Nigeria Content Online

For a few days last week, some of our country’s
most engaged, cutting edge – mostly young – technology entrepreneurs,
advocates and innovators were gathered in one location in Lagos’s
Victoria Island for what some would call a long overdue meeting of
minds. Themed G-Nigeria, about a thousand – organisers say – young
Nigerians bent over laptops and whatever new technology you can lay
your hands on these days, sharing ideas and resources about ideas,
trends and possibilities.

Of course, Nigeria didn’t need Google to open our
eyes to the abundance of human resources available when it comes to
technology, or more specifically Information Technology. We are
surrounded by men and women who have been able to manipulate these
various technologies as they have emerged – whether for good of society
or simply to deprive unsuspecting foreigners of hard earned money.

In the past few years, thanks to the Economic and
Financial Crimes Commission as well as a slew of public spirited
initiatives, both the incidence and prominence of those kinds of
activities have been on the decline. Instead, Nigerians have been
developing applications, applying software or finding ways of
integrating the different technologies into trends and lifestyles. New
Media companies, web development and management firms, and online
portals have flourished over the past half a decade. The fact that most
of the activity around the media, entertainment and fashion is driven
by technology is testament to this.

The tragedy has been that most of this growth has
happened in spite of lack of support or, at the least, vision. Many of
these entrepreneurs and innovators have found themselves working alone,
without any kind of private or public sector driven institutional
support.

Many Nigerian corporate organisations, even those
who pretend to a bias for technology or to being globally competitive
in terms of cutting edge technology, have been unable to provide any
kind of strategic support to drive expansion or build capacity. As
always, not a lot of them have been ready to take a risk on an emerging
industry or emerging entrepreneurs.

It is also a necessary, even if fruitless,
exercise to point a finger at a government that has many times
acknowledged, verbally, the potential and possibilities of this
catchment, but has yet to – despite a ministry dedicated to this at the
federal level and many copycat agencies and arms at the state levels –
evolve policy that will take advantage of this passion, channel it and
ensure sustenance.

For a country that needs to channel all its
potential in order to be competitive in a world that is now largely
driven by and towards technology, this is a tragedy by itself.

Organisations like Google have managed to make the
point that there is a critical mass of driven and equipped Nigerians –
young and old – with the capacity to drive our economy upwards with
technology. The good news is that these young people can take credit
for having led where their supposed leaders failed to. Nigerians
followed and eventually the leaders had to. Well, at least, they
finally caught up.

Over the next year or so, our country is on the
edge of technological explosion, bolstered by everything from
investments by multinationals like Google to the much-awaited Main-One
cable. These will boost capacity such as the nation has yet to see.

It’s now time for the authorities to take the
responsibility. Nigeria can be a technology hub, not just leading
within the continent, but also competing properly on the global stage.
There’s no longer any excuse to lag behind.

In the 80s and
early 90s, authoritarianism and militarism in West Africa led to
serious political crisis and civil war. The restoration of democracy in
the region in the 90s, however, led to a reduction of tensions and the
return of political stability. The tide seems to be changing over the
past decade as the restoration of electoral democracy is today
generating or reviving structural tensions and political instability in
the region.

One element of the
return to democracy crisis is the re-emergence of the old habit of
authoritarian ruling incumbents or their families simply refusing to
leave power as and when due. When Gnasingbe Eyadema of Togo died in
2005, his son simply took over in total disregard of the Constitution
and it took enormous pressure and threats by ECOWAS under the
leadership of Olusegun Obasanjo and Mamdou Tandja to force him to step
down and organise elections.

Mr Obasanjo himself
nearly precipitated a major political crisis in Nigeria in 2006 when he
tried to change the Constitution so that he would not have to step down
after his two terms in office. In Niger, President Tandja refused to
step down in 2010 when he finished his two terms, precipitating a major
political upheaval, and was finally forcibly removed from office
through a coup d’état.

At the heart of the
rising tensions provoked by elections is the unwillingness of ruling
cabals to cede power democratically. This is best expressed by the
12-year-old crisis in Cote d’Ivoire. In December 1999, Robert Guei
carried out a coup because he was afraid that Muslim northerners would
win the elections programmed to hold in 2000. The greatest danger to
Cote d’Ivoire, he argued, was that Alassane Outtara might win the
elections, so he banned him from the contest and declared that he would
run as military head of state.

General Guei
organised the 2000 elections without Outtara and to his shock
discovered that it was Laurent Gbagbo, not him, that was winning. He
tried to rig, it was too late; Gbagbo’s party, the FPI, were in the
streets protesting, and in the free-for-all riots, Guei was
assassinated and Gbagbo emerged as president. He took over Guei’s
policy that Muslims and northerners must never be allowed to rule in
Cote d’Ivoire. The result was civil war in 2002 when northern Muslims
in the country declared war and the country was split into two,
following the outbreak of hostilities. When Laurent Gbagbo’s term in
office ended in 2005, he too refused to organise elections on the same
grounds as General Guei — that Alassane Outtara might win. He delayed
the elections for five years, ruling without an electoral mandate until
he was forced to hold elections in 2010 through international pressure.

