Monthly Archives: August 2013



“No one puts a piece of unshrunk cloth on an old garment for the patch pulls away from the garment and the tear is made worse. Nor do they put new wine into old wineskins or else the wineskins break, the wine is spilled and the wineskins are ruined but they put new wine into new wineskins and both aree preserved”. –  Mathew 9:16-17

The Holy book couldn’t have been wrong and there is no better way to explain the actions and inactions of some members of Africa’s largest ruling party, The Peoples Democratic Party (PDP). The above quotation from the scriptures captures the scenario being created by the recently formed group known as the PDP Reform Forum, whose agenda according to the group is to reform the party which is said to be drifting. Well, nothing could have been better for a political party which has held sway for a period of eleven years at the presidency and controls about twenty-eight out of the thirty-six states of the Nigerian state. But I have my reservations as it concerns the name and path chosen by this group of political big wigs in the PDP from different states as there is no known face of reform amongst the group. While parading the names and faces of those involved in the new arrangement, one cannot wonder then that the group is largely made up of those who are disgruntled or aggrieved with the powers that be in their different states. There is hardly any known face of those who are at home with the incumbent governors and the leadership of the state excos of the party in the said arrangement. It looks more like the coming together of those who have one score or the other to settle with their state chapter of the party. This informs the need, and I suggest that rather than go by the name, Reform Forum, it should rather be Return Group or Returnee Forum.

While I agree that the ruling PDP has areas where the party needs to seriously look into, more so as it concerns the much talked about electoral reforms, the truth is that one doubts the level of sincerity amongst the members of the group. In actual sense, the group should consider as a matter of urgency, self-reformation first so that they would be able to reform the party. Let us take a closer look at the issues before the party and what may have incensed this oppositional stance by those who once controlled the party machineries.

In Imo State, the former governor, Chief Achike Udenwa must take credit for being used by the former President, Olusegun Obasanjo to frustrate the chances of Senator Ifeanyi Ararume from becoming his successor at the 2007 polls, despite the fact that both Udenwa and Ararume belong to the same Party and were mutual friends, until their relationship went sour. Ararume, in what would have crowned him ‘the face of the struggle’ in the fight to stop the indiscipline within the PDP, had gone to court, thus defying the powers that be in the party as well as the party’s constitution. He fought so hard and was lucky to have the supreme court decide the matter in his favour prior the April 14, 2007 governorship polls, but he was again stopped by Obasanjo and Udenwa who in turn defied the decision of the apex court, and played the worst kind of anti party activity by asking party members and the electorates to throw their weight behind the candidate of the less known Peoples Progressive Alliance, Ikedi Ohakim, who eventually won the election. The party since then failed to sanction both Obasanjo and Udenwa, rather Obasanjo was rewarded with the position of the party’s Board of Trustees Chairman, while Udenwa later became a Minister. The question is whether Udenwa deserves to be leading the struggle on the reform agenda of the PDP? Does it not also beat the imagination of people that both Udenwa and Ararume have teamed up again all in a bid to stop the incumbent governor, Ohakim, who committed what I consider the worst political suicide by defecting from PPA to PDP where he is now seen as a political neophyte despite his huge financial war chest?

Senator Ararume in any case, deserves to belong to the group to ensure that there will not be a repeat of the 2007 scenario which destroyed his near-His Excellency status. But am worried that he is romancing the same people who caused him the loss of several millions of naira , eventually stifled his voice and wiped his name out of the ‘Nigerian Guinness book of records’ as the symbol of the struggle to correct the  injustice within the PDP. On the other hand, ex-governor Achike Udenwa must fight to stop Ohakim’s second tenure since both men no longer see eye-ball to eye-ball, no thanks to the issue of who gets what from the state’s meager allocation. This is a picture of the reformers in Imo PDP!

As for the Deputy Chairman of the group, former Speaker of the House of Representatives, Aminu Bello Masari, one can understand his frustrations and his sudden appearance on the political stage, more so with the exit of former President Umaru Yar’adua, who was said to have imposed a stumbling block against the ambition of Masari to be governor of their home-state, Katsina. Yar’adua was said to have ensured that Masari does not make it to the seat of power. This angered the former speaker who now sees the exit of Yar’adua  as an opportunity to re-launch himself to relevance within the Katsina PDP. Again, this is a case of an aggrieved party member who never bothered about reforming the Party while he was the nation’s number four man. Masari was the Speaker when Nigeria had a golden opportunity to amend about 104 sections of our flawed 1999 constitution excluding one which has to do with the tenure of the President and Governors. A reformer in principle,  in truth and spirit, should have resigned, and that would have placed him as a leader of the new face of reform in PDP and the nation as a whole. Some argue that Masari was instrumental by virtue of his position, in stopping President Obasanjo from serving a third term. To a reasonable extent, this is correct, but it shocks me again that he is now working in the interest of Obasanjo who wanted  Ogbulafor out at all cost, as a way of making him pay the price for stopping his (Obasanjo’s) nominee, Sam Egwu, from assuming the position of the Party’s National Chairman. Again, I think its all about interest and not about what they truly believe in.

The sudden message of ‘Reforms’ being preached by these politicians in the PDP is rather for the purpose of re-capturing power at all cost. Those who lost out of the political power game see this is an opportunity to return, if nothing else, impress upon President Jonathan that they have his interest at heart – 2011 Presidency! Mr. President needs to look beyond these claims if he must not be short-changed at the last-minute as former Gov. Odili was badly bruised by his mentor and a man he called ‘Father’-OBJ. The same forces are at play again, and it takes only the Solomonic wisdom and that of Nebuchadnezzar who sought the interpretation of the writing on the wall, for President Jonathan to escape the impending doom.

Former Senate President Ken Nnamani, having received accolades and a new leadership status courtesy of his role in shooting down Obasanjo’s ambition to continue in office beyond the constitutional mandate of a maximum of two tenures, does not really impress me with his new role as the Chairman of the Reform Group. This definitely is the bane of the South East in the political equation of our country. When it comes to such roles, someone from this part of the country must ‘lead’. One may argue that Nnamani is the right person to talk about reforms within the PDP, yes, I agree. But I must point out that Nnamani led the group that blew a once in a life time opportunity for Nigerians to draft a people’s Constitution and not the one hurriedly packaged by the Military. It was wrong for the National Assembly then to throw into the thrash can other sections of the Constitution which needed to be amended after an extensive research by the Constitutional Conference. A total of 105 areas were identified by the Conference of which tenure elongation was just one. I doubt if Nigeria in the next decade  will have such an opportunity again. Funny enough, these persons were part of the cabal under Obasanjo when he grossly violated the party’s constitution in the process of choosing officers of the party as well as the party’s candidates for the general elections. Not even his deputy for eight years, Atiku Abubakar was spared of Obasanjo’s rod. Others include former governor of Bayelsa State, DSP Alamieyeseigha, former governors of Rivers and Ekiti, Peter Odili and Ayo Fayose, just to mention but a few.

