My curiosity on why some nations are light years ahead of others or why some organisations succeed and others don’t, has deepened my enthusiasm and interest in leadership. The reason is in the words of John Maxwell, “everything rises and falls on leadership”.
The difference between a successful country, business or organisation and a failed or failing one is most times not the availability of good resources but the availability of good leadership. Take a look at Nigeria.
The interaction between King Zedekiah of Judah and Prophet Jeremiah in Jeremiah 38 is quite profound for my leadership and life journey that I couldn’t help but make a note when I came across the passage.
The background picture of this chapter is that Jeremiah preached the sort of message Jesus Christ preached in his days (Matthew 16:25, Luke 17:33, Mark 8:35) that “whoever will save his life shall lose it and whoever will lose his life for My sake shall find it”.
Jeremiah preached at a time Judah was under siege of the Chaldeans. He said if the people would go out to surrender to the Chaldeans, they would live. But if they would remain in the city, they would “die by the sword, by the famine and by the pestilence“.
This message was viewed by some highly placed people in government as counterproductive and demoralising to the people at the forefront of the war. They set out to exert their influence. These men of influence approached the King and demanded that the prophet is put to death for “ruining the resolve of the soldiers“. In the Nigerian context, we’d refer to them as “cabals“.
The following ensued after the demand. They are instructive as leadership lessons.
• The leader’s powerlessness
Verse 5
“King Zedekiah caved in: “If you say so. Go ahead, handle it your way. You’re too much for me.” (TMB)
This was the response of the King to their demand. However, Jeremiah was not killed. He was rather thrown into a muddy cistern. The king’s response showed the powerlessness of the King. The King had little or no control over his territory. This is bad for leadership. It reminds me of Yar’adua’s tenure as President of Nigeria, most especially when he was sick and rumours were rife that the First Lady was the one running the show in the company of a few other people.
King Zedekiah was reigning but the men of influence were ruling. In as much as leaders can and should listen to their people, they should be wary of the leadership being hijacked. Such leaders will be mere puppets.
In fact, Jeremiah 37:1 says:“King Zedekiah son of Josiah, a puppet king set on the throne by Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon in the land of Judah, was now king in place of Jehoiachin son of Jehoiakim.”
This description settles everything. As a leader, listen to your people but never lose your control.
• The leader’s indecisiveness
Verses 7-10
In these verses, an Ethiopian and a eunuch, Ebed-melech, approached the King and convinced him that if Jeremiah is not released, he would die of hunger. The King told him to get a few men with him and get the prophet out of the dungeon.
In as much as this is a good move by the King to defy the men of influence and retrace his steps, I noticed another leadership defect in the King. King Zedekiah was prone to being moved by every convincing and argument. This is a personal challenge for many leaders.
A leader who is easily swayed by every opinion and argument will always find himself in bed with indecision!
A leader who is easily swayed by every opinion and argument will always find himself in bed with indecision. Decisiveness is a needed trait for every leader. One of the core responsibilities of leaders is decision making. A leader who fails at it or always finds it a herculean task betrays his calling.
There are three (3) more lessons in this series. Kindly click the “follow” button to be notified as soon as they are published.
With the unfortunate alarming spate of rape incidents all around now, I decided to exploit this aspect of the rape phenomenon which happens but attracts little or no attention. Interestingly, this article was also borne out of a legal argument with some female colleagues at work. After the start of the writing, it was also the deliberate subject of a discussion among some other young lawyers in my circle. It was the opinion of the ladies that the Nigerian legal system does not protect male victims of rape; that it is unimaginable women can rape men or better still, it is unimaginable that one woman can rape one man. This opinion is rooted in the moral, male ego and male-dominated society’s viewpoints. While this position is tempting, I am swayed by Aristotle who said, “Law is reason free from passion,” to assert dispassionately that this opinion cannot withstand legal scrutiny.
OLD TESTAMENT
A few years ago, male rape was unknown to our laws. It was even believed that men would enjoy being ‘victims’ of such an ‘offence.’ So when it happened, victims had no legal redress in court. This is because the law only contemplated females as capable of being victims of rape but not culprits of same. This is reflected in the wordings of the law providing for the offence. Section 357 of the Criminal Code defines rape in this way:
“Any person who has unlawful carnal knowledge of a woman or girl, without her consent, or with her consent, if the consent is obtained by force or by means of threats or intimidation of any kind, or by fear of harm, or by means of false and fraudulent representation as to the nature of the act, or, in the case of a married woman, by personating her husband, is guilty of an offence which is called rape.”