To confirm his
worst fears, Alassane Outtara did win the 2010 elections and he refused
to hand over power until war returned to the country and a combination
of troops from the northern patriotic forces, the French army and the
United Nations forces marched into Abidjan and arrested him in his
bunker. That process consumed thousands of innocent lives.

The surprising case
in which elections have not led to political crisis is Guinea. Guinea
never knew free and fair elections between 1958 and 2010. The 2010
elections in the country was a direct contest between the rich and
powerful Fulani elite under the leadership of Cellou Dalen who had been
excluded from power since 1958. The Fulani thought that 2010 was their
year; they gave 100 percent of their votes to Dalen who got 43 percent
in the first round, double the percentage of the second person. They
were confident; they needed less than 7 percent more in the second
round to win.

In the second round
however, all the minority ethnic groups ganged up to support the
historic opposition figure and Malinke power broker, Alpha Conde, who
won with 52 percent. The ethnic minorities felt the Fulani had economic
power and adding political power would make them too dominant. Rather
than complain about 50 years of oppression and marginalisation during
which about 50,000 Fulani leaders and cadres had been killed by the two
bloodthirsty dictators — Sekou Toure and Lansana Conte — Dalen, the
Fulani leader congratulated Alpha Conde for his victory and announced
that he would concentrate on preparing for the 2014 elections. Thanks
to his statesmanship, the transition was smooth.

The April 2011 Nigerian elections in which Goodluck Jonathan, a
southern minority Christian defeated a northern Muslim, Mohammadu
Buhari, led to riots and the massacre of hundreds of people,
reminiscent of the 1966 killings that led to the three-year civil war
in which one million people lost their lives. The return of very strong
ethno-religious and regional tensions related to electoral outcomes is
the most serious threat to West Africa’s political stability. We all
have a responsibility to promote political cohesion and avoid fanning
the embers of hate and division. We must be conscious that religious
insecurity is particularly insidious and dangerous because it makes
people feel threatened. Nigeria and indeed West Africa must remain
steadfast on the path of deepening democracy and maintaining peace.

Far too many people
are still sitting on the sidelines and are hesitant about investing in
the stock market. Because of their strong aversion to risk and the fear
of loss, they are watching opportunities pass them by. The stock market
can seem intimidating for the new investor and for those who have had a
bad experience in the past; but it needn’t be. Here are a few tips as
you consider investing:

Set yourself clear goals

Before you put any
money down at all, set yourself clear goals. These may include funding
your children’s education, making a down payment on your new home or
saving for your retirement. The best way to navigate the investment
environment is to have set goals in place and a clear plan on how to
achieve them. If you have set yourself clear goals, your focus will
largely be on accomplishing them and your plan will provide you with
direction on how best to invest your money. Investing is a journey
towards achieving your goals.

Build your knowledge

One of the best
investments you can make in yourself is to take the time and trouble to
improve your knowledge of investing. There is a plethora of information
and research by professional analysts and experts, which will be a good
guide. Investment seminars are also available that can develop you and
point you in the right direction. Resolve to take some time to educate
yourself. You will be surprised to see how much you can learn in a year.

How much risk can you take?

How much risk can
you endure without staying awake at night? Sometimes you do need nerves
of steel to sit tight when the market dips sharply. It is important to
be aware of your attitude to risk and that stock market investing comes
with risk. Stock market investments are not guaranteed. This means that
although you are likely to make money over the long term, you can lose
your investment.

If you can’t bear
to take much risk and would be devastated by any loss, it is best for
you to put only a small portion of your investible funds in the stock
market and the balance in money market investments.

Invest for the long term

How much money can
you really afford to put away for say five years and beyond? When you
think of investing in the stock market, adopt a long-term strategy
rather than looking to make a quick profit. Avoid investing more than
you can comfortably afford to be without during your time horizon.
Historically, stocks have generally outperformed other investment
classes over the long term. However, in the short term, the market can
be unpredictable and carry a greater risk of loss.

Diversify

“Don’t put all your
eggs in one basket!” Don’t put all your money in one stock and don’t
invest in stocks alone. When it comes to buying shares, diversification
is essential. Instead of investing all your money in just one or two
companies, its best to diversify by buying shares in different
companies and sectors.

Get professional Help

Most of us do not
have the time or expertise to make sound investment choices without the
help of a professional. Professionals have the expertise and an
enormous amount of information with which they can make well-informed
decisions and guide you appropriately.