Some of these men, have decided to learn their lessons the hard way, while some still bask under the euphoria of being yesterday’s men who would change their tomorrow by way of compromise. I think it’s rather a wise thing to do, to be like dog that leaks its wounds, rather than be like the dog that goes back to its vomit.

The case of Rivers State is rather pathetic. It is not out of way for some aggrieved politicians in the ruling PDP to seek for ‘reforms’ since they were in the game for eight years and understand the way these things work. The hue and cry over marginalization by those referred to as ‘Abuja Group’ who form the present day PDP Reform Forum from Rivers State who have tasted power, emasculated the opposition and stifled voices of  dissent both within and outside the PDP is better described as a joke. I think it is rather the fear of what they know that has compelled them to toe the path of opposition, than the sincere quest for reformation in the PDP. The emergence of Governor Rotimi  Amaechi as the governor of the state after a ten –month legal battle against his party, (PDP), INEC and the then sitting governor, Barrister Celestine Omehia, has in no doubt further polarized the party and led to a PDP opposition group within the PDP. It would be recalled that Amechi had earlier won the party’s primaries with over 6000 votes out of the 7000 votes cast, but was eventually stopped from carrying the party’s flag by the then President and leader of the party, Chief Olusegun Obasanjo. Obasanjo had declared at the South South Zonal rally of the party that Amaechi ‘s candidature had developed a ‘K-Leg’ , meaning   that he (Amaechi ) would not be allowed to contest the governorship election as the candidate of the PDP. When this did not go down well with Gov Odili, and after several efforts to convince Obasanjo failed, Odili then moved to pick Celestine Omehia as a substitute for Amaechi, an action which was not only illegal (since Omehia did not participate in the primaries nor purchase the form for expression of interest), but was sort of belated since he (Odili)  had actually encouraged Amaechi to go to court to challenge the action of the party. But when Odili was threatened by the party for supporting Amaechi‘s legal action, he decided to withdraw his support for him, since Omehia had emerged as his candidate. This move by his political godfather had irked Amaechi who remained resolute on his stance. Emboldened by the principle of justice and fairness, Amaechi defied all entreaties and sought to right the wrongs of the party. He was expelled from the party while the matter was at the Appeal court. That did not deter him.  After a ten- month legal battle in spite of Omehia’s five-month stay in office, Amaechi with the help of the Judiciary (the Supreme Court) set the pace for the true reformation of the PDP. He single –handedly challenged his party which at that time had totally drifted.

Having remained consistent, he thus became the new face of reform in practical terms within the PDP. Till date, many of those who were disgusted at his emphatic position are yet to accept him as the governor of Rivers state, having been declared the actual candidate of the PDP for the April 14, 2007 governorship election. They have repeatedly said that the Supreme Court nay the Judiciary erred. Is it not then surprising that the same persons who have disregarded the supreme judgment of the apex court are those at the fore front of the change in PDP? For daring to challenge the party‘s National Working Committee, the ‘reformer’s were suspended from the party, and they immediately proceeded to court to again challenge the decision of the party. Is it right then for those who do not believe in the Supremacy and infallibility of the Court to again go to the same Court to obtain judgment? Who will enforce the judgment if it falls in their favor? These are the questions  that need to be answered?

One of the key players in the reform forum is Dr. Abiye Sekibo – former SSG to Gov. Odili and a former Minister of Transport under Obasanjo. Abiye is one of the most avowed critics of Amaechi’s emergence and governance. He has not hidden his hatred for Amaechi. He is a member of the Reform Forum and a leader in the Rivers PDP ‘Abuja Group’. Others include Celestine Omehia and Austin Opara, who is said to have been the worst hit when he was asked to step-down for Amaechi by Odili, a night before the Primary elections.I agree with a friend of mine who said they need a platform on which they would re-negotiate their way back to the party in their various states before the next elections. For the sake of the party, the state chapters of the party need to re-absorb them if only they would change their name to PDP RETURNEE FORUM OR PDP RETURN GROUP! Let me end by quoting the National Secretary of the PDP, Baraje Abubakar Kawu, “after gaining relevance through the platform of the party, members of the reform forum are now seeking to reform the same party”. He further stated, “we believe that they have totally lost touch. It is only after they have fully re-integrated themselves in their constituencies that we can begin to consider their electoral value as well as, their reformatory value”. “They need to totally reform themselves before they can call for the reform of the party”.

The people must not forget that before a change can be made in the Party’s constitution, a convention must be held. The question is, how many of these men and women who belong to the reform group will make the delegate list that will participate in the convention? I sincerely think that the person or persons who should lead the fight for reforms in the party must be someone or those who dared to challenge the party’s leadership when it grossly violated its constitution and that of the Federal Republic of Nigeria and not those who kept mute or chickened out when they were threatened by the EFCC. A reformer must be one who was not afraid of speaking the truth even in the face of intimidation and threat by the powers that be. Chikena!       

Solzhenitsyn: The Price of Blacklisting a Nobel Laureate’s Book, by Adeyinka Makinde

August 27, 2013 at 12:39pm

The Nobel Prize has been described as the highest honour awardable among humankind. Spanning the gamut of the highest levels of endeavour achievable in the sciences and the humanities, a Nobel laureate may thus tend to be viewed as a repository of wisdom, innovation and revelation; and, for many who have won the category in literature, as one who is adept at articulating the human condition in its myriad psychological and cultural manifestations.

In constructing and elaborating on the dramas of life, they can provide avenues of perspective and of understanding which transcend geographic boundaries and enable us to meditate anew and challenge our conceptions, our prejudices and our ability to empathise.

For those laureates who have had first-hand involvement in the struggle against dictatorship and borne the sting of persecution such as Nigeria’s Wole Soyinka,their pronouncements and analyses carry great moral weight that is added to the acknowledged power of their intellect.

These elements of intellectual capacity and the struggle against despotism do not resonate any stronger than the life and works of the late Russian writer,Aleksandr Isaevich Solzhenitsyn.

A victim of the Gulag system to which he was sentenced in 1945 for criticising Stalin in a private letter to a friend, he was in 1970 awarded the Nobel Prize for Literature based on what the judging panel announced as the “ethical force with which he has pursued the indispensable traditions of Russian literature.”

With their vivid depictions of the conditions within the Soviet work camp network and an adroit synthesizing of philosophical, historical and personal components, Solzhenitsyn’s One Day In TheLife Of Ivan Denisovich and The Gulag Archipelago, served as unparalleled indictments of the totalitarian system that ultimately developed out of the Marxist-Leninist idea of what was supposedto be the creation of a socialist paradise on earth.