The Penal Code, which is operative in the North, in section 282(1), has a similar provision.
With the specific use of the words “woman” and “girl“, it is crystal clear that the drafters of the law did not envisage male rape or did not believe in the ability of a woman to rape a man. But that is not surprising. The Criminal Code was first enacted in 1916. It would have been unheard of at the time that a woman raped a man. However, the law may move slowly in comprehending modern realities and developments, it is not eternally fixed.
THE NEW AGE
New realities have shown that male rape is possible. Even the Nigerian legal system has shifted base in recognizing same. One of the legal exploits of Goodluck Jonathan’s presidency was bringing to a successful conclusion the 14-year-long social and legislative advocacy championed by women’s groups and gender activists (WACOL). The administration enacted the Violence Against Persons (Prohibition) Act, 2015. The Act, by its long title, is “to eliminate violence in private and public life, prohibit all forms of violence against persons, and to provide maximum protection and effective remedies for victims and punishment of offenders.” The Act which outlaws Female Genital Mutilation (section 6), emotional, verbal and psychological abuse (section 14), stalking, [YES! STALKING] (section 17), has expanded the scope of rape to cover men.
Section 1 of the Act provides that:
“A person commits the offence of rape if- (a) he or she intentionally penetrates the vagina, anus or mouth of another person with any other part of his or her body or anything else; (b) the other person does not consent to the penetration; or (c) the consent is obtained by force or means of threat or intimidation of any kind or by fear of harm or by means of false and fraudulent representation as to the nature of the act or the use of any substance or additive capable of taking away the will of such person or in the case of a married person by impersonating his or her spouse.”
Picture Credit: Daily Guide Africa
The Act therefore makes a novel provision for rape through oral and anal sex and the argument that Nigeria does not protect male victims of rape seemingly looks settled. Therefore, gleaning from the above provision, penetration of the anus or mouth of a man in circumstances contemplated by paragraphs (b)-(c) above will amount to rape. That is as far as that goes.
THE HOLE
However, the provision for male rape in this Act has left a loophole for penetration. A conspicuous, dicey and vital loophole. Let me reproduce a part of that section 1 for a better understanding of this point.
“A person commits the offence of rape if- (a) he or she intentionally penetrates the vagina, anus or mouth of another person with any other part of his or her body or anything else;…”
From the foregoing, the Act only states three (3) parts of the human body that can be penetrated to ground a conviction for rape – the vagina (female), anus and mouth (both genders). Even a cursory look shows that the major male reproductive organ, the penis, is not mentioned. This is understandable because, let us ask ourselves, how can the penis be penetrated?
But then, this understandable omission with no provision to cover for it has left a hole in the law. For instance, as a lawyer, I have listened to unbelievable arguments in Court and I know that many lawyers mostly look out for loopholes in laws in order to escape liability for their clients. Though this in one way is good for the advancement of the law but it leaves a sour taste in its mouth.
As a result, it will not be surprising if a lawyer comes to Court to represent a female accused person charged for rape and the former argues that the requisite elements to prove the offence of rape of a man do not include anything about a female ‘penetrating’ the penis. This may sound ridiculous but you only need a sound lawyer to put an absurd reasoning into an applausive argument. If upheld, it may be ludicrous to laymen who do not know that to ground conviction for an offence, you only need to prove beyond reasonable doubt the elements stated in the law that provides for the offence.
MY THOUGHT
It is my candid opinion, however, that there is a way around it. This Act was enacted to cure a mischief: the mischief of no provision for male rape. As a result, in interpreting this provision, the Courts might have to employ the mischief rule of interpretation, overlook the omission of the “penis” and consider if there was actual sexual intercourse without the consent of the man. If there was, the Courts may be moved to decide that the offence has been sufficiently proved. This is my thought but we await the time the Courts will interpret this provision one way or the other to put the controversy to bed.
Nevertheless, I am afraid the provision on male rape will suffer same or even worse fate compared to female rape with few or no reportage due to fear of stigma, especially from the male ego perspective.
It is noteworthy, however, that whatever direction the interpretation of the section sways, the provision is still not of national coverage as the Act in section 47 provides that “this Act applies only to the Federal Capital Territory“. As a result, until all the States make similar law, male rape is still a foreign phenomenon nationally.
