₦airaland Forum

hum

Restructuring don’t worth it
By Abdulrazaq O Hamzat

In 1965, Nigeria was operating regionalism, in which every region was controlling its own resources when the first set of violent agitators picked up arms to express their grievances and confront the state violently. This was before the first military coup that eventually pushed the country into civil war.

While the military boys were scheming to topple the democratically elected government, it turned out that they were not alone. Some young people in Niger Delta were already warming up to confront the state due to what they perceived as marginalization within their own region.

The lost of hope, in the prospect of a better living, especially in the Niger Delta region ravaged by extreme poverty in midst of wealth propelled a young Ijaw activist named Isaac Boro into forming the first militant group to confront what he described as ‘’poor governance and economic deprivation of his people’’.

Niger Delta region at the time agitated for their own separate state without success, yet continued to feel suppressed by the leadership of the region. There was true federalism, without true governance.

In the declaration of what is today known as 7 days war, Boro stated that “Economic development of the area is certainly the most appalling aspect. There is not even a single industry. The only fishery industry which ought to be situated in a properly riverine area is sited about 80 miles inland at Aba. The boatyard at Opobo had its headquarters at Enugu … Personnel in these industries and also in the oil stations are predominantly non-Ijaw,”

He went further to state that, “most of the youths were so frustrated with the general neglect that they were ready for any action led by an outstanding leader to gain liberty…. we were clenched in tyrannical chains and led through a dark alley of perpetual political and social deprivation. Strangers in our own country! Inevitably, therefore, the day would have to come for us to fight for our long-denied right to self-determination”.

Boro and others recruited young men to their cause under the umbrella of an organisation known as Niger Delta Volunteer Force (NDVF). They eventually set up a military camp at Taylor Creek and on February 23rd 1966, the militants moved out from their Touton Ban camp with Boro, Onwonaru and Dick as their divisional commanders to confront the state.

The above history tells us that going back to the same regional structure or what some people described as true federalism that produced the first set of militant group will not bring forth anything different, if true governance that was missing in the first republic is not incorporated as well. The aspiration of the Nigerian people across all ethnic and religious background is not tied to the kind of structure we operate; but the kind of governance we deliver.

Whether restructuring or not, regionalism or true federalism, resource control or anything else, what is important is putting food on the peoples table and giving them reason to hope in a better tomorrow.

In recent time, we have seen highly placed individuals backing the call for restructuring.
Just few days ago, some colleagues requested to know my reaction to the call for restructuring by former Lagos Governor and APC national leader, Bola Tinubu.

They had also requested for my views on the same subject when former Vice President Atiku Abubakar declared his support for restructuring and they want to know whether or not, I find Atiku and Tinubu’s argument convincing enough to throw my full weight behind the call.

However, my position remains the same. Restructuring will not put food on the table. It will not stop the corruption; neither will it stop the impunity.

To the best of my understanding, structure is not our major challenge at this time, people’s orientation and attitude to leadership is. Restructuring will not change anything in Nigeria. What will change the situation is being discipline and responsible. Take out discipline and responsibility, restructuring becomes useless.

Restructuring will not prevent Goodluck Jonathan, Rotimi Amaechi, Allisson Madueke and others like them to lead South South cluelessly. The greed in the heart of Kalu, Ngige, Ohakim and their likes would not change in their leadership of South East. Atiku, Alimodu Sheriff, Goje etc would still be selfish leaders in North East. Elrufai, Yerima, Lamido etc would still be the same highhanded leaders of the North West. David Mark, Bukola Saraki, George Akume, Dino and others would still offer their slave and master kind of leadership in North Central, while Tinubu, Aragbesola, Fashola and Fayose would still be the less compassionate leaders in South West. What would change? Nothing.

Restructuring will not stop the monitization of election. They will still be buying and selling elections. It will not stop rigging. It would not stop the corruption, mismanagement of public funds and abuse of offices. Restructuring will not stop tribalism; neither will it stop religious sentiments and nepotism. Additionally, restructuring will not stop agitation; neither will it bring good governance.

