Yusuf Maitama Sule, Dan Masanin Kano, is one man who, in spite of his personal reservations bears no grudges when issues have to do with national interest.

In his second encounter with TheNEWS in two years, within the confines of his private office located on Unity Road in Kano, the First Republic politician painted an ugly picture of Nigeria’s political history 50 years after it gained Independence, but expressed optimism that the end to bad leadership will come. He expects and advocates for a revolution. “I do not advocate for a bloody revolution but a cultural revolution that will put the youths of this country on the right path.”
As a brilliant and promising young man, Sule dined and learnt from the founding fathers who fought tirelessly for the country’s Independence in 1960. He made his first entry into politics in 1955, when he was elected into the Federal House of Representatives on the platform of the Northern Peoples Congress, NPC. He was one of the founders of the party and, in fact, the youngest among the northern political bigwigs then. At the age of 29 in 1959, Sule became the first Minister of Oil, a position he held until 1966 when the military struck. A descendant of Sir Ahmadu Bello’s political dynasty, Sule served as Commissioner for Community Development, Local Government, and Information at different times in the old Kano State government.
Respected for his oratory, in 1960 the Dan Massani led the Nigerian delegation to Addis Ababa for the Conference of Independent African States, a forum which metamorphosed into the Organisation of African Unity, OAU, which is today known as the African Union, AU. He was also on the first Nigerian delegation to the United Nations, UN, in 1960. In the Second Republic government, Shehu Shagari appointed Sule Nigeria’s Permanent Representative to the United Nations, a position he held until 1983 when General Muhammadu Buhari’s coup toppled Shagari’s government.
In this interview with MADUABUCHI NMERIBEH, Sule notes that Nigeria has continued to drift into political oblivion, maintaining that the present crop of politicians has deviated from the dreams and aspirations of the nation’s founding fathers. And the answer to the Nigerian problem, according to him,  is to effect a change through a non-violent revolution. The youths, he says, owe the country a duty: “Indeed, the youths are the vanguard of any change. They are the vanguard of revolution and the youths must realise one thing: the future is theirs—they can make or mar it. If they mar the future, then they will inherit a bad Nigeria because they too would be the leaders of tomorrow, whether we like it or not. So, they should be prepared, they should be determined to make the future good. The future is theirs. The solution to the problem with Nigeria lies with the youths; the remedy is with the youths. The panacea to our ills lies with the youths. But the youths must always remember that they alone can not do it. They need the guidance, the teachings and the advice of responsible elders.”
At 80, Sule walks with the weakness of old age, but he speaks with the valour and grandeur of youthfulness. His baritone voice reverberates as he laces up words, couching the sentences with pauses that add splendour to his speech. Delivering speeches and lectures is Sule’s routine as he keeps fit attending conferences, seminars and symposia where he keeps on preaching his gospel of attitudinal change and Afrocracy: a concept he describes as African brand of democracy.
It is Sule’s belief that Nigeria is in dire need of good leadership. Even at 50 as an independent country, he prays that God may grant Nigeria, “leaders and not looters”