The collapse of the communist experiment in the old Soviet state as well as its displacement as a form of governance in Eastern Europe and many other regions of the earth may arguably have consigned it to the ash heap of history, but it nonetheless remains a contentious area in the consideration of the recent past.

As an arena laden with perspectives which may be predicated on philosophical stances, political agendas, cultural heritage, or even racial and national affinities, history is not an objective science and has often become something of a battle ground.

This has proved to be the case so far as the legacy of communism is concerned.Several books have been written such as Comradesby Robert Service, the eminent Oxford University historian, which excoriate the Marxist-Leninist model for an inexorable tendency toward despotism and individual coercion, while other works such as Howard Zinn’s Marx In Soho have attempted to humanize Karl Marx the man as well as to validate his original theories.

Solzhenitsyn in the twilight of his life moved from his lifelong theme of exposing the excesses of Stalinism to that of a subject which has for long been considered as taboo; namely that of the Jewish role in bringing Bolshevism to power and enabling its sustenance.

His two-volume work published in 2001 and 2002,  Two Hundred Years Together, explored the relations between Jews and Russians dating from the time when the Russian Empire acquired a substantial Jewish population after the partial annexation of Poland in 1772 up to the Refusenik-era and Jewish emigration to Israel.

Par tone, Russian Jewish History: 1795-1916,is a largely uncontroversial historical document in which Solzhenitsyn acknowledges the specific hardships faced by Jewish communities but that in general, their lives were no harder than that of the Russian peasant, while the second part, The Jews in the Soviet Union,inevitably touches upon the role of Jews in the Bolshevik Revolution and in the subsequent Soviet purges.

The sensitivity associated with the topic is perhaps encapsulated in the words of Vladimir (Ze’ev) Jabotinsky, the Russian-Jewish writer and creator of Zionist New Revisionism, who once said that “the best service our Russian friends give to us is never to speak aloud about us.”

There were those whose suspicions were aroused by Solzhenitsyn’s immersion in such a project given his reputation as a Russian nationalist and a pan-Slavic stance which went as far as suggesting that Russia excise the non-Slavic areas from its territory and amalgamate with Ukraine, Belarus and parts of ‘Russified’ Kazakhstan.

It was alleged that his patriotism extended into naked chauvinism.

His sojourn in the West which began in 1974 when he was stripped of his Soviet citizenship and deported had revealed him to be a man who was instinctively deeply conservative and even reactionary in his views.

“This is a mistake, but even geniuses make mistakes,” opined Yevgeny Satanovsky, the president of the Russian Jewish Congress. “Richard Wagner did not like the Jews, but was a great composer. Dostoyevsky was a great Russian writer, but had a very sceptical attitude towards the Jews.

The book was published in Russia amid fears that it would electrify anti-Semitic sentiment and present an opportunity to calumniate the Jews. It became a bestseller there, but in the more than a decade which has elapsed since then no English language translation materialised.

The reluctance of the publishing industry to put into print a substantive work created by the winner of a Nobel Prize is a development that warrants close scrutiny.

The description given by the German news magazine Der Spiegel which interviewed the writer at the time of the release of both volumes was that they had “provoked mainly perplexity” in the West:

“Arewe to conclude from your rich array of sources that the Jews carry more responsibility than others for the failed Soviet experiment?”

Solzhenitsyn,who died in 2008, replied as follows:

“Iavoid exactly that which your question implies: I do not call for any sort of score keeping or comparisons between the moral responsibility of one people or another; moreover, I completely exclude the notion of responsibility of one nation to another. All I am calling for is self-reflection. You can get the answer to your question from the book itself: Every people must answer morally for all of its past – including that past which is shameful. Answer by what means? Where in all this did we go wrong? And could it happen again? It is in that spirit, specifically, that it would behove the Jewish people to answer, both for the revolutionary cutthroats and the ranks willing to serve them. Not to answer before other people’s, but to oneself, to one’s conscience, and before God. Just as we Russians must answer-for the pogroms, for those merciless arsonist peasants, for those crazed revolutionary soldiers, for those savage sailors.”

It is indisputably the case that a great many of the leaders of the Bolshevik revolution and of the early Soviet state were of Jewish origin. This was not an altogether surprising development given, in the words of Robert Service, that“Jews supplied leaders and activists to revolutionary parties in the Russian empire wildly out of proportion to their size in the population.”

Such preponderance is evidenced by key personages such as Leon Trotsky, the founder and leader of the Red Army; Yakov Sverdlov, the chairman of the Centra lExecutive Committee; Grigori Zinoviev, who headed the Communist International;Karl Radek who was commissar for the press; and Maxim Litvinov who was the foreign affairs commissar. Other key apparatchiks were Lev Kamanev and Mosei Uritsky.

Jews formed sizeable proportions in the Council of Peoples Commissars (or Sovnarkomin its Russian acronym), the diplomatic corps, trade missions and,controversially, as key administrators within both the state security apparatus including the Cheka and the labour camp network.

Given the necessary depictions of persons of Jewish origin acting as hangmen and not victims, and also as slave drivers and not the ill-treated, these latter features have the capacity to be particularly incendiary; yet, in a lengthy tome published in 2004 and entitled The Jewish Century, the Jewish scholar Yuri Slezkine admits that Jews wereStalin’s “willing executioners”.

Andin 2006 Seve Plonker, an Israeli writer, published an article on Ynet News beseeching his readers not to forget that some of the greatest murderers of modern times were Jewish. Entitled ‘Stalin’s Jews’, he specifically referred to Genrikh Yagoda, the founder of the NKVD, as having been “the greatest Jewish murderer of the 20th Century.”

It was Yagoda, Plonker reminded, who “diligently implemented Stalin’scollectivisation orders and is responsible for the deaths of at least 10 million people.”

Many of the deputies who managed the Gulag system were ethnic Jews and their over representation in membership of various incarnations of the secret police meant that during the 1930s, the NKVD was “one of the most Jewish of all Soviet institutions.”

As the historian Leonard Shapiro once commented, “Anyone who had the misfortune to fall into the hands of the Cheka stood a very good chance of finding himself confronted with and possibly shot by a Jewish investigator.”

Plonker,whose piece contained the allegation that “many Jews sold their soul to the devil of the communist revolution and have blood on their hands for eternity”concluded thus:

“Evenif we deny it, we cannot escape the Jewishness of ‘our hangmen,’ who served the Red terror with loyalty and dedication from its establishment. After all,others will always remind us of their origin.”

speaking the time of the release of Solzhenitsyn’s book, Robert Service candidly told a journalist for the British Guardiannewspaper that it was an issue which could not be tackled “without a huge amount of bravery,” and that as the matter was often the preserve of those whom he described as “fanatics”, Solzhenitsyn’s efforts were welcomed since his book appeared to be more measured.

