Connect with us

Opinion

Lessons From The Vatican, A Muslim View

Published

on

Lessons From The Vatican, A Muslim View

Recently, Pope Leo XIV appealed against the recent senseless killings of people in Benue State, Nigeria. He said:

“On the night of 13th/14th June, in the town of Yelwata in the Guma Local Government Area, in Benue State in Nigeria, a terrible massacre occurred in which around 200 people were killed with extreme cruelty, most of whom were internally displaced persons hosted by the local Catholic mission. I pray that security, justice and peace will prevail in Nigeria, a beloved country so affected by various forms of violence. And I pray in a special way for the rural Christian communities in Benue State, who have been unceasingly the victims of violence.”

It is good that the Pope spoke against the senseless killings of Christians in Nigeria. He is a Catholic leader but to the credit of the Vatican, it has been speaking for world peace. The Christians value their lives, if other Nigerians don’t.

In fact, the Vatican has consistently identified with the problems of the Palestinians, although about 90 per cent of them are muslims. The Catholic Church has its challenges and problems but there are some lessons the world can learn from it. After all, the prophet of Islam said that knowledge and wisdom are the property of the believer. Therefore, he should seek and take them, even if it requires going to China, a country that had nothing to do with Islam at that time. Perhaps, to date.

This piece is about papacy, an office and institution. And I’m fairly conversant with the papacy as an institution because I offered European History in the university, where we examined the origin and development of Christianity, including the rebellion of Martin Luther and his 95 allegations called Theses, against the Catholic Church in 1517, based on which he was excommunicated (disowned) in June 1520 by Pope Leo X.

I have also read a number of books on contemporary issues in the Vatican and papacy. The one I found most engaging and intriguing is titled, “In God’s Name – An investigation Into the Murder of Pope John Paul I” by David Yallop. Over six million copies were sold, and The Economist (London) described it as, “Excellently done… an engrossing and disturbing book”. Indeed, like all other religious groups, the Catholic Church has its share of challenges. But this is not our focus.

For clarity, the pope refers to “the individual leader of the Catholic Church, the Bishop of Rome, who serves as the spiritual leader and Head of State of Vatican” while the papacy refers to “the office, dignity, and jurisdiction of the pope, encompassing the institution, authority, and tradition of the papal office”.

Now, the lessons. First, let me start with power. If there is to be president of the world, based on global acceptance of his followers, the pope is eminently qualified, as a spiritual leader and head of government (Vatican) whose about 1.4 billion followers cut across all countries, races and continents.

Interestingly, it is an enormous power which the Pope doesn’t use to massage his (not her) ego or acquire material wealth. I put “her” in bracket because there has never been a female Pope, and the struggle now is for an African, not female Pope.

With a population of 882 people, and as an enclave in Italy, the Vatican is the smallest country in the world but with sovereignty, independence and self-government. Thus, the pope is a strong leader, as head of government and at the same time spiritual leader in the world. But I cannot recall reading about an instance where the pope used this ENORMOUS POWER against humanity.

Secondly, all the four occupiers of the office of the pope in my life, were paragons of humility, the climax of which was the kissing of the feet of warring faction leaders of Southern Sudan. You may recall that John Garang took up arms for the freedom of Southern Sudan from the Arabs of Sudan who they accused of racism. However, Pope Francis knelt down and kissed the feet of their leaders. This may not mean anything in some cultures but the pope succeeded in sending a powerful message to them pleading for peace.

The president of Southern Sudan, Salva Kirr, stated in his tribute to Pope Francis that:

“His act of kindness and humility demonstrated during our visit to Rome in 2019, when he knelt down to kiss our feet was a turning point for us, the peace partners. I was almost trembling” (Agnes Aineah, ACI Africa, Juba, April 23, 2025)

Thirdly, all the popes preached peace and love for humanity regardless of religion, gender or race. And they matched their words with action. For example, they never abandoned the Palestinians who are predominantly Muslims and Arabs. Imagine the set back the Palestinians may have experienced if any of the Popes had called on Catholics in the world to support Israel.

Of course, only God knows the pressure put on them to do so. But Pope Francis died calling for ceasefire and humanitarian intervention for Palestinians in Gaza. To the dismay of war mongers, I believe.

The Catholic Church is known for effective organisation and management based on which it successfully runs thousands of dioceses and parishes all over the world. It does this by engaging in productive businesses to generate wealth to cater for its officials and followers. This commitment to social services like education, health etc earned it the respect of its followers which makes management and discipline easier.

