The People’s Republic of Lagos

By Tolu Ogunlesi

(Originally published on August 17, 2011, in Ongoing Concerns, my column in NEXT)


Benin Republic, through its debonair president, Boni Yayi, has declared itself Nigeria’s 37th state. It sounds like a joke, but it isn’t. This paper reported it, on August 10. Mr. Yayi strolled across the border, and made his way to the hilltop mansion of former President, Olusegun Obasanjo.

“I have come to visit my father, Baba Obasanjo, who is a world leader who should not be ignored. He contributes positively towards the ongoing genuine democracy in my country, Benin Republic, and many other African nations. I shall forever remain grateful to him,” My Yayi gushed.

He wasn’t done. “Obasanjo is a great man. What is important to me is for God to give him long life. My plan is to be coming to Nigeria every month because we cannot do without Nigeria. Benin is like the 37th state of Nigeria,” he said.

I wonder what his citizens thought of that – a president visiting another, to gleefully surrender his sovereignty, in peace-time. Even though the news reports did not say that Mr. Obasanjo, a former Army General, held up a gun to Mr. Yayi’s temple, I wouldn’t be surprised if there was some duress involved. Mr. Obasanjo is not a novice in this bullying business. Ask Mathieu Kerekou, one of Mr. Yayi’s predecessors.

It was in August 2003, during Mr. Kerekou’s second stint in office, that Mr. Obasanjo – as President of Nigeria – ordered the closure of the Nigeria-Benin border. Mr. Obasanjo did it to force Benin to surrender Hamani Tidjani, cross-border robbery kingpin, to Nigerian authorities. For a long time Mr. Tidjani’s car-snatching bandits had terrorised Lagos and Ogun States.

Not long after the border was closed, Benin – whose economy partly depends on the smuggling of second-hand cars into Nigeria – delivered Tidjani, like a DHL package, to the then blameless Inspector-General of Police, Tafa Balogun.

But let’s not deal in conspiracy theories – there’s no evidence that Mr. Yayi’s statements, last week, in Mr. Obasanjo’s house, were obtained under duress. Mr. Yayi seemed to mean what he said.

Which leads to the exciting part: the tantalising possibilities of a peaceful 21st century geo-constitutional revolution in West Africa. If – or when – Benin eventually becomes a Nigerian state, a Nigerian state will have to be given the chance to declare its independence, so as to ensure the preservation of Nigeria’s 36-state structure.

My vote, like yours, is for Lagos to be that lucky Nigerian state. If things go as envisaged, before long we will witness the birth of the People’s Republic of Lagos, as the African Union’s 55th member country. Coming in the wake of the historic independence of South Sudan, this can only be great news: another bloodless redrawing of borders, in a continent better known for its propensity to shed blood on the flimsiest of grounds.

The prospect of a People’s Republic of Lagos excites me. “If Lagos were a country,” notes the Economist in its May 5, 2011 edition, “its GDP of $43 billion would make it the fifth-biggest economy in sub-Saharan Africa.” And if Lagos were a country, its population of 15 million would put it in the ‘Top 20’ on the ranking of most populous African countries.

Indeed, Lagos is already by far Nigeria’s most independent state; two-thirds of its revenues are internally-generated. And it has already started to act like an independent nation anyway: Babatunde Fashola’s government has for a few years now been regularly deporting hordes of non-Lagosians to their Nigerian home states.

Now, the question to be faced is this: why should the Federal Republic of Nigeria allow Lagos to emerge as an independent nation?

Simple – the PDP government will finally get a chance to get rid of Bola. Tinubu and his band of “rascals” (libel lawyers should please note that I did not coin that appellation; and the person that did is currently covered by constitutional immunity).

The Action Congress of Nigeria (ACN) can therefore have Lagos to themselves, in exchange for a promise to immediately cease interfering in the political affairs of south west Nigeria. Led by a rehabilitated Olabode George, the PDP can thereafter reclaim the renegade west in a series of spectacular ‘do-or-die’ battles.

Nigeria will no doubt miss Lagos – imagine the commercial potential of Lagos ports’ alone – but, according to the PDP’s reckoning, that’d be a small price to pay for saying goodbye to one of the world’s most dysfunctional urban agglomerations. From then on Nigeria will not have to bear the shame of ‘Welcome to Lagos’ and all other dubiously conceived Nigeria-bashing BBC documentaries.

