Speaking Truth to Power: Attahiru Jega, Toye Olorode, and Nigeria’s Future
By Toyin Falola
This is the first report on the interview with Professor Attahiru Jega on December 12, 2021. The extensive interview, which has received millions of views across different platforms, exposes Nigeria in all of its ugliness while also offering a path out of the present predicament. This report covers the segment between Jega and Olorode. For the transcript, see YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JlwZfh5Ynh8 Facebook: https://fb.watch/9S6PBuNg0l/.
Nigeria has been dubbed the giant of Africa for many reasons, most of which are not politically valid. Although there is a history to this phenomenal label, the tide of values that Nigeria generates has considerably waned to the point where one would question the political correctness of the expression that the country is the giant of Africa and the benefit the imagined giant adds to the continent. In the 1970s, when the country reached its peak in global economic growth and financial prosperity, it performed the roles of a “Big Brother,” providing money and human personnel to some African countries with weaker social and political strength to confront their existential challenges, and in some places, gave financial support to the ones suffering from the brutal hands of poverty. During this period, many countries in the continent benefited from the nation’s generosity, and it was understandable why it was tagged the giant of Africa. Many people have often questioned the logicality of this appellation, apparently because there was no official declaration from other countries to honour Nigeria for the saviour roles that it played during this period. Of course, this conclusion is not illogical, but when we are a people guided by ubiquitous yet unpronounced philosophy, it is not out of line to think or assume that a person who does great things is automatically accorded that social honour.
Fast-forward the period to about 40 years later, the declination of the country’s moral value and political importance is not only unprecedented but also so phenomenal that any attachment of giant strides to it is either a mere nostalgic ululation of its past or empty rhetoric meant to give the people and its figurehead government a false sense of superiority. This is not an attempt to disparage the people at the helm of Nigeria’s political affairs in the last 40 years but to interpret what they do in the offices and reach a solid conclusion. Any government that does not understand how to solve its security problems for more than 60 years of independence cannot be considered to know where it is headed because it does not even remotely appear like it has a blueprint. In essence, it would be a figurehead regardless of the physical size of the heads of their political representatives. Any nation that does not understand that education is the path to its future and has refused to spend a huge part of its budgetary allocation on it because of its ignorance of its cardinality to its development will not produce state-of-the-art thinkers. It would, therefore, not matter if the representatives are a group of professors; they will still be seen as figureheads.
It is because some people have understudied the patterns of Nigeria’s progress, and like many others who can predict the future from the content of the present, concluded that the country’s tomorrow is bleaker than the history of yesterday that they decide to consider taking a drastic approach to fixing their existential challenges. As a result, some have called for a revolution, others have called for secession, and some for devolution of power, all of which would bring substantial progress to the country if given careful and thoughtful attention. Asking why Nigeria cannot function like smaller countries such as Switzerland, Singapore, and many others was intended to reflect on the profound agitations of some concerned people who believe that the country’s potential is not tied to its large population but how they can effectively manage their resources. The importance of seeing the country from this perspective is to ensure an extraordinary step is taken to redeem the country in the political, economic, social, and philosophical sense. Nigeria, till now, does not have a working philosophy, a unique political culture, and no one can confidently say it has a national identity that can motivate its people to dedicate their strength and efforts to its transformation. Anyone feigning dedication to Nigeria in modern times is either seeking an opportunity to inflict maximum damage on the country by looting it at any chance or is doing so because the country is a source of their financial oxygen.
Professor Attahiru Jega stands firm on his position that greatness associated with countries is not a measure of their population or size. Countries could do good or bad irrespective of their size if the governance process is arranged so that the structures and institutions could address the fundamental problems confronting the country. However, he agreed that many countries that do well achieve that success predominantly because of their management abilities; it is also evident that some countries are bigger than Nigeria and are equally successful and well-organized. However, he addresses the important issue of the country’s ability to use or manage diversity, which has been its fundamental problem, leading sceptics to believe that the country’s problem is its large population. Nigerian leaders have shown a surprising deficiency in the management of diversity. They have moved so badly on this path that they are almost installing a culture of management sterility.
