Tambuwal asks court to jail IG for contempt

                                                                                           Speaker, Mr. Aminu Tambuwal Speaker of the                                                                                               House of Representatives, Mr. Aminu Tambuwal,                                                                                         has asked aFederal High Court in Abuja to summon                                                                                        the Inspector-General of Police, Mr. Suleiman Abba,                                                                                        to explain why he should not be jailed for disobeying                                                                                         the court order.

                                                                                        Tambuwal accused Abba of consistently disobeying                                                                                         the court order made on November 7, 2014, which                                                                                        directed parties in his substantive suit filed to stop his                                                                   removal as a member and Speaker of the House of Representatives.

The Speaker had on Thursday filed the fresh application before Justice Ahmed Mohammed, alleging that Abba’s instruction to the men of the police to deny him access into the premises of the National Assembly preventing him from carrying out his lawful duties on November 20, amounted to flouting the court order.

He added that Abba, in further disrespect of the order, on November 26, appeared before the House of Representatives Committee on Police Affairs and told the members that he would not recognise him (Tambuwal) as the Speaker.

The grounds of Tambuwal’s application read in part, “On November 7, 2014, when this matter came up the 5th defendant (the Inspector General of Police) was represented in court by a learned senior counsel, Ade Okeaya-Inneh (SAN).

“The learned senior counsel for the 5th defendant informed the honourable court that the fifth defendant was duly served with the originating summons in this suit;

“At the hearing of the case on same day, the learned senior counsel representing the 5th defendant informed this honourable court that he undertook that the 5th defendant would not do anything to tamper with the res in this suit.

“This honourable court thereafter ordered that party should maintain status quo pending the determination of the substantive suit.

“Everybody except Suleiman Abba, Esq, who is the Inspector General of Police, has been obeying the order of this honourable court made on November 7, 2014.”

Tambuwal, through his lawyer, Mr. Lateef Fagbemi, who leads eight other Senior Advocates of Nigeria and many other lawyers, is therefore seeking “an order of the court directing Suleiman Abba, Esq, (Inspector General of Police) – the 5th defendant in this suit – to appear in person and to show cause why he should not be committed to prison for contempt of order of this honourable court ordering maintenance of status quo on November 7, 2014 and/or for acting in manners and ways which showed disrespect to court.”

I put off having a baby for six years because of my career- Lara George

S i nce going solo after her musical group, KUSH, broke up, Lara George has proved    her mettle as a talented singer. With many hits to her credit, she has become a diva sought after both at home and abroad.

Lara-George

But things have not always been rosy for the easy-going, ever-smiling mother of two who stormed Vanguard’s corporate office on Monday, accompanied by her husband, Gbenga.

In a riveting chat session, she told her story; took us through her journey and what she had to go through as a gospel artiste to have her name stamped on the music landscape of the country:

What really inspired the song Dansaki?

The song came at a moment in my life when I was pregnant with my second baby. I was also working on my second album. I was just thankful to God. One day I put pen to paper and said “I am acknowledging you for who you are in my life” and the words just kept coming. I wrote half of the song and I left it.

When I started to record, the other half of the song came. It was one of those songs you never thought would turn out to be a hit. I was just trying to express myself to God .So it’s just such a beautiful thing that people would pick from the album and love it.

What were you thankful for at that point in time?

I was pregnant. It wasn’t that I had any issues getting pregnant but you know the life of a woman, time  and chance just come to make it come together. We had put off having a baby for about six years. Each year came and I wasn’t ready.

So for everything to be smooth when I wanted to have the baby, I was grateful for that. I was grateful for family. I looked around me and found that there was nobody missing. Everybody was intact .I could call on family and friends around me.

I looked at my work and I was grateful. Sometimes,  I just get on the internet and somebody sends me     a message from Malaysia thanking me, for a song that I did that  ministered  to them. Someone saying their marriage is still together just because I wrote a song. I thought about all these things and I was thankful.

You said you put off having a child for six years and your husband allowed that?

Absolutely, for me and my career making babies    has to be something I would be ready for. We (my husband and I) couldn’t deny the fact it would have an effect on my career, no matter how you wanted to look at it. My husband knew the effect the first child had on me so we decided to space it. Just when he was getting impatient, God made it happen.

Why did you opt for Gospel music? I have always loved to call my style of music inspirational. When I started out with Kush, that was the plan and the vision. I believe music is a responsibility. I have always said so and I just grew up believing that. I think that music is something that can influence generations.

I can’t imagine myself singing songs that will engender negativity in any form. I have children and I want them to listen to songs that will spur them to greater things, not songs that will encourage them to do wrong.

What is the difference between gospel music and inspirational music?

