By Ikeddy Isiguzo

Have you heard the latest claims that a flawed National Sports Commission is better than a Ministry of Sports? There are no limits to ends we travel to justify illegalities, absurdities, and a tending national culture of excellence in doing things badly.

The national propensity to do things illegally is readily available to those who dare match their fancy with action.
Welcome to the National Sports Commission, NSC, which has been set up without a law. A lawless organisation has been granted access to federal funds approved for the Federal Ministry of Sports. Everyone in the National Assembly knows about this illegality, but would not say anything.

Who set up the Commission without a law? President Bola Ahmed Tinubu has just done that. The army of clappers has filled the air with shouts of joy for the new impetus for sports though the ruse is obvious.

How are appointments to NSC made? What qualifies the appointees? Under what law would they be held responsible for acting on behalf of Nigerians?

When the NSC Chairman was appointed, I congratulated him. I even called him on phone. I apologise for my mistake. The law should have been in place before his appointment.

The Ministry running a few more months, for the NSC law to be sorted out, would not have done eternal damage to our sports. Nobody knows what the current contraption is meant to achieve.

Debates about such a Commission were on when days ago the President firmed up the contraption with the appointment of the Director-General of NSC. Both appointments are illegal because there is no NSC. Could the confusion be the administration’s way of prioritising the unimportance of sports?

Kenya is exploring the 160-page African Continental Free Trade Area, AfCFTA, to “expand its sports industry”. A top government official announced that, “By reducing trade barriers, we can encourage cross-border collaboration, creating more platforms for Kenyan athletes, sports organisations, and even fans to engage with their counterparts across Africa.’’

Can illegal organisations like NSC be part of AfCFTA? Unlikely.

The President cannot pronounce NSC into existence. A law is needed. Federal funds cannot be expended by people unknown to the law. There should be a limit to our lawlessness. Or should there be?

An organisation called the Nigeria Football Federation, NFF, has been illegally running Nigeria’s football for 20 years. Some people got ambitious changed the name from Nigeria Football Association solely for them to determine what to do with Nigeria’s football and its resources. They manage federal funds that are appropriated for Nigeria Football Association, which according to them does not exist. They claim they are a private organisation.

Imagine a private organisation that spends billions of public funds without responsibility or accountability to anyone. NFF takes public funds, gets funding from CAF, FIFA and sponsors. Any suggestions that NFF should be accountable to Nigerians, whose money it spends, are met with wooly assertions that FIFA finds accountability offensive.

Our football federation must be different from FIFA and CAF that swept their corruption officials away. Are the other African countries that are cleaning up their federations not members of FIFA and CAF?

At a joint public hearing of the Senate and House of Representatives Sports Committees in 2010, conversations veered to corruption in football. I accused both Committees of being responsible for the corruption. My point was that the Committees supported the corruption by approving money for a legal body NFA, and handing it to an illegal body, NFF, to spend, knowing fully well that they would not ask an illegal body to account.

Everyone appeared stunned. You would think a mistake had been unearthed. NFF still spends approvals made for NFA.

There is no end to the illegalities. The new NSC is merely joining the ride. There may be other illegal Commissions in other sectors of our polity but they are not enough excuse to promote illegalities with pomp.

I wrote a Loud Whispers essay about dress codes in 2017. These days, when I read debates about how people of all ages present themselves in public, I think back to what I wrote then. In light of all I see happening, perhaps I will write an updated commentary soon.  For now, let me ‘recycle’ what I wrote, the key message remains the same.

Over the past couple of weeks, there has been a debate in Nigeria about Dress Codes and the implications for civil liberties. There was an order from the leadership of Nigerian Ports Authority(NPA) that a dress code would be enforced on all employees. They listed a number of dress items which would henceforth be considered inappropriate. These ‘banned’ items include spaghetti tops, tight jeans, navel exposing tops, rough hairstyles, scuffed shoes and soon. Around the time this happened, a woman who was visiting the Immigration Service was turned back for wearing a ‘high low hem’ dress which covered her upper body, but  revealed her knees. Her outfit was smart casual enough for an office visit, but she was turned away. Nigerians, especially women, were up in arms about these developments and rightfully so.

In my own opinion, and from my experience as an employer, dress codes are important. Through a dress code, you express a corporate culture of value, respect and professionalism. If your employees can show up in anything they like, as a boss you should not be upset if your place of work is mistaken for the local bar. Serious customers who have come in to see their lawyer, accountant or banker will simply take their business elsewhere, rather than take the risk of leaving their money in the hands of a manager dressed like a local gangster. It is just plain common sense to dress appropriately for the work place. Dress codes, according to global best practice, are not meant to discriminate against anyone, but to encourage a projection of the workplace in the best possible light.