Also, their officials are constantly trained and retrained to discharge their duties effectively. For example, see the address of Pope John Paul II to the plenary session of the congregation for the clergy entitled, “The Priest, Pastor, and Leadership of the Parish Community”, delivered on Friday November 23, 2001.

He specifically stated that, “in fulfilling his duty as guide, which is his personal responsibility, the pastor will surely obtain help from the consultative bodies foreseen by canon law”.

In the same vein, the Vatican has been teaching the world how to conduct free and fair elections. No petition. No tribunal. No court case.

For us in Nigeria, the lessons are important, because there will always be Muslims and Christians in the country. Therefore, they must learn to live in peace on the basis of justice and fairness. We must also continue to pray for peace in the country. Even if Nigeria is to break, let the new countries have something to show for wasting their time in Nigeria.

Be that as it may, it would be interesting, for example, just as the Muslims were persecuted in Mecca and the prophet of Islam sent them to present day Ethiopia where there was a just Christian king called Najashi of Aksum empire, if some Muslims are to be persecuted in Nigeria today, they will find peace in the Vatican. And the Sultan of Sokoto should be comfortable enough to send them there.

Finally, it will be good if the Vatican examines the possibility of changing the colours of the smoke they use as symbols of election of a new pope; with black indicating mourning, and white victory for the election of a new pope. All colours are innocent but people will continue to attach meanings to them.

There appears to be light at the end of the tunnel in Benue. For example, President Muhammadu Buhari expressed frustration that he directed the Inspector General of Police to relocate to Benue during a similar attack but he refused. Today, the Inspector General of Police and Chief of Defence Staff are there already before President Bola Tinubu directed them to go.

Should we all say, Shalom!

Dailytrust.com

Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Opinion

“Let President Muhammadu Buhari Rest in Peace” – By Nasir El-Rufai

Published

on

The recent launch of a book on the life and legacy of our late leader, President Muhammadu Buhari, has stirred deep emotions and renewed divisions among those who once formed his inner circle. Having followed the headlines and images from the event, I felt compelled to make a simple but urgent appeal: let us allow President Buhari to rest in peace.

A careful look at those who dominated the book launch revealed the same factional lines that existed during Buhari’s lifetime. One camp was prominently represented, while others—equally close to the late president—were excluded. This selective engagement compounded by the choice of location of the event were red flags, and raises concerns about whether Buhari’s legacy is now being shaped to serve narrow interests rather than historical truth.

More troubling was the presence of long-time critics of Buhari, some of whom now hold high office, delivering glowing, but clearly faked tributes. These are individuals who once blamed his administration for nearly every challenge facing Nigeria, but who now appear eager to revise history—perhaps to deflect responsibility for present failures.

It was also unsettling to see individuals celebrating Buhari in death who had neither his trust nor his respect in life. President Buhari was a principled man who did not easily forget personal or political disrespect, and he made his preferences clear to those around him.

I have not yet read the book, Soldier to Statesman: The Legacy of Muhammadu Buhari, and it is possible that some media reports lack context. However, many of the so-called revelations attributed to the late president appear one-sided and unfair, especially as he is no longer alive to respond. Explaining the thoughts and motivations of a complex leader through selective anecdotes risks distorting, rather than preserving, his legacy.

President Buhari was far from perfect. Many of us who supported him expected much more from his civilian presidency. However, as someone who worked closely with him in opposition political, and governance roles for over a decade, I believe much of his administration’s shortcomings stemmed from the actions and failures of a powerful inner circle—relatives, advisers, and officials who did not always share his commitment to integrity and public service.

Buhari himself remained, to the end, a man of deep faith, personal discipline, and unquestioned patriotism. Those now invoking his name for self-justification should reflect on whether they can claim the same standards.

My appeal here is simple: to all Nigerians: admirers and critics alike—let President Muhammadu Buhari rest in peace. Let history judge him fairly, without opportunism or revisionism. The truest way to honour him is not through selective storytelling, or attempting to exhibit new-found love, but by upholding the values he embodied: simplicity, integrity, humility, and service to Nigeria with all he had.

May Allah grant him eternal rest.