Don’t jump on the bandwagon

When you make an
investment, you should know your reasons for doing so. Relying upon
every rumour or tit bit from your friend or neighbour is tantamount to
gambling.

Invest regularly

Allocate a part of
your investments in a systematic investment plan. Instead of trying to
time the market, invest on a regular basis say monthly, or quarterly in
an appropriate vehicle, and even when your finances are stretched.

Invest in Mutual Funds

If you are new to
investing or don’t have that much money to invest, a mutual fund may be
the most convenient way to invest. A mutual fund pools investor’s funds
and manages them in stocks, bonds, money market instruments, etc. The
benefits of mutual fund ownership include the wide variety of
investment types to choose from, having a diversified portfolio of
stocks, bonds and cash, and having access to professional management,
usually the prerogative of substantial investors.

Buy low-sell high

This seems so
obvious but many investors often do the exact opposite! They jump on
the bandwagon and invest when the market is already rallying. Once it
reverses, they panic and sell. If anything, this should be considered
an opportunity to invest in strong companies at bargain prices. A
market decline is not the time to panic and sell, but rather to take
advantage of the lower prices.

Be realistic about
your expectations of the stock market. If you set reasonable long-term
profit expectations for your investments, you will be more accepting of
the inevitable periods of volatility. If you stay the course and
continue to build upon the foundations of a sound investment strategy,
you can come closer to your financial goals. Depending upon your
particular circumstance, your age and time frame and your overall
financial plan, do consider putting at least some portion of your money
in the capital market; it still offers the best prospect of real long
term growth.

Baron Pierre De
Coubertin, the father of the modern Olympics, would have been laughed
to scorn were he alive in present day Nigeria.

Coubertin’s ethos
emanates from a purist’s conscience, one acutely aware that triumphs in
sport are pyrrhic, if not built with the fundamental blocks of
integrity and diligence.

His honourable
view, that “the important thing in life is not the victory but the
contest”, does not resonate in the consciousness of our sports
administrators. If it did, they would know that we, as a country,
should bury our heads in shame and have nothing to celebrate over
“winning” the African Youth Championship in South Africa.

Our “victory”, on
May 1st in Johannesburg, is a tragic testimony to our persistence in
folly, as the Nigerian Football Federation (NFF) and Taoheed Adedoja,
the sports minister, hosted a lavish gala for the Flying Eagles that
“won” the championship with over aged players.

Two years have not
even passed since the Golden Eaglets fraudulently earned a silver medal
at the 2009 U-17 World Cup, with the Nigerian Football Federation
knowingly including two twenty something year olds – Fortune Chukwudi
and Stanley Okoro – in that squad.

Adokiye Amiesimaka,
an elder friend and learned colleague, presented incontrovertible
evidence to the country proving this. And, unsurprisingly, it has not
been challenged to this day.

His revelation,
made whilst that tournament was on, as I functioned as a member of the
official FIFA delegation, stirred the hornet’s nest, as the NFF
unleashed their rabid attack dogs on Amiesimaka.

“How can a sane person write something like that at this time?” asked Taiwo Ogunjobi.

It is ironic that
Ogunjobi, one of Amiesimaka’s detractors at the time, whilst a board
member of the NFF in 2009, is the one squirming under a criminal
indictment in a Federal High Court that could see him end up in jail.

In contrast,
Amiesimaka, a 1980 African Cup of Nations winner, served Nigeria with
distinction, dignity and honour. And the man certainly has cojones. He
is not shirking away from the onerous task of reminding us that
Nigerian football’s marriage to falsehood continues, making prescient
remarks about the current Flying Eagles class.

“Stanley Okoro, for
instance, has no business in that team. He cannot be anything less than
33 or 34 (and yes, he is the same player that was in the 2009 U-17
team!).”

“Olarenwaju Kayode
was my player in the Sharks feeder team in 2002, and played alongside
Fortune Chukwudi, so he cannot be less than 29 or 30…”

“Abdul Ajagun was
one of the highest goal scorers in the league. He was in Command
Secondary School in Kaduna and dropped out of school, in SS2, in the
1990s, and so cannot be U-20,” Amiesimaka points out.

A culture of silence

Six years ago,
whilst still a BBC journalist, I had documentary evidence, derived from
two different passports, that Obinna Nsofor, currently on loan with
English Premiership side West Ham, falsified his age whilst playing for
Nigeria at the 2005 African World Youth Championship in Benin.

Privately
confronting Ibrahim Galadima, the erstwhile Nigeria FA chairman, with
the evidence, he ordered – and ensured – that the player be dropped
from the team that went on to win a silver medal at the 2005 World
Youth Championship in the Netherlands. It was a rare moment when truth
prevailed.

Rather than engage
in hard graft and create teams from the depth of talent available in
Nigeria’s secondary schools – the only place where you can find players
genuinely within the U-17 and U-20 age bracket – national coaches
regularly pick ‘teenagers’ playing league football, when it is a
rarity, even in the most advanced football nations, for a 16 year-old
to be playing against seasoned pros!