Meanwhile, if for any reason, there becomes need to restructure Nigeria. The kind of restructure that may be impactful is a restructuring that will change our bicameral legislature to unicameral, thereby scraping the wasteful senate. This will help reduce cost of governance.

Another impactful restructuring, will be to replace state of origin with state of residence. That will enhance unity and allow people to freely make every part of the country home without any form of hindrances. Then again, we can restructure to give more power to the local government than the state. This will allow rapid development at the local level, thereby reducing over population in the city, since most of the advantages derived in the cities would be available at the local level, with more opportunities.

Provided these are not what advocates of restructuring mean, restructuring don’t worth it

Abdulrazaq O Hamzat is the Executive Director of Foundation for Peace Professionals

Learning

Hum

Hum

capatainrambo:
stupid almajiri



Nigerians don't love Nigeria period








yeyee country no kiddin o
who d usless country ep mtchewww

It epp me. It can epp you too, if only you can open your mind

FeloniousFelon:
Biafrans have been at the receiving end of Jihadist motivated and state ochestrated genocide since 1945.


Where this afonja found a way to relate Biafran agitation to how the Rwanda genocide sprung up beats my imagination

?

Sprumbabafather:
How about the Biafran genocide of 1967-70 and the recent Biafran genocide of 2017.

?

Ok

sarrki:
Self determination that is founded on hatred and bigotry is crime

True

hate speech is a crime.........instigation is a crime......threat of violence is a crime......disturbing peace is a crime..disruption of public order is a crime...violating the law is a crime....

?

Never again: Rwanda genocide and Biafra agitation
By Abdulrazaq Hamzat

After the genocide in 1994, Rwanda continued to exist. In remembering its dead after the tragedy, which claimed 16% of the population, a museum was created in their honour with a bold inscription: ‘’Never Again’’. This is the best that has happened to those victims of human cruelty.

With the above understanding, it has become imperative for us at the Foundation for Peace Professionals to redirect a certain misconception about the Rwanda genocide that is being thrown around by analysts, when they comment on the implication of ethnic based secessionist hate campaigns in Southeast Nigeria, which if not carefully handled, could lead to a similar thing as experienced in Rwanda.

While most commentators are right in quickly referring to the Rwanda experience in other to caution agitators on the consequences of their actions, it is important to bring us to another perspective that is yet to be properly looked at and fully appreciated.

In 1994, when the ethnic based hate campaign began in Rwanda, the total population of the country was just a little over six million.

Hate campaigns by Hutu agitators against the Tutsi eventually led to genocide, which claimed almost one million lives in just about 100 days. The casualty figure is over 16 per cent of the total population of the country.

Nigeria today has more than 180 million people and 16 % of it is a little below 30 million.

What happened in Rwanda that year was the gruesome murder of innocent and defenseless 16 per cent of its total population due to perceived feeling of marginalization and expectation that the mass murder of another ethnic group may possibly lead to secession.

The question we must all ask is; “What happened to Rwanda after losing 16 per cent of its population in mindless killings?

Were the expectations of those who led the hate campaign fulfilled?

What does the one million lost lives amounted to?”

The answer to the above questions remained a united Rwanda. It was too late, when those who expected division as a result of the mass murder discovered that the killing of their fellow country men and women would not make a country divide. Those who also thought that instigating hatred against fellow country people would help them in their quest for separation were also disappointed.

This points to the fact that, if you promote hatred against other ethnic groups in your country for whatever reason, you have to be ready to live with the hate, because it won’t help you fulfill your separatist agenda.

In a report by the UK Guardian to commemorate 20 years of the Rwanda genocide, victims were reported to have said they now live in the same country with those who killed their families.

“The killers are our neighbors now,” one respondent said.