Nasir Ahmad El-Rufai
Cairo, Egypt
17th December, 2025

Continue Reading

Opinion

Ogun 2027: Kings Have Spoken, Yayi Belongs, Let the Campaign Begin

Published

on

By Kunle Somorin

For nearly half a century, Ogun State has stood as a federation of Yoruba subgroups – Egba, Ijebu, Remo and Yewa. Yet one fact remains: since 1976, Yewa has never produced a governor. Equity – affirmed by the Nigerian Constitution and Yoruba custom – demands that no part of a polity be permanently excluded from its highest offices. The late Awujale of Ijebuland, Oba Sikiru Kayode Adetona, foresaw this imbalance and urged that Yewa should produce the next governor of Ogun State. His prognosis carries truth to its destination. Democracy without fairness descends into exclusion by another name.

Against this backdrop, Senator Solomon Olamilekan Adeola (Yayi) emerges not as a mere aspirant but as a corrective to historical imbalance – a moral and democratic necessity. Attempts to weaponise genealogy – casting him as an outsider – have now met their answer. Yoruba wisdom cautions: Àlejò kì í mọ ìtàn ilé – a stranger cannot know the full story of the house. That story has been affirmed by those who keep it, and by the institutions that preserve lineage and belonging. As a Yoruba saying reminds us, ìrò lè rìn pẹ́, òtítọ́ ní í dé l’ẹ́yìn – falsehood may travel far, but truth arrives all the same.

In Yewaland, Oba Kehinde Olugbenle, the Olu of Ilaro and paramount ruler, publicly affirmed Adeola as a son of Yewa. Indeed, Adeola holds the traditional title of Aremo (prime son) of Yewaland, underscoring a lineage rooted in place and custom. The maternal seal followed. At Kemta Day the previous Sunday, Adeola declared: “Ilu iya mi ni mo wa yi. Emi omo Abibat Olasumbo, omo Akinola Baba Pupa from Kemta Odutolu.” The Alake and paramount ruler of Egbaland, Oba Adedotun Aremu Gbadebo, then added a defining pronouncement: “Kemta ti fun wa ni Governor!” In Yoruba cosmology, kings are custodians of heritage; their declarations carry authority. Agbà kì í wà l’ọjà, kí orí ọmọdé tuntun wó – elders do not stand by while a child’s head is misshapen. To question Adeola’s indigeneity now is, effectively, to challenge the crowns.

Constitutionally, a governorship candidate must be an indigene. Nigerian courts often consider attestations by traditional rulers when questions of lineage arise, recognising that in matters of ancestry, custodians of custom provide important context. With these royal affirmations, the central question – indigeneship – can reasonably be regarded as resolved. Eligibility is clear. Whether Yewa or Egba, count Senator Adeola a bona fide candidate. A kì í fi ẹ̀tẹ̀ sílẹ̀ pa lápálápá – one does not abandon leprosy to treat ringworm. The debate must now shift from ancestry to governance.

On that score, Adeola’s record is measurable and visible across all three senatorial districts of Ogun State. He has facilitated over 270 infrastructure projects across Ogun West alone; empowered 15,000 market men and women with cash grants; trained thousands in entrepreneurship; and supported over 5,000 students through a Scholarship and Bursary Board. He helped reopen the Ikenne–Ilishan road, a corridor associated with the Awolowo era, long overdue for rehabilitation, and donated 102 transformers serving 435 communities. In Sagamu, youths point to empowerment schemes; in Ifo, traders speak of solar-lit markets; in Abeokuta, students recall scholarships; in Yewa, elders reference roads linking their villages. These are not promises; they are monuments. The works that touch daily life are the truest testimonials across the three senatorial districts.

Politically, the Egba Lokan sentiment has broadened into a wider call for justice, grounded in the ethos of balance and inclusion. This call aligns with the current profile of the Chairman of the Senate Committee on Appropriations, a son of Yewa with an Egba mother. High Chief Bode Mustapha, the Osi of Egbaland, has publicly commended Adeola’s service and described him as highly qualified among the field of contenders in terms of public service records. One voter captured governance’s essence in practical terms: the road he built reduced her car repair costs. Adeola’s dual heritage – paternally Yewa, maternally Egba – is a bridge, not a burden. Tí kì í ṣe ti bàbá ẹni, ó lè ṣe ti ìyá ẹni – what is not of one’s father may be of one’s mother. For advocates of the Egba Lokan agenda, this is a conundrum that requires wisdom. Agbájọ ọwọ́ la fi n s’ọ̀yà; ọwọ́ kan kì í gb’ẹrù d’órí – it takes joined hands to lift a load. In a state sometimes strained by sub-ethnic rivalry, such a bridge can steady the polity.