Anyone familiar with psychoanalysis would not claim to be a stranger to the concept of defence, a term used to designate activities or behaviour that make people run away from things that can potentially overwhelm them when they remember. In essence, Nigerian leaders use defence as a strategy to escape the reality of their emptiness. Religion and ethnicity are the two most effective cards that the serially useless political leaders play to deflect the attention of the masses and cover their ineptitude. A Nigerian leader would award a contract to cronies, increase the financial commitment in electromagnetic proportion, eventually do a shoddy and low-quality job to siphon the government funds intended for the project, and then play the ethnic card when public accountability comes to play. Ironically, there is a pool of members of their ethnic group wallowing in abject poverty and swimming in the pool of wretchedness, who have not caught their attention in any meaningful way. However, immediately this group of detached fellows hear that their roguish kinsmen are being questioned for their roles in fraud, they will constitute a formidable group to “save” their own. The poor defending the rich, a comedy on tragedy. They are not to be blamed. They are helpless because they are victims of the evil machinations of the Nigerian political jobbers who have perfected the art of tricking them persistently. So, governance issues and diversity management do not record a good performance from the Nigerian political representatives. Therefore, it reveals the reason for their phenomenal declination in the community of nations in the world and their eventual loss of self-respect. To this extent, the ones calling for separation, devolution, and revolution are not wrong within the context of their very agitations.
Many people have concluded that Nigeria is a welfare country that depends on a single resource, especially since crude oil discovery in the Niger-Delta region. This mono-economic mentality has necessitated Nigeria’s intellectual and political paralysis and tempted many observers to believe that the government itself has no business with the issues of development as one may have fantasized about. Professor Attahiru Jega, however, believes that the misappropriation of the fund generated is evidence of leadership dysfunctionality in the first place. Money and power are a bad mixture, especially in the hands of short-sighted ones who cannot peep into their future by looking at today’s actions. Money provides them with the luxury that intoxicates them to misbehave and momentarily forget the future they once dreamed about, and power blinds them from taking mentally applaudable steps that would transform the people and launch the whole community into a different enviable height. There are sufficient examples of irresponsible leadership with irreparable attitudes to lead virtually across all stages of representation in the country, and this explains why it is usually very quick for the people in the global North to pointedly identify countries in Africa as examples of regression, backwardness, and stagnation, and the reason is not racist.
Nigeria is crippled because of its leaders’ blindness, and the states and regions, which would have been doing exceptionally brilliant, depending on the federal government for revenues. The states that have abundant human and natural resources in parts of the country would have to wait for the federal government to survive, month in, month out. Regrettably, the region that provides the resources and the income that Nigeria generates is abandoned and uncatered for. It is devastated and oozing out the liquid of misery and anguish, suffering agonizing pains from the scars of degradation and unearthing its geographical landscape to get the resources that feed the country. That part of the country would have been strong if its resources were well spent and it was not mandated to survive only through its dependence on the federal government. Therefore, it is apparent that the narcissistic leadership style of those piloting the country’s affairs is to be blamed for sterilising the country’s power and might. When the Nigerian government pretends to carry out projects, it just must have been extremely and unjustly overfed from the nefarious ambitions of the disproportionate allocation of funds to itself.
Professor Olorode has been exceptionally grounded in the country’s affairs, an intellectual position he has attained through years of dedicated services and experience. He probed Professor Attahiru Jega in manners that revealed his philosophically profound ways. He introduced himself by recounting the numerous brave and selfless efforts that Jega has made towards the redefinition of the country at different fora. In addition, he explained that the trajectory of Jega’s socio-political importance is evident in his gravitational pull in the country’s politics, where he began as a partisan ideologue who believed in the entire and effective redemption of the country and snatching it away from the claws of the mercantile political jobbers who have no good intentions with leadership. From this position, Jega moved to being an umpire in deciding an important fate in Nigeria’s history as the chairman of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), and today he is back to the corridor of power, serving in different positions and offering his intellectual contributions to the advancement of the country. Jega is loaded with intellectual resources, and because he is often found in the corridor of power recently, several opinions have been raised to interrogate his involvements. Some class of people see that as the effort of the political class to incorporate him, but it is important to know if his decision to participate is a private one or for the actualization of collective dreams.