It is arguably this general unwillingness of mainstream historians to tackle this issue which has invited others with ill-intentioned motives to fill the vacuum.

The blatant ignoring of Solzhenitsyn’s work which may have the tendency to be viewed as a form of suppression or, at least, as self-censorship has effectively provided an avenue for those describing themselves as ‘White nationalists’and those on the extreme political Right to refer to this as an example of what they would claim to be the abject surrender to Jewish sensitivities and an affirmation of the ‘control’ wielded by Jewish interests in the cultural and media outlets of the Western world.

The narrative emanating from these schools of thought often posit the thesis that the Bolshevik Revolution was in essence an upheaval promulgated by ethnic Jews primarily for their own benefit and largely at the expense of ethnic Russians and other Slavs whom they despised for the persecutions they had continually suffered including the murderous rampages known as pogroms.

The establishment of the Soviet state and its instruments of coercion as well as the pursuance of harsh social and economic remedies such as the suppression of the Orthodox Christian Church and policy of enforced collectivisation represented, in this line of thinking, a ferocious attack on the heart and soul of Russia by an alien and alienated people.

Thus the eternal theme of Jews as relentless conspirators and tribal-networkers seeking to dominate a society where they form a ‘hostile elite’ has, in the near century which has elapsed since the revolution, been repeatedly constructed.

However,the explanation of a ‘Jewish conspiracy’ behind the Bolshevik seizure of power in Russia followed by a strategy to export it to the rest of Europe and the world was not one which was first articulated by Adolf Hitler in all his demonic fury, but was in fact put forward by Hitler’s future nemesis Winston Churchill.

In an often referenced article in a 1920 edition of the Illustrated Sunday Herald entitled ‘Zionism Versus Bolshevism: A Struggle For The Soul Of The Jewish People’, Churchill expressed astonishment at the accomplishment of this “mystic and mysterious race” whom he claimed“have gripped the Russian people by the hair of their heads and have become practically the undisputed masters of that enormous empire.”

In connection with what he termed a “sinister confederacy of international Jews”, Churchill had mentioned the leaders of national communist parties such as Rosa Luxembourg in Germany, Bela Kun in Hungary and Emma Goldman in the United States as part of the tentacles of what he grandiosely branded a “worldwide conspiracy for the overthrow of civilization and for the reconstitution of society on the basis of arrested development, of envious malevolence and impossible equality.”

Such conspiracy, it continues to be argued by the contrarian Right and advocates of White nationalism, was manifestly and predictably tribal in terms of its transcending of both religious and political leanings as well as national boundaries.

In other words, the fact that the Jews as atheistic communists had cast off the formalities of religious observance did not preclude them from continuing to adhere to a Jewish identity and to co-operate with those who were ethnic Jews.

It also meant that they allegedly accepted funds from capitalists such as Jacob Schiff, the senior partner in the New York-based firm of international bankers Kuhn, Loeb and Company; this the figure who had ensured that Japan had access to financial credits which it utilised in building up the naval force which defeated the Tsar’s navy in 1905.

And the fact that Trotsky was an apostate Jew and others who rose to prominence continued to receive entries into publications such as the Encyclopedia Judaica and plentiful coverage in Jewish-orientated newspapers suggested an expression of racial pride and ethnic solidarity that confirmed to those on the Right the accuracy of their thesis.

Certainly,the opinion expressed in an edition of the periodical American Hebrew in September 1920 that the “Russian JewishRevolution was largely the outcome of Jewish thinking, of Jewish discontent, of Jewish effort to reconstruct”, has been often quoted as evidence of this.

The unavailability of Solzhenitsyn’s work in the English language has meant that the limited translations available have been facilitated by White nationalists who, largely disinterested in the first volume, have unsurprisingly focussed on the second where they are keen to give emphasis to those passages which can be projected in a manner to fit in with their views.

TheOccidental Observer ran a series of articles by Kevin MacDonald, a psychology professor at California State University, who summarised what in his estimation were the main points of chapter savailable in English in which he then made analogies regarding his perception of the contemporary role of organised Jewry in the Western world.

MacDonald is the purveyor of a concept he terms ‘evolutionary group strategy’ within which context his works have focused on his thesis of Judaism and its culture as having presented the means and mechanism through which Jews as a highly ethnocentric, cohesive and aggressive group have consistently risen to the elite of the societies in which they have resided.

Thus the part played by Jewish figures in the Bolshevik revolution and the exercise of Jewish power form a well established pattern which in the 20thcentury saw their rise not only in the former Russian Empire, but also in the Middle East and in the United States.

MacDonald therefore extracted those portions of Solzhenitsyn’s narrative which confirm Jewish domination of the Soviet government in the first decade of its existence as well as the resulting anti-Semitism.

So for instance a person identified as a “Jewish observer” in 1923 states the following:

“TheJew is in all corners and on all levels of power…The Russian sees him as a ruler of Moscow, at the head of the capital on Neva (Leningrad), and at the head of the Red Army, a perfected death machine. He sees that St. Vladimir Prospect has been renamed Naumson Prospect…The Russian sees the Jew as judge and hangman; he sees Jews at every turn, not only among the communists, but among people like himself, everywhere doing the bidding of Soviet power…Notsurprisingly, the Russian, comparing present with past, is confirmed in his idea that power is Jewish power, that it exists for Jews and does the bidding of Jews.”

In another excerpt ruminating on perceived Jewish privilege and influence, the translation has Solzhenitsyn citing a Jewish writer named Maslov as saying the following:

“Theexpression ‘Kike Power’ is often used in Russia and particularly in Ukraine and in the former Pale of Settlement not as a polemic, but as a completely objective definition of power, its content and its politics.”

Maslov adds:

“Sovietpower in the first place answers the wishes and interests of Jews and they are its ardent supporters and in the second place, power resides in Jewish hands.”

Solzhenitsyn apparently did not subscribe to the claim that Jews who had prominent roles in the Bolshevist state had shorn off their Jewish identity and assumed an assimilated one within the context of the new Soviet culture.

Maslov is again quoted by Solzhenitsyn in the chapter dealing with the Gulag in which Jewish success in institutions is based on their networking which ensured that they were favoured when selecting staff.

This theme is repeated so far as the implementation of the New Economic Policy in the early 1920s under which limited forms of capitalist endeavour were allowed.Solzhenitsyn records that the anger against Jewish success arose from the perception that “their commerce was routinely facilitated by their links and pulls in the Soviet apparatus.”

The extrapolations MacDonald makes from reviewing not only the work of Solzhenitsyn but also Slezkine’s The Jewish Centuryis predicated on references to Jews as a minority always having to form alliances to maintain their power, including their representation within and‘colonisation’ of the institutions of academia and the media as well as their influence on culture and the nature of laws created by the legislature.