Furthermore, one of the perpetrators of the hate campaign and killing, Thomas, said he learned a lesson from the killing. He said: “You find out that killing is not a solution. We killed thinking we would get something and we found out it only brought misery.”

What they didn’t want to do before, which is tolerance, is what they have learned now to do the hard way. The people are now learning to tolerate the people they hate, though difficult, but necessarily.

After the conclusion of the Rwandan genocide, the new Rwandan government was having difficulty prosecuting approximately 130,000 alleged perpetrators of the genocide.

What must be understood here is that, in this 21st century, any secessionist group that gains notoriety with hate speech is as good as a nuisance and misplaced agitation. It will never achieve its aim.

Rwanda teaches us that, not even the death of 16 per cent of the total population will change this fact.

In other words, you can instigate hate as much as you want in your agitation, you can even lead the country to war and genocide, but one fact is clear, you will never achieve anything. Not the separation, not the fulfillment. So why promote hatred among people on the basis of quest for separation?

Additional lesson learned from Rwanda is that, instigating hatred against fellow human beings on the basis of ethnicity will not be rewarded by the global community. Hate speech is a crime in international law. The world didn’t reward Hutus in Rwanda, it won’t reward any other agitators in any part of the world.

The Nigerian civil war, which claimed about three million lives, also offers another lesson. Despite losing that number of citizens, the aims of the promoters of the war were never achieved. The global community will not aid personal ambition of individuals or groups at the expense of the general good.

It is on this basis that we are calling on the leaders in Southeast region to prevail on their sons and daughters to allow reason prevail. The need for peace cannot be over emphasized. All those who succeeded in their agitation across the world only did because of their decency and peaceful approach. The world saw that though they are agitating for a just cause, but did it decently within the confines of the international standards. The same cannot be said of the agitation in the Southeast. I appeal that we shouldn’t allow Nigeria become a 21st century Rwanda, which only offered 16% of its population to a futile quest. Never again.

Abdulrazaq Hamzat is the Executive Director, Foundation for Peace Professionals.
https://www.dailytrust.com.ng/news/prof-brainy/never-again-rwanda-genocide-and-biafra-agitation/214611.html

true

Why Israel is against 2 states solution on Palestine
By Abdulrazaq O Hamzat

The United Nations Security Council meeting, an annual event, started its 72nd session few days ago at the UN Headquarters in United States of America. More than 100 world leaders, thousands of diplomats and advocates are presently in New York City, in an event scheduled to hold from 19-25 September 2017 to fashion out a way forward in pursuit of global peace and security.

This year’s theme is Focusing on people — striving for peace and a decent life for all on a sustainable planet.
On the first day of the event, precisely on 19th September 2017, world leaders took turn to address their counterparts and other participants, either in advancement of their national agenda’s, pursuit of global ideas, defense of policies or solidarity with other nations.

Nigeria’s President, Muhammadu Buhari was at the event and he spoke on variety of issues, among which include Nigeria’s fight against terrorism and the country’s role in advancing democracy in Gambia.

President Buhari also spoke about the threat of nuclear war (North Korean missile program), which he says is a crisis equal to that of Cuban (1962), when the world was close to a war.
"All necessary pressure and diplomatic efforts must be brought to bear on North Korea to accept peaceful resolution of the crisis." He said.
In staying true to Nigeria’s long term stand on the Israel and Palestine dispute, President Buhari once again declared Nigeria’s total support for a two-state solution to the conflict, calling on world leaders not to forget about the unresolved dispute.
‘’New conflicts should not make us lose focus on ongoing unresolved old conflicts’’. ‘’For example, several UN Security Council Resolutions from 1967 on the Middle East crisis remain unimplemented. Meanwhile, the suffering of the Palestinian people and the blockade of Gaza continue’’. Buhari said.

In a similar speech given last year on the same issue, President Buhari had stated that,“our support for various Security Council resolutions restoring and respecting 1967 boundaries with Jerusalem as capital of Palestine is firm and unshaken.