Besides there’s still Port Harcourt anyway, which will be enthusiastically developed to replace Lagos as a viable port city. And don’t forget that the Republic of Benin will also be bringing to the Nigerian table its own port city, Porto Novo.

Under the new arrangement – i.e. the People’s Republic of Lagos co-existing with the Federal Republic of Nigeria – Mr. Tinubu’s long-standing presidential ambitions will be realised, as will be the dreams of all those people eager to see Mr. Fashola take up national-scale responsibility. A Putin-Medvedev combination will be recreated in the People’s Republic of Lagos – President Bola Tinubu and Prime Minister Tunde Fashola, or vice versa.

Other benefits: Benin will immediately start to benefit from Nigeria’s oil wealth. Nigeria will officially become a multi-lingual country – French and English as official languages. (Think of the size of the contracts that will be awarded, for French textbooks, French lessons for all government officials, including First Ladies) etc.

Abuja will no longer have to deal with any envy-inducing challenge from Lagos – think of how many people out there still consider Lagos to be the capital of Nigeria.

The above looks, to me, like a classic win-win-win scenario, for all parties. Doesn’t get any better than that, does it? Now join me in saying: ‘Thank you, Boni Yayi.’

 Tolu Ogunlesi (c) 2013



By Tolu Ogunlesi

Oxfam, the UK charity, recently released an updated version of the Book of Lamentations. Something about how “the relentless focus on ongoing problems at the expense of a more nuanced portrait of [Africa], is obscuring the progress that is being made towards a more secure and prosperous future.”

That’s Chief Executive Barbara Stocking, as quoted by the BBC. Apparently the charity’s been doing some polling recently (in the UK), and coming up with interesting results. In one poll half of the respondents confessed that Africa conjured for them images of hunger, famine and poverty. In another poll, almost half of the 2,000 respondents thought Africa’s biggest challenge was hunger. Three out of four were suffering from ‘Africa-fatigue’ – that debilitating condition that afflicts well-meaning foreign philanthropists exposed to an endless stream of images of suffering and torment originating from the dark continent.

A distressed Oxfam has since gone ahead to launch its latest Africa campaign, in a desperate bid to shift the world’s attention from African Hunger, to African-Hunger-Backdropped-By-Stunning-African-Landscapes.

That’s, in a nutshell, the story.

It left me a tad puzzled. A w-t-f puzzlement. As in: is Oxfam for real?

Let’s even forget, for a moment, the unforgettable fact that Oxfam has probably done far more than any other organisation in propagating these images.

Let’s focus on something else that struck me about the story: the way blame is being placed squarely on the shoulders of The Images.

Oxfam appears to be saying: Put All The Blame On The Images. Not the people hanging on stubbornly to those images in the face of alternative evidence.

Am I alone in thinking Oxfam’s lamentations suggest a British public that is at the mercy of what they are fed.

Helpless Brits who somehow cannot — despite all their efforts — rise beyond the bombardment of pity-evoking images of Africa,

One might as well rephrase Dame Stocking as follows:

Oh poor helpless people of Britain, all they’re being fed is harrowing, unhelpful images of Africa. We need to stop that. We need to feed them something different. We need to change their diet.

That’s the summary of the Oxfam Lamentation. It’s

In whose interest?

The whole set-up suggests that Britain is now guilty of the sort of intellectual laziness once associated (almost solely) with America (er, sorry). Clearly the surveys say far more about the British mind than they do about the African condition. Now we know, courtesy of Oxfam, that all along we’ve been depending on a bunch of wallet-opening puppets to deliver us from ourselves.

Now the puppets are growing weary, the strings fraying, the wallet-opening mechanisms aging. Now we have to refurbish the puppets, oil the creaking joints with a new, more positive type of ‘communication’. Landscapes, not Hunger!

A mindset that elevates what the British public thinks of Africa, over and above contemporary reality, and that suggests that it is in Africa’s interest for that thinking to change, is not only faulty but dangerous as well.

To put it less mildly, who — apart from Oxfam, obviously — really cares, in 2012, what the British public thinks about a continent from which they fled in varying stages of undress a half-century ago? What’s that proverb about crying more than the bereaved?

In the 21st century are people still allowed to be zombies gobbling up everything they’re fed by a collaboration of powerful media and NGOs?