Thus,in regard to the last issue, the Bolshevik criminalization of anti-Semitism as“anti-revolutionary” activity is seen as an extreme form of contemporary‘political correctness’.

Another avowed White nationalist who is attempting to make capital out of the absence of Solzhenitsyn’s work is David Duke who has recently published a book entitledThe Secret Behind Communism.

Duke,who claims to have relied extensively on Solzhenitsyn’s work, has high hopes that his book will serve to be a ‘game changer’ of sorts.  His book introduction contains a quote which he attributes to Solzhenitsyn on the occasion of a meeting he had with the Nobel laureate in 2002.

“You must understand the leading Bolsheviks who took over Russia were not Russians,”Solzhenitsyn is claimed to have told him. “They hated Russians. They hated Christians. Driven by ethnic hatred they tortured and slaughtered millions of Russians without a shred of human remorse. It cannot be overstated. Bolshevism committed the greatest human slaughter of all time. The fact that the world is ignorant and uncaring about this enormous crime is proof that the global media is in the hands of the perpetrators.”

This statement together with references to Seve Plonker’s article on ‘Stalin’s Jews’set the scene for an elaborate thesis which posits the Soviet regime as effectively being the instrument for Jewry’s vengeance against the Russian and Ukrainian people.

Duke argues that the deaths of millions of Orthodox Christians at the hands of a‘Jewish-led’ government was a crime “unparalleled in history”; and that the Holodomor, during which anything from 5 to 8 million Ukrainians starved to death as part of a state-sponsored policy aimed at diminishing Ukrainian nationalist sentiment, was a tragedy which not only rivals that of the later Shoah but in fact surpasses it.

His idea therefore is to change the nature of the discourse from what he considers to be the defensive posture imposed on others by organised Jewry in regard to the issue of the Holocaust and Jewish accusations of Gentile complicity and inaction into one where Jews are accused of perpetrating mass genocide on another people.

Duke is also keen exploit the role of Lazar Kaganovich, an ethnic Jew, as the key overseer of the Ukrainian policy. Kaganovich, who Simon Sebag Montefiore characterised as having been “unmoved” by the tragedy of his devising, is to Duke surpassed in genocidal culpability by Genrikh Yagoda.

That Yagoda, a man who cultivated a distinct moustache identical to that of AdolfHitler’s, is not known to the wider public as a mass murderer is as telling to Duke as is the lack of public consciousness about the Holodomor.

But the references to Solzhenitsyn’s work by those who fall out of the spectrum of contemporary historical orthodoxies by reason of their race-based political and social standpoints should not be taken as evidence of an effort by the Nobel laureate which is sullied by naked anti-Semitism.

Solzhenitsyn’sviews are more nuanced and his book had motives clearly divergent from those intended by those advocating the White nationalist cause. As he explained to Der Spiegel, “My book was directed to empathise with the thoughts, feelings and the psychology of the Jews – theirspiritual content.”

For instance, while the contrarian view postulates a Jewish conspiracy in the early20th Century upheavals in Russia, Solzhenitsyn was categorical in his explanation that the Jews were not the orchestrators of the revolutions of 1905 and 1917. And of the latter event he clearly stated that “one layer rushed headfirst to the revolution”, while “another, to the contrary, was trying to stand back.”

At the end of the ninth chapter, he denounced “the superstitious faith in the historical potency of conspiracies” by which Jews have been attributed responsibility while ignoring “Russian failings that determined our sad historical decline.”

Another clear distinction between Solzhenitsyn and those who would claim him is his berating of the ‘White Russians’, the supporters of the ancien regime, for condoning violence directed at Jews in general as opposed to those particular Jews who were combatants in the ensuing civil war.

This factor, he claimed, undermined “what would have been the chief benefit of a White victory” in the Russian Civil War with the Bolsheviks: a victory which would have amounted to “a reasonable evolution of the Russian state.”

Yet another key point of distinction between Solzhenitsyn and revisionists such as David Duke is the interpretation given of the Holodomor.

Unlike White nationalists, he does not posit this event as a racial massacre of a Christian people by vengeful atheistic Jews.

While acknowledging it as an exceptional tragedy, he fits it in to the overall context as a Bolshevik-inspired calamity which was the by-product of the ruthless decrees geared towards fulfilling grain procurements.

For Solzhenitsyn the idea of the Holodomor having been a policy of deliberate genocide is in essence an act of revisionism. The Ukrainian tragedy in his view was not different from the Russian famine of 1921.

Where White nationalists cannot misappropriate, distort or otherwise co-opt from Solzhenitsyn to fit into their narrative, some have not failed to criticise him where he has not come up to their standard of revisionism.

For instance, the German revisionist historian Udo Walendy, whose writings have enabled him to run afoul of ‘Holocaust denial’ legislation, took him to task for falling short when dealing with the German prosecution of the war and thefate of the Jews in German occupied Europe and those living on the western borders of the Soviet Union.

Solzhenitsyn’s“shameful” shortcoming, according to Walendy, was in relying exclusively on articles and reports in Pravda and Izvestia; which to him equate to “Jewishsources”, a number of Russian books and portions of the Nuremberg trials.

Here Solzhenitsyn, perhaps in Walendy’s view the Russian patriot with more than a residue of anti-German sentiment, “remains a captain of the Red Army that marched in 1945 into East Prussia.”

One issue which Solzhenitsyn’s book makes crystal clear, as indeed does that of Yuri Slezkine, is that the narrative which positions Jews as having been perpetual victims under the Soviet system is not a tenable one.

While most Jews were not Bolsheviks at the time of the revolution, evidence does indicate that they broadly benefited in terms of opportunities offered by the Soviet state; a new order in which many became part of or associated with the privileged elite.

But of course, the aggregate power of Jews diminished as the revolution began to devour many figures under the direction of Josef Stalin and also in the aftermath of the Second World War; fought under the banner of the ‘GreatPatriotic War’, which saw the assertion of ethnic Russians and their increased deployment to positions of state power.

A clear phenomenon of a state sponsored campaign against Soviet Jewry occurred during this period when Stalin became convinced that the communist state would have to compete with Zionism for the loyalty of its Jewish citizens.

Thus the history of the Soviet Union is also the history of the waxing and waning of Jewish power. And so far as the malodorous aspects of this history are concerned, they were, as Robert Service explained, “part-victims andpart-perpetrators.”

Solzhenitsyn was clear that he never made general conclusions about a people, and that he differentiated between layers of Jews.

This is crucial. He had already set out his line of thinking in a 1974 essay which he entitled Repentance and Self-Limitationin the Life of Nations which called for atonement for all ethnic groups in Russia.