MY PLEA
As a lawyer, if I find myself handling a rape case, professional duty requires me to dispassionately offer my service. However, as an emotional being, it is unimaginable what pushes and drives people, both men and women, to decide that the next thing to do is rape another person. No amount of intense “konji” and no level of indecency is powerful or tenable a reason enough to drive a man to plot to rape a woman or a woman to rape a man. So this is my plea, shelve your rod in its sheath. If you cannot control it, seek help from appropriate places. Do not leave a permanently damaging mark on another person. Do not ruin the future of another person!
S.O.J. Fadipe, Esq., is a young lawyer currently practicing in Benin City, Edo State.
He can be contacted via fadipesunday@yahoo.com or you can connect with him on Twitter and Instagram: @inspiredsunfad
After seeing the topic of this article, I expect one of three things from you: either consult your dictionary if you have one handy like I do always; or click the link of the article hoping to learn a new word today like I always try to do; or finally, if you do not belong to any of the foregoing categories, click the link because you wish to know the position of the law regarding necrophilia.
Whichever is your lot, welcome on board because some days ago, I fell in all of the categories when I first saw the word on a video uploaded by Pulse TV on social media. I consulted my dictionaries to learn a new word and then set out on a voyage of worthwhile discovery to know the position of the law on something as disgusting, yet real as this. The outcome of my discovery is this article you are reading.
Firstly, necrophilia is a pathological attraction to dead bodies, especially sexual attraction or intercourse. Another dictionary of mine defines it as sexual interest in dead bodies. Now, you may wonder what my fascination is with the word that spurred an article. It’s simple. The video of the Ghanaian morgue attendant who confessed to such debased act ended with the question: “is there any law against this shameful act?” As a lawyer, that whetted my legal appetite and spurred my interest in researching on the subject, as Lord Denning, the Master of Rolls said, “God forbid that a lawyer knows all the law, but a good lawyer is one who knows where to find the law.”
However, before we go on, it is pertinent to ask, who in their right senses sleep with or have sexual interest in dead bodies? If you say it may be for ritual purposes, I won’t dispute. Our society is yet to be fully divorced from crude practices. But if it is not for such, then the most reasonable explanation for people who do such is this: “aye n se won”, with the cannot-do-justice-to-the-real-meaning interpretation of “they are under a spell.”
It didn’t take me much time to find out that apart from the fact that necrophilia might be a pathological disorder or might have a spiritual connotation, it is a crime and it is outlawed by the Criminal Code Act of Nigeria which applies only in the Southern part of the country. Sadly, there is no equivalent provision in the Penal Code, the operative legislation in the North. Section 242(1) (b) of the Criminal Code provides as follows:
“Any person who without lawful justification or excuse, the proof of which lies on him, improperly or indecently interferes with, or offers any indignity to any dead human body or human remains, whether buried or not is guilty of a misdemeanor and is liable to imprisonment for two years.”
A cursory look at this provision shows that sleeping with dead bodies is not the only act contemplated by this provision of the law. In actual fact, it is the opinion of a colleague that the legislators may not even have contemplated “sleeping with dead bodies” due to the paucity of specificity in this provision. For instance, a comparative look at the provision for the offence of rape shows otherwise. Section 357 of the same Act provides that:
“Any person who has unlawful carnal knowledge of a woman or girl, without her consent, or with her consent, if the consent is obtained by force or by means of threats or intimidation of any kind, or by fear of harm, or by means of false and fraudulent representation as to the nature of the act, or, in the case of a married woman, by personating her husband, is guilty of an offence which is called rape” (emphasis mine).
This provision on rape is explicit and specific, especially with the highlighted words above as touching having “unlawful carnal knowledge of a woman or girl.” However, it is not unsafe to interpret, it violates no interpretation rule and it is obviously right that “improper or indecent interference or offering of any indignity” referred to in section 242(1) (b) of the Act covers the subject of this article. In actual fact, Black’s Law Dictionary, Tenth Edition, defines “indecency” as the quality, state, or condition of being outrageously offensive, especially in a vulgar or sexual way.
Away from that, I have two grouses against this provision. Firstly, the statement, “without lawful justification or excuse”, means that the drafters of the legislation might have envisaged a situation where a necrophiliac would have a lawful excuse for engaging in such act. The question is, which lawful justification would a human have for sleeping with dead bodies? I’m yet to come up with one. Though in another way round, a lawful justification for improper or indecent interference or offer of any indignity to any dead human body might be in the form of a pathologist performing autopsy, but definitely not sleeping with a dead body.
