Cover StoryOpinionPerspective

The Political Traditions of Our Ancestors

5 Mins read

Our greatest challenge is clinging to the past, desiring its comforts without the willingness to pay the price. Regrettably, Yorubaland is now vulnerable to Nigeria’s shifting political landscape. We’ve forgotten that our relevance is measured by our achievements at home. The motto of the Yoruba Tennis Club, ‘Awa Lo Yo Saaju,’ (We are the ones destined to make things happen) echoes loudly today. It is a crying shame that demands immediate action, a planned reboot to restore our heritage.

By abiodun KOMOLAFE

Right now, the Yorubas must have to build a leadership that honours their legacy. Again, remember the treaty that ended the Kiriji War, which sparked a rebirth in learning and progressive thinking! This led to a thirst for education, resulting in an explosion of investments in community scholarships, sponsoring individuals to pursue higher education, and the establishment of numerous primary and secondary schools. These efforts contributed significantly to the economic development of the Lagos Colony, driven by Yoruba entrepreneurship both within the colony and from the hinterland, as captured in the 1920 publication, ‘The Red Book of West Africa’. This important work, now out of print, should be reprinted by the Development Agenda for Western Nigeria (DAWN), as the copyright has expired. ‘The Red Book of West Africa’ is a foundation of contemporary Yoruba history and a vital piece of economic history.

Coming home from there, the West African Students Union (WASU) was initiated on August 7, 1925, marking a significant milestone in the development of Yoruba leadership. This led to the formation of the ‘Egbe Omo Oduduwa,’ the Action Group (AG), and the AG’s motto, ‘Freedom for all, life more abundant’, which embodied the critical thinking and ideological thrust that drove the region’s developmental strides. However, it needs to be noted that the current Yoruba leadership has departed from this tradition of critical thinking and ideological drive, resulting in a decline from the economic and educational dominance achieved in the 1850s. Otto von Bismarck, the German economic anthropologist, drew inspiration from the ‘Osomalo’ financial intermediation methods used in Ijesaland to establish the German Landesbank system, widely regarded as one of the best banking systems globally. Highlighting this decline and its impact is essential.

Since 1945, British Finance Ministers have consistently praised the Landesbank system for its robust regulation, supervision and focus on lending to the real economy. In fact, the refinement of the Osomalo can be considered the foundation of development finance. However, it is ironic that Ijesaland, once a pioneer in innovation, has lost its way! Given its past achievements, Ijesaland should be at the forefront of new technologies like Artificial Intelligence (AI), Machine Learning (ML), Quantum Computing, Internet of Things (IoT), Electric and Autonomous Vehicles and Extended Reality (XR). Remember Christopher Alexander Sapara Williams, that Yorubaman from Ijesaland, who was the first Nigerian called to the Bar on November 17, 1879, and Oguntolu, his brother, who became a medical doctor through his sponsorship! It is also on record that Yorubaland made significant strides in education and professional development during the colonial and post-colonial periods, making the current decline even more striking.

Truth be told, the political traditions of our ancestors are not solely defined by struggles and sacrifices; they are also characterized by exceptional leadership and vision. Many of our forebears were inspiring leaders who motivated others to work together towards a common goal. With a clear vision for a brighter future, they tirelessly strove to make it a reality. The political legacies of our ancestors are exemplified by the courageous leadership and unwavering commitment to justice displayed by icons like Mahatma Ghandi and Nelson Mandela. For instance, Gandhi’s guiding principles in India’s fight for independence and Mandela’s steadfast resolve against apartheid inspired movements and mobilized masses to take action. Their leadership not only shaped the course of history but also continues to inspire generations to stand up for justice and equality.

The political landscape of the Yoruba nation has been profoundly shaped by the visionary leadership and unwavering commitment of our fathers. They tirelessly fought for the emancipation, development and prosperity of their people. From Obafemi Awolowo’s championing of federalism and economic empowerment to Moshood Abiola’s courageous advocacy for democracy and human rights, our fathers’ politics has been defined by an unrelenting dedication to the welfare and advancement of the Yoruba nation. Despite the challenges and setbacks that have marked our political journey, their unwavering dedication, courage in adversity, and unshakeable belief in our people’s potential remain a beacon of hope and inspiration, reminding us that politics can be a powerful force for good and that leadership can transform lives.

Awolowo’s political philosophy, which guided our fathers, was rooted in the pursuit of regional autonomy, economic development and social justice. His vision for the Western Region, later adopted as the blueprint for the Yoruba nation, was founded on federalism, democratic governance, and economic empowerment. This leadership inspired a generation of Yoruba leaders, including Samuel Akintola, Adekunle Ajasin, Abraham Adesanya and Bolanle Gbonigi, who continued to champion Yoruba unity and progress.

Now, to the questions: why have successive leaders not been building upon the legacy of our fathers, learning from their experiences and/or charting a new course that honours their memory and fulfils their vision for a brighter future for our people? Why have the sacrifices, achievements and the transformative power of courage and leadership of our heroes past not been inspiring and guiding us towards a more prosperous and united Yoruba nation? Why has the state of STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics) among the Yoruba people today become a sobering disgrace to the extent that it now demands our urgent attention and collective action?