Legitimacy, philosophers remind us, is earned. Aristotle wrote: “The good ruler is not he who is born to rule, but he who rules well.” Yoruba thought echoes this in omolúàbí – honour, responsibility and service. Ìwà l’ẹwà – character is beauty. Adeola’s record is his manifesto; his projects are his pledges in brick and mortar, in kilowatts and scholarships. The question of origins is closed by law and custom. The campaign must now be fought on competence, character and outcomes.

History also counsels balance. Since 1976, Ogun’s leadership has passed from Olabisi Onabanjo (Ijebu), through periods of military rule, to Olusegun Osoba (Egba), Gbenga Daniel (Remo), Ibikunle Amosun (Egba) and now Dapo Abiodun (Remo). Yewa’s omission is glaring. The spirit of federal character – understood as an ethic of inclusion and fair representation – reminds us that cohesion is strengthened when all components see themselves in leadership. When law, custom and conscience converge, the argument is unassailable: justice demands that Yewa should have its turn.

Service-delivery indicators reinforce the case. In numerous town halls and community meetings, stakeholders point to reopened roads, restored power, improved market lighting, bursaries and training programmes that have equipped young people to start small enterprises. These are lived realities, not abstractions. As policy moves from spreadsheet to street, citizens measure leadership by the bridges they cross, the lights that stay on and the opportunities that open. The test of governance is not rhetoric but results – how many lives are tangibly improved through would‑be leaders’ interventions.

It is only fair to acknowledge that Yewa/Awori sons and daughters have every right to aspire to the governorship of Ogun State, even as I acknowledge Yayi’s edge. I do not consider any aspirant a footnote. Each is a chapter in this long‑drawn struggle that has marginalised people of Yewa/Awori origin. Over the years, names such as Gboyega Isiaka, Abiodun Akinlade, Noimot Salako-Oyedele, Biyi Otegbeye and others have surfaced – each carrying the hopes of their people. Many observers argue that the seat has eluded Yewa not for lack of talent or ambition, but for want of unity and a common front. Fragmentation, multiple candidacies and internal rivalries have, at times, diluted the collective claim. The lesson is clear: a house divided against itself cannot stand. The right to contend is sacrosanct, but it is best exercised with caution, dignity and a commitment to the larger cause of Yewa’s long‑awaited turn.

If Senator Adeola has been deemed worthy to sit in the hallowed chambers of the National Assembly, where he has distinguished himself with tangible service and verifiable delivery, then it follows by both logic and justice that he is equally qualified to occupy the Governor’s Office at Oke Mosan. The Constitution does not prescribe a lesser standard for the Senate than for the governorship; indeed, both demand competence, integrity and commitment to the people. Having facilitated infrastructure, empowered communities, and touched thousands of lives through scholarships and social programmes, he has already demonstrated the capacity to translate vision into dividends of democracy. To deny him the gubernatorial ticket after such a record would be to contradict both law and custom, and to deprive Ogun State of a tested hand whose service has spoken louder than rhetoric.

Within this context, the emergence of Senator Solomon Olamilekan Adeola should be seen not as a threat but as an opportunity. If he is qualified to be a senator and has delivered verifiable dividends of democracy – roads, scholarships, empowerment and infrastructure – what principle would justify denying him a fair contest for the gubernatorial ticket? The crowns have spoken, the Constitution is satisfied and his record is manifest. What remains is for all aspirants to embrace consensus where possible, coalition where necessary and civility at all times. Campaigns should elevate issues, not inflame identities; they should test plans, not impugn persons. A race anchored on programmes, capacity and probity will serve Ogun better than one framed by whispers of ancestry.

The road to 2027 will be defined by three questions that every contender must answer plainly. First, what is your plan to accelerate inclusive growth across Ogun’s three senatorial districts – industrial corridors, agribusiness value chains, urban renewal and rural connectivity alike? Second, how will you deliver reliable power, water, primary healthcare and basic education to communities that have waited too long? Third, what is your approach to youth employment – skills, finance and markets – so that entrepreneurship is not a slogan but a pathway? On these questions, Adeola’s portfolio of projects provides an opening bid. Others should place their records alongside his and let the people compare, line by line.