Unlike the ploy of White nationalists who assert that Jewish interests held the whole of Germany responsible for the sins of the Nazi state; a guilt which they claim has been inherited by later generations of Germans and a line of reasoning they wish to apply to Jewish involvement in the outrages of Soviet communism,Solzhenitsyn’s emphasis is not one of apportioning collective guilt and responsibility or of scapegoating a race, but on acknowledgement as part of a process of atonement.

One of his biographers, DM Thomas, expressed the view that he did not think that he had been motivated by anti-Semitism and doubted that he was insincere in his support for the state of Israel. “In his fiction and factual writing”,continued Thomas, “there are Jewish characters that he writes about who are bright, decent, anti-Stalinist people.”

By writing a non-fictionalised account of Russian and Soviet history, he was attempting to write while relying solely on scientific analysis. It was alleged that Solzhenitsyn had made several factual errors, and that while he was an expert in the field of literature, he not a trained historian.

But these issues alongside the disputed allegation of anti-Semitism do not form a valid justification for ignoring his work. Solzhenitsyn’s literary work,although fictionalised, often contained accurate contexts of history which added to the authenticity of his plot lines.

Publication would enable his researched factual content, his points of analysis as well as his conclusions to be available to the reading public and scholars thus presenting the opportunity for open discussion and debate on this extensive 600-pagework by a man once described as “too intelligent, too honest, too courageous and too great a writer” to succumb to rabid anti-Semitism.

As it stands, the deliberate neglect of this work arguably strikes a tremendous blow against the values of freedom often pontificated upon in the Western world.

(C)Adeyinka Makinde 2013

AdeyinkaMakinde is a writer and lecturer in law.

Ejiro Eghagha on Developmental strides in Nigeria-Akanu Ibiam International Airport, Enugu

English: Enugu Airport Terminal (Airside) Deut...

English: Enugu Airport Terminal (Airside) Deutsch: Enugu Airport Terminal (Airside) (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Nigeria has never witnessed such pace  infrastructural development since 1960. Neither can we now deny the level of strategic development initiatives being embarked on by the Jonathan administration.

After the civil war, the Igbo nation was sidelined in developmental pace of the country. This is now an obvious fact, with positive reactions greeting the opening of an International Airport in Enugu State. All flights are fully booked till October 2013, even with four weekly flights by Ethiopian Airlines.

What are the social implications?

Igbo Nigerian`s will certainly feel the immediate and long-term impact of proximity to an international gateway. More students will be encouraged to seek education abroad, for one and also generally travel and the exposure it brings along with it will be experienced more readily. This is because access to travel will now be a physical reality rather than a vision available only in far away Lagos. Something that will spark that desire to travel has finally become a reality in the East. More parents will see the inherent benefits of exposure and take advantage of it.

Secondly, the ease of travelling to Eastern Nigeria will certainly encourage more Igbo Nigerian`s and those living closer to Enugu than Lagos, to travel home from outside the country, triggering more inflow of foreign exchange especially during festive periods. The fear of bad roads, which in any case is now being eliminated with upgrades in road infrastructure around the country, and the unfounded and  unnecessary fear of local flights not being trust worthy, (even with recent international safety certifications of Nigeria Airspace) will be discountenanced with international flights landing directly in the East and cutting off further need for local travel to get to the region.

Thirdly, what this implies is an international airport bustling with Igbo Nigerian`s. Traders, travelers and users of the airport will by its situation be majorly Igbo. If that does not further  give a sense of belonging to Nigeria in the East, I wonder what else may.

What are the commercial implications?

According to MTN, the Tele communications giant, they knew they had made an error of judgement in Nigeria after reeling off their products and services in Lagos only to get to the East and be swallowed up by the huge market available. They had initially underestimated the strength and depth of the Nigerian market. With this in mind, it is obvious that an international airport in the East is a major blessing to Nigeria.

I have always believed that everyone should develop at their own pace in Nigeria. To “coerce” Easterners to travel to Lagos as an alternative to any other International airport outside the East will only and has only slowed down the economic growth of the region and indeed Nigeria. To ask Igbo Nigerian`s to spend money and time going through other Airport`s has simply denied development in Igbo Land. Think about all the Hotel`s and Car Hire businesses servicing  the Lagos Airport for instance and patronized by Easterners who travel to Lagos en-route Europe America and Asia. Now Lagos will see a likely congestion problem in international air traffic eased up, but certainly being Lagos, a non significant fall in travelers will be the result in the long run. Lagos will still be Lagos, with enough air travelers to handle. However, now, the East will also benefit with a new directed flow of travelers coming with their spending and needs that will allow for employment and commercial developments too in the region.

One cannot deny or turn a blind eye to the innate commerce skills of the Igbo`s as a people. It is safe to say therefore that a “Nigerian Hong Kong” is in the making, with this new airport commissioning. Add the sea port recently opened in Onitsha  and the Railway system that is being programmed and running in some ares already and you will agree that we are experiencing a Government that delivers of visions and promises for a better Nigeria, despite distractions from an abuse of democratic principles of freedom of speech by most opposition elements and nay sayers in general, who rightfully though have been exposed to brutal military dictatorships and failed democratic promises for too long, in the past. These group of people  may now be unknowingly blinded to see a growing Nigeria, and indeed a growing Eastern nation in Nigeria.

Why should Nigerian`s be happy with the Enugu airport?

Freedom has come to the East, and by implication to the Nigerian psyche. Igbo`s do not have to go through a third-party any longer. Now you may buy your ticket drive down to the Airport and fly (If you have a valid travel documents). No more extended plans for stop overs in Lagos or other Airports.

A booming Eastern economy through increased commercial trading activities, projected Investments in Tourism to attract international travelers and an this encouraging platform to build trust of Nigerian`s in The Diaspora  will only add to our national purse and ease off dependence on Oil and Gas.

The caveat here though is on the need to put in adequate security and emergency response units in place to always maintain internationally accepted standards for developments of this nature. Furthermore, an international Airport not properly checked and managed will only end up being a conduit for the importation of banned and dangerous  items into the country and the consequences are not hard to imagine. Going by recent security situations in Nigeria though, one can rest assured that proper planning and management have been considered for the new Airport.

Definitely, credit must be given to President Jonathan`s cabinet that has carried out his predecessor`s dream of an international Airport in Enugu. An uncommon occurrence in Nigerian politics is for a new “oga” to complete his former “oga`s” works. Commendable achievement and much-needed visionary leadership in the Transport and Aviation sectors, I say.

Ejiro Eghagha, Author and social commentator writes from Abuja.




Penultimate week, CITIZENS NETWORK paid a courtesy visit to the management and staff of Vanguard Newspapers at their Abuja Office.