What president Buhari has done since coming to power is to re-emphasize Nigeria’s stand on the issue as often done by his predecessors. Nigeria is known to take a consistent stand on key global issues and this is not in any way different.

The two-state solution refers to a solution of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict which calls for "two states for two groups of people." The two-state solution envisages an independent State of Palestine alongside the Israel, west of the Jordan River. The boundary between the two states is still subject to dispute and negotiation, with Palestinian and Arab leadership insisting on the "1967 borders", which is not accepted by Israel. The territory of the former Mandate Palestine which shall not form part of the Palestinian State, shall be part of Israeli territory.

After the Six Day War in June 1967, the United Nations Security Council unanimously passed "United Nations Security Council Resolution 242" calling for Israeli withdrawal from the "Israeli-occupied territories" during the war, in exchange for "termination of all claims or states of belligerency" and "acknowledgement of sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every state in the area". The "Palestine Liberation Organization" (PLO), which had been formed in 1964, strongly criticized the resolution, saying that it reduced the question of Palestine to a refugee problem.

In September 1974, 56 Member States proposed that "the question of Palestine" be included as an item in the General Assembly’s agenda. In a resolution adopted on 22 November 1974, the General Assembly affirmed Palestinian rights, which included the "right to self-determination without external interference", "the right to national independence and sovereignty", and the "right to return to their homes and property". These rights have been affirmed every year since.
However, despite the resolution and endorsement by almost all countries of the world, Israel backed by the United States of America has continued to reject the solution.

While Israel doesn’t out rightly reject the two states solution, it prefer the one-state solution and the similar bi national solution. Proponents of a bi national solution to the conflict advocate a single state in Israel, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, with citizenship and equal rights in the combined entity for all inhabitants of all three territories, without regard to ethnicity or religion, but most countries of the world differ, yet are not trying to understand why Israel is reluctant to go ahead with the two states solution as resolved by the United Nations.

Many have been asking, why is Israel against the two states solution when almost all countries of the world endorsed it as the best solution? Do they really love the crisis to remain unresolved for as long as possible? If not, why are they refusing to implement a resolution the global body consider appropriate? Or better still, when will Israel agree to end this crisis that is doing more harm than good to both parties?

My understanding as a peace professional is that, Israel has fears and worries, which are genuine and needed to be adequately dealt with by the global body. They understand that if those issues are not addressed before the two states solution is implemented, the two states will not be a solution; it would rather be the beginning of greater crisis.

It is not a secret that between Israel and Palestine leadership, there is intractable mutual hatred. Individual leaders that have worked for a peaceful resolution of the crisis from both sides had been murdered for their efforts. Former Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and President Anwar Sadat of Egypt come to mind here.

If Israel declare the conflict over today and allow the resolution to take place as proposed, the unaddressed mutual hatred within both parties will only give the Palestinian hardliners some legitimacy to not only acquire arms to engage in real hostility against Israel, it would also enable them to partner with enemy nations to start a greater conflict with Israel, in furtherance of their mutual hatred. I am sure no nation would deliberately empower its hostile neighbor to have more capacity to turn against it.

In conclusion, my proposition would that, the United Nations design a 5 years strategic confidence building program to reduce hostility and mutual hatred between both parties.

The high level programme should carefully articulate Israel’s fear and concerns and work to address them before pushing for the implementation of the UN resolution.

The programme should be built in such a way that, both parties interact more and are given platform to commit themselves to not just being independent of each other, but working together at the highest level.

Until Israel become comfortable that it is safe in a two state solution, it would never agree for it to be implemented.

Abdulrazaq O Hamzat is the Executive Director of Foundation for Peace Professionals.

Hum

hum

IPOB and the other meaning of peaceful protest
By Abdulrazaq O Hamzat

Some time ago, videos of Nnamdi Kanu, the Director of radio Biafra and Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) flooded the social media. It was as if someone deliberately released all the videos at the same time to bomb the social space.