Having said all this, when it comes to the use of dress codes in most African countries, we have to be vigilant. The agendas might not necessarilybe all about promoting the right corporate culture, it is usually to do with policing women and girls. There are many who feel that women should not wear certain things, regardless of whether they are going to work, church, a party or the beach. For example, many believe women should not wear trousers of any kind neither should they wear miniskirts or short dresses. Many Pastors in Nigeria have preached against women wearing trousers, jewelry and makeup. There are also concerns that an agenda is afoot to ‘Islamise’ Nigeria, hence the need to find ways to cover up as many women as possible. The desire to police and control women is something all deeply conservative forces share regardless of their religion or ethnicity. 

In 2008, Senator Eme Ekaette sponsored the infamous ‘Indecent Dressing’ Bill, which thankfully, died a natural death. The Bill sparked a lengthy debate about the role of the State in legislating how citizens should dress. It was considered a clear violation of human rights. It is true that a lot of young people dress in ways which give cause for alarm. It should however be noted that if they are over 18, they are adults, with the right to make choices, be they good ones or poor. For the adults who insist on wearing inappropriate clothing, again, it is a matter of choice. I do not see how you can legislate against someone bent on making a fool of themselves. If Senator Ekaette’s Bill had been passed, no woman would have been safe in Nigeria. The appropriateness of our outfits would have been decided by a horde of morality police, enthusiastically extorting money from thousands of frustrated and humiliated women going about their business.

Dress codes for the work place must be unambiguous and non-discriminatory. If the rules are perceived as clamping down on only women then it is discrimination. The NPA rules about ‘tight jeans’ are very suspicious. If you want to add jeans to the list of excluded items that is okay, many workplaces do not allow jeans except for those who have a ‘Dress down Friday’ policy. To say you are excluding ‘tight jeans’ sounds like a rule that will place women at the mercy of the morality police, because ‘tight’ is rather subjective. In 2015 I was with family and friends in Dubai, and we made a day trip to Abu Dhabi. One of our stops was the famous Sheikh Zayed Mosque. 

There were twelve of us in the group, and when we got out of the bus, we were screened by a security guard at the entrance. He obviously had the responsibility to weed out those who were not dressed appropriately to enter the mosque. He pointed at me and my cousin’s wife and shook his head. My cousin’s wife had a short sleeved T Shirt on and a long skirt. Let us give it to him that her mostly bare arms caused offence. What was I wearing? I dress primarily for comfort so I never wear anything tight.  I had on a three-quarter-sleeved shirt dress with a pair of leggings.

The dress was well below my knees, and I also had a shawl to cover my head with. Other members of the group wanted to know why he would not let me through. He only spoke Arabic, but he kept gesticulating with his hands, drawing what looked like a figure eight. Then we understood what he was trying to say. Beneath my long shirt dress and leggings, he could still see my curves, especially my backside! I found it so hilarious. I stayed behind withmy cousin’s wife while the rest went in to the mosque. I had visited the mosque before in 2009 with my husband, and back then I had on a blouse and jeans, and my backside was pretty much the same. I was let in. Now on this day, this particular guard decided that my visible backside would cause offence. That is the danger of placing people’s freedoms of movement and expression in the hands of morality police.

My advice for all government Ministries, Departments and Agencies (MDAs) who want to adopt or implement a dress code is that such dress codes should be in line with best practice around the world. The dress codes should in no way discriminate against women. For example adding trousers or ‘tight jeans’ to the list of unacceptable clothing is wrong and discriminatory. Women should be able to wear trousers if they want to. 

For the benefit of those who are wondering what is appropriate to wear to work and what is not, I would have said everyone should know and it is a matter of common sense, but sometimes it is not. As I mentioned above, I have had to insist on a dress code in organisations I have been responsible for. I once had a colleague who was always so careless about her appearance, almost everytime I went out with her I had cause for concern. One day, we went for a meeting with a donor agency in the US. When I got back to the hotel, I got a call from the person who had facilitated the meeting, she was quite angry. ‘Why can’t your colleague iron her dress?’ she wanted to know. I was so embarrassed. I had of course noticed the rumpled silk dress, it looked like she had slept in it. I however held my peace because I did not want her to think I was always picking on her. And now a third party had weighed in. As soon as we got back, I drafted a dress code using established guidelines.

Dressing for work is an opportunity to present yourself as a competent, trustworthy professional. Miniskirts, spaghetti tops, tank tops, cleavage exposing camisoles and so on should be set aside for Saturday or for clubbing.  For the guys, your hair, shoes, tie and a nice aftershave (not too much) say a lot about you. For both men and women, a good appearance does not need to be expensive, you can do things within your means.