I seriously doubt that it is in Africa’s interest for Brits to change their perception of Africa. Instead I think it is totally in Britain’s interests to change its perceptions of Africa. That problem, is Britain’s, and no one else’s. If the Brits insists on seeing Africa primarily through the lens of philanthropic intervention, in 2012, good for them.

Let them stay thinking that way; let Oxfam, with its its Africa-emblazoned super-hero capes, stay convincing itself that it has a duty to alter global perceptions of Africa, while the Russians and Chineseand diaspora Africans, who must have once assumed they’d left the continent for good — boldly head out to the continent to engage in potentially more useful ways.

Alternative images

Granted that those starving-children-and-dying-mothers images form a sizable part of African exports to the West. There may be little we can do about that, as long as we have a West obsessed with delivering Africa from itself. But what about the the tens of thousands of kwashiorkor-free, English-speaking, pocket-money-receiving African students who flock to the UK annually, to study (with a good number actually returning, to continue with the lives they left behind in Lagos and Nairobi and Accra and Freetown and Johannesburg etc).

How the British public fails to permit these alternative images to displace some of the “old stereotypes” (quoting Dame Stocking) should alarm many right-thinking people, and perhaps inspire an industry of academic theses on national delusions and epidemics of ostrich-in-sand-syndromes.

If those flesh-and-blood representations of contemporary Africa somehow don’t succeed in serving as a useful counterbalance to the stereotypes, then nothing will.

“We want to make sure people have a really better balanced picture of what’s happening in Africa. Of course we have to show what the reality is in the situations in those countries. But we also need to show the other places where things are actually changing, where things are different,” Dame Stocking says.

I wish her and Oxfam the very best. Must be awful to have to take on that job of saving people from self-inflicted ignorance. In an age in which Google, Twitter and the news media lie at most fingertips, delivering, alongside stories of African suffering, narratives of determined recovery from tragedy and technology-driven change and emboldened youth and rising political awareness and growing intolerance for tyranny — is there still room for getting way with blaming with fixating on photos of begging bowls and the oxfamished children attached to them?

Kudos where due. But still…

I might also add that this is not to disparage the useful work that Oxfam has done and is still doing across the continent. The effects of aid, like AIDS, are real, no doubt. George W. Bush’s PEPFAR saved, and continues to save, millions of Africans lives.

But stories also abound of the startling stupidities and failures of aid projects whose origins lie in a mentality belonging to a world that appears to have vanished. Misguided Messiahs and their T-shirt donation and Shoe donation schemes, money-grabbing consultants, corrupt practices, high-profile-nil-value baby adoptions, etc etc.

It’s important that the Oxfams of this world do not allow themselves to get overly caught up in the myth of their impact. In the larger scheme of things, perhaps they’ve been overestimating their messianic abilities. Consider this: In his posthumously published collection of essays pan-Africanist Tajudeen Abdul-Raheem says, of Nigeria’s 2006 debt relief deal: “What kind of success is debt relief that sees Nigeria paying back over three billion dollars to Britain alone, a figure more than the total aid budget of Britain in the same year?”

You could of course argue that that is oil-rich Nigeria, and choose instead to focus on the Rwandas and Malawis where close to half the national budgets are donor-funded. And I could remind you of what the late Malawian President did with chunks of his country’s money. Or the mystery of the vanishing dollars in the Ugandan Prime Minister’s office.

I’m also somewhat surprised we’re still having this ‘African aid’ argument at the end of 2012, after the eloquent arguments of books like Dead Aid and The Fastest Billion. And after the Economist already publicly regretted its silliness.


Is Oxfam stuck on a planet that no longer exists?

Oxfam Capital, anyone?


Watch out for Part 2 of this piece, focusing on how Oxfam can shift its focus from cajoling donation-weary Westerners and tap into African wealth to fund its Africa-transformation drive (not kidding).



By Tolu Ogunlesi 

There’s no escaping Africa, no matter how far from it you are. From England’s supermarket shelves bottled water leaps at you, chanting “Buy me and save a continent!”

You blink, once, twice, to be sure you’re not hallucinating. You’re not. The voices are as real as they are earnest: by buying a bottle of water you can help build a borehole in the remotest jungles of Africa. And so you hearken to the plea; a black person taking on guilt once monopolised by whites.