Within a very short while after these videos were released, social media commentators began to make commentary on them, quoting dangerous words claimed to be heard from the so called London based Biafra agitator, as some commentators described him.

Many, including this writer, who tried to ignore the trending hate speeches couldn’t do so for long because it was everywhere. If you turn right, you will see one commentary with a video attachment, and then when you turn left, you see another one. This continued for some days until one was forced to watch some of the videos, so as to be sure that all the harsh and violent words credited to Kanu were actually made by him.

In one of the many videos watched by this writer, I heard Mr Kanu saying, ‘’we will destroy Nigeria, we will ensure Nigeria is worse than Somalia’’. This is like a tone from Boko Haram video. The not so peaceful communicator didn’t stop there, he went further to state that, ‘’we have all the weapons required to carry out this mission, we are ready to give them war, he declared.

Probably after watching some of the videos, the online media outfit, Sahara Reporters reached out to Kanu for interview. In the Sahara Reporter’s interview conducted by Rudolf Okonkwo, Kanu was asked to explain what he was saying in those videos and he reiterated his message that his group is ready to destroy Nigeria through violence, if they failed to give them Biafra.

Soon after, another video emerged online, in which Mr. Kanu was soliciting funds for arms in preparation for the violence he promised. The event had in attendance, several Igbo professionals abroad. He made it clear in that event that they are ready for war and only needed funds from the participants.

It is therefore strange, that some people are now claiming that IPOB is a peaceful organization. I had to go back to my dictionary to check the meaning of peaceful once again.
According to the long-man advance dictionary, peaceful means quiet and calm, not involving war or violence. Another meaning of peaceful I saw on Wikipedia tells me that, peaceful means to be free from disturbance, i.e, tranquil.

So, how can a group which threatens war and violence be said to be peaceful? How can a group which threatens to make the country worse than war thorn Somalia be said to be peaceful? I mean, how can a group, which we have video of their solicitation of funds for arms be said to be peaceful? This really beats my imagination.

Kanu was granted bail on strict conditions due to the nature of his offense. He was said to be sick and requiring medical attention. It was on this basis that he was granted bail in April, 2017.

“Nnamdi Kanu, appealed to the court for bail based on health grounds and it is only the living that can stand trial’’.it was reported. “So, i am minded to grant him bail so that he can attend to his health and face his trial alive,” Justice Nyako said.

However, immediately he was released from prison, Kanu flouted all the bail conditions given to him. Instead, he was seen on video disrupting the street and confronting the police, while daring the Federal Government to take action. This became a recurring activity. Soon after, he was seen in parade of uniformed youths, whom he described as the Biafra National Guard and another one he calls Biafra Secret Service. The leader of the so called Guard and Secret Service refereed to him as the Commander in Chief of Biafra Armed Forces, all these happening on the soil of a sovereign nation, Nigeria.

Besides the above, reports here and there on the social media from victims pointed to the fact that, this group has suppressed the people living within their strong hold, to an extent that anyone who expresses a contrary opinion is attacked and forced to pledge allegiance to their imaginary country, failure to which such person would be brutalized and tortured. Yet, some people still claimed they are peaceful agitators and I am forced to ask, how?

It was the inability of the police to control the situation that warranted the deployment of soldiers to the South East, but unfortunately, the group’s confrontation with the military led to the lost of lives and the eventual proscription of the group as terrorist organization.
No doubt, IPOB is a violent organization; it is a terrorist organization that should be tamed before it is too late. It may not be as violent as other known terrorist groups, but its activities point to the fact that, if not quickly tamed, may turn out worse.

It was the same group that killed police and many citizens in Rivers State and Abia, the same group attacked several residents, burn police station, confront soldiers with arms, torture and assault people, burn mosques and many others places across the region.