We do not need morality police trailing us around, telling us what we can or cannot wear. In a democracy, citizens are entitled to many freedoms, including the freedom to express themselves. It is the role of parents, guardians, teachers and mentors to provide guidance to young people when necessary. The next time you see your niece dressed like she is going to the beach when in fact she is going to church, you might want to have a word with her. I did that once to a niece of mine. I gently pushed her towards a full-length mirror and asked her, ‘What do you want to be in future?’ ‘A Lawyer’ she told me. ‘Great. Do you look like one now?’. ‘No’, she said. She got the message. She is a young adult who can be counselled or advised. She does not need to be policed.

By Lasisi Olagunju

Nigeria is a ring of iniquity. And, the iniquitous didn’t start with it today. For several years, I covered the activities of several military governors and administrators in Oyo State. Each of those well-trained minds came with their peculiarities. Colonel Ahmed Usman (God bless his soul) was particularly voluble. Whenever he spoke, it was as he felt; he had no euphemism for whatever came to his mind.

Anytime he did that, his media handlers were left horrified, scrambling and begging reporters for a soft landing. At a point, whispers of unwholesome deals were disturbing his sleep and the man came out full blast at a public function: “Even if I took anything, you don’t know that oga dey front, oga dey back, and all these people you see around me, dem no dey collect? If I chop alone na for the throat here e go stay.” He was right that time. If he said the same today, he would be right with the present administration of our election. It is a bustling bazaar.

On Saturday, you heard the Igbotako, Ondo State, woman who said she and everyone around her collected money and voted. The woman was asked by a television reporter what she had to say on the governorship election that was underway. She got possessed by the spirit of violent truth, and she sang: “We have voted. Voting is going on peacefully; there is no wahala; no fight. We voted and we collected money. All of us; we collected money; money for our votes…” She was about to say more but the people around her said enough! She was hushed up. And you could hear inside of her the voice of Sutpen, William Faulkner’s innocent character in ‘Absalom, Absalom!’: “What did I do or misdo?” The woman is the definition of innocence. She must be in some trouble now with the merchants of votes.

Second Republic governor of Ogun State, Chief Olabisi Onabanjo, wrote a popular column, ‘Ayekooto’, for the Nigerian Tribune. That was an unusual name. Ayekooto, when literally translated, means “the world rejects truth.” There was a creature called Bird of Truth. It used to live with man, conversing freely with him. But the bird told man too many brutal truths leading to its deportation and banishment forever to the bush. Because there is no vacuum in nature, the place of the deportee at home was filled with the presence of Parrot. This one is, however, different. It only mimics man. It says only whatever man says. Parrot is then asked why it hides its truth in monotonous mimicry, its reply is one lone word: ‘Ayekooto’. It became its name till tomorrow.

Naïveté or childish ignorance is a connotation of innocence. Jacques Maritain who stresses this in his ‘Dantes Innocence and Luck’ adds the second connotation of innocence: “integrity or incorruption, untouched original purity.” I think the ‘simple’ woman of Ondo represents Maritain’s both senses. She put in plain words what people of the world say in tongues. There is no election here, what we do is buying and selling. Or, in more graphic words, the people have come to realize that it pays to do with their votes what street whores do in their dingy holes.

The woman said there was “no wahala, no fight.” There couldn’t have been. Was it not a matter of cash? It is what the Yoruba call owó rèé, ojà rèé (money is here, what to purchase is here); it is in Hausa too: Ga kasuwa; ga kudi (see market, see money). Right buyers and right sellers always bond; they don’t fight unless there is a conman among them. But in this election business, all the thieves preserve their honour. They, therefore, do not fight. My people also say that in the Christian church, there is no reason for fisticuffs: you say your prayer, I say my Amen (Ìjà ò sí ní sóòsì; s’àdúà kí ns’àmí). At the polling booth, there is no more fear; everyone knows their place and their role. There is a vote to sell, who has come with the biggest cash? If today’s relationship between the voter and the voted is sustained, we won’t need policemen for elections again. Thugs will be useless, they will be out of job.

It is amazing how elections here have evolved; it is now big business. Politicians have borrowed sense from slave merchants of 19th century West Africa who bought captured people from raiders. Today’s slave raiders are a multi-layered lot. ‘Stakeholders’ of influence negotiate with candidates and their sponsors; candidates mobilize ‘stakeholders’ who pay agents; agents round up the actual voters and sell them to the candidates. The paid voters are shepherded to the polling booth, they vote like the Ondo woman – but unlike her, the paid voter does not go on the rooftop revealing the secrets of the market. It is pay-and-go and clean yansh like the brisk business of the street slut.