Secondly, the punishment of two years seems like a slap on the wrist for offenders. Imagine mourning the death of a loved one and some debased humans somewhere are sexually feasting on the body. Two years is definitely not commensurate with this inconceivable and unimaginable act but I am far from surprised. The same Criminal Code Act prescribes the ludicrous punishment of N100 for some offences, yet we still have lawmakers in the hallowed chambers.
Definitely, morgue attendants would be much more prone to such an ungodly and unhuman act, but it is better to seek help or flee, like the Bible commands, than be a necrophiliac and even a proud one like the Ghanaian morgue attendant. What can be worse than sexual intercourse with a dead body?
If you sleep with dead bodies, you are toying with two years behind bars. But wait, who would even arrest and prosecute you? Everybody would think you dine with the devil himself.
S.O.J. Fadipe, Esq.
Fadipe is a young lawyer currently practicing in Benin City, Edo State.
You can connect with him via Twitter and Instagram: @inspiredsunfad; and fadipesunday@yahoo.com or sunfadesq@gmail.com
What started as a fierce and blood-promising battle ended as a show of courage and real sportsmanship; the Nigerian 2015 general elections. March 28 and April 11 served as another avenue for destiny to be re-written and the people have duly decided, using the power of the ballot.
In the build-up to the elections, several prophecies of doom were declared and there were expectations of violence on a large scale but the post-election ambience has been one of peace and tranquility. Kudos to the first Nigerian President to lose the bid for re-election. I do not regard him as a hero as many have done but I see him as a record-breaker in both negative and positive senses. But this is a debate for another day.
Many lessons have been learnt and several articles have proceeded from the outcome of the elections but after spending few minutes in Zik Hall loo some days ago, there was a rush of inspiration to write from another perspective, that of relationships. I thought, “How did a man’s ladder of ascension turn out to be his source of downfall four years later?” How did the ‘relationship’ between President Goodluck Jonathan and Nigerians deteriorate in the span of four years and how was General Muhammadu Buhari able to woo over Nigerians after three unsuccessful attempts at the Presidency? The following are my five relationship take-aways from the just concluded historic elections.
1. Nothing lasts forever
If there is one belief I’ve always had, it is that nothing lasts forever, including relationships. Relationships break, courtships end, marriages at times end up in divorce etc and definitely, life goes on. It is this belief that my dear friend and mate, Queen of http://www.queenoset.wordpress.com does not feel comfortable with whenever I express. An argument once ensued on this topic some time ago during our days in University of Ibadan. But it is the truth, nothing lasts forever. However, this does not mean that all relationships are always headed towards break-up. Accepting only one side amounts to allowing the dangers of a single story.
The relationship between Nigerians and GEJ was bound to end one day. It was just the early break-up that GEJ never saw coming. And one day, GMB will also become Nigerians’ ex, whether by exhaustion or through the same fate that befell his soon-to-be predecessor.
2. Sustenance of romance
More often than not, relationships can become boring, the initial spark can fade away and monotony sets in. Then partners start looking for the easy way out. A very good way of preventing this is that initial romance needs to be sustained. That a woman has finally ‘succumbed’ and has become your ‘bae’ should not amount to automatic decrease in the things you did to buy her over. If you get her, you should keep her, except, of course, she doesn’t want to be kept.
Many politicians fail to realize this principle that campaign is done in poetry and governance in prose, as was said in “Yes We Can! The Lost Art of Oratory.” As a result, they sharpen their tongues for campaign but their actions become blunt during governance. President GEJ rode on Nigerians’ sympathy and dogged support to Aso Rock but could not sustain it with his show of over-liberalism towards corruption and inability to protect the lives and properties of those on whose shoulders he rode to Abuja. Consequently, the relationship became strained and the people in turn fell in love with the General.
3. Love doesn’t cost a thing
It is the truth that love does not cost a thing. It cannot be bought. No amount of movie dates at Ventura Mall or shopping dates at Shoprite can buy love. You’d only end up being the sure-fire ATM. Even though I personally wonder if I buy a brand new car for a lady, she won’t fall in love with me. But definitely, I won’t do such for a random lady if the means abound.