The euphoria – and
the spoils – of victory, has seduced Nigerian officials into becoming
complicit in a poisonous, insidious culture of cheating, which steals
the opportunities of genuine teenagers, with the talent to make a
successful career out of football and build a great future for Nigeria.

Our culture of
silence or, at best, inaudible discontent on age cheating, which is
eating away at the fabric of Nigerian football, does us a terrible
disservice.

It is time for those who really care about our game to stand up and be counted.

As Usman Dan Fodio, the 19th century Islamic scholar succinctly
pointed out, “conscience is an open wound and only truth can heal it.”

I
have asked this question several times in this column and I ask it
again: are we a nation that is inured to cheating? Are we irretrievably
sold on the idea that the best approach is the short cut route?

These questions
have been prompted by recent developments on our sporting scene, one of
which is our recent triumph at the Africa Youth Championship, which
ended recently in South Africa.

For a lot of
Nigerian football fans, slaying the Camerounian bogey felt even better
than lifting the trophy itself. Expectedly, officials of the Nigerian
Football Federation (NFF), have been beside themselves with excitement
engaging freely in backslapping and chest thumping.

But as we have come
to know with almost everything that has to do with our participation in
international youth football competitions, the victory in South Africa
is decidedly pyrrhic. It has come at the cost of national honour and
integrity.

For as we gloat
over our triumph, the foul smell of corruption pollutes the firmament
and dogs our every step. The use of players who are clearly over the
age limit in prosecuting a tournament, for which lads are supposed to
participate, certainly diminishes us.

For the second time
in two years, Adokiye Amiesimaka, the respected former commissioner for
justice in Rivers State and a former member of the Super Eagles, has
drawn attention to the use of players clearly too old for the teams in
which they have been fielded. In 2009 he pointed out to us the folly in
fielding Fortune Chukwudi, a player he said was 18 years old, seven
years earlier, in the Golden Eaglets squad.

This time around,
he has picked on Kayode Olanrewaju pointing out that the player was in
the same Sharks feeder team with Chukwudi nine years ago.

What has been the
reaction of the NFF and the larger Nigerian society to the disclosure?
Indifference. While the football federation has pretended nothing has
happened, one of its senior officials is alleged by a journalist to
have threatened his life for daring to draw attention to the fact there
are indeed more players in current Flying Eagles squad over the
prescribed 20 years age limit.

Now, before anyone
thinks that this practice is the sole preserve of the NFF, he or she
would do well to consider recent developments in the Athletics
federation of Nigeria (AFN). This week in Botswana Nigeria will be
participating in the African Junior Athletics Championships. The team
has been chosen and visas obtained. Sadly, we are confronted yet again
with allegations of use of overage athletes.

The danger of shortcuts

Last week, Olajide
Fashikun, one of Nigeria’s leading investigative journalists wrote that
some of the athletes in the Nigerian contingent are actually older than
they are making out:

“Nigeria, through
her athletics federation, has perfected a massive but criminally
fraudulent measure to go the next African athletics championships
holding in Botswana to cheat again.

“The latest is the
massive importation of 30 year olds to participate in championships for
17 year olds. In this team, we have a quarter miler whose personal best
by the records of the AFN is a 48 seconder! Can a 16 year old return
such? Haba AFN! One of your juniors was in the world universities games
in 2005 and in 2011 is a junior. This is obviously senseless cheating.
I have the three Nigerian passports of this single athlete all changed
at the AFN’s instance.”

If this revelation
does not disturb us then something is fundamentally wrong with our
values. No society survives or gets ahead through cheating. If anything
shortcuts, rather than help us along on the path of progress, actually
distract and makes us lazy.

For truly, it is
laziness that has continued to feed the desire of our sports officials
to field overage athletes in age grade competitions because it is so
much easier for them to do so than engage in the mental exercise of
devising programmes that would identify and groom youngsters to become
the elite athletes of the future who can win laurels for Nigeria.

No nation follows this path and succeeds and Nigeria will not be
different. True greatness in sports cannot be attained via the back
door. The potential to succeed exists; the resources to actualise it
are overabundant. What are lacking are integrity, commitment and plain
commonsense.

Movies have long played an important role
in setting new fashion trends, while also serving as inspiration to
legions of designers. However it’s very rare to find real fashion in
the movies or, more specifically, to see current films that create much
of an impact on the world of style.

A generation ago, movies had an influence
so powerful, they drove designers and garment makers to rush knockoffs
into production. As recently as the 1970s and ’80s, stores and catwalks
swarmed with adaptations, mostly literal, of Hollywood’s greatest
wardrobe hits.