It is also in the house of this same group, that the security said it found IED, along with some petrol bombs. Certainly, that is not a trait of a peaceful organization. Those who associate peacefulness with the activities of IPOB were being economical with the truth, or probably unaware of their activities.

While it is saddening that some people lost their lives in the confrontation that led to the proscription of the group as terrorist organization, we must not twist fact, in other to be seen as caring for the victims. Let’s all encourage the innocent members of the group to denounce such association and commit themselves to peace.

Abdulrazaq O Hamzat is the Executive Director of Foundation for Peace Professionals (FPP)

Is IPOB a terrorist group? You decide
PART I—ACTS OF TERRORISM AND RELATED OFFENCES

1. Prohibition of Acts of Terrorism.

(1) A person who knowingly—

(a) does, attempts or THREATENS to do an act preparatory to or in furtherance of an act of terrorism;

(E.g, We will make Nigeria worse than Somalia- IPOB)

(b) commits to do anything that is reasonably necessary to promote an act of terrorism; or

(E.G, We are ready to destroy Nigeria- We will kill Buhari and his zoo people - IPOB)

(c) assists or facilitates the activities of persons engaged in an act of terrorism, commits an offence under this Act.

(E.G, setting up an illegal radio by IPOB etc)

(2) In this section, "act of terrorism" means an act which is deliberately done with malice, aforethought and which:

(a) may seriously harm or damage a country or an international organization;
(E.G, attempting to prevent holding election in Anambra by IPOB)

(b) is intended or can reasonably be regarded as having been intended to—

(i) unduly compel a government or international organization to perform or abstain from performing any act;
(E.G, attempting to prevent holding election in Anambra by IPOB)

(ii) seriously intimidate a population; (iii)seriously destabilize or destroy the fundamental political, constitutional, economic or social structures of a country or an international organization; or
(E.G, , Setting up a Biafra Secrete Service and Guard and destabilizing state activities through suppression, disturbing public peace and mobilizing to church to intimidate the Anambra State governor with their no election in Anambra)
(iv) otherwise influence such government or international organization by intimidation or coercion; and
(E.G, Abusing, defaming and threatening any Igbo leader such as Imo State Governor, Rochas Okorocha who refuses to support the agitation with the intent of influencing and coercing the government and people into supporting it activities
(c) involves or causes, as the case may be—
(i) an attack upon a person's life which may cause serious bodily harm or death;
E.G, Kiiling police and some northerners among others as seen on videos
(ii) kidnapping of a person;
(E.G, kidnapping some northerners by BSS and torturing them in their yard as seen on some videos)
(iii) destruction to a Government or public facility, a transport system, an infrastructure facility, including an information system, a fixed platform located on the continental shelf, a public place or private property, likely to endanger human life or result in major economic loss;
(E.G, burning of plice station, vehicles etc as seen on videos)
(iv) the seizure of an aircraft, ship or other means of public or goods transport and diversion or the use of such means of transportation for any of the purposes in paragraph (b)(iv) of this subsection ; *
(E.G, seizing citizens vehicle to convey its members to Umuaihia to confront the army as narrated by victims on social media)
(v) the manufacture, possession, acquisition, transport, supply or use of weapons, explosives or of nuclear, biological or chemical weapons, as well as research into, and development of biological and chemical weapons without lawful authority;
(E.G, the IED recovered from Kanu;s house by Police)
(vi) the release of dangerous substance or causing of fire, explosions or floods, the effect of which is to endanger human life;
(E.G, the petrol bomb discovered in Kanu's house)
(vii) interference with or disruption of the supply of water, power or any other fundamental natural resource, the effect of which is to endanger human life ;
(NONE)
(d) an act or omission in or outside Nigeria which constitutes an offence within the scope of a counter terrorism protocols and conventions duly ratified by Nigeria.
(E.G, broadcasting hate speech from London to Nigeria through radio Biafra)
(3) An act which disrupts a service but is committed in pursuance of a protest. However, demonstration or stoppage of work is not a terrorist act within the meaning of this definition provided that the act is not intended to result in any harm referred to in subsection (2) (b)(i), (ii) or (iv) of this section.
(E.G, the dusruption of a church to intimidate Anambra State Governor with their No election)


Does IPOB qualify to be a terrorist organization? You decide

?