In the just concluded elections and the recent ones, it has been proven that the people have become much more enlightened. Neither their conscience, love nor their votes could be bought with money. Some even collected money from opposing candidates but voted for those they already had in mind. Some of these politicians also realized this. For instance, in my hood, they told people that they would give them money only after they had cast their votes for the ruling party. But after the announcement of results, the victory shout signified that the people cared less about the penny they would have collected. Love does not cost a thing.
4. Blood seldom fails
Out of the different types of relationships, it is the blood relationship that fails the least. Family will always be family. Definitely, I agree that brothers can become sworn enemies and parents can disown children but the failure of marriages, sexual and platonic relationships have put to shame the rate of blood betrayal. Your boyfriend can become your ex, your wife can run away with another man, your friend can ditch you but your brother will always have your back, ceteris paribus.
It was not surprising that after the results of the elections were announced, President GEJ won in almost all, if not all states in the East and South-South and General Muhammadu Buhari won massively in the North. Their respective brothers had their backs, including cattle and minors. Blood seldom fails.
5. Never give up
Finally, another very important relationship lesson to take away from the general elections is to never give up on the one whom you love. For men, some ladies may not give you problem while some may play the hard-to-get game. For the latter, do not give up. You might end up being her knight in shining armour. Keep trying but do not get cornered into a ‘dangerous zone’ that can kill your dream. However, ladies should also note that an over-flogged hard-to-get will make you become hard-to-want.
Buhari never gave up on Nigerians. We played hard-to-get with him on three occasions but eventually found a soft spot for him and gave him our hearts on the fourth attempt. Dear brother, never give up on the sister.
The 2015 polls are fast approaching. In fact, in two days, every mood swing will give way to the mood of election and the teeming Nigerian populace will head out to their different polling booths to once again decide their destiny for another four years.
Like every four years, the hunger is as strong as ever. The hunger for the man who would help bring home our Golden Fleece; the hunger for the man who would eventually fulfill the seemingly timeless saying, “Nigeria go better”; the hunger for our Joseph who would help avert the looming famine, or as many Nigerians may rightly think, help pull us out from this present famine of dividends of democracy.
Deep down within me, it seems my mind is already made up on who gets my vote on March 28. But, on second thought, I’m afraid. Politicians have proven to be among the worst sets of human breeds, reeking of lies, deceit and armed with every instrument of manipulation. Yet, their righteousness is as white as snow and not as filthy rags during electioneering campaigns. This is why the likes of Prof. Remi Sonaiya, Pastor Chris Okotie, Prof. Pat Utomi et al, may never get a chance to relocate to Aso Rock.
Like what every other Nigerian might be going through, a brother told me few days ago that he was in a dilemma as to who to cast his vote for in the forthcoming elections. The people have yearned for a Messiah every four years and each time, he has eluded them. Now is another opportunity, either for continuity or change, and the people once again seem lost in the valley of decision, for these ones, as always, are wolves in sheep clothing. I’m afraid.
Many are rooting for the former military dictator solely because they just do not want ‘continuity’ to rule for another four years, while many are supporting the latter because they just do not see ‘change’ as a better alternative. The battle of two Cs. Right now, it seems we are faced with the options of two extremes; the seemingly over-liberal and the seemingly high-handed. I’m afraid.
I’m afraid we might not get it right again. Politically, the other Presidential candidates, no matter the level of their capabilities, are only catfish in this ocean of two sharks and they had already been swallowed right from the blast of the kick-off whistle.
I’m afraid if continuity prevails, we might be preparing for another bout of robust insecurity. I’m afraid if change wins, we might have a pseudo-military era for the next four years. German poet, Rilke, said, “a person is not whom they are during the last conversation, they are whom they’ve been throughout the whole relationship.”
I’m afraid if GEJ triumphs, the leak in our national treasury might become widened like the primary tool of a member of the oldest profession and ‘corruption’ may conveniently be substituted for Nigeria in any sentence. I’m afraid if GMB wins, the messiah proponents of change chant might be a mistaken identity and the Messiah we crave for might remain elusive.
Like every other well-meaning Nigerian, I’m afraid. We have to choose between two evils, two Cs. Cs whose meanings are a function of context. Our context now is election, yet, the meanings of the Cs are ambiguous.
On March 28, we go to the polls with the hope of choosing the right ‘C’. But whichever ‘C’ prevails, one thing is sure, either we get a continuity of misfortune or a change of fortune; either we get a continuity of fortune or a change of misfortune, depending on your perspective.