Locally speaking, I would like to say that
Nollywood classics like ‘Living in Bondage’ and ‘Igodo’ have had an
impact on the fashion revolution even in Nigeria but sadly, I can’t.
Our movies haven’t gotten to that extent or maybe because there is more
to be concerned with in the making a Nollywood movie than ‘mere’
fashion. Or maybe it’s because, like a lot of other sectors, we are so
far behind that there really is no need to catch up.

Having said that, Nigerian celebrities
have taken a cue from foreign films and film stars. It is not uncommon
to spot similar silhouettes and shoes from movies like ‘Sex and the
City’ and ‘The Devil Wears Prada’ on Nigerian screens. Nigerian
starlets and socialites are doing more than just storming the red
carpet at every Lagos event, they are imitating fashion directly from
their TV screens, re-inventing it and working it just as well as their
foreign counterparts. These individuals can definitely hold their own
next to an international celebrity when it comes to style.

To further illustrate my point, I took the
liberty to research the internet and have compiled a list of movies
that I strongly feel have revolutionised the face of fashion.

10. The Wild One (1954)

Marlon Brando’s iconic look of cuffed
jeans, leather cap and that ever-masculine black motorcycle jacket
created a look so cool, generations later everyone is still rocking
them in different shades, colours and sizes.

9. Annie Hall (1977)

Diane Keaton in ‘Annie Hall’ received
cachet mostly because of her style. Ralph Lauren helped create Keaton’s
signature look of cheeky, chic menswear. Her hat, man’s tie, shirt,
waistcoat and wide-leg trousers appeared elegant yet casually thrown
on. The look became a ‘70s sensation as women opted for
masculine/feminine style, keeping menswear in vogue to date.

8. Desperately Seeking Susan (1985)

Every woman had thought about it, but it
was Madonna who made the thought a reality. Madonna’s wardrobe included
black dresses paired with leggings, men’s pants with exposed lacy bras.
rolled-down, rhinestone boots and men’s boxers. She was always
accessorised with beads, crosses, bracelets and all that
bleached-blonde hair. Madonna was so uber-sexy and bold, that her looks
translated to mega-watts of influence.

7. Saturday Night Fever (1977)

Disco was already a phenomenon by the time
‘Saturday Night Fever’ arrived, but the megahit propelled its style
into the mainstream. Hip-swaying John Travolta’s blow-dried hair,
tight, shiny polyester duds, platform shoes and that famous white suit
created enough of a sensation for everyone to start take disco lessons.

6. Blow-Up (1966)

Its representation of London was a perfect
foundation for the mod fashion that would later take the world by
storm. The mod, Mary Quant-looking duds favoured by London’s youth were
donned by all the film’s characters, from the top model to distressed
heroines and everyone in between. Miniskirts, go-go boots, A-line
dresses, colourful or patterned tights and knitwear were all fused into
the movie, creating a mod masterpiece.

5. Pulp Fiction (1994)

Uma Thurman’s style in pulp fiction was so
simple, she was the definition of hip-simplicity. Her black pants,
crisp white shirt and blunt, banged black hair (a china doll wig)
became a trend from 1994 onwards. You can still open up a fashion
magazine and find a spread on the crisp white shirt or walk into any
wig store to purchase that exact same hair style.

4. And God Created Woman (1957)

In an era of perfected girdle-free blouses
and tight skirts, Brigitte Bardot’s nubile nymphet sported long,
unkempt hair and flaunted her bikini-induced sex appeal, making many
women develop an instant desire to look like her. Swimwear
manufacturers began to market bikinis for the sun-loving American woman
because of the film’s popularity. To think that, six years earlier,
they were banned from the Miss World contest!

3. Reservoir Dogs (1992)

The fabulous black suits worn by the
fast-talking, amoral gangsters became an instant hit. The basic black,
skinny tie with white shirt and sunglasses worn by all the Mr Colours
were so popular that suddenly suits became a sign of major cool.

2. Breakfast at Tiffany’s (1938)

When it comes to Audrey Hepburn’s style,
it’s almost hard to pinpoint a specific movie because she was so
defiantly iconic. So revolutionary was the Belgian-born Hepburn, that
decades after, the LBD, pencil skirt and Capri pants are still staples
in the wardrobe of fashionistas the world over. That scene where she
was looking through the show glass of Tiffany & Co in her little
black dress is simply one of the most iconic fashion moments of all
time.

1. Sex and the City (1994, 2008 & 2010)

This movie is a modern example of how
movies have had a tremendous influence on our fashion choices. From
stilettos to trench coats and ballerina skirts, the women of ‘Sex and
the City’ have unquestionably made their mark on the world of fashion.

In my opinion, ‘Sex and the City’ appears
to be the last of its kind in terms of fashion influence from this
generation onwards. Some people argue that the reason the movie was so
influential is because of the weight it pulled in the ‘90s with the
television series; fans were expectant of its influence even before the
movie was released.