From Professor Jega’s responses, one would notice that the academics in the country find themselves in a very challenging and tempting situation because of their human capital and resources. They are aware that the political class in the country is essentially a deficit of ideas and that the only thing that mattered to them is the accumulation of wealth and the soiling of the people’s name in the process. Therefore, the situation is tempting to the extent that when they are called to serve in national positions, it is most likely that such is a bait to soil their name or provide an avenue for them to prove their intelligence, that latter of which is usually rare. Jega has truly participated in the project of advancing the country, and his positions hold experienced brilliant and revolutionary ideas that transform the areas where he is asked to serve. He has crisscrossed different spheres of influence, serving as a radical opponent of irresponsible leadership through his ideological commitment, and representing in some of the political roles where he had to act in line with the dictates of the government. His desire for a better Nigeria singles him out, and this has served as the basis for all his engagements and involvement in every position he finds himself in.
The former Vice-Chancellor of Bayero University and the 4th Chairman of the Independent National Electoral Commission remains a liberal-minded individual who believes that isolationist behaviour would have no desirable outcomes on the polity, especially as the ones in control of it are not ideologically ready to change their ways. As such, sitting on the fence in matters of national significance and urgency would not particularly bring meaningful development. Subsequently, Professor Jega said he functioned either as an academic staff union leader or as an executive member of INEC and in other notable national positions, not by compromising his philosophical commitment to socialist and masses-oriented development goals. He has a good record of having continued in the path of his vision by adding value to institutions whenever he is provided with the opportunity to serve. He argues that his focus has been to add values to the needs and aspirations of the Nigerian citizens over whom the duty of transformation of the country is meant to be shown. Damage mitigation and post-traumatic effects management have been his cardinal job in the country, where he offers his contributions to reduce the damage that the selfish political leaders have caused. Unfortunately, the Nigerian government, like many other in Africa, have chosen to be immune to the decibel of the people’s voices and agitations, continuing on their path of irresponsible leadership without remorse.
Professor Olorode pointed out that some people’s decision to remain on the sideline is informed by the understanding that the Nigerian government is circumscribed by unfaithful leaders who have made strenuous efforts to sterilize the systems and institutions built to enhance crucial development in the country. He lamented that the institution in charge of elections in the country, for example, is relegated and deprived of the statutory power to make all the vital decisions that would affect the country’s electoral process. For instance, how would the country’s INEC not influence how electoral candidates spend their money or what amount of money each candidate vying for political office may spend? All inadequacies help install irresponsible leadership because it creates a dysfunctional system in the process. The candidate who can spend almost recklessly would have nothing special to offer the country since their primary intention is to recoup the money they spent in the course of soliciting the people’s support and goodwill. In essence, representation is commodified, and the assignment of quality representation remains unrealistic in the process. These measures frustrate the ideologically consistent Nigerians (or people) who seek to lend their intellectual excellence to the country’s advancement. Thus, there cannot but be some “fencists” who would arise because of this dysfunctional system and behaviour.
Meanwhile, the political class does not coordinate a country’s political system exclusively; the academic elites have numerous contributions they are naturally meant to make. Such public responsibility, however, has been systematically jettisoned by the academic community in the toga of National Universities Commission (NUC), who, in many cases, compromise on the sound principles of quality representation and have been too loose to accommodate otherwise inimical interests that would potentially jeopardize the interest of the common people. This knowledge mandated the question from Professor Olorode about Professor Jega’s position concerning the Academic Staff Union of Universities (ASUU), who has refused to be consistent with the ideological convictions that brought about their creation in the first instance. Professor Attahiru Jega kept his cerebral energy flowing as he took on the question. He maintained his confidence that the gradual reduction in ASUU’s values and focus is inextricably linked to their departure from the ideological ideas that led to their formation. They have swerved from this fundamental trajectory, causing them to decelerate in great proportion. Without coming back to their initial objectives, they may continue in that way to the disadvantage of the whole populace.
The interaction between Professor Olorode and Professor Jega was energetic and educative. Through Jega, we learned that the value reduction associated with many institutions in the country, including but not limited to ASUU, is traceable to the inherent weakness of those who represent the public interest in the places where they are expected to function. Therefore, the fact remains that the idea of being ideologically weak exposes individuals to the temptations and pressures that come from the political class seeking people’s compromise. When they are not steadfast in their principles, they would most predictably have their ideological convictions crushed by those who have successfully traded theirs for monetary gains.