I gave you a background of the group I was coming from, which was Kush. Kush was inspirational . Kush was the only group in Nigeria that was described as inspirational. So, that definition of inspirational music literally came from there.

It was a vision we had as a team, and it was a vision each of us   had. You will  hear it in Ty Bello’s songs   and in my songs as well. We had songs that were hard core gospel, songs that were directed to God and also songs about values that were off God. For me, those are the songs that I describe as being inspirational, as opposed to being just hardcore gospel.

 What is your opinion about the Afro hip-hop music that seems to be the rave of the moment now?

Honestly, I feel Nigerian music is beautiful in terms of the sound. Unfortunately, much of it seems to be lacking in depth and in content. We are the ones who push the mundane kind of music; we are also the ones who complain that this is what fills the airwaves. This happens because this is what we promote.

When you go to a radio station for an example, they would tell you, “Sorry, we cannot play your song because you are gospel”. They would tell you that even on Sundays they have one hour for all the gospel songs. There’s high level marginalization in music too. Meanwhile, it costs a gospel artiste the same amount of money that it costs your highest paid secular artiste to produce a song and to shoot a video.

It is not cheaper for me because I am a gospel artiste; as a matter of fact they will charge me more because they believe you are Lara George. They believe one has made so much money stacked somewhere.

We cannot deny the fact that you will have a lot of people not doing gospel music because nobody wants to put their money on it. Nobody wants to open up the media to gospel music.  A lot of people are running from promoting gospel music because they will tell them “Sorry we don’t do religion”. That is the reality. That is what is going on.

It’s the reason why we have a lot of young people starting off who don’t want to have anything to do with inspirational music.

Do you do as many shows as mainstream hip-hop artistes do? How do you survive as a gospel artiste?

I have had a lot of support from my husband over the years. When I started my solo career I was literally robbing Peter to pay Paul and the music was not paying for itself. I got to a point where I had to start saying no to everybody who approached me for free events because people always expect that once you are gospel, you should do free events. Churches will call you for free events or give you next to nothing .

The radio stations will call you for free shows, even people who organize non- church events will call you for free shows when they have charity events. They expect you to do the charity event for free, though they are the ones who have put up the charity event.

I had to start putting my foot down. I started charging for what I did. I made a lot of enemies in the process because a lot of people started saying: “Now she is acting like a diva”. The truth is that the music needed to pay for itself, which is what I am doing now; trying to make sure that the music actually funds itself.

 We are gradually getting to the point where some gospel musicians are going mainstream .Do you think its as a result of the content of their music or the more promotion they get?

When you are looking for music that has true content and true value you will find it in gospel. Promotion has always been a problem.

Even when you have the funds to promote the song, there is a glass ceiling that is placed on top of those who are labeled inspirational. For example, I released a song recently titled Love Nwantintin     which is a love song. I released it to celebrate my 10th year wedding anniversary and I took that to a very popular TV station.

They said to me: “We are going to play it only on Sundays  and I asked them, why only on Sundays? I was told it’s because its gospel”. I told them it’s a love song and asked them if they listened to it. There is an assumption that because one is mostly known for gospel songs, all you do are gospel songs.

There are those in the industry who have always supported good music. It’s because of people  like you that people like me have been able to stay relevant. There is no denying that when those people help to promote good music, then it gets heard and then there is a platform for other people to actually appreciate what is being done.

From idols West Africa to the present, what have you learnt from that experience which has helped your career so far?

I love stage; it is the crowning point of a music performance. I was told years back that I could not do music in a certain way, that I could only do music that is quiet. I believed that for many years.

So for many years, I didn’t try to do anything different. It’s been an experience and I am still learning even now. Every time that I attend a concert and I watch other people, I try to take something away and I hope that when I  get on stage next time that I will be  a better   artiste as a result of what I have learnt.

What is an inspirational singer doing with a love song?

Inspirational music is a melody that talks about any topic, but sees it from the God perspective. When Lara George chooses to sing about love,  she isn’t   singing about it from the perspective of   cynicism , I am singing about it from   God’s   perspective that says ‘ One man one wife’  and hanging   in there  when you are married.

My husband and I celebrated ten years of marriage, I wanted to sing a different kind of love song that is unlike all of the cynicism that you have out there.

What is responsible for your staying power?

To be honest, I don’t know. There have been times when I wanted to throw in the towel and I am saying that it happens all the time. Some days back, somebody said to me: “Lara, your songs are not popular, so we cannot have you on our show”.

We get that kind of disrespect. I can’t imagine them having the guts to talk to a secular artiste that way. As a result of the fact that you are a gospel artiste, they feel that it’s okay to talk to you that way. They are trying to negotiate and they believe that it’s a good negotiation tactic.