Sadly, most movies made in the past few
years are by no means fashion-revolutionary. Dare one hope that there
will soon be a turn-around of some sort? After all, film and fashion
once enjoyed a relationship so intertwined as to border on incestuous.
Today, that statement scarcely registers. Maybe it’s because every
style wearable has already been invented, so-to-speak. Whatever the
case may be, clearly, the long and fabulous love affair has lost its
sparkle.

“Dear Colleagues,
this is a solidarity call to all members to shun the LBHF painting
competition as the organisers are unprofessional and disrespectful to
artists.” That was a snippet of fury from the Lagos State chapter of
the Society of Nigerian Artists to withdraw the entirety of its members
handpicked to participate in the second edition of the much
talked-about Lagos Black Heritage Festival painting competition,
organised on behalf of the Lagos State government by Foluke Michael, a
principal partner of the Caterina de’ Medici of Africa, which organised
a very successful maiden edition last year.

This call,
according to Oliver Enwonwu, chair of SNA Lagos, became the last option
as the competition was found to be fraught with “insincerity and total
disregard to professionalism.” That the participating artists, who are
meant to be key factors in the competition, were not respected by Ms
Michael and her team, easily triggered a wave of raging fury from the
artists and their professional association.

From the start,
all processes preparatory to the organisation of the competition were
set on a wrong footing. The requirements and attached incentives also
run at variance with those of last year’s competition. Competitions of
international standard, after which the LBHF painting competition is
fashioned, are often endowed with adequate publicity that provides a
level playing field to all contestants and participants. All of that
happened last year when the preliminary panelists finally shortlisted
50 participants from over 200 entries. It was the biggest participation
of professional artists in a competition in Nigeria. Out of 50
shortlisted candidates, only 30 were selected for the competition. This
year, instead of publicising the competition to attract many interested
artists, the remaining 20 candidates dropped last year were secretly
handpicked to become competitors!

A letter sent via
internet to each artist and signed by one Kayode Olorunsola reads in
part: “The selection procedure was based on your performance during the
last year’s edition of the LBHF Painting competition selection’s
process.” The third paragraph reads: “The painting competition takes a
new, experimental format, with 20 artists inevitably interpreting – or
maybe none at all – themes that will emerge from the symposium:
ANIMATING HERITAGE.”

Disrespectful

Due to the
emergency nature of the letter, only 14 of the invited 20 candidates
could show up at the Vintage Hotel, Lekki, where they were camped for
the competition. According to most of the participants, they waited in
vain for adequate information on the competition vis-à-vis the
procedure and the prize money. Ms Michael, who had the information, was
not willing to meet the artists; nor could her representatives handle
the situation other than taking the participants out for feeding at
eateries.

The artists
insisted on meeting with Ms Michael, but their request was rebuffed; so
they decided to reach out to the chair of their professional body, Mr
Enwonwu, who immediately sought to iron out issues with the organisers.
The response he got from Ms Michaels, according to him, wasn’t pleasant
to the ear. “That was disrespectful to us and our noble profession,” Mr
Enwonwu fumed.

Ghetto prize

Meanwhile, unknown
to the organisers, some of the artists had logged on to the
competition’s official website where they discovered, to their chagrin,
that the prize money, which they consider “extremely ridiculous,” had
just been posted online. This was coming more than 24 hours after they
had all resumed camp. The prize money was the straw that broke the
camel’s back, and one can only understand better if compared with what
obtained last year. At least there were cash prizes for five winners
last year, in the following order: 1st prize – $20,000, 2nd prize –
$15,000, 3rd prize – $10,000, 4th prize – $7,500, 5th prize – $5,000.
The cash prizes, which attracted such crowded participation last year,
was drastically reduced to scratch this year. It wasn’t surprising that
the organisers had decided to keep it secret until the artists had
resumed camp and discovered it on their own.

For this year’s
cash prizes, check this out: 1st prize – $2,500, 2nd prize – $1,500,
3rd prize – $1,000. While the organisers believed the artists should
appreciate their participation outside of the prize money, the artists,
who are all professionals, believed otherwise. To them, the prize money
was ridiculous as one of their paintings would be worth more than the
1st prize money. “Why can’t I stay in my studio, produce a painting of
the same size and get it sold instead of subjecting myself to this
modern day slavery and monumental fraud?” one of them quipped. The
raging disagreement resulted in the ejection of the artists from their
hotel rooms, while the organisers sought alternative means of carrying
on with the competition.

SNA bites back

This, among other
degenerating issues arising from the “ridiculous” prize money,
compelled SNA Lagos to withdraw its members, and this was communicated
to the media. The press release, signed by the chapter’s public
relations officer, Ola Balogun, reads: “The Society of Nigerian
Artists, Lagos, wishes to express its displeasure with the organisers
of the art competition of the Lagos Black Heritage Festival over their
unprofessionalism and the shoddy treatment of artists, including their
ejection from the hotel accommodation provided for the duration of the
competition, over their agitation for professional management.”