How do you reflect on political development in the country 50 years after independence?
Yes, it is good to reflect because the purpose of history is to know the past, so as to adjust the present and plan for the future. It is quite appropriate that we reflect and revisit the events of the past. Our founding fathers did us proud. They, in spite of their political differences, came together and struggled for the independence of the country. They had the interest of the country at heart; they were committed and dedicated leaders. They went into politics to serve and not to be served.
They respected one another, in spite of their tribal, religious and political differences. They accommodated one another and worked together for the good of the country. These leaders made dedication and commitment their watchword. They believed in the sacrifices which they had made before and immediately after independence.
They had a dream that Nigeria would be a united, prosperous and peaceful country. They had a dream of a Nigeria in which all of us would be our brother’s keeper. They had a dream of a Nigeria in which there would be peace and political stability—the prerequisites for development and progress. Therefore, they had a dream that Nigeria would be developed. They had a dream that such a united, peaceful and prosperous Nigeria would play the role that it was destined to play: inspiring other African countries and leading the Blacks throughout the world. Those were their dreams.
But then, we should ask ourselves: have those dreams been realised? We started very well under their leadership. Great leaders, Dr. Nnamdi Azikiwe, Chief Obafemi Awolowo, Sardauna of Sokoto (Sir. Ahmadu Bello), Malam Aminu Kano—oh yes, great leaders. They started very well.
In 1961 or 1962, there was an international report which indicated that three developing countries would, in 15 to 20 years, join the industrialised nations of the world. These three countries were India, Brazil and Nigeria. They had very good leaders who were committed and dedicated. Nehru was a great leader in the Third World—one of the best if not the best; followed by Sir Abubakar Tafawa Balewa, another decent gentleman and, of course, Brazil—had good leadership as well.
We (Nigeria) were believed to be very promising at that time. And the report said that these three countries would join the developed countries of the world in 15 to 20 years. Today, India has made it. India is a nuclear power. India is in the forefront in the field of computer technology. India produces more doctors than any other country in the world. India builds ships, manufactures aircraft, cars, missiles and so on. India today, has the second fastest growing economy, second only to China. India has made it. Brazil has also made it. Brazil today is building ships, manufacturing planes and cars, producing modern weapons—and they are developing fast. Incidentally, Brazil and Nigeria established their defence industries the same year. But Nigeria’s Defence Industry Corporation, DIC, in Kaduna is only producing furniture!
Since we lost our past leaders as a result of military intervention, the country has been deteriorating. The quality of leadership has been falling. As a result today, we see things happening which were not in our character. We were a decent people, a decent society—morally sound, honest, sincere, committed and dedicated. Yes, we were. But can one say the same of Nigeria today?

Though the first military coup claimed the lives of some leaders like Sir Tafawa Balewa and Sir Ahmadu Bello, there were still remnants of the First Republic leaders like Chief Obafemi Awolowo, Malam Aminu Kano and Dr. Nnamdi Azikiwe. Why didn’t they succeed in realising the dream?
You see, as far as I am concerned, there was no justification for that military coup. If there was any justification to usurp the democratic government then, it would have been done peacefully. Let us agree that law and order had broken down—and there was to be change––but that change could have come peacefully. We had worse political situations before the unfortunate coup and they were peacefully managed. We had the disputed census of 1952; we had the controversial election of 1954, yet, they all were managed.
After the first coup, the people from the North had thought that it was an orchestrated arrangement to do away with their leaders. They felt the mission of those soldiers was to eliminate their leaders—and that perception has been too difficult to erase. Then in July 1966, there was a counter-coup. The leaders of that counter-coup wanted everybody to go. It was so unfortunate. The military stopped the entire dream—when they struck. They did this country a great harm. From then, there was smoldering animosity which later manifested in the civil war—and things have never remained the same.
Dr. Nnamdi Azikiwe, Chief Awolowo and other compatriots tried their best in their lifetime to mend the walls. The newbreed politicians who were so many and came with an agenda full of animosity opened healed wounds and sabotaged all their efforts.

In your view, is it proper to blame military incursion for the woes of this country?
To a very large extent, I would say yes. Because, as I have told you, I do not see any justification for the military intervention in the first place, because if we had crisis––and we did have crisis at that time—it was not impossible for us to solve the problem. We have succeeded so far but our problem is bad leadership; and that bad leadership has kept on opening the old wounds. What we need today in Nigeria is good leadership.