When you come across attitudes like that, it makes you want to throw in the towel. It’s such a big deal that the publisher of Vanguard likes my song even when I haven’t met him. It’s an affirmation that one is doing something laudable when some people want to talk you down.

Every day, I just say to God that if you want to keep the work going, you literally have to make a way and he has made a way constantly. Every time that I had wanted to walk away from the music, some doors would open. God keeps me going.

How is your music doing outside of the country?

It’s doing really well. I had a concert in San Francisco and was amazed how many people who knew my song. Before then, we had done shows in Maryland, Houston and Los Angeles. The one that was most memorable was the song I did in Cotonou with over 10,000 French-speaking people singing my song.

When they invited me, I was worried about what to say to the people. Immediately I started the first song, they joined me in singing it word for word. They had done the remix of Kolebaje in French. Everybody knows the song there; even the remix isn’t as popular as the original version. The reception from outside of the country has just been amazing.

Oriki Ni Ro Ni: Pastor Tunde Bakare And This Nation.

Oriki Ni Ro Ni”, - one’s oriki is an amebo – is not the first title that suggested itself to me as I pondered the daunting task of engaging the phenomenon that is Tunde Bakare. The real Yoruba saying, in fact, is “oruko ni ro ni” (one’s name is an amebo) but I am a writer wielding poetic license. I have changed it to oriki because I can! Titles raced through my mind, some retained for a fleeting consideration, some immediately dismissed, all indications of the mounting dilemma of a speaker looking for an angle, an entry point. Some of you may guess that my dilemma has to do with the larger than life image of my subject and the multi-layered levels of his involvement in that inchoate postcolonial task we call project nationhood in this country.

If this is your thinking, you are only partially right. What bothered me was the dilemma of distinction, of distinguishing, of embracing the philosophy of 7Up: the difference is clear. An inauspicious rainfall, the sort which removes roofs, uproots trees, and tears down walls and fences, may find pigeons, hens, and other birds of different and unequal plumage seeking shelter under the same tree, making it difficult for even the most circumspect and colour-savvy observer to tell the difference. Nigeria, we all agree, makes meaning only when we laugh in the face of tragedy – the sort of tragedy which normalizes mediocrity and absurdity; the sort of mediocrity and absurdity which ensure that one of the surest ways to guarantee entry into the public sphere and public consciousness is for any caterwauler to have stolen a couple of billions in office and thereby acquire the means to offend the sensibilities of the few who still have a conscience in Nigeria.

I am talking about the ease with which the unworthy and the undeserving in our society enact the public ritual of self-celebration that we call lectures and book presentations. I am aware that in this country, there are lectures convened to celebrate career coup plotters and professional treasury looters daily. I am aware that in this country, the practice of writing hagiographies about the uninspiring lives of the most prolific traducers of national destiny has become the sure banker of stomach infrastructure for many of my colleagues in academia. Such is the scale of this banality of the absurd that a prominent political office holder recently invited the public to the launch of his autobiography. That autobiography, of course, is an account of his life written by another person! Biography? Autobiography? The grammar does not matter. Steal enough money from the public till, get a book written about you, call a party, and it is dorobucci and eminado all the way

In a nation-space where celebration of non-exemplary lives has become what a kind Yoruba person would call an “iru wa ogiri wa” affair or what an unkind Yoruba person would call a “t’aja t’eran” affair, or what the English would call an all comers affair, celebrating worthiness where it exists becomes imperative. In this sort of climate, how do you perspectivize the genuine article in order to apprehend its manifold layers of legitimacy? When a legitimate and worthy claimant to this noble ritual of celebration comes along, how do you ensure that the public understands that the difference is 7Up? How do you ensure that a public so used to the banality of this ritual understands that the exception is possible? How do you ensure that Nigerians understand that a ruinous rainfall is no excuse to provide shared accommodation for pigeons and hens? For there are celebrations and there are celebrations. There are book presentations and there are book presentations. This is Pastor Tunde Bakare’s celebration. This is Pastor Tunde Bakare’s book presentation.

The necessity of distinction, of recognizing and naming exception, is what led me to one of the titles I initially considered for this lecture. Although I did not retain the said title, preferring instead one which probes the intermesh between Tunde Bakare’s oriki and the gift of example that he has become to this nation, I will nonetheless mine the semantic recesses of the discarded title for what it offers in terms of how I want you to think about the significance of Tunde Bakare to this nation henceforth. “Hegemony without Dominance: The Example of Tunde Bakare”. That is the title I discarded. I want you all to repeat its operative phrase after me so you don’t forget: “Hegemony without Dominance”.