He further states
three reasons for the society’s action: “One, entries for a competition
of this nature should be announced publicly and participants should not
be hand selected; two, criteria and prize money should also be
advertised beforehand; three, non-recourse to the registered
professional body for visual artists in Nigeria.” The release
concludes, “While applauding the efforts of the organisers to promote
the visual arts in Nigeria, we insist on professionalism and the fair
and proper treatment of artists.”

If the competition
had been thrown open and the prize money announced in earnest, there
could have been a different level of participation from interested
artists who may not necessarily be professionals like those
specifically invited. In Nigeria, art competitions are organised with
the notion that the prize money does not matter. Most of the organisers
erroneously regard competitions as a way of helping the artist. They
never see the point of appreciating and rewarding creativity and
originality. It is a similar case with some art patrons who believe the
only reason they buy artwork is to help the artist – as if the art
works in question do not command any value.

Not in Soyinka’s name

Last year’s maiden
competition, greatly influenced by the editions annually organised by
the Caterina de’ Medici of Italy, was roundly applauded. The prize
money had attracted many big names to participate, with many of them
travelling in from outside Lagos. It also resulted in the high quality
of works that won prizes, a few hiccups notwithstanding.

This year, the
organisers tried to blackmail the artists by constantly using the name
of Wole Soyinka, who was instrumental to the grand success of 2010.
Unknown to them, the artists had made their findings and had discovered
that the globally-acclaimed professor, known for his integrity and
credibility, had advised the organisers not to hold the competition
this year, especially due to lack of funds. The reason was corroborated
by Ms Michaels: most of the sponsors are only willing to play ball next
year.

The organisers may look inward and do a better job next year,
bearing in mind that when the integrity of the Nigerian artist is
dragged in the mud, ire is also drawn in the process.

People generally
avoid fights, especially in public transport. The idea of becoming a
spectacle, throwing lame punches while others watch in glee, makes most
people break out in sweat. But conductors are not like that.

They are, as a
rule, a quarrelsome lot though rarely do their rows come to blows. In
danfos, threats are usually thrown around like confetti, and on many
occasions I have seen shirts removed in readiness for combat – as two
gladiators prepare to slug it out – only for the contest to end in a no
show. Somehow, these things fizzle out without a punch.

Conductors have
come to seem like shadow boxers who enjoy the idea of a roforofo fight
more than the fight itself. They have an uncanny ability of knowing
when a hustle will require muscle, and they frequently withdraw from
the fray before that. But in the interim, you get to see a lot of
spectacle, a lot of noisy entertainment – if you like that sort of
thing. It reminds me of Shakespeare’s theory of life as a tale told by
an idiot: “full of sound and fury”, signifying nothing. Or in the
inimitable words of Fela, “na shakara.”

Once in a while,
however, you get the real deal. There is still “sound and fury” all
right, but there is also what the police might call an “attempt to
cause grievous bodily harm”. Such was the case that day at the Ojota
bus stop when our conductor took on the conductor of another bus that
rammed into us while we were slowing to a stop.

Now that I write
this, I realise how very rare are the moments when I have heard a
conductor’s name called aloud, either by the driver or anyone else. It
was always some crazy pseudonym or the generic, “ogbeniyi”, this
fellow. Immediately the accident happened, our conductor jumped down
and approached the other bus whose conductor was also spoiling for a
fight.

“I hope you know that the biggest fool has nothing on you, you and that your useless driver,” he said.

The other
conductor, a little older and a little fatter, removed his shirt and
announced to the gathering that, “it will never be good for anyone who
attempts to separate this fight. His generation till kingdom come shall
contain only imbeciles and never do wells. Cursed shall be the mouth
that says ‘stop’ and cursed shall be the hands that attempt to separate
us. This is a fight to the death and let death only be the referee.”

The crowd was taken
aback by the curse, and by the vehemence with which the man pronounced
the words, looking from one side of the gathering to the other while
rolling up his trouser legs. Our conductor added a postscript: “All of
you have heard. Anyone whose life is damaged should come between me and
this fool; anyone who is a bastard should intervene in this fight.”

By now, the buses
had emptied and some had gone on their way. Yet the crowd of onlookers
continued to grow. It was a real brawl, a roforofo fight; the two
conductors threw wild punches with few actually connecting, all the
while cursing like prostitutes.

The crowd cheered
every punch, even those that missed their targets, and every time
someone tried to intervene, he or she was quickly told of the curse
hanging over all peacemakers, and advised to desist.