There is a school of thought That Nigeria, as amalgamated by Lord Lugard in 1914, was a malicious arrangement by the colonial masters to bring two divergent ethno-religious cum political entities together in order to achieve their aim of perpetual domination. Don’t you think the major problem of Nigeria is the incompatibility of the regions that make up the country?
Everybody has his own opinion and he is entitled to it. Great Britain is an amalgamation of Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland. They are different people with different cultural backgrounds–and one might even say, with different religious backgrounds. Is Great Britain today not united? Is Great Britain today not peaceful? Great Britain in the past was so successful that it established an empire in which the sun never set! I refuse to accept, I refuse to agree that our cultural or tribal differences constitute the problem. I don’t know what Lugard had in mind when he amalgamated the northern and southern protectorates; but quite intelligently, I think he did so simply for administrative convenience. Other parts of the world do have similar arrangement and it is not drawing them back.

Nigeria seems to have a political system based on ethno-religious sentiments? Our politicians think of their various regions first before national interest. This manifests in the current debate for zoning of the presidency. What is your opinion on zoning?
I would not want to comment on zoning of the presidency because zoning was introduced by the Peoples Democratic Party, PDP, as a party. According to them–because I am not a PDP member–it was a gentleman’s agreement. They knew why they agreed to zone; and they are in a better position than anybody else to decide whether to continue with the zoning or to stop it. I was not a party to it; and I am not in a position to comment on it. Though I have my personal views which I am not prepared to express now, it was a gentleman’s agreement within the party. A gentleman keeps to his word; a gentleman does not go back on his word. Since the zoning served a section of the country for a term, and it is now serving another section of the country based on the agreement, let them respect that agreement. If they want to change it, let them look at it at the end of the agreement. That is all I can say for now looking at the circumstance. But my personal view about zoning is something different, which I am not prepared to say now. I will give my opinion at the appropriate time.

You were a major player in the First Republic politics and there was nothing like zoning elective political offices as we have today. Tell us how you people did the magic then when there was no zoning and there was no complaint of political dominance by any region of the country?
We had good leadership. The problem with Nigeria today is that of bad leadership. We had leadership that had the interest of the country at heart. And that is our problem today—dearth of good leaders, dearth of honest politicians. We have a saying in Hausa – ‘if any congregational prayer goes wrong, it is the Imam who is leading it that is to blame.’ You see, in the First Republic, our leaders and politicians were looking for merit. Merit and merit alone. I remember here in Kano, for example, we had a number of seats in the House of Representatives. The parties, both the NPC and the NEPU, would look for the best to represent the province. They would select them irrespective of their background or their areas, and then they would slot them into the various constituencies.
People voted the party, not the individuals or where they came from. People looked at the objectives or the manifesto of the party, not the individuals. The parties looked for the best person to represent them in the Assembly. Merit was the determining factor in those days; and not zoning.

In the First Republic, there was vibrant opposition and political tolerance within the system. Do we have such political culture today?
You see, that is why I said the leaders, because of their interest in the country accommodated one another. Only yesterday (Friday 16 July), I was telling somebody, a correspondent of an international broadcast medium, that although our past leaders had their political differences, the way and manner that they respected one another and accommodated one another in the interest of the country was such that it made us, their followers, to respect them irrespective of their political leanings. That is good leadership.
I was a young minister and Chief Awolowo was the leader of the opposition, but every morning I would go before Chief Awolowo, kneel down and greet him respectfully–the way a responsible son greets his father–in the presence of all members of the Parliament and the spectators in the gallery. Chief Awolowo was the leader of the Action Group, I was an NPC minister. The Prime Minister, Sir Abubakar Tafawa Balewa once told me: ‘I have observed the alliance between you and the Chief.’ And I said, ‘You taught me sir, because you are such a gentleman that does not want anybody to disrespect elders, and I am your favourite. So if I show disrespect to an elder, they will accuse you of encouraging me to be insolent. And I know you are such a gentleman who can never do so.’
The Prime Minister said, ‘God bless you, keep it up.’ That was the spirit then. That is how it is supposed to be, but it is not so today. This is because today, we have mediocre and sycophantic politicians.