Anybody conversant with contemporary literary and critical theory would immediately have caught me at a game I just played. I have inverted a phrase that has been bandied around by Leftist and Marxist intellectuals since the time of a famous 20th century Italian thinker known as Antonio Gramsci. That phrase is, “Dominance without Hegemony”. Now, this is not a lecture about Marxism and Literature so I will spare you theoretical tedium by not exploring the career of that phrase in literary and philosophical academia. But I must nack you di tori of what some Southeast Asian thinkers did with it in their monumental contribution to our understanding of the architecture of power under colonialism. The said Southeast thinkers even formed a school of knowledge known as subaltern studies. That Indian school was led by a famous Professor called Ranajit Guha.

Guha it was who, borrowing from Gramsci, famously theorized the nature of power and authority under colonialism as “Dominance without Hegemony”. That formula has since been extended to describe the relationship between a people and her leaders even in postcolonial times and climes. Now, what do Ranajit Guha and his fellow theorists mean by dominance without hegemony? For them, the exercise of power and authority over a people through instruments, mechanisms, and apparatuses of state – such as was the case with colonialism – functions only as dominance and coercion. What changes the complexion of power and authority, what transforms power and authority from dominance to hegemony, is the will of the people. Their recognition of and voluntary submission to power - to authority - is what confers on it the legitimacy referred to as hegemony.

No subject people voluntarily recognised the power and authority of colonialism. This lack of recognition, this lack of wilful submission by the people, is what made dominance the singular attribute of colonialism. It was a relationship of violence which lacked hegemony. Remember, only the conscious and willing submission of the people, only their recognition, confers hegemony and legitimacy on any mechanism of authority. If you have been wondering why all the literature you have ever read about colonialism talks about “colonial masters”, “colonial officers”, or even “colonial lords” and never “colonial leaders”, now you know why. Colonialism produced masters and officers and lords but not leaders. The district officer or the Governor General was a colonial master and not a colonial leader because these representatives of power never had the willful and voluntary submission of the people to their authority. The recognition by and of the people that is so vital in conferring hegemony and legitimacy on power was not there. Without it, the colonial officer had dominance but not hegemony over the people. Dominance, alas, does not leaders produce. Only hegemony does.

Let us leave colonialism and turn to Nigeria after October 1, 1960. Those of you who by now are familiar with my interventions in public discourse in this country through lectures, interviews, and my weekly column have asked me on occasion: why do you always speak of Nigeria’s rulers and not Nigeria’s leaders? It is true that I have always used rulers and rulership and not leaders and leadership in describing those who have been in charge of the apparatuses of state in this nation-space of ours. It is also true that the expressions, “we have no leaders” or “there is a dearth of leadership in the land” are commonplace. What is not commonplace is the difference between leaders and rulers. In a postcolonial contraption, the presence of political parties, elections, and other pretenses to a democratic calendar does not necessarily produce leaders and leadership.

Now, I want you to listen to this carefully. A free and fair election may produce a President, a Governor, a Senator or a Local Government Chairman, it certainly does not produce a leader. Of course, our own familiar diet of do-or-die, rig and roast elections, certainly does not and cannot produce a leader. Let me repeat: a democratic election, free and fair or rigged, does not produce a leader. Winning a free and fair or rigged election is but a first step in a long march to the production of leadership. There is still the business of legitimacy and hegemony which, we have said, can only happen “in the eyes of the people”. Without that validation in the eyes of the people – or let me even say, by the eyes of the people – you may rig an election till thine kingdom come, you will only be a ruler exercising dominance without hegemony because there is no wilful or voluntary submission of the self to the power you wield over the polity. Once the eyes of the people do not confer that legitimacy on you, you are a ruler and not a leader. To become a leader, na beans? No be beans now.

It should be clear to you by now that just as calling anybody a colonial leader was an aberration, calling anybody a leader in the mockery of democracy we have operated since 1999 is also an aberration. In fact, what validates this thesis of dominance without hegemony is the desperation to acquire that loaded and symbolic tag called ‘leader’ by those who know, deep down in their own hearts, that they are rulers – not leaders. That knowledge becomes a deep psychological torment. There is an emptiness in the soul that all the wealth and material possessions in this world cannot heal. You look into the eyes of the people and you do not see the recognition, the validation, the voluntary submission to your authority that is absolutely necessary to confer on you the title of leader. The hollowness of being a ruler and not a leader is what your mirror sends back rudely into your face every time you stand in front of it.

So, you mobilise the resources of the same people to rent and bribe them for symbolic rituals of conferment of that badly sought-after legitimacy. Renting is easy because you have taken the precaution of impoverishing them beforehand. This, of course, does not produce leadership. It produces farce. Suddenly, the people begin to weep and roll on the ground, begging you to rule them forever, donating money to buy forms for you. People whose skin is already so black here in sub-Saharan Africa, you make them acquire a TAN! In one of the funnier and more tragic scenarios, a soldier turned politician even wept! He was moved to tears that his people were so desperate to have him represent them forever that they put together their widow’s mite, their mechanic’s mite, their vulcanizer’s mite, owo oniru owo oniyo, and bought his nomination form. How moving! And David Mark wept! And Jesus wept that David Mark wept!