In as much as my blog is not dedicated to politics, I cannot control the urge to bear out my mind on the recent unguarded political utterances of our First Lady, the ironically self-styled Mama Peace. Utterances that signify paucity of reasonable advisers and portray the Nigerian women in bad light. To realize that the Office of the First Lady is even only a conventional and not a constitutional office adds salt to the injury. The question then is: “how did Patience Jonathan become our First Lady”?
Indeed, we are not new to her pardonable wide-of-the-mark grammars which have been sources of comic relief to the whole nation, but these recent utterances are utterly inexcusable and in all sincerity, are own goals scored by the First Lady against the re-election bid of the nation’s First Man. For easy reference, some of these utterances will be reproduced here.
In Port Harcourt, during one of her campaign tours, she said, “If you get belle (pregnancy), don’t worry. Goodluck go marry you.” Seriously, who says something like this?
On March 2nd, in Calabar, she said, “anybody that come and tell you change, stone that person. Anybody that come and tell you he will change, stone that person. What you did not do in…, is now that old age has caught up with you, you want to come and change? You can’t change; rather you will turn back to a baby. You will turn back to a baby.” Apart from the fact that this is criminally inciting, it should not have proceeded from the mouth of the nation’s first woman, who is supposed to be an epitome of womanhood to the nation’s millions of women. I ask, how on earth did we get here?
In Kwara, she uttered this, “Kwara is PDP. They stole the mandate because the Government House they are occupying today is in the name of the PDP. We shall take it over. Every day, they change from one name to another and very soon they will change to Ebola and death will come.”
In Ekiti, she said this: “what did they forget in Aso rock? If you vote PDP and Jonathan, it would be better for you. If you vote APC, you will go to prison. How can you jail somebody for 300 years? I’m not ready to carry food to my husband inside prison oh! “
Sincerely, if ours were to be a sane clime, with these utterances, there will already be certainty that the only place Jonathan will ‘enter’ on May 29 is his Otuoke residence because the statements and body language of a nation’s First Lady are as important as those of the President. Michelle Obama understood this during Barack Obama’s re-election bid.
The last and the most hilarious of her utterances that I will talk about is the unconfirmed report that she said, “am better First lady than Obama wife. Did she campaign for her husband like this when his own eleshun time come?” Now, if she truly said this, it seems Mama Peace has mistaken her uncouth utterances for political points. She has failed to realize that the taciturnity of the First Lady is much more advantageous than her unrefined loquacity, especially in times like this.
Michelle Obama, US First Lady
Michelle Obama had better acolytes and she was much more tactical during Barack’s re-election bid, dispensing hugs to every available Tom, Dick and Harry, including sweaty basketball players, like an ATM dispensing cash to a successful ‘yahoo boy.’ Nytimes.com reported that she only delivered scathing critiques of Republicans in private, unlike our Mama Peace, who goes about planting her off-beam grammars on every available ground. When she was campaigning, Mrs. Obama approached the task like an Olympic gymnast tackling a routine: she practiced relentlessly and when it was performance time, she executed according to plan.
Also according to the report, throughout her time in the White House, she and her advisers carefully protected her image; she knew her husband would need her for re-election from early on and she mostly avoided controversy, highly aware that any mistake on her part could cost her husband. Unfortunately, same cannot be said of Madam Patience Jonathan. The more she talks, the more she spews egregiousness and destroys the already slim chances of the man that had no shoes, giving more confidence to the proponents of change.
How did she become our First Lady? The answer seems simple: because we voted for her husband and we could not ask the man we voted for to divorce his heartthrob when the most sensitive office in the nation beckoned. I must say it that if there was any iota of doubt as to casting my vote for President Jonathan in the coming election, it has all been erased. The office of the President is as important to me as that of the First Woman, whose actions and body language are supposed to reflect that of a nation-maker, who is supposed to be peace personified in the face of all odds and above the political fray and who is supposed to be a role-model for all Nigerian women as to how to build their homes.
So, if the First Man cannot tame the First Lady, then they both deserve not to remain the First Family. March 28 is the day of reckoning.