Director-General of the CNPD, Citizen Preye Dressman who led the delegation amongst other things called for peace across Nigeria; specifically for a mature and peaceful resolution of the issues between Lagos and Anambra States occassioned by the depOcnpd3rtation of indigenes of the latter from the former in a most inhuman manner.

Dressman emphasized strongly on the provisions of the Nigerian Constitution which guranteed every Nigerian the freedom of movement and the right to reside and pursue their means of livelihood anywhere in the country.

The visit ended on a good note with both the CNPD and the management of Vanguard resolving to work togther towards the promotion of peace in Nigeria.

We wish to express our gratitude to Vanguard for the privilege of audience and their show of hospitality.



The Peoples Democratic Party National Reconciliation Committee has raised hope that the party will record overwhelming victory in the 2015 general elections, due to the on-going peace moves.
Chairman of the Committee, Governor Henry Seriake Dickson of Bayelsa State, stated this during the Committee’s meeting at the party’s National Secretariat in Abuja, the Federal Capital Territory.
Governor Dickson said already, efforts made so far, have given positive signals to a successful reconciliation of the matters it was assigned to handle.
According to him, the major success was the withdrawal of the law suit against the forthcoming convention of the party, following the Committee’s intervention.
He further stated that the Committee’s mediation in matters concerning Anambra and Ekiti State chapters of the party was another achievement, adding that Ekiti State chapter has held a post-reconciliation meeting to prepare for the forthcoming gubernatorial election in the State.
Meanwhile, the Dickson led truce committee received reports from 13 non-PDP state executive committees who presented their reports on the state of the party in their respective states.
Speaking before presentation of the reports at the National Secretariat of the party, Governor Dickson said the meeting was to assess the progress made at the state chapters as well interact with State Executives of the party in states where PDP has no stronghold, so as to gain control of such states. States invited included Lagos, Oyo, Ondo, Ogun, Osun, Ekiti, Edo, Imo, Anambra, Borno, Nassarawa, Zamfara and Yobe States
Briefing reporters at the end of the meeting, the Committee said they had fruitful deliberations with the state chapter executives and sub committees.
They expressed confidence, that with the reunification, the party will gain control of the 13-non-PDP states as well as secure other states, given free and fair general elections.


Cross & Clouds

Cross & Clouds (Photo credit: John H Wright Photo)

With heavy hearts, Citizens Network for Peace and Development announces the untimely death of Mr. Tijos Baido, elder brother of our National Coordinator Honorable Danladi Baido. The sad event occured last weekend in Taraba State and he has since been buried in his hometown, Karim Lamido, Taraba State.

May his soul and the souls of all the faithful departed, rest in peace.


Olu Adekunle Snr.

Director Media and Publicity




Governor Dickson led committee making grounds with PDP Reconcialiation


PDP reconcilliation committee  keeps growing in leaps and bounds as discussions continued yesterday in Abuja. R-L: Bayelsa State Governor and Chairman PDP reconciliation Committee, Hon. Seriake Dickson, Secretary of the Committee, Ambassador Umar Damagun and a member of the Committee, Senator Ibrahim Mantu, during the reconciliation committee meeting with Chairman, Secretaries and other executives of Non – PDP States, relating to the ongoing National Reconciliation of the Party.

In another development, an Obasanjo chaired reconciliation meeting with Governors of the ruling PDP may have come to an agreement of “no victor no vanquished”, with suggestions that both Governors Amaechi and Jang will be asked to step down as leaders of both factions pushing for recognition as elected Chairman. Also The First Lady was identified as a direct source of miscommunication and she may be visited by the group to show concerns for this unfortunate development in party politics.

On the whole, it is becoming apparently obvious that the PDP is fast putting its act in order and gaining  momentum and  traction on their hold of events unfolding daily in their political sphere. This is a welcome development for party members and Nigerian`s in general who see the party as a unifying force in the country and the only detribalised political party till date.


Bayelsa State Government has signed a bilateral agreement worth millions of dollars with two foreign firms- P&R International Limited and Onida Development Company for the establishment of aquaculture farm project and fish processing plant in Angalabiri, Sagbama local government area of the state.
Also, the Governor, Hon. Seriake Dickson sought the support of well meaning people in the state, including media practitioners in uncovering payroll fraud, adding that all hands should be on deck to rid the civil service of corrupt and sharp practices.
Rendering his account of stewardship during the Monthly Transparency Press briefing held on Tuesday at the Banquet Hall Yenagoa, Governor Dickson said the State posted N19.9bn at the end of July,2013 after statutory deductions and capital payments.
The governor disclosed that the Fish Farm project upon completion would increase the revenue profile of the State as well as create employment opportunities.
Stressing the need for diversification from oil and gas sector of the economy, Hon. Dickson said investment in the agricultural sector; especially aquaculture fish farm is one of the cardinal programmes of his Restoration Agenda.
In realization of this lofty aim, the governor disclosed that 500 youths drawn from the eight local government areas of the state are undergoing training in Songhai Farms in Benin Republic, while the government has concluded plans to set up an Agricultural School to train middle level manpower.
His words, “we want to be number one as far as Aquaculture is concerned not only in this country but in our continent and beyond because we have the climate.
“We have also a contract for the development of a PGA rated Golf Course of the highest International standard and with the assurances that I have been given and with the little that I have come to know about what our contractor has delivered already in this country, I expect that you will perform according to the terms of the contract.
“As you know, our government is serious about broadening the base of our economy because that is the right thing to do. On our own part, we have got to invest more and more in Agriculture. We want large cassava, banana and plantain plantations springing up here. This is where we have the climate. We are also working with partners to develop oil palm resources and in all of these because agriculture going forward is going to be a major plan upon which a viable economy will be based in this state.
Giving the financial breakdown on behalf of Governor Dickson, the Deputy Governor, Retired Rear Admiral Gboribiogha John Jonah declared N19.96bn as balance of funds available after statutory deductions including recurrent expenditure and capital receipts.
He explained that out of a gross inflow of N17.96bn, FAAC deductions took N2.07bn leaving the state with a net inflow of approximately N15.9bn.
Rear Admiral John Jonah, who put the Internally Generated Revenue for June at N658m, announced that civil servants salaries gulped N3.96bn while N428m was spent on the payment of political appointees’ salaries.
Daniel Iworiso-Markson
Chief Press Secretary to the Governor of Bayelsa State


NOI-Polls Voices Newsletter 2013 

Abuja, Nigeria. August 6th, 2013  
Latest governance poll results released by NOI Polls Limited for the month of July 2013 has revealed that the President’s approval rating increased by 9-points (53%) after remaining constant at 44% in May and June 2013. In addition, the results reveal a slight improvement in the situation of power supply as more Nigerians experienced an improvement (38%) in July, compared to June (32%), thus creating a positive effect on the approval rating of the President.The current results further affirm previous findings by NOI Polls that suggests a link between the perception of power supply and the approval rating of the president. Further analysis reveals that while about 38% of Nigerians claimed to have experienced improvement in power supply, four geo-political regions accounted for the highest proportion of respondents – North-Central (51%), North-East (47%), South-East (41%) and South-South (40%). Similarly, three out of the four regions also accounted for the highest ratings of the President’s 53% approval in July – North-Central (56%), South-East (73%), and South-South (62%). These are few of the key findings from the governance snap poll conducted in the week of July 22nd 2013.