There is, of course, a totally different path to the acquisition of the tag, leader, than what these jokers and amateur dabblers into the art of ribaldry are doing in broad daylight. The scenarios we have described above are very expensive. Yet, after all the billions stolen from the public till and spent on renting and bribing the people, you remain a ruler and not a leader for leadership is like omoluabi: ko se f’owora – it just cannot be bought. The different way, the different path to the acquisition of the chieftaincy title of leader, is completely free. Free of charge. This raises an obvious question: if there is a free path to the acquisition of the status of leader, why do the rulers of Nigeria prefer the most expensive routes to its negation?

The answer is simple. You may not need money and material aggrandizement to acquire the status of leader, you need to come to the table with an impeccable and unimpeachable moral and ethical capital, built through years of consistency, with the block of the personal example. You will notice that I said block – not blocks. The personal example, so sorely missing in our national life, is the singular route to being a genuine hero, a genuine role model, a genuine leader. When we say that there is a dearth of leadership in Nigeria, when we say that we have produced almost three generations of Nigerians who lack credible role models, when we say that real and genuine heroes of the people are hard to come by in today’s Nigeria, what we are saying is that few are those whose ethical stock and moral capital are sufficient to legitimize them in the eyes of the people.

There is good news though. There is excellent news. It is true that an election, whether fair or rigged, does not necessarily produce leaders and leadership. History avails us of other truths, other verities about the path to legitimate leadership, heroism, and role modelhood. History tells us that whenever the political space presents unworthy vermin who are rulers instead of leaders, the people gravitate towards folk outside of professional politics who satisfy the indispensable criterion of the personal example. They become leaders, recognized and ordained as such by the people.

Their function in society acquires hegemony insofar as the people wilfully and voluntarily submit themselves to the authority of their transcendental personal examples. When people recognize themselves in the unending cavalcade of personal examples that is the life of any such character, that, my friends is the birth, the origin of genuine and legitimate leadership. Such a person becomes a leader because people willingly submit themselves to the authority of the personal example of this unnamed, hypothetical character of ours. The control, the authority that this character comes to exercise over you is earned. It is hegemony without dominance. It cannot be bought. It cannot be TANned. It can only be earned through the ritual of self-rebirth and self-renewal via the singular instrument of the personal example. In other words:

Bibire ko se f’owo ra o ti daju

Bibire ko se f’owo ra o ti daju

Bi a bi ni ko to ka tun ra eni bi

Bi a bi ni ko to ka tun ra eni bi

Ewo Tunde omo Bakare oko Olayide

O ku bibire

Ladies and gentlemen, let us forget Pastor Tunde Bakare for a second. Let us return to our hypothetical character who is so prolific in the production of personal examples. Let us assume that my good friend, Dr Joe Okei-Odumakin, knows this person that we are talking about. Let us assume that every time that she sees this person, she screams, “my leader sir”, to everybody’s hearing and with all the seriousness that such an honest enunciative avowal of followership requires. Now, Joe Okei-Odumakin is no longer in the category of those who can be shoved aside in this country. You cannot see the elephant that is Joe Okei-Odumakin and declare to the world that you caught a brief glimpse of something. If you did that, you would be telling a lie for an elephant is beyond what the eyes may greet with a casual glimpse. Remember, this elephant has hugged Michelle Obama and has shaken hands with John Kerry on the world stage. The Presidency of her country recently declared her a worthy elephant. “Bawo ni tie ti je nile yi” is no longer the portion of Joe Okei-Odumakin. Yet, she screams, “my leader sir”, whenever she is in the presence of this hypothetical character of ours.

If Joe Okei-Odumakin is a giant in her own right, the question must be asked: how did she arrive at that salute, “my leader sir”, that I have heard so often? Did the addressee put a gun to her head? Did the addressee open a Swiss bank account in her name? Did the addressee put her on the receiving roaster of egunje from Siemens and Halliburton? Did the addressee pen her down for an oil bloc? Did the addressee pen her down for a political appointment? Did the addressee award her a juicy contract?

No? I can’t hear you, did you all say no?

If the answer is no, I put it to you all that the only thing that has gone down here is that every utterance of “my leader sir” by Dr Joe Okei-Odumakin is indicative of her conscious, wilful, and voluntary submission to the symbolic authority of the personal example of the life of the person she addresses as her leader. That authority has hegemony and is therefore not dominance. I must not create the impression that Joe Odumakin is alone in this business of recognition of and submission to the authority of somebody’s personal example. Millions of people across this country, who find only rulership in the political and public spaces where they expect leadership, also gravitate towards that singular source of legitimate authority that is always being validated in Odumakin’s utterances.