PS: Do you need a public speaking coach or a compere for your events, look no further. Contact me on: +2347037915152 Twitter: @sunfad4real IG: @sunfad_esq 7B883F00
When Gordons in one of his comedy series said that d conclave will prefer to elect a white man with kidney problem to be pope than an African pope with d same condition, he meant it as a joke. But behind that cloak of joke resides a bitter truth. When Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI announced his retirement from d papacy on Feb. 11 2013, d whole world was held spellbound as it was centuries ago that d world last witnessed such. The Pope Emeritus cited a “lack of strength of mind & body” due to his advanced age as d reason for his decision. At that time, d question on d lips of many was: “would an African man in his shoes have done d same”?
Yesterday, Zimbabweans went to d polls to elect another set of leaders that will govern them for d next 5yrs. However, one man remains d heartache of many Zimbabweans – Robert Mugabe; though, others have a divergent view for reasons best known to them.
Since Zimbabwe became an internationally recognized independent nation in 1980, one man has been dominating d political scene. When Zimbabwe’s economy became so bad that you might have to use a wheelbarrow to convey your money to buy a loaf of bread in d market, one man was at d helm of affairs.
Since 1980, Zimbabweans have been slaves & Robert Mugabe has been d slave master.
The most confounding thing about d political terrain in Zimbabwe is that Mugabe is 89yrs old. At 89, what does a man have to offer a nation that he did not when he was in his 50s & 60s? At 89, a man is prone to several illnesses that come with old age -senility & amnesia are few that I know. I remember reading some news sometime ago about Mugabe sleeping uncontrollably during crucial meetings.
Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI was 86 when he stepped down & he was leading over a billion catholics all over d world. Mugabe is 89 & d population of Zimbabwe is not even up to Lagos & Kano states combined. What stops Mugabe from relinquishing power voluntarily, at least for d good of Zimbabwe? Are Zimbabweans contented with this political slavery or d iron hand of their slave master is too strong for them speak? Even if Mugabe steps down, he still won’t fall in d category of Nelson Mandela bcos his bad won’t stop following him. During his reign, Zimbabwe had d chaotic land redistribution campaign which began in 2000 & caused an exodus of white farmers, crippled d economy & ushered in widespread shortages of basic commodities; he ignored int’l condemnation & rigged d 2002 presidential election to ensure his reelection; he uses security forces in brutal repression of regime opponents; ZANU-PF, his political party, used fraud & intimidation to win a two-3rd majority in d March 2005 parliamentary election. In d build-up to this year’s election, there were accusations that d ruling party was making moves to use d powers of government to make sure they are reelected. The opposition party, MDC, whose flagbearer is d current Prime Min., Morgan Tsvangirai, were given only 6 weeks to prepare for d election & d voters roll was released barely 24hrs to d election. It’s no gainsaying that Mugabe has overstayed his welcome but just like other slave masters like him that have graced d political scenes of Africa, he is determined to keep himself in power & keep Zimbabweans in perpetual political slavery
Indeed, flipping thru d pages of history, it seems 1 thing is common to most African countries – leaders perpetuating themselves in office. Almost all African countries have had their shares of slave masters clinging tenaciously to d whipping rope. Few examples will suffice:
Ben Ali(Tunisia) – 23years
Hosni Mubarak(Egypt) – 30years
Muammar Gaddafi(Libya) – 42
Teodoro Nguemam(Eq. Guinea) – 34 & still on;
Jose Santos(Angola) – 34 & still on;
Paul Biya(Cameroon) – 31 & still on;
Yoweri Museveni(Uganda) – 27 & still on.
This same story did not elude Nigeria. She has also had her own share though in modicum quantity. Generals Yakubu Gowon & Sani Abacha spent nine & eight years respectively while d democratically elected high school ‘senior’ of mine almost succeeded in pushing for another 4yrs after exhausting d constitutionally permitted 8yrs.
The slave master may seem untouchable all day, but d Arab Spring of Tunisia, Egypt & Libya showed that one day, d table can turn, d slave can demand ruthlessly for his freedom & d slave master will have nothing to do but run for cover.
Unsurprisingly, there have been reports that d Zimbabwe elections have been compromised in favor of Mugabe but I foresee that if he eventually wins, Zimbabwe will also write her own story of the slaves revolting against d slave master. It might be bloody & some might have to pay with their lives but in d words of Martin Luther King Jnr, “before d victory’s won, some will have to face physical death. But if physical
death is d price that some must pay to free their children from a permanent
psychological death, then nothing shall be more redemptive”.
Freedom comes by struggle! Zimbabwe, the world is waiting!
sunfad's 