How do you rate opposition politics in the country today?
Unfortunately, we started wrongly. And over the years, things have been deteriorating. Democracy, you see, is relative. The cultural parameters of a people should determine their style of democracy. But the democracy which we practise in Nigeria and indeed Africa is not Afrocentric, it is Eurocentric. We are copying completely, the European or American type of democracy, forgetting that we are not America or that we are not in Europe. After all, the American style of democracy differs from that of Great Britain. The British pattern of democracy is not the same as that of Germany or France, but all of them constitute democracy.
In the former Soviet Union, they claimed to be practising democracy, but it wasn’t the same democracy that was being practised in the western world. Democracy is relative. I have always argued that for democracy to succeed in Nigeria and indeed in Africa, we must consider our cultural background.

How do we modify it to take in the African culture?
The way to do it is to introduce what I call Afrocracy—African type of democracy. In the past, before the white man came and colonised us, we had a political system; that system was about the same throughout Africa. We had a chief who was the head of the council—and in that council, every section, every tribe, every religion, every trade, every profession and every community was represented. No one was left out. The chief was the chairman of the council—the head of the council. So, everybody was a participant. No one was in the opposition. Ours, therefore, was a sort of participatory democracy. So, to us in those days, formal opposition was null. But there was opposition within the council. If any matter comes up in the council, it would be hotly debated, divergent views would be expressed—everybody had the freedom to express his or her mind. But if at the end of the day a consensus was reached and a decision taken, that would be the end of the matter. And everybody would have the feeling of satisfaction that he had participated in the decision making even if his views were disregarded. That was the system that operated and the system was democratic. But if the head of the council failed to live up to the expectations of his people, he would be dethroned, he might be exiled. Sometimes, he would be sent on permanent leave.
This system took care of what is now troubling us—tribalism and religious bigotry. Every tribe was represented. All were there in the government. And so, no one would complain of being elbowed out; and there would be no problem of ‘bring him down syndrome’. That was the system that operated.
I do agree that we cannot bring it back as it was, but we can modify it. We can evolve a political constitution that would have a semblance of this system; that is, a political system that can work in tandem with our socio-cultural activities. We can diffuse power and take governance to the threshold of the people. We can involve the people and the interests they represent in the art of governance. Yes, we can do it and that is when we will be able to find solutions to the socio-political problems bedeviling Nigeria, nay, Africa.

Don’t you think you are advocating monarchy or a version of communism?
No! No! It was not monarchy. It was not communism or socialism. But it was one-party system with a difference, not the socialist type of one-party system. This system was practised somewhere in Africa. Mwalimu Julius Nyerere introduced this system which he called Ujama. He had one party, but the difference between his one party and the socialist one party was that in every constituency, anybody that was qualified and was willing could contest election. But in the socialist system, the party would present a single list of candidates—the electorate would have no choice. Voting was a mere formality. But in Mwalimu’s Ujama system, you had a choice because different people would contest and you would make your choice. That was what made it different from the socialist system.
In the Ujama system, whoever that was elected would become a member of the party. The remaining people who were defeated would keep watch on the successful candidate. If he did well, he would be returned in the next election; if not, he would be rejected. The system took care of tribalism and religious bigotry. The system also brought all hands on deck.
We in the developing world cannot afford the extreme lottery of party politics with bickering, back-biting, unnecessary accusations and so on. This party politics with its attendant evil–as created by selfish politicians in developing countries like Nigeria–cannot help us. The Ujama system combusted all these evils and the country became united and peaceful. The country was so peaceful and united that when Nyerere decided to retire, he was succeeded by somebody from another part of the country—from Zanzibar, a small Island of Muslim Arabs. Mwalimu was an African from the mainland of Tanganyika with a population about 60 per cent or even more; but he was succeeded by somebody from a small Island with a population of about 15 to 20 per cent. The man from Zanzibar was a Muslim from a minority area and he succeeded a Christian from a majority area. Such was the beauty of the Ujama system.
If you run the multi-party system that they have in Europe in Africa, you will end up having glorified tribal organisations in the name of political parties. And you can never have somebody from the small island of Zanzibar succeeding somebody from the large mainland of Tanganyika.
We can look at that system and see how we can modify and adopt it. But I know that we have been so brainwashed that it is difficult. It is not impossible but it is extremely difficult to adopt this system. But we still can look at it. Afrocracy is the permanent solution to our political problems. Afrocracy is the only way that we can make democracy succeed in Nigeria and, indeed, in Africa.