It is therefore time to examine some of these examples in order to understand why and how they have come to situate the person who authors them as a credible leader in our national spaces of civic sentience. I do not need to identify the role and place of faith and religious creeds in the life of this country. Christianity and Islam are two defining pillars of the identity of this country. And we all know that these faiths are in a period of intense crisis. We know for instance that there is a sense in which Nigerian Christendom appears to be telling the faithful that it was a mistake for Christ to have ridden a donkey or trekked when he was around here with us instead of riding horses and camels – the equivalents of the Hummer in his own time. As a member of Nigerian Christendom, the message I have been getting ever since prosperity Pentecostalism happened to us is that Christ did not claim his portion and possess his possession. He did not reject poverty by sending it back to sender. Whatever it was that Christ rejected, contemporary Nigerian Christianity appears to want to make up for lost time on His behalf through an unbridled scramble for materialism and ostentation. Nigerian Christendom boasts one of the most significant harems of private jets in this country.

Now, let us assume that our hypothetical character is a Pastor who has been condemning the drift towards materialism by the Christian rulership of this country. Let us assume that he even once controversially prescribed time in jail for all General Overseers in this country in his frustration with the scramble for materialism. Then his birthday approaches. And lo and behold, he wakes up one morning to the sight of a gleaming brand new Rolls Royce at his gate: a gift by someone or some people who appreciate him, who mean well. Let us assume that his heart skips a beat. He gasps in surprise and tells the bearers of the said gift that riding a Rolls Royce in the streets of this country would contradict everything he believes in, everything he has preached. Let us assume that he rejects that gift and advises those who offered it to use the money instead for the poor and the needy for owning a Rolls Royce is the immediate younger brother of owning a private jet in the family of materialism and ostentation.

There are more personal examples where this one came from. You know I am not naming names in this part of the lecture. I am not mentioning anybody. We are just gisting, right? Okay, let me nack you another gist. Let us assume that this person that we are not naming once ran for political office because somebody arm-twisted him to be a presidential running mate. Let us assume that the moment he offered himself for that kind of service, he acknowledged the people’s right to know the source of his “toro kobo” and his “atije atimu”. If he had ongoing projects and investments, he felt the people he was aspiring to lead had the right to know. I am not saying that these things happened o but let us assume that this speaker who is right here before you found himself in this man’s church during this period. Let us assume that suddenly, in the middle of his preaching, he calls his banker to the podium and begins to cross-examine her like a lawyer. “Banker, we must all declare the source of our wealth. Let’s tell the truth and shame the devil. There are too many thieves in politics in this country. How much did I borrow last month to finance my ongoing projects? Go ahead, tell them. I authorise you. Did I do wuruwuru and magomago to obtrain that loan? Hasn’t your bank always given me lines of credit to finance my projects? Have I ever defaulted on a loan? On and on went the cross-examination in the presence of this speaker. Poor banker! I felt her discomfort as she went against her professional instinct by divulging the personal business details of her stubborn client on a church podium. No be dem say. I was there!

Ladies and gentlemen, these are just two instances of the personal example. There are thousands of personal examples where these two came from: decade after decade after decade of personal examples set to guide this country right. We are in the presence of a relentless deluge of personal examples. Personal examples rain and pour from Tunde Bakare’s life. And the literature person in me begins to wonder about culture and oral tradition. I begin to think about Tunde Bakare’s oriki. Don’t forget my earlier submission: oriki ni ro ni – one’s oriki is an amebo, doing tatafo about one’s life and character. The first opening line of the first stranza of Tunde Bakare’s oriki describes him as:

The one who causes rain to fall,

Son of the elders, King of Ijeun people

He causes rain to fall! This is no ordinary rain. This is a metaphorical rain. This is the rain of personal examples that has poured out of the life of this man into our public sphere all these decades. Oriki ni ro ni.

A s’oriki ni ro yan ore mi

Mi o mo, ta lo ri

Ta lo ri to d’Ogun lo bere wo ore

A s’oriki ni ro ni ore

Emi o tete mo

P’oriki ni ro ni o.

The second line of the first stanza of Tunde Bakare’s oriki tells me that, apparently, European Marxists and Indian literary theorists were not the first to happen on the notion of dominance and hegemony. It appears that our ancestral forbears also knew a thing or two about the acquisition of legitimacy which confers the status of leader. That line describes him as:

The one who attracts the crowds

Like Muslims on their prayer day

This verse says he attracts the crowds. This oriki verse does not say that he forces the crowds to come to him. He attracts them. They go to him because they are summoned by his moral and ethical capital. They willingly submit to the authority of his personal examples. The man exercise hegemony and not dominance over the crowds. Oriki ni ro ni!

