turn-out, a near impossibility in elections as the highest possible turn-out for the most enthusiastic and politically conscious electorate is usually pegged by political scientists at around 60 to 70%.

Of course this does not excuse the irregularities or manipulation of the electoral system by Putin as there is room for substantial improvement. Putin also stressed the need for a thorough investigation of all election violations. However, even the critics credit the Russian government for marginal improvements in elections in Russia. The US government acknowledged the Russian government’s efforts to reform the system while the French foreign minister in his reaction to Putin’s victory stated: “The election was not exemplary … [but] … there was no brutal repression during the campaign, as might have been the case in other times,”. In addition, the installation of 200,000 webcams at polling booths to prevent ballot stuffing and the ability of citizens to engage in peaceful protests are an indication of the improvements in the Russian public sphere unlike what obtained earlier.

("Emperor") Paul Biya of Cameroon now serving his sixth term in office

However, the key point here is that more countries around the world require this scrutiny and critical dissection of the electoral system which perhaps might propel their respective governments to conduct relatively credible elections at least that would meet minimum international standards. If the elections and “election-like events” in parts of Sub-Saharan Africa even measured-up to the standard of the Russian elections, warts and all, then many of our political problems might be more manageable. Many African incumbents and closet autocrats get away with the farce and caricature of elections which consolidate their firm grip on power because they are able to escape the radar in their nefarious activities. For instance, with the little media attention the 2011 elections in Cameroon received, how many can even recall that Paul Biya, the autocrat in civilian garb (infamously nicknamed “The Sphinx”) has firmly held onto the reins of power in Cameroon for about 30 years, deftly succeeding himself in every election?

Clearly, there is undue emphasis on the elections in Russia to the detriment of elections in other Southern countries in the world, especially in Sub Saharan Africa where such attention, scrutiny and spotlight by the international community might actually assist civil society groups and activists in pressurising African leaders to embark on genuine electoral reforms. This is because there is a wide held view that many African leaders hardly respond to the demands of their electorate alone, so this international media scrutiny could assist civil society groups in this regard.

The popular adage “There’s no such thing as a free lunch” kept crossing my mind in the run-up to the just concluded London Conference on Somalia. I wondered why a gathering focusing on a Sub Saharan African country was to be hosted by the UK government in London, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to be precise. I thought of keeping my musings to myself until I found that a number of people shared the same sentiments, especially my Kenyan friend Kenneth Ochieng who summed up these sentiments on his blog page which I have copied at the end of this post.

Such a global gathering to discuss the way forward out of the litany of problems plaguing Somalia, referred to by policy makers and development experts as the archetypal “failed state” is certainly a commendable and progressive step. This is especially because Somalia’s problems of collapsed state institutions, Al-Shabab terrorism, piracy and humanitarian crisis affect not just Somalia but neighbouring countries such as Kenya and Ethiopia, and successfully tackling these problems requires a concerted transnational effort with the relevant stakeholders.

However, my grouse here is why this gathering heavily attended by many African Heads of States, African multilateral organizations and other world leaders was hosted by British Prime Minister David Cameron in London? Understandably, the safety of dignitaries couldn’t be compromised by holding it in Somalia, thus I wondered why the confab couldn’t be hosted neither by Jonathan in Abuja or Attah Mills in Accra; nor Kibaki in Nairobi in the Horn of Africa within the vicinity of Somalia itself, nor Zuma in Johannesburg. The conference couldn’t convene in the brand new glitzy African Union Headquarters literally built from scratch and furnished by Chinese funds and labour. One could perhaps assume that a conference on the Nigerian Boko Haram insurgency group (probably the next biggest security threat in the region), would be held in some swanky conference hall in Washington D.C., New York, Berlin or Paris.

I simply wonder when African leaders would grow up, be more assertive in handling African affairs and wean themselves off international help over every thing (apparently including having our regional headquarters built for free or confabs on African security held in far away European capitals). Yet at the slightest opportunity, when it suits our African leaders, they utter populist “pan-African” rhetoric about being “dictated-to” and constrained by “imperialist” Western nations. I wonder when we are ever going to grasp the dynamics of international politics and realize that nations hardly do things for others involving massive funds on the basis of pure altruism but mainly based on what would benefit them. When would we start put our own national interests on the front burner before taking any step, in this case seizing the opportunity of such an international gathering to showcase our beautiful capital cities and improve outsiders’ perceptions of Africa for instance, and cut costs associated with funding such international travels?

With the conference over and a laudable communiqué released which inspires some hope on the future of security in Somalia, I hope our African leaders would subsequently consider being more assertive in holding such gatherings in an African country — even though the follow-up conference in June 2012 is billed to take place in Istanbul, Turkey. For one it would show our seriousness in taking charge of our destiny like other developing regions are doing and not painting the image of a helpless, dependent continent. For another it would boost the profile of the city holding such a gathering especially in the international media, and also bring in some foreign revenue to the local economy from hosting and accommodating delegates.

As I stated earlier, Kenneth Ochieng succinctly echoes my sentiments on this issue. Find below his write-up titled Listen Mr. African ‘STATESMAN’: Rants of a Troubled Pan-Africanist originally posted on his blog, Okwarohztake:

Many years ago, while I was in college, I was given an assignment that required me to write an essay about my speech community. The purpose was to expose the idiosyncratic words I shared among my family and friends, words that we either created or adopted. Under my impression, those who could come up with interesting words were bound to ace the paper. Sitting in front of a blank screen for hours on end, the assignment proved to be a pain. What kind of words did my professor expect me to expose? The temptation to create words was strong but not until I thought of a more honest approach: Pidgin English. I was convinced that this form of English would impress my professor and wrote a paper full of words that I hardly spoke myself. This brings me to my point, without a native language or mastery of Pidgin English (our cherished vernacular) Accent #1 has no reference point, no rhythmic foundation — so to speak.

Around the same time, I met an African American woman who was surprised that I only spoke English. She pointed out that my accent was probably a result of listening to people whose English was influenced by their mother tongue. As crazy as her reasoning sounded, it was a light bulb moment for me because it gave me insight as to why I sounded the way I did. It was possibly a result of listening and replicating those who have a reference point (i.e.  a different mother tongue from English). So it made sense when, a few years later, accent #2 was in full fledge: a result of years of listening to Americans and inevitably shedding the less celebrated accent #1. And when I moved to other western countries, the ability to code switch became effortless. Accent #1 only came on during conversations with family and sometimes sounded like a new thing altogether. I found that (or perhaps falsely believed) that accent #1 was not easily embraced on foreign shores and it made sense to ditch the process of explaining why English was the only language I spoke by sounding like I was from a country that claimed English as its sole mother tongue.

But the story doesn’t end there. When I moved to Lagos, a magical thing happened. Accent #1 re-emerged. Over the years, accent #2 became second nature but accent #1 has gradually become my preferred choice; further confusing those who might have known me during high school when I switched up accent #1 for no reason in particular (it was in the late 90s and I was reinventing myself). I like to think that this magical thing is more than how I choose to sound and more about who I am choosing to become. I am, as I have stated in the past articles, not without flaw: a Nigerian without tribal ties, with a tapered love for my country but most importantly I believe I am developing a voice within that sounds like what it ought to.