There’s even more fascinating stuff in print. I’ve been coming across a call-for-donations insert in UK magazines, in which a circular hole sits in the middle of the page, accompanied by the chilling line: “The upper arm of a child who has severe acute malnutrition would fit through this hole.”

Talk about shock therapy.

But let it not sound as if I’m complaining, I‘m not. Hey world, Africa is indeed grateful for the aid, and even more so for the headlines and media mentions. (Father of ’em all: the May 13 – 19, 2000 issue of The Economist which paid tribute, on its cover, to “The Hopeless Continent”).

Bono and Bob Geldof also have a place in my Hall of Fame; celebrities who could have busied themselves checking in and out of rehab, but have instead chosen to work tirelessly saving Africa and its citizens. Unlike fad-hunters Madonna and Angelina Jolie who simply want to parachute in for a quickie adoption (“Err, jus’ gimme the baby and keep the change darling…”) – with a photo-shoot to boot – Bono and Bob Gee are commendable long-distance ‘activists’.

If like me you are worried about who will take the baton from them, worry no more. We have Britain’s Prince William to thank for making plans to order the over-sized shoes of the Irishmen.

Late last year Sky1 aired a documentary titled ‘Prince William’s Africa.’ In it TV presenter Ben Fogle followed the Prince to ‘Africa’, to celebrate the 20th anniversary of the Tusk Trust (a UK charity devoted to the protection and conservation of wildlife in Africa), of which the Prince is Patron Saint.

Prince William’s Africa… never mind that Botswana is the only African ‘province’ they visit.

I recently realised that of my many foolish (random) assumptions, the biggest has been this – thinking that Africa is what the atlas says it is. No, Africa is what Tourists say it is: the jungle and its gorillas/guerrillas (same difference!); the game park and its sunsets, elephants, lions and zebras. Kabisa!

Lagos’s concrete jungles are not “Africa”, they are “Nigeria”. Ibadan’s “running splash of rust and gold” is not Africa, it belongs to the “predominantly Christian South” (as opposed to a “largely Muslim North”) of “oil-rich Nigeria”.

Unless we can convince Prince William that ‘observing’ our politicians – especially caged in their convoys – will provide as much entertainment as a Southern Africa safari; unless we can convince him that what we lack in real pachyderms we more than make up for in (cashnivorous) ‘White Elephant’ projects; we should give up any hopes of seeing his Royal Highness’ Africa extend in the direction of Nigeria.

The Prince’s interest in Africa is clearly not a mere Tweenage fad.  He’s been into this continent since like forever. His 21st birthday party, held seven years ago at WindsorCastle, was, according to the BBC, “African-themed.”

“As the party started, outfits spotted arriving at the castle included a furry lion, Tarzan and a banana. The castle’s ancient rooms were transformed into scenes from the African bush, which include a life-sized elephant made out of papier mache,” the BBC tells us. “Other outfits seen on arriving guests included a lion suit topped with a gold crown, a full foreign legion uniform, a Biggles-esque pilot, a banana and a top-hatted witch-doctor.”

I’m hoping the future King will choose to have his Coronation staged in his beloved Africa. Dignitaries – faces painted of course – will arrive at Africa’s International Airport (named after none other than the most famous living citizen of Africa, Nelson Mandela), waving ‘iSpears’ (trust Steve Jobs to cash in on this) and singing ‘God Save The King’ in ‘African’.

It’ll be like the 2010 World Cup all over again! All we’d need to do in terms of security would be to prevent the Swazi king Mswati III from coming near the new King – we don’t want anyone extolling the virtues of Royal polygamy to the head of the Church of England do we?

The Africa that the Prince will be ‘inheriting’ when he becomes King will of course be vastly different from the one his grandmother inherited when she became Queen almost sixty years ago. But who cares? Prince William’s Africa – full as it will be of elephants, witch-doctors, Tarzans, vast farms and BBC and SkyTV cameras – will be, for most of Europe and America, a vastly recognisable Africa.

I’m betting The Economist will want to atone for past sins. Atop an image of frenzied crowds lining the streets of Africa to hail the brand new King William V, our beloved newsmagazine will plaster these words (a marked improvement on a decade ago): “Africa: The Hopeless BUT Happy Continent!” 


This first appeared in NEXT on Wednesday 27th October, 2010