Humility is one virtue that is rarely found among Nigeria’s leaders. Somehow, political leaders in Nigeria tend to believe that high-level arrogance is a mark of superiority and a show of know-it-all-all. They often arrogate to themselves what students call ITK (I Too Know) in the belief that they ascended to leadership positions because they are more knowledgeable. However, experts in leadership philosophy argue that humility is a virtue that conscientious leaders must possess to become successful. Humility in leadership is about developing a people-centric leadership model that listens to the voices of the people and makes amends. It is about a leadership model wherein the leader admits that being in office, or holding a position of importance, does not confer on one the superiority of thought.
President Goodluck Jonathan demonstrated this in 2010 when, irked by the poor performance of the country’s senior male football team, the Super Eagles, he announced his decision to withdraw Nigeria from further participation in football competitions. The national outcry that followed the decision made him swallow his pride and make a U-turn. He also demonstrated the same level of humility in 2012 when he moved to remove the subsidy on petrol. That action pushed the pump price of petrol to N114 per litre. But Nigerians objected. He listened and in response, reversed the price. In doing that, Jonathan demonstrated that power belongs to the people. He also showed that leaders ought to be properly guided by the people because they work to advance the interests of the people.
This is what Speaker of the House of Representatives, Rt. Hon. Abbas Tajudeen, achieved last week when he made an about turn and withdrew a bill he introduced seeking to create a new set of laws against Nigerians who engage in actions that he defined as acts of subversion. The bill, titled Counter Subversion Bill, was introduced by Speaker Tajudeen on July 23, 2024. Specifically, the bill sought to introduce a fine of N5m or a five-year jail term, or both, for persons who fail to recite the national anthem and the pledge. It also prescribed a fine of N5m or a 10-year prison sentence, or both for the destruction of national symbols as well as a fine of N2m or five years in prison, or both for the crime of setting up illegal roadblocks, performing unauthorised traffic duties, imposing illegal curfews, or organising unlawful processions.
The bill further envisaged a fine of N4m or two years in prison for insulting, defaming, or bringing shame to community, religious, or government leaders while the crime of threatening national security by way of engaging in activities that foster mistrust, intolerance, or violence was to fetch one a N5m fine or a 10-year prison term, or both. In the same manner, the bill prescribed a fine of N5m or up to 10 years in prison for the illegal and forceful occupation of public or private spaces like places like worship, schools, or public arenas.
In Hon. Tajudeen’s prescription, a fine of N3m or a four-year prison term would be passed on anyone found guilty of pledging loyalty to, or, supporting organisations that disregard Nigeria’s sovereignty while those who receive financial from foreign entities to undermine national interest could enjoy a fine of N15m or a 20-year prison term. This is as he suggested that activities which disrupt community harmony or undermine national security could fetch one a fine of N3m or five years in prison, or both while disobedience to constituted authority could land one a three-year prison sentence for the first offender and seven years for subsequently. The culprit here could escape jail with a fine of N5 million.
Properly examined, these proposed laws have the capacity of undermining all the freedoms enshrined in the constitution of the Federal Republic and the African Charter of Human Rights to which Nigeria is a signatory, as rights enjoyable by the citizens. These are rights that make democracy what it is and also make Nigeria to be counted as a democracy. Voiding these rights via Tajudeen’s bill would expressly land Nigeria on the list of fascist regimes which is characterised by an authoritarian disposition led by a dictatorial leader who though dressed in civilian garb is actually a military dictator that is backed by a gagged judiciary and forcibly suppressed opposition. I do not believe that Tajudeen wants such a sick tag after his name.
However, the public outcry against the bill caused the speaker to withdraw it and all proposed legislation related to it. Many Nigerians had described the proposed legislation contained in the bill as draconian. Indeed they were. That is why the speaker’s action is altruistic. By withdrawing the bill, the Speaker showed that his mission to lawmaking, and leadership, was not for reasons of using the privilege of his office to create draconian laws that would insulate him, and the political leadership of the country, from the ire of desperately frustrated and bitterly angry Nigerians. This seems like a departure from past situations where the country’s political leaders immorally used the instrument of lawmaking to promulgate laws that confer certain privileges on themselves irrespective of how “we the people” feel. That, in itself, is a corruption of the legislative privilege.
This is what Tajudeen has now avoided. This also shows his humility in admitting the inappropriateness of the bill, especially in the face of the fact that all that he sought to achieve with the bill, is provided for in many of Nigeria’s laws. I believe that what Speaker Tajudeen ought to push for is a dutiful and patriotic enforcement of existing laws through diligent prosecution and judicious adjudication by the courts. This is necessary because Nigerians have become used to seeing law enforcement agencies, and the judiciary of their country, administer justice in a manner that questions the integrity of the justice administration process, the prosecution and the courts. Isn’t this why ‘go to court’ has now become a cliché that mocks the judiciary?
British writer, literary scholar, and lay theologian, Clive Staples Lewis, more popular as C.S Lewis, said that “in leadership, humility is not thinking less of yourself, but thinking of yourself less.” This is exactly what Speaker Tajudeen has now demonstrated for which many will count him among leaders who showed humility in accepting mistakes and withdrawing their unpopular actions. In this regard, humility does not come about as being weak or submissive. No, it is actually of superior inner strength and having the courage to admit when one is wrong and also being open to learning from others. Mahatma Gandhi is reckoned as an inspiring example of the power of humility in leadership because he always put the needs of his people first. Tajudeen can take a cue from that to realise that what Nigerians now need is not a new set of laws but dutiful and judicious enforcement of the existing ones. Pulling back when the outcry was loudest makes Tajudeen stand out as a humble and listening leader.