Since you have agreed that it would be difficult to adopt Afrocracy, what other measures can be taken to salvage the nation’s political system, particularly the electoral system as we plan for elections in 2011?
There is a short-term solution, which if we try and we succeed may lead to a successful democracy. And this short-term solution is: six months before elections, the incumbent government should resign, yielding place to an interim government that would be made up of non-partisan people, credible Nigerians who are not interested in politics—in partisan politics or in contesting elections. These credible leaders would form the interim government—this interim government will appoint the Electoral Commission which will plan for and conduct the elections. With this arrangement, all political parties would then be at par—no party would have an edge over the other.
But so long as you allow the incumbent government to organise and conduct an election, it would succeed itself with the five fundamentals of rigging: it has the government; it has the judiciary; it has the security forces; it has the financial resources and, of course, the INEC or the electoral commission. With these powerful organs of rigging, the government can rig and succeed itself. Only God can prevent such a government from perpetrating electoral fraud.
Once you have a level playing field for all the parties, we can have a free and fair election. It is then that we will have credible leaders; it is then that we can have leaders that will listen to the electorate because they know that they have been elected by the electorate. It is then that we can have leaders that would be credible, who have the interest of the country at heart; leaders not rulers, leaders not looters!

President Goodluck Jonathan recently appointed Prof. Attahiru Jega, a radical academic as the chairman of INEC. He has promised to conduct credible elections. Just last week, Jega promised to stagger the next elections in six weeks, from region to region. How do you see this arrangement?
Prof. Attahiru Jega is a perfect gentleman. His plans may mean well but I insist that for us to have credible elections, the government in power must resign six months to the election and set up an Interim Government made up of men of integrity who can conduct credible elections. That is it.

Apart from the government in power giving way to an Interim Government six months before the election as you have proposed, what other measures should be taken to ensure credible elections in this country?
I have told you this is my own suggestion. I may be wrong but I don’t know of anything that we can do to solve the problem. It has been suggested that the members of the electoral commission should be appointed by the Judicial Service Commission or something of a kind. But even that will not solve the problem. Who would fund this commission? Some people were saying that the funding should come from the Consolidated Revenue fund. Who controls the finances of the country, anyway—isn’t it the government? And you have the police to go round to make sure that elections are conducted peacefully! Who has the police? Isn’t it the government?
So, let me give you the example of Bangladesh. The government resigns before election and the Interim Government organises and conducts elections. So, this is my short-term solution. If we do that and we bring in good leaders, such leaders, perhaps, may work towards achieving or establishing successful democracy; and giving good leadership in the country.