AHMED ABDULFATAH, THE GANG STAR GOVERNOR
Abdulrazaq O Hamzat
The title of this piece may seem offensive, but after thorough check and analysis, I couldn’t come up with any better title.

Please, don’t be offended if you think it is not appropriate for me to address the Kwara State governor, Alh. Abdulfatah Ahmed as a gang star, his looks and hair made me to jump into such conclusion. Maybe you should take a look at the attached pictures and tell me if there is another description for it. I may change it later.

September 17, 2017 was a day, the wall of morality and decency finally broke down in Kwara State government house. Like an egg that fell on the ground, sense of responsibility has taken flight to a land of no return.

While many had knew, long ago that there was no morality or any sense of decency in the leadership of the state, those who still had any doubt are beginning to share in that perspective.

Before Governor Ahmed’s ascension to the Kwara governorship seat, many public commentators often described him as corporate tout. I do not know him at the time, but those who are close to the government house do say that, he his a not a responsible person.

I recall that whenever I ask about what made him irresponsible, the response I often get was the same. They would say, he his what people often describe as a classical omu ‘’drunkard’’ and amugbo ‘’smoker of Indian hemp’’ in the extreme.

At the time, I do not often believe all those things are true. I assumed it was just some ways of painting him in negative light because he was running for office as the preferred candidate of their leader, who sees him as the custodian of his looting record as a commissioner for finance.

When Ahmed became governor, many stories of his exploit in smoking, drinking and womanizing often trend as rumor. Some times, we would hear rumor of random ladies getting pregnant for him. We have even heard rumor that some of these ladies actually gave birth to children.

For me, I do not often take this rumors seriously. I know they could be false. They could also be true. But since they are not brought to the public light through conventional medium who might have properly investigated the matter, they don’t matter. And even if they are true, let it remain his personal life, since he doesn’t rub it on the people’s face.

However, everything changed on 17 September, 2017. That was yesterday.

I was called very early in the morning by our Kwara Must Change team member about something strange that was seen on herald Newspaper. The hair of the governor. My respected brother who called was trying to explain what happened to the hair of the governor, but I do not understand. I told him to forward me the picture so I could understand what he was saying. Then, my inbox was flooded with about 10 pictures of the governor’s hair from a reliable state owned newspaper, Herald. The images were actually on the paper’s front page, though on another story.

When I saw the image, i couldn’t believe my eyes. Is this gallas hair style? Is this baba ban se irun ku? Is it Obama? Or is this another new style? Maybe ‘’ganghair’’ or something.
On another look, I asked myself, does it mean the governor doesn’t have money to barb or while barbing, NEPA who are now refereed to as PHCN took light? Maybe the governor fought with his barber while the barbing was going on and the gentle barber decided to leave the hair half way.

Many thought were running through my mind. I couldn’t wrap my mind around what could make a governor have such kind of hair in a public place.

It was in the midst of this thought that someone said to me. Mr Right, why are you bordering yourself with Governor Ahmed’s hair style? Don’t you know he his a drunkard and amugbo. I said I don’t know. I have never seen the governor before, except once. I have never seen him drinking or smoking. But my friend continued. You know, an amugbo and drunkard could do anything, any time. To satisfy my curiosity, so I asked, his governor Ahmed really an amugbo and omu? He responded in affirmation.