A s’oriki ni ro ni ore

Emi o tete mo

P’oriki ni ro ni o

Why will the crowds not go to him? If you look at the history of great nations, you will discover that a lot of things define nations. We all agree that Nigeria has tragically been unable to forge many of the conventional features nationhood hence the truism that Nigeria is not a nation. She is at best a forced marriage between unwilling ethno-nations. Yet, I speak of nation in the title of this lecture. I speak of Tunde Bakare and this nation. Among the many things which define a nation are the sum total of the personal examples of the leaders they have identified and crowned in their history. When a nation says, this is who we are, she is often talking about the crystallization of the shining examples of her heroes and sheroes into a transcendental national identity.

The transcendent nature of the personal examples of Tunde Bakare is what enables me to speak authoritatively of a nation in this notorious non-nation of ours. Consider these scenarios. If I go to Otuoke today and scream in the public sphere: “stealing is not corruption”. It is highly unlikely that I would find people who would approve of such a statement and the philosophy or example it projects. I may get statements such as “shuo, bros, wish one now? Na wish kain kasala yarns you dey yarn so?”

If I return to the same public space in Otuoke brandishing the example of someone who rejected the gift of a car because it sends the signal of materialism and ostentation in a national context of poverty and hunger, people would identity with that example irrespective of the ethnicity and religion of whoever did something so unheard of. I may get reactions such as, “shuo, bros, you sure say people like dat still dey dis we obodo so?”If I go to Sokoto with same story, I may get: “wallahi, keria ne! Ya che ba ka so Rolls Royce?” If I go to Enugu with the same story, I may get: “Nna men, some people dey try for dis country o.” If I go to Abeokuta with the same story, I may get: “omo wa niyen. A jeri e!”

 

Though tribe and tongue may differ from Otuoke to Sokoto to Enugu to Abeokuta, a genuine personal example can build a nation. Across differences. Across fratricidal fault lines. Beyond our damning differences, we can all willingly embrace the control and authority of an outstanding personal example when we see it. Example is how Tunde Bakare builds his nation. Example is why he has hegemony without dominance.

 

A s’oriki ni ro yan ore mi

Mi o mo, ta lo ri

Ta lo ri to d’Ogun lo bere wo ore

A s’oriki ni ro ni ore

Emi o tete mo

P’oriki ni ro ni o.

 

Oriki ni ro ni! Happy birthday to Pastor Tunde Bakare!

   

What-does-bible-really-say-about-alcohol?

Here are your keys,” muttered the secretary when I arrived to pick up the keys to my office at Aberdeen University, where I would be studying for my doctorate in theology. “It looks like you’re in The Old Brewery.”

Intrigued by the name, I later found out that it reflected the building’s original function. Aberdeen was founded in the 15th century and used to train monks for ministry. In the brewery, monks brewed vast quantities of Scottish ale, which was served by the liter at mealtimes. And here I was, a post-fundamentalist Ph.D. student studying the Scriptures in a malted sanctuary where late medieval Bible college students once clapped mugs together in an act of worship.

Throughout Christian history, alcohol was rarely a taboo as it is in some circles today. John Calvin had a stipend of 250 gallons of wine per year written into his church contract. Martin Luther’s wife was a famed brewer of beer, which certainly won Martin’s heart. And the Guinness family created their renowned Irish Stout as an act of worship to Jesus. From Bordeaux to Berlin, wine and beer have always been part of church tradition. But what was once considered the nectar of heaven was later condemned as the devil’s libation.

A Smart Approach

Even though some Christians advocate for the total abstinence of alcohol as a moral mandate for all believers, the Bible never requires all believers to abstain from alcohol. It condemns drunkenness and being enslaved to wine (Ephesians 5:18; Titus 2:3), but it never says that tee-totaling is the better way to obey God. In fact, the Bible never says that abstaining from alcohol is the wisest way to avoid getting drunk. Think about it. Alcoholism has been rampant through every age, but the Bible never says that all believers should therefore refrain from drinking.

If Christians want to forbid all alcohol consumption to avoid drunkenness, then to be consistent, they should also avoid making a lot of money to guard against the crushing sin of materialism and the misuse of wealth.

Alcohol as a Witness

I sometimes hear that when Christians drink, it ruins their testimony. But quite honestly, I’ve never understood this line of thinking. It’s one thing if you’ve struggled with alcoholism or are ministering in a Muslim country, but for the most part, most non-Christians I know are turned off by the arbitrary dos and don’ts created by modern Christians. I’m not convinced that if my unbelieving neighbor sees me slipping into a pub, I will lose much traction to my Gospel witness. In many cases, the Gospel will shine brighter when you break down wrong assumptions about Christianity by having a beer with your neighbor.