Don’t you feel disillusioned about happenings in the National Assembly where we ought to have people of integrity. Just last month, there was a free-for-all at the lower chamber. Apart from that, these lawmakers continue to demand for increase in their salaries and allowances. Was this the trend in the First Republic?
First of all, this stupid policy of going for the newbreed has ensured that we have half-baked, immature and inexperienced people going into the Parliament. I am not saying that only the old should go there, but as I keep saying, the best combination is that of the old and the young. We need the experience, the maturity and the wisdom of the old as well as the dynamism, radicalism and exuberance of the young. That combination can move the country forward. If you have only the old, the journey would be slow; if young, the journey would be too quick and they might fall by the wayside. A combination of the two is the best.
Then when you introduce this new breed and you disown and refuse to recognise the old, you’ve said that the old politicians have outlived their usefulness, they have been exhausted, they should step aside! I keep saying this: the new breed without the old breed would breed greed!
It is this greed that is making everybody desperate to participate in the system because of what they are going to get, not because of what they are going to give. Only a couple of years ago, the president of the greatest country on this earth—the United States of America—Barack Obama, was elected. He was the first Black-American president, a young man. His deputy, the Vice-President of United States of America, Joe Biden, is old enough to be Obama’s father, but Obama chose him. Thirty years ago, Obama’s deputy was a senator; thirty years ago, Obama, perhaps could have been in a secondary school. And the very first appointments Obama made were old enough to be his father. In fact, one of them, an 85-year-old man, is old enough to be his grandfather. But later, Obama appointed younger people and they joined these old people. And he has a combination of the old and young. But where you say you only want the new breed, that is why we are having a lot of problems. This is number one.
And number two, as I have said, the system we are operating is alien—it is unAfrican. In trying to emulate an alien system, we have now ended up being out of sorts, a poor caricature of what we are trying to copy. We are now the American-no-Nigeria; we are now the British-no-Nigeria! And that is the problem. But in spite of that, if you have good leadership, we will make it. If you want good leadership, we must want free and fair election. If you want a free and fair election, it is either Afrocracy or this system of government, retiring or resigning six months before elections and allowing all parties to be at par. That is the answer.
Now, to be particular on the event that happened or is happening at the National Assembly, it is the system, I think, that made them to behave the way they do. We are now practising the American type of presidential system. Are we America? The American system makes a congress member a sort of an institution. He has a chain of officers; and we are practising this system when we are not ripe for it—and it doesn’t fit our culture. Now, as a result, people are complaining that the members of the National Assembly are getting too much.
The parliamentary system which we discarded would be a much better system because in the First Republic when we were practising the parliamentary system, the Senate and the House of Representatives used to meet only three times in a year. The budget session would last for 42 days; and in the middle of the year, the supplementary budget lasted for about two weeks. And then the emergency session, if the need arose, might last for about a week or two weeks. Thereafter, the lawmakers would go back to their respective homes and pursue their respective businesses. In that system, it was not expensive. I think we spent only about three per cent of the budget on legislature and the legislators. The members had no permanent official houses. We used to come and go. Of course in Lagos, we had legislators’ quarters, but after the session, the flats were let out and people who needed them went there, paid and stayed there to carry out their business activities. So, it is the system that has encouraged this unwarranted economic waste—and people are complaining. And the people’s opinion reflects the truth. Now, if there is good leadership, in spite of the system being what it is, we could cut down on the waste.

How would you describe the present crop of Nigerian politicians?
I say this with no apologies and it is unfortunate. We have a large chunk of irresponsible people as politicians today. What we have today in Nigeria are job-seekers. They are businessmen who come to look for their daily bread; they are not politicians. They did not come to give but to take away. They did not come to lead but to loot. And they are looting us blind. Things were not like this. Things have gone so wrong that the country is in a pitiable condition.

Let us look at the issue of mounting insecurity. Nigerians today wake up with the fear of the unknown. The trend in crime today is kidnapping and many of the youths who engage in this crime are graduates. Are you not worried with the way things are going?
Again leadership––bad leadership—that is the problem. If the leaders were honest, if we have leaders who could not steal, if we have leaders who could look at the lot of the common man with the eyes of compatriots and not the eyes of the privileged few, if we have leaders who could be straightforward, we may not be having these problems. If there is no pen robbery, there would be no armed robbery. It is pen robbery that has given birth to armed robbery. When people see that some persons who were worth nothing only a couple of years ago have become something overnight because of what they are getting illegally in their position—the positions of trust which they betray—these common people would take laws in their hands too. Out of frustration, they would want to fight back, they would want to fight violently to grab that which they believe ought to have belonged to them but which they could not get because their families or relations are not in power. Their families or relations were not given the opportunity to become captains of industry or government contractors.
Let me tell you a story. During the reign of Sultan Muhammad Bello in the Sokoto Caliphate, a German came to the Caliphate and visited different parts of the Caliphate. When he got back home, he wrote: ‘I have been to the different parts of the world, I have never seen an empire or domain where the subjects are enjoying the benefits of good leadership, honest leadership, justice and fair play as in the Sokoto Caliphate.’ He said under the leadership of Sultan Muhammadu Bello, a straightforward man, a just and fair man, the common man has a say and a place. The German visitor observed that in that Caliphate under Bello’s leadership, any woman would be given a golden pot filled with gold bars and that old woman could travel from one end of the Caliphate to the other no matter how far the distance, without an escort and nobody would stop to rob her. This was so because of the honesty and justice of the leader. Justice and fairplay are the only things that can establish peace and stability. Justice and fairplay would take care of all these ugly things that we are experiencing today. The leaders must learn how to be just; they must learn how to be fair. The leaders must have the fear of God. They must have the feeling that one day they would stand before God to account for what they did. Good leadership is the answer.