Let it be noted that the political traditions of our fathers are not just a legacy of the past but also a clarion call to a more just and equitable world. They represent an informed and educated society that mobilizes others to work towards a common goal. Currently, the Yoruba people are lagging behind, and our leaders’ limited vision has hindered our progress. When a supposed Yoruba leader engages in behaviours that are unYoruba, ranting and raving without restraint, it’s a clear sign that a grand rethink is overdue. When a Distinguished Senator of the Federal Republic openly confesses to, and vaingloriously gloats in buying votes in an election that was supposed to be free, fair and credible, and society looks on as if nothing is amiss, then something has happened to us as a race. Take it or leave it, this is not the Yoruba way!

Our greatest challenge is clinging to the past, desiring its comforts without the willingness to pay the price. Regrettably, Yorubaland is now vulnerable to Nigeria’s shifting political landscape. We’ve forgotten that our relevance is measured by our achievements at home. The motto of the Yoruba Tennis Club, ‘Awa Lo Yo Saaju,’ (We are the ones destined to make things happen) echoes loudly today. It is a crying shame that demands immediate action, a planned reboot to restore our heritage.

As we navigate the complexities of modern politics, there’s an urgent need for a radical re-evaluation in Yorubaland, a return to our original development plan. It’s time for us to engage in meaningful conversations with history and reclaim our heritage of excellence, lest we risk losing our footing in the march of progress. Again, it is doable! It all comes down to vision and strategy. When Noah had a clear vision, he built the Ark, but when he lost sight of it, he succumbed to temptation. Samson’s vision gave him the strength to slay lions, but when it faded, he fell for Delilah’s schemes. John’s vision enabled him to baptize Jesus, but when it wavered, he doubted whether Jesus was the ‘One who’s to come or we should look for another.” Even the serpent in Genesis, once a benevolent guide, became a destructive dragon in Revelation. These examples remind us that vision and strategy are essential for success and survival. The harsh truth we tend to ignore will inevitably confront us, unyielding and undeniable. So, time is not on our side; and there’s no alternative. We must act now!

May the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world, grant us peace in Nigeria!

ijebujesa@yahoo.co.uk;_
08098614418 – SMS only._

The Nation Newspaper Ltd. All rights reserved – 2024.

   

About author
Time Nigeria is a modern and general interest Magazine with its Headquarters in Abuja. The Magazine has a remarkable difference in editorial philosophy and goals, it adheres strictly to the ethics of Journalism by using the finest ethos of the profession to promote peace among citizens; identifying and harnessing the nation’s vast resources; celebrating achievements of government agencies, individuals, groups and corporate organizations and above all, repositioning Nigeria for the needed growth and development. Time Nigeria gives emphasis to places and issues that have not been given adequate attention by others. The Magazine is national in outlook and is currently being read and patronized both in print and on our vibrant and active online platform (www.timenigeria.com).
Articles
Related posts
All The NewsCover StoryNewsPolitics

Musa Tsoken Congratulates Kalu on Daily Times’ Lawmaker of the Year Award

1 Mins read
The National Coordinator of the Asiwaju Again Renewed Hope Support Initiative 2027 and National President of the APC Initiative for Good Governance…
Abuja FileDevelopmentEconomyEnergyFinanceInside LagosOpinionPerspective

The Missing Middle of Infrastructure Finance: Why Capital Still Fails to Become Infrastructure

