Until recently, when he was re-ushed, with zingy air, into Nigeria’s entertainment scene, to a warm reception by Nigeria’s Generation Z, the folklorist, Mike Ejeagha has retired to the archives. Restrained by old age, from active engagement in social activities, including music, in which realm he achieved renown, the songster has embraced the winter of his illustrious life with a characteristic nobility of mind. Mike Ejeagha has, however, become a powerful metaphor.
The tales of Mike Ejeagha (Akuko Mike Ejeagha, in Igbo), is referenced with clarity, among the Igbo, as enthralling tales, with subtle capability to take an audience round and round and round… While the tales, woven in captivating lyrics, may take an audience to somewhere, they may also take a listener nowhere, beyond sentimental gratification. Akuko Mike Ejeagha is a tour de force on its own.
As an art form, Mike Ejeagha’s tales, are enthralling. They are however, not recommended as the best model of effective communication by governments and their information managers. That is a much more serious engagement that places premium on verifiable facts and substance. Akuko Mike Ejeagha is not the stuff government information statements are made of. Or should be made of. Nigeria dares to be different, though.
The national protest that rocked parts of Nigeria between August 1-10, 2024 was unprecedented. The incident presented a major test, perhaps, the very first real test, of the capacity and principles of the Bola Tinubu government, in managing crisis. The score card was not elevating.
It is true that Nigeria has a long history of misgovernance, with political office holders always striving, as it were, to make pauperisation of the rest of the populace a state policy. Even for all that, the Days of Rage, as the recent protest was tagged, marked the very first time in memory, that Nigerians rose against hunger and poverty. The protest was a statement on the dire strait majority of the citizens have found themselves. For a people known to absorb the pain of governmental abuse and suppression from their political leaders, with uncommon resilience, the August protest seemed to serve notice that the elasticity of tolerance may be at the verge of snapping.
The #EndBadGovernanceInNigeria protest did not leave the government or anyone, in doubt about its focus. It sought to call attention to bad governance and the escalating economic hardship the former engenders. Poverty has overtaken majority of the citizens of the country and the future never looked bleaker.
So much issue was made by the government and security agencies at the onset, about who the promoters of the protest were. That ought not be of primary importance. Eventually, some known persons presented themselves to the security agencies, as part of the promoters of the protest. It seemed however, that the government and the security agencies had their own conception of who the promoters of the protest ought to be, beyond those who publicly took ownership of organising the protest.
The attitude of the government to the protest was a huge disappointment, all the way. It was at once a show of insensitivity and destructive hubris. Ample notice was given for the protest. The grouse of the protesters was publicly stated, yet the government was more inclined to expend energy and resources galvanizing traditional rulers and counter forces, than showing any sensitivity to the cogent issues raised about bad governance and deepening poverty in the country. When finally, the protest commenced, the effort shifted to how to crush it. Consequently, the very reasons the protesters gave for protesting were ignored, while government officials and security agencies embarked on new search for reasons acceptable to them, for the protest
First, they pointed at the usual suspects – political opponents. Not unexpectedly, their fingers were pointed at those who they said lost out to President Tinubu in the last general elections. As a matter of fact, even before the protest commenced, these phantom enemies had been publicly identified by prominent information managers of the government, as being behind the protest. When that line of attack did not seem to catch with the public, the narrative changed. Nigerians were regaled with tales of how some foreign elements were sponsoring the protest against the Tinubu government.
Why in this world will external forces launch an expedition to a foreign country, against a government that is still grappling at home with getting its act together? It is not as if the Tinubu government has initiated any robust foreign policy that challenged any status quo on the international arena? Next and finally, for now, the search for the preferred explanation for the protest settled on the uprising being an attempt at regime change, whatever that means. Such a string of pumped-up Mike Ejeagha-like tales that should not be expected from a government. To imagine that the very purpose for the protest was boldly spelt out in its title: End bad governance and hunger in Nigeria!
It was at once, disappointing, though not totally surprising that the Council of State, that body of eminent citizens and government officials, past and present, found itself last week, signing off on the narrative that the protest was motivated by an attempt at a regime change. But then only the Council members knew the information placed before them, to support that claim. As the government and critical members of the Council know quite well, however, attempts at regime change are usually seismic in impact, even at their elementary stage. Were there to be any such attempt, it will go beyond romanticizing the phrase.
The multitude of urchins that looted rail beams and police sign posts in Kaduna and Kano were propelled by hunger, not any desire to stake over the chambers of Aso Rock. It is not difficult to conclude therefore, that the whole new phrase of regime change was the brainwave of someone around the agit-prop chambers of the government. It was all akuko Mike Ejeagha.
Enter John Cardinal Onaiyekan, the Emeritus Archbishop of the Catholic Archdiocese of Abuja. Every society, like every individual, needs some persons, or at least one, who will, at critical points, tell her the truth, devoid of unhelpful embellishment. Cardinal Onaiyekan has always stood up to be counted in this wise, for Nigeria. He has proved himself an authentic Nigerian patriot. Of course, he was not at the Council of State meeting of last week, not being a member.
Almost about the time the Council of State was rising from its convocation, however, with reported condemnation for the said attempt at regime change, the Cardinal spoke, independently, with no reference to the bearing of the Council. For the prelate, the root of the #EndBadGovernanceInNigeria protest was clear; hunger, poverty and bad governance. He candidly counselled the government to listen to the youths, expressing concern that the young citizens may no longer have patience with government, especially with its apparent unwillingness to address their existential needs.
A post mortem of the #BadGovernanceInNigeria protest does not find the government in positive light, irrespective of the spin its officials put on events surrounding the protest. The reality speaks of a huge sign of danger that is hanging over head, which danger must be averted, not by clampaing thousands of young citizens in prisons in Kano or Kaduna. Yes, there were Russian flags waved by protesting youths on the streets of Kaduna and Katsina this time. There were tear gas and police rough-handling of protesters in parts of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja. There was scaring looting in Kano and mild confrontations in Lagos. The government needs to listen to the likes of Cardinal Onayeikan, at least. The days appear so cheerless for many citizens these days. The prospects offer little or no hope, either.
A purposeful government proves itself at such critical period as this, by leaders embodying empathy and policies offering hope to those at the verge of losing it. Resort to Mike Ejeagha tales is never a solution in governance. If the prevailing level of poverty in the land persists or deepens, there may not be notice for another protest against bad governance. The danger is that it may be the fire next time, as James Baldwin may put it.