The Ondo woman was not stupid. She was just plain innocent and down-to-earth. To be down-to-earth is to be unpretentious. We should thank her, even give her a national award. In her honesty, she gave us what we’ve been searching for concerning our democracy. What is the right definition of what we do that we call elections? She has defined our democracy in a way no political scientist could. And, if I could reconstruct her thought, I would write that what we call democracy here is a government of money by money and for money.

A winner has emerged in the Ondo contest. The man won not necessarily because he was the best of the pack. He won because he was the one whose pocket best aligned with the demands of the electors. Politicians have stopped making promises of good governance. You don’t get pressed and go to the one-night stand and proceed into needless toasting. It is foolishness or inexperience. Pay the right price; if there is a competition, outbid them and get the prize. Fasting is for the foolish; the wise never get famished.

PDP clears Zamfara LG polls; APC sweeps Ogun LG election; Ondo governorship poll: It is 18 over 18 for APC. Those are current headlines. What do they tell about our democracy?

Last week, I quoted the title of a 1965 editorial of the Nigerian Tribune: ‘White elephant elections.’ I wonder what the writer of that piece would scribble if he were alive today and witnessed what we call elections. We pour bastard money into elections even when what we do is elect without elections. There were pretences in the past. These days, we think pretence is for the faint-hearted. We simply tell the people to come and be bedded if they would eat and their children would not starve. And they come well-behaved like captured slaves on a straight line – or like the guiltless volunteers on the firing line of Baltasar Engonga, popular s3x star (tsar) of Equatorial Guinea.

As I write this, I take a pause, and then a rush to Ayi Kwei Armah’s ‘Two Thousand Seasons’. Its prologue keeps reading like an epilogue to what I call my country: “People headed after the setting sun, in that direction, even the possibility of regeneration is dead. There, the devotees of death take life, consume it, and exhaust every living thing. Then they move on, forever seeking newer boundaries. Wherever there are living remnants undestroyed, there lies more work for them. Whatever would direct itself after the setting sun, an ashen death lies in wait for it. Whichever people make the falling fire their aim, a pale of extinction awaits them among the destroyers…”

Nigeria’s journey towards the setting sun did not start today. With its democracy, it is a train that is plainly headed towards ashen waste, the falling sun. It is choking, killing and very expensive and we are all paying, even the rich are crying. The Japanese have a proverb which will be hated if said here: “If you get on the wrong train, get off at the next station – the longer you stay, the more expensive the return trip will be.” Indians have a counter proverb: “Sometimes, the wrong train takes you to the right station.” Do not listen to the Indian. It worked for India because the Indians dropped off their wrong coaches very early in their lives. Here, we are in a wrong train, pulling deathly coaches, facing the wrong direction. This democracy. There is no right station where it is headed. Unfortunately, cheap or expensive, we are not even thinking of any return trip. We all pretend that all is well. We sing Alleluia to the operators who packed sheep with humans and shut the door. All na passenger (wón k’éran m’éro). The interior blurs all lines between what is third-class and what is first. The experience is the same.

‘The Morning Train to Ibadan’ is the title of a foreigner’s experience of Nigeria sixty-two years ago. One morning in 1962, John Henrik Clarke, an American journalist, took a train from Lagos to Ibadan. The train left the Lagos Terminus at exactly eight o’clock in the morning and arrived Ibadan at 2.20 p.m. Between the time the journey started and the time it ended, enough of Nigeria happened for the newsman from America to write about.

And he wrote: A beggar strolled into the train, “pleading for the price of his morning meal.” The man thought he deserved some pity. The train got to Yaba, passed through that part of Lagos and had its first stop at Ebute Metta. The American noticed that the beggar left the train here “and three more got on.” The newsman added that at Agece (Agege), another beggar boarded the train “carrying a sign saying he was deaf and dumb.” The train continued its journey to Ibadan. The passenger noticed the train panting. At another time, it “started jerkily.” Things weren’t exactly right. Was it with the train or with the driver? It made several stops and started in the middle of nowhere. And while it did this, the American said he noticed that no one, except himself “seemed to care why the train had stopped in the first place.” Some were busy eating, many just chatted away in the overcrowded third-class cabin while the journalist sat taking mental note of the fainting train and its carefree passengers.