Okay, for the purpose of this discuss, let us assume he his. I am not sure though. But there are countless amugbo and omu every where in and outside the government. Some are known to be responsible despite their personal bad habits.
My friend responded, Governor Ahmed’s own is different. When they say he his an amugbo or omu, it’s not just that he smokes and drinks. It’s in the extreme. Far beyond what you could imagine and too excessively than you can wrap your mind around. He added that, i need to be close to him to understand who he his. This friend concluded by saying that, don’t be surprised about anything from the Governor, he drinks and smokes anything. And if you can drink and smokes anything, anytime, any where, then, you can do anything.

I had to go back to look at the pictures.

Kai, this picture is disgusting to be on the head of a state governor. If your child has this kind of hair, how will you feel?

If you asked the child to cut the hair to look decent and responsible, and the child responded, it’s the governor’s style. I want to look like the governor. Isn’t this a way to injure the psychology of the youths and motivate them to follow the indecent and irresponsible way?

This is highly disappointing.

Abdulrazaq O Hamzat
Kwara Must Change

Lol

FrancisDiote:
You have spoken well with valid points.

To be candid, i feel the Nigerian system has not been fair to the igbos.

Of a fact igbos have held sway at the helm of affairs but since 1999 the igbos feel they have not gotten enough from Nigeria compared to other regions.

Obasanjo/Atiku
jonathan/sambo
Buhari/Osinbajo

this govt made it more glaring when she decided to neglect the region in the scheme of things probably because the region didnt vote for APC. Am sure you remember the 5% and 97% that didnt add up.

The eastern politicians and especially governors have not helped their cause. They have refused to develope their regions.

My take is we go back to the regional govt or better still practice true federalism with the states granted full autonomy as enshrined in a true democratic constitution.

When we had obj/atiku,Igbo was so. In 2003, Buhari offered Igbo VP, they refused to vote for him. He did again in 2007, they didn't vote for him. How is that anybody's fault? Igbo voted for Yaradua and GEJ.

Why should anyone take the blame for their own error?

If they had voted for Buhari when he had igbo VP, igbo would have been.

FrancisDiote:
you have a good historical update.
But when you become a president and decide to neglect an entire region but instead you appoint your kinsmen, party loyalist and your family members into key posts in a country meant for all, and funded with resources from the neglected region.

Please what will you call this one?

But this is exactly what happened under GEJ and Igbo were beneficiaries, while Yoruba were victims.

When the table turned, it shouldn't bring much noise.

Afam4eva:
Civil war. I'm surprised that was so hard for you except you're just playing to the gallery like always.

How would a people who like Igbo just few years earlier suddenly want to go to war with it?
Why would Igbo want to go to war with it's friend, despite it alliance? Or why would the North want to go to war with it's friend, despite allaince?

[quote author=ritababe post=60556046]

Japan
South Africa
Hong Kong
France

[/groups.

There are plenty secessionist groups is south Africa. One of them is the Afrikaners. They even have their own political party working for this purpose.

In Japan, the secessionist groups are uncountable. Lol,they are countable. May be 10 or so.
Ethnic group: Ainu
Proposed state: Republic of Ainu
Political group: Ainu independence movement

Ethnic group: Ryukyuan
Proposed state: Republic of Ryukyu
Political groups: Ryukyu independence movement
Note: The supporters of the movement want the Amami Islands in Kagoshima Prefecture, former part of the defunct Ryukyu Kingdom until 1609, to be part of independent Ryukyu.

Hong Kong is not a sovereign nation. Hong Kong is a special administrative region (SAR) which enjoys a high degree of autonomy under the People's Republic of China (PRC). But despite this, it still has some secessionist groups. Many of them have distinct point of view from pan-democrats,[4] and advocate the Hong Kong people's right to self-determination, while milder elements advocate for greater autonomy while remaining part of China, and the most radical call for the return to British rule or full independence as a sovereign state. Certain right-wing localist groups also advocate for a more aggressive and militant stance against the mainland government in defending indigenous interests.[5] For that reason, they are labelled as "radicals" and "separatists" by the Beijing government. Finally, there are several secessionist groups in France. One of them is Basque people.
Proposed state: Unification with the Basque Country