Good politics is, at heart, good governance. It listens, learns and builds. It makes room for difference without turning difference into division. It honours tradition without becoming captive to nostalgia. It remembers that in a republic, leadership is stewardship: those who seek the people’s mandate must show the people’s returns. As the saying goes, ohun tí a bá fi ọwọ́ ṣe, kì í bà ẹnìkan lórí – the work of one’s hands vindicates. In a competitive field, the voters will look for what is concrete and measurable.

The argument, then, is complete. Indigeneity has been addressed in law and affirmed by custom. The historical omission of Yewa has been acknowledged by monarchs and widely recognised in public discourse. The service record in question is tangible and verifiable. The Constitution demands fairness; Yoruba tradition demands balance; democracy demands justice. All three converge on a simple conclusion: it is Yewa’s turn. And if the race is to be run on competence, delivery and character, Adeola enters it with a record that can be examined without fear or favour.

For now, the crowns have spoken. History calls. Let the campaign begin. In that campaign, one name stands – not as a slogan, but as a standard; not as a whisper, but as a monument; not as a claimant, but as a custodian. Yayi.

  • Somorin, former Chief Press Secretary to Governor Dapo Abiodun, writes from Crescent University, Abeokuta.
Continue Reading

Opinion

Has the South-East Traded Kanu and Obi for Political Access? By Mohammed Bello Doka

Published

on

When Nnamdi Kanu was handed a life sentence, expectations were clear and historic. Across Nigeria, many anticipated a decisive political reaction from the South-East: emergency meetings, coordinated resistance, forceful statements from governors, and a re-assertion of the region’s long-held grievance narrative.

What followed instead was something far more revealing — a loud, deliberate silence.

No collective pushback by South-East governors.
No political reprisal.
No price imposed on the centre.

And in that silence lies a deeper story — one that goes beyond Nnamdi Kanu alone.

For the first time in Nigeria’s political history, all five South-East governors are aligned — directly or indirectly — with President Bola Tinubu and his re-election project. This is not speculation. Public statements and political signaling from the zone confirm that the governors have closed ranks around Abuja. Some openly endorse Tinubu; others maintain strategic silence while cooperating fully with the centre. Either way, the outcome is the same: regional power has moved away from confrontation to accommodation.

This alignment explains much more than the silence after Kanu’s sentence. It also explains the quiet abandonment of Peter Obi’s presidential ambition by the same elite class that once benefited from his momentum.

For years, the South-East sustained a dual political narrative:

Nnamdi Kanu represented resistance — a symbolic struggle against marginalisation.
Peter Obi represented reform — a constitutional path back to relevance at the centre.

Today, both pillars have been set aside.

Unlike previous moments in history when South-East elites distanced themselves from regional causes out of weakness or isolation, this time is different. This retreat did not happen in defeat. It happened from a position of leverage:

The region had unprecedented national sympathy after 2023.
It commanded a powerful youth-driven political movement.
It had emotional capital across Nigeria and the diaspora.
Yet, despite this strength, the elite chose survival.

South-East governors — the true controllers of the political system — have clearly decided that confrontation carries higher costs than alignment. Federal access, security cooperation, budgetary relevance, and political protection now outweigh symbolic struggles. In plain terms, Kanu became a political risk, Obi an electoral uncertainty.

This raises unavoidable rhetorical questions.

If the South-East remains as marginalised as long argued, why was Kanu’s life sentence not treated as a regional emergency?
If injustice still defines the regional condition, why has no political consequence followed?
Or has political access softened the meaning of marginalisation itself?

Even more unsettling is what this silence suggests about the future.

Will there be consequences from the people?
Governors may control the machinery, but history shows that South-East grassroots sentiment does not always move in sync with elite calculations. Suppressed anger, when ignored, rarely disappears — it mutates.

Has the South-East finally been subdued?
Or is this only a strategic pause — a recalibration before another political rupture?

And perhaps the most dangerous question of all:
What becomes of the Biafra agitation in a post-elite world?

If the political class no longer carries the banner — and the state believes resistance has been neutralised — the struggle may not end. It may simply lose its intermediaries and become harder to predict, harder to control, and more radical in form.

For now, the facts are clear.
South-East elites have chosen power over protest.
Access over agitation.
Survival over symbolism.

Whether the people follow — or resist — that choice will define the region’s political future far more than any endorsement ever could.

And until then, the silence after Kanu’s sentence remains the loudest statement the South-East political class has ever made.

Continue Reading

Trending