6 Mins read
  By Chidi Nwafor  In October 2023, a Gulf sovereign wealth fund quietly closed a $2 billion allocation to global infrastructure, earmarked in part for emerging-market energy and transport assets. The announcement drew the usual applause: another sign, commentators said, that institutional capital was finally waking up to the infrastructure opportunity in the Global South. Eighteen months later, less than a tenth of that allocation had actually left the fund’s balance sheet. Not because the mandate had changed. Not because the fund had lost appetite. According to two people familiar with the portfolio, the constraint was simpler and more uncomfortable: there were not enough investable projects to put the money into. This is not a story about a reluctant investor. It is a story about capital that wants to move, cannot find enough places willing and able to receive it in a form it can underwrite, and quietly waits instead. Multiply that fund by the hundreds of pension schemes, sovereign wealth vehicles, commercial banks and infrastructure funds now carrying dedicated allocations for emerging-market infrastructure, and a pattern emerges that rarely makes it into a headline: the world is not short of capital for infrastructure. It has capital in historic abundance, sitting adjacent to a historic infrastructure gap, unable to cross the distance between the two. The Comfortable Explanation  The explanation on offer at every major infrastructure summit is a familiar one. Global infrastructure investment needs run into the tens of trillions of dollars over the coming decade; committed capital falls well short; therefore, the problem is one of insufficient funding, and the solution is more of it: more pledges, more blended-finance facilities, more climate funds, more multilateral capital increases. It is a comfortable explanation because it assigns responsibility clearly to governments who under-fund, institutions who under-commit, and it offers a clean remedy: raise more. It is also, on close inspection, not what the evidence shows. Pension funds globally hold trillions in assets under management with explicit infrastructure allocations that remain structurally underweight, not because trustees have rejected the asset class but because deal flow meeting their risk and governance thresholds has not materialised at the pace their mandates assume. Sovereign wealth funds report the same pattern. Commercial banks with dedicated project finance desks describe pipelines that look full at the term-sheet stage and thin dramatically by financial close. Development finance institutions, whose entire purpose is to absorb risk that commercial capital will not, routinely report that their binding constraint is not capital adequacy but the volume of bankable transactions their teams can originate and structure in a given year. None of this fits the scarcity narrative. All of it fits a different one. Availability Is Not Deployability  Capital availability and capital deployability are not the same condition, and the conflation of the two is doing real damage to how the world thinks about the infrastructure gap. Availability asks whether money exists somewhere with a mandate that could, in principle, be pointed at infrastructure. Deployability asks something much narrower and much harder: whether a specific project, at a specific moment, has been engineered, structured, documented and de-risked to the point where an investment committee can approve it without exception. The first condition is met, overwhelmingly, across nearly every category of capital that matters to infrastructure. The second is met by only a small fraction of the projects competing for it. The result is a market that looks, from the outside, like a financing gap, and functions, from the inside, like a conversion problem: an abundance of capital on one side, an abundance of infrastructure need on the other, and an underbuilt set of mechanisms in between capable of turning one into the other at any meaningful scale. Where the Conversion Breaks  The break does not happen at the ends of the process. It happens in the middle, in the unglamorous sequence of work that turns a plausible concept into an instrument a fiduciary can sign. A promising transmission project needs a feasibility study rigorous enough to survive institutional scrutiny rather than optimistic enough to attract early interest. It needs offtake arrangements that hold up under real counterparty and currency risk, not the counterparty risk assumed in a base case. It needs environmental and social documentation calibrated to the standards of the institutions being asked to fund it, not the standards of the jurisdiction hosting it. It needs a legal and commercial structure that allocates risk in ways a commercial lender, not only a development financier, will accept. It needs a sponsor capable of executing what has been proposed, not merely capable of proposing it. Each of these is ordinary project finance discipline. None of it is exotic, and in mature infrastructure markets it happens as a matter of course, absorbed into systems built over decades: specialist advisers, standard-form contracts, established procurement norms, deep pools of transaction expertise. What is missing in the markets where the infrastructure gap is largest is not the standard itself but the machinery that meets it. Projects arrive at investment committees with ambition intact and preparation incomplete, and that gap is treated, again and again, as an individual project’s failure rather than what it actually is: a structural absence in the systems responsible for producing investable transactions at scale. The Missing Middle  This is the Missing Middle of Infrastructure Finance: the institutional architecture that sits between capital that wants to move and infrastructure that needs building, and whose incompleteness explains far more of the global infrastructure gap than any shortfall in committed funds. It consists of project preparation facilities able to fund feasibility and structuring work before commercial viability has been proven. Transaction advisers capable of building deals that satisfy development mandates and commercial return thresholds at once, rather than treating the two as separate constituencies to be managed sequentially. Risk-sharing and guarantee instruments that convert political, regulatory and currency risk into something a commercial balance sheet can underwrite. Aggregation platforms that bundle smaller, individually sub-scale projects into portfolios large enough to justify institutional transaction costs. Standardised documentation that reduces the bespoke legal cost of every new deal. And coordination across ministries, regulators and financiers robust enough that a technically sound project does not die in bureaucratic sequencing after the money has already been found. None of these are new ideas in isolation. What is missing is their assembly into a coherent system, deliberately funded and institutionally accountable, rather than scattered across donor-funded pilots that end when the grant does. The African Dimension  Africa makes this dynamic unusually visible, and consequently offers an unusually clear opportunity to correct it. The continent’s infrastructure financing need, by any measure, is vast. Less understood is that the shortfall is disproportionately one of preparation rather than capital. Nigerian gas-to-power, off-grid solar and mini-grid developers have each demonstrated that individual projects can clear the bankability bar; what has not emerged is systemic pipeline scale, a steady stream of comparably prepared projects large enough to absorb the capital already circling the sector. The pattern repeats, with local variation, from grid infrastructure in East Africa to transport corridors in West Africa. Interested capital is rarely the scarce input. Investment-ready projects are. The Global Comparison  Mature markets solved this problem gradually and mostly invisibly, through decades of institution-building that predates the current infrastructure conversation: specialist project finance units inside banks, standardised PPP frameworks, established regulatory playbooks, deep benches of transaction lawyers and engineers who move between deals rather than between one-off assignments. Emerging and frontier markets are not being asked to meet a lower standard. They are being asked to meet the same standard without having built the same machinery, and then being told, when deals fail to close, that the problem is insufficient funding….
Cover StoryNewsSports

Union Bank, AIICO Multishield, Checkers Custard, Others Back 5th Cycling Lagos

2 Mins read
Union Bank of Nigeria Plc, AIICO Multishield, Checkers Custard and other corporate organisations have thrown their weight behind the 5th Cycling Lagos,…
Stay on the loop!

Subscribe to our latest news.

Leave a Reply

WP2Social Auto Publish Powered By : XYZScripts.com