When we strip away all the man-made clutter that dims the Gospel, the full glory of Jesus shines much brighter. A good chunk of the dying world that’s rejected Christianity hasn’t said no to Jesus, but no to a pharisaical version of Him. Some people have been turned off by the Gospel because they’ve thought that becoming a Christ-follower meant giving up having a beer with your friends after work. If this is the “good news” we preach, then the true beauty of a crucified and risen King will become covered in the fog of a man-made, pharisaical “don’t drink” gospel. AA didn’t hang on a cross for your sins and abstaining from alcohol won’t give you resurrection life. Any Christianese, man-made, unbiblical footnotes to the gospel are actually a distraction and offense to the Gospel.

Lower Alcohol Content?

Now, some say that wine in the Bible was nothing more than grape juice and therefore neither Jesus nor the Biblical writers advocated drinking alcohol. Others say that wine was so diluted that it hardly contained any alcohol. But neither of these views can be substantiated by what the Scriptures actually say. If wine was really unfermented grape juice, then why did Paul warn the Ephesians: “Do not get drunk with grape juice, which is debauchery, but be filled by the Spirit?” This doesn’t make sense. It is true that wine back then probably had a lower ABV than today’s stuff. But whatever the alcohol content, people were quite able to get smashed by drinking too much of it (Proverbs 20:1; Isaiah 5:11). Still, the Bible never says not to drink it.

There’s another alcoholic beverage mentioned in the Bible called “strong drink. The Hebrew word for “strong drink,” shakar, refers to fermented barley, which is why some translations call it “beer.” Shakar had an ABV of around 6-12 percent, similar to a Belgium Trippel Ale or a Double IPA. Like all alcoholic beverages, the Bible prohibits abusing beer (Isaiah 5:11; 28:7; Proverbs 20:1; 31:4). But in moderation, drinking beer was encouraged (Proverbs 31:6). In fact, Deuteronomy 14:26 actually commands Israelites to use some of their tithe money to buy some beers and celebrate before the Lord. (Ever hear that verse being read as the ushers are passing the plates?) They were also commanded to offer up two liters of beer to God six days a week and even more on the Sabbath (see Numbers 28:7-10). This is why the absence of beer (and wine) was an outcome of God’s judgment on the nation.

Wine as a Blessing

But the Bible goes further than admitting that drinking is simply allowed. Throughout Scripture, the production and consumption of beer and wine are often connected to the covenant promises of God.

Under the old covenant, wine is a blessing (Deut 7:13; 11:14) and the absence of wine a curse (28:39, 51). When Israel looked to the future, God promises to flood them wine flowing from the mountaintops (Amos 9:14; Joel 3:18) and vats brimming with fresh wine (Joel 2:19, 24).


Jesus signals the beginning of such blessings by creating an over-abundance (150 gallons) of wine at Cana (John 2:1-10). And on the eve of his death, He sanctified a cup of wine as “the new covenant in my blood” (Luke 22:14-23). When Christ comes back, He’ll prepare “well-aged wine” (Isaiah 25:6)—the stuff I only notice on the top shelf but can never afford—and for theological reasons it will be served, as at Cana, in abundance.

There’s a growing tendency, however, among some younger evangelicals to celebrate their freedom without discipline.

Although a good beer and rich wine are blessings from God, they should be consumed with caution. There’s a growing tendency, however, among some younger evangelicals to celebrate their freedom without discipline. These young, restless, and slightly inebriated libertines are doing some great things for the Kingdom. They’re feeding the poor, living in community and planting authentic churches—or missional communities—all to the glory of God.

Yes, God cares about the poor; He also cares about your sobriety. Enjoying alcohol in moderation takes discipline, and many beer drinkers, I hate to say it, aren’t known for their discipline. A good glass of beer can be celebratory; it doesn’t belong in the hands of an undisciplined 16-year-old playing video games in his mom’s basement. Belgium ale is strong and complex. Savor it, sanctify it, and let it meditate on your palate. Give glory to God, not just to your thirst, when enjoying the blessings that flow from Eden. Drunkenness may not be at the top of God’s list of most heinous sins; neither should it be tossed aside as a relic of American fundamentalism.

Drinking alcohol without celebrating the Cross and Kingdom is theologically anemic. Abusing alcohol mocks the blood of Christ and scoffs at God’s holiness. But moderate, intentional, celebratory and reflective drinking of wine and beer, which contemplates the crucified and risen King and anticipates our future glory, is rooted in the grace that poured from Christ’s veins on Calvary.