The train got to another station and stopped. Our American guest noticed that one of the deaf and dumb beggars ended his tour here. If all the man wrote is a drama, this is where I cite as the denouement. What happened? The journalist saw the beggar shedding his deaf-and-dumb costume like a snake does its skin. Snake keepers call it molting or ecdysis. The beggar got down and “was met by friends. He took off his sign and stood by the tracks, laughing and talking as other friends came up to greet him.” Now, to be dumb, is it not to lack the capacity to speak? The deaf is the one who has ears but hears nothing. But this deaf-and-dumb dude laughed and spoke heartily with friends! Nigeria must be a country of the impossible; our American guest was utterly disappointed. “Hereafter,” he wrote, “it is going to be difficult for me to believe that anybody in Nigeria is really deaf and dumb.”

No one is really deaf and dumb in Nigeria. No one has ever been. Our country is a nation of drama and jokes. Nothing shocks anyone; no experience mocks anybody. Only foreigners like that American journalist get worked up and take us seriously. Did you notice how the beggars came on and off the train? For them, the train ride was not a journey, it was business. Everything was transactional, their presence, their cries for pity, even their innocence.

The American’s train experience happened in 1962 – two years after independence. Sixty-two years after that journey, tell me if the train of Nigeria has stopped fainting, stopping and jerking without explanations. And whether Nigerians have started getting bothered by anything beyond their eating and chatting, saying nothing. Sixty-two years after ‘The morning Train to Ibadan’, tell me if beggars have stopped faking blindness. Or that the deaf of the last century has not given birth to newer generations of the deaf and dumb. Tell me what has changed and if something will change. Nothing will change because nothing is real. Not election. Not democracy. Not politicians. Not even the country.

And the future of where we are? I will tell what I know: Again, I quote Ayi Kwei Armah, but this time, from his ‘The Beautyful Ones Are Not Yet Born’: “When you can see the end of things even in their beginnings, there’s no more hope, unless you want to pretend, or forget, or get drunk or something.” There is no country. What is Nigeria is void; pitch dark darkness.

By Omoniyi Osadare

In recent times Professor Chidi Odinkalu has become a constant critique and “thorn in the flesh” of the Nigerian Judiciary and he is very right to do so because the Nigerian Judiciary has in recent times become a shadow of its former self with its inconsistent decisions and it indeed appears to have been hijacked in many respects by unscrupulous people.

As soon as the current CJN Hon Justice Kudirat Kekere-Ekun resumed office, Professor Odinkalu continued his spate of criticism against the Judiciary and has even attacked the CJN ‘s character raising insinuations she has been captured or about to be captured by Politicians and unscrupulous persons.

His latest missile is against the Dinner hosted by the Lagos State Government to celebrate the appointment of the current CJN who is the third indigene of Lagos State to be appointed to the exalted position of Chief Justice of Nigeria.

Professor Odinkalu says that Justice Kekere Ekun ought not to have attended the event because Lagos State is a litigant at the Supreme Court and he suggests that her attendance may colour her objectivity and may affect the Supreme Court’s impartiality in their ultimate decision.

With due respect to Professor Odinkalu, his submission is “balderdash ” and without basis for the following reasons:

1. Justice Kekere Ekun is a respected, impartial and fearless jurist who has been a Judge at all levels of the Judiciary including the Magistracy and has never been indicted for any form of impartiality or moral turpitude in the course of her judicial career.
2. Secondly, as CJN she is now the Administrative head of an arm of Government and must as a matter of course interact with other representatives of the other arms of Government including the State Government as part of her administrative duties. Some of those duties will include attending social events of the Government that should not necessarily carry any imputation of malfeasance or compromise.
3. ⁠Attending a dinner event compromising mainly Judges from all levels of the Judiciary and legal practitioners to honour one of their own who has attained the highest office in the Judiciary cannot be interpreted by a stroke of imagination as a prelude to compromise by this respected Jurist.
4. ⁠The decisions at the Supreme Court are rendered by Panels of five and seven as the case may be, so the CJN does not make unilateral decisions as Professor Odinkalu would want the undiscerning public to believe.
5. Judges may be “Godlike” but they are human beings and members of the Society and cannot therefore be completely insulated from Society because their judgements must continue to reflect the ethos and character of a society that remains dynamic and changing. The most important traits are that the Judex must be fearless and upright and be prepared to deliver justice based on law and equity no matter whose ox is gored. I dare say that the new CJN possesses these qualities and is unlikely to be swayed by her attendance at an event organised by her State of origin to honour her ascendancy to the apex of her profession.

Professor Odinkalu should put his excellent writing skills to better use by putting forward a world-class position paper with specifics and not generalities for consideration by the CJN in her quest to retool the Judiciary .

After all, criticism cannot be for criticism’s sake alone ..it must be constructive.
Professor Odinkalu should let the new CJN breathe!!!!!