Don’t you think these youths who engage in kidnapping and other crimes with the excuse that the system is not fair to them could still pursue their agitation through other legitimate means?
Yes. You are right. Two wrongs cannot make a right—I agree. You do not clean dirt with dirt. But I will add that we the leaders should do our own part by behaving responsibly, by being fair and just. People take the cue from their leaders.

The last time we spoke, you called for a revolution if this country must move forward. Do you still believe in this option?
Yes, I do. Cultural revolution. I am still calling for a cultural revolution—not a bloody one, not a violent one. I am not calling for a revolution that could beget war and carrying of firearms. I am calling for a non-violent, bloodless and cultural revolution. I am calling for re-orientation. I am calling for a change of attitude. And we can make it when we have good leaders. We can change the attitude of the people; we can make the youths and the generality of the people responsible. We can make Nigerians to be committed, dedicated, patriotic and honest. With good leadership, we can.
In China, of course, the revolution was bloody. But in India under Mahatma Gandhi, he used the philosophy of Satyagraha – non-violent resistance. They resisted all evils without violence and they succeeded. Under Mahatma Gandhi, the great leader, they succeeded in achieving independence for that sub-continent – India. You can change the attitude of the people under good leadership.

In a nutshell, what score would you give Nigeria at 50?
I give Nigeria a fairly pass mark and a poorly low mark. I give her both. It is both because Nigeria is a very difficult country to rule. Whoever rules Nigeria should rather be pitied than envied. The late Sultan of Sokoto, Abubakar III likened Nigeria to a silk gown; if you fold one sleeve, the other sleeve unfolds itself. So, for Nigeria to remain united in these 50 years, I think we should congratulate ourselves. But for the ugly things that are happening in Nigeria today, it is negative. Nigeria would have been much better. Nigeria would have been one of the most respected nations of the world after these 50 years. Nigeria would have been a developed country. Nigeria would have been much more peaceful and stable. Nigeria would have produced good leaders—leaders of integrity. Nigeria would have been a country of decent people as we were before. Although we have remained together, the family institution has broken down, respect for elders and constituted authorities that used to be a cardinal principle in our society is now at its lowest ebb. Honesty, where it does not pay has become meaningless. Symptoms of revolt loom large in the horizon. And so today, there is meaninglessness in philosophy, insecurity in the polity, chaos in politics, immorality in the society, corruption in the economy. What is responsible for this is bad leadership.

Then what is your prayer for this country?
May God grant that we may have leaders, not rulers. That is, leaders not looters, leaders with the fear of God, leaders who would not lie, leaders who would accept in public what they have accepted in secret, leaders who will not steal, leaders who are not corrupt, leaders with a vision, leaders with fire in their belly but humanity in their heart. We need leaders who will fire unpleasant but not irrational decisions—but humanity in their heart so that in taking such decisions they temper justice with mercy. We need leaders who will know and believe that they would one day stand before God to account for their stewardship. Nigeria needs leaders who will know when they are no longer equal to the exigencies of the nation; and will have the prudence of handing over to others before they forfeit the admiration of their countrymen. May God grant that we have such leaders.