This went on for a
long while and it soon began to get boring, as the steam seemed to have
gone out of the combatants. They clung to each other and wouldn’t let
go, breathing heavily. Suddenly, one of them, I think it was our
conductor, said, “But what kind of people are you? Are you people going
to watch us until we kill ourselves?”

The fatter conductor turned to us and begged, “Please separate us o. All curses have been withdrawn now and forever, I beg!”

The crowd burst into laughter and someone moved to end the drama.

God rejects the
sacrificial system insistently. He asks: “To what purpose is the
multitude of your sacrifices to me? I have had enough of burnt
offerings of rams and the fat of fed cattle. I do not delight in the
blood of bulls, or of lambs or goats. When you come to appear before
me, who has required this from your hand?” (Isa 1:11-12).

Who, indeed,
required it? It was Moses and not God. Jeremiah writes: “Thus says the
LORD of hosts, the God of Israel: ‘I did not speak to your fathers, or
command them in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt,
concerning burnt offerings or sacrifices'” (Jer 7:21-22).

Worthless sacrifices

God states
categorically through Hosea: “I desire mercy, not sacrifice, and
acknowledgment of God rather than burnt offerings” (Hos 6:6). But most
Christians just ignore such declarations.

God is not a
blood-guzzling vampire. He asks: “Do I eat the flesh of bulls or drink
the blood of goats?” (Ps 50:13). Sacrifices mean nothing to God. He
says this unequivocally: “I have no need of a bull from your stall or
of goats from your pens” (Ps 50:9). “Your burnt offerings are not
acceptable; your sacrifices do not please me” (Jer 6:20).

God forgave David’s
murder of Uriah without any sacrifices. David declares: “You do not
delight in sacrifice, or I would bring it; you do not take pleasure in
burnt offerings” (Ps 51:16). He repeats this in his messianic psalm:
“Sacrifice and offering you did not desire, but my ears you have
opened; burnt offerings and sin offerings you did not require” (Ps
40:6).

However, the ears
of many Christians have yet to be opened. We are adamant God requires
Jesus’ sacrificial death as atonement for sins.

Pagan sacrifices

God even uses very
strong language to reject sacrifices. He says: “He who kills a bull is
as if he slays a man; he who sacrifices a lamb, as if he breaks a dog’s
neck; he who offers a grain offering, as if he offers swine’s blood; he
who burns incense, as if he blesses an idol” (Isa 66:3). This shows the
sacrificial system is totally objectionable to God.

Sacrifices are
ritualistic. When a man sins, he gives a sacrifice and assumes this
takes care of his sin-problem. In effect, sacrifices are “bribes” given
every-so-often to placate a demanding deity; without the burden of
repentance for sins. Therefore, God declares to Israel: “Bring no more
futile sacrifices” (Isa 1:13).

Sacrifices come
from the perversion of those who claim the gods need to be appeased
with violent and bloody death. It is the way of the idol-worshipper;
therefore, according to kingdom dynamics, it cannot be of God.

What does the one
true God require instead? David provides the answer: “The sacrifices of
God are a broken spirit, a broken and a contrite heart- these, O God,
you will not despise” (Ps 51:17). Solomon concurs: “To do righteousness
and justice is more acceptable to the LORD than sacrifice” (Prov 21:3).

Human sacrifices

Of all Israel’s
sins, none was more abominable than the sacrifice of the first-born.
God said in admonishment: “You took your sons and daughters whom you
bore to me and sacrificed them as food to the idols. Was your
prostitution not enough?” (Eze 16:20).

This heinous ritual
is lambasted by Micah who asks sardonically: “Shall I give my firstborn
for my transgression, the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul?”
(Mic 6:7). The abomination of human sacrifice was one of the reasons
why God sent the Israelites into Babylonian captivity: “They sacrificed
their sons and daughters in the fire. So the LORD was very angry with
Israel and removed them from his presence” (2 Kg 17:17/18).

Why then would God himself turn around only to offer his Son Jesus as a human sacrifice to himself?

Testimony of Jesus

Jesus demonstrated
his disdain for sacrifices by smashing the sacrificial implements in
the temple. He maintains the kingdom imperative is to love God and our
neighbour instead of giving burnt-offerings and sacrifices (Mk
12:28-34).

As a matter of
fact, Jesus blames his crucifixion on the diabolical sacrificial
mindset. He said to the Pharisees: “If you had known what this means,
‘I desire mercy and not sacrifice,’ you would not have condemned the
guiltless” (Mt 12:7). Since he was the guiltless who would be
wrongfully condemned, he thereby foretold Caiaphas’ devious counsel to
sacrifice him for the nation of Israel (Jn 11:49-53).

Furthermore, Jesus
gives this directive to all God-seekers: “Go and learn what this means:
‘I desire mercy and not sacrifice'” (Mt 9:13). However, most Christians
refuse to learn. Worse still, we continue to insist Jesus himself was a
sacrifice.

articleoffaith@234next.com