The results presented are the 7th in the monthly series of governance polls conducted by NOI Polls to gauge the opinions and perceptions of Nigerians regarding three critical elements – the approval rating of the president, the performance of the current administration, and the situation of power supply in the country.

As in previous months, respondents to the poll were asked three specific questions. Firstly, in order to measure the approval evaluation of President Goodluck Jonathan over the past 1 month (July) respondents were asked: Do you approve or disapprove of the performance of President Jonathan in the past 1 month: Response to this question revealed some interesting findings (Figure 1). Overall the majority (53%: 10%+43%) approve of the President’s performance, where 10% strongly approve and 43% approve of his performance. This finding shows a considerably 9-point increase from the previous month’s (June) 44% approval ratingThe proportion of respondents that rated the president’s performance negatively in July came to a total of 25% (compared to 26% in June), with 21%disapproving and 4% strongly disapproving of his performance in the past one month. In addition, 22% of the respondents remained neutral in rating his performance as they neither approve nor disapprove (compared to 30% in June).

Gauging the President’s performance across geo-political zones further revealed that theSouth-East zone with 73% (58%+15%) accounted for the highest proportion of respondents that rated the President’s performance positively in the past one month. This was followed by the South-South zone with 62% (49%+13%) and the North-Central zone with 56% (41%+15%). The lowest proportion of respondents (38%) that approved of the President performance for the month of July came from the North-East zone. Majority of the respondents that disapproved of the President’s performance were from the North-West zone with 40% (34%+6%), followed by the North-East zone with 31%. The highest number of respondents that were neutral towards the president’s performance were from the North-East zone with 31%. 

Furthermore, the proportion of respondents that approved of the President’s performance experienced an average increase of 9-points across all the geo-political zones from June to July; however, the South-East zone recorded the highest increase of  21% from June (52%) to July (73%).

Figure 1

Further comparison between the President’s performance in July and the six month trended average (illustrated in Figure 2) showed, on the one hand, that the president’s approval rating experienced a 6-point increase in the month of July (53%) compared to the average score from the previous six months (47%: Jan to Jun). On the other hand, his disapproval experienced a3-point decline in July (25%) compared to the average score from the previous six months(28%). Also, there was a 3-point decline in the number of respondents that were neutral in July(22%) compared to the six months average of 25%.

Figure 2

Secondly, in order to ascertain the performance of the current administration respondents were asked: How would you rate the performance of this current administration in the past 1 month? Overall, the majority (42%) are of the opinion that the current administration has performed averagely. This finding depicts a 5-point decline from June (47%). In addition, a total of 28% are of the opinion that the administration has performed well, also marking a 5-point increase from June 2013 (23%). However, 30% rated their performance as poor (same as in June).

An evaluation of the current administration’s performance based on geo-political zones showed that the North-East zone had the highest proportion of respondents (54%) that rated the performance of the current administration as average. While the South-East zone accounted for the highest number of respondents (45%) that rated the current administration positively, the North-West (46%) recorded the highest number of respondents that rated their performance negatively.

Figure 3

Figure 4 which portrays comparisons of the performance assessment of the current administration in July with average figures obtained from the previous six months, showed some variations in the ratings. Respondents that indicated the current administration performed well increased by 6-points in July (28%: 4%+24%) against the six month average (22%: 3%+19%)and by 5% from June (23%) to July. Similarly, respondents that rated the performance of the current administration as average declined by 5-points from June (47%) to July (42%), and by8-points when compared with six months average of 50%. Furthermore, the proportion of respondents that were of the opinion that the current administration performed poorly increased by 2-points in July (30%: 24%+6%) compared with average from previous six months(28%: 22%+6%) and remained the same as in June.

Figure 4

Thirdly, in order to evaluate the general situation of power in Nigeria within the past month, respondents were asked: How would you describe power in your area in the past 1 month? In response to this, the overall majority (30%) indicated that the power situation in their area has improved a little, this is followed by respondents  (22%) that were of the opinion that “there’s no difference at all”, and those that indicated “it remains bad” (22%). In addition, while18% of the respondents stated that the power situation “remains very bad and has gone worse”, 8% affirmed that it has improved very much (Figure 5). The results indicate that a total of 38% (30% + 8%) of respondents affirmed that they have experienced slight improvements in power supply in the month of July, compared to the previous month (June: 32%).

From a regional standpoint, majority of the respondents (40%) that experienced a little improvement in the month of July were from the North-Central zone (51%), followed by theNorth-East (47%), South-East (41%) and the South-South (40%) zones. In addition, theNorth-West zone accounted for the highest proportion of respondents (36%) that indicated power supply in their area “remains bad” and also accounted for the most number of respondents (25%) that say “it’s very bad has gone worse”.

Figure 5

Moving further, Figure 6 compares the current July results with the average of the previous six months, and reveals that the proportion of Nigerians that experienced very much improvement increased by 3-points in July compared to the average obtained from January to June. Those that experienced a little improvement had a 1-point decline in July (30%) compared to the average of the previous six months (31%). The proportion of respondents that did not experience any difference in the power situation in July (22%) was at par with the average obtained from the previous six months. Furthermore, there was a 1-point decrease each in July in the proportion of respondents that indicated power remains bad (22%) and the proportion that say power supply it’s very bad, it has gone worse (18%) compared to the average of previous six months recorded at 23% and 19% respectively.

Figure 6

In conclusion, findings from the current poll have shown that about 5 in 10 Nigerians (53%) approve of the job performance of President Goodluck Jonathan, and this rating marks a 9-point increase from the month of June (44%). This current July rating of 53% ranks as the second best rating in seven months, behind February (54%). The results also revealed that although majority think the present administration performed averagely, however the proportion of Nigerians that think they performed well increased by 6-points from June (23%)  to July(28%) and by 6% in comparison to the average obtained from the previous six months (22%).  Furthermore, the current results reveal slight improvements in the power situation (38%), compare to the previous month (June: 32%). This further affirms previous findings by NOI Polls suggesting a link between the perception of power supply and the approval rating of the president. Consequently, it is clear that one way the President can improve his approval rating is to ensure his power sector reform is sustained and that power supply is improved across the country.

Survey Methods
The opinion poll was conducted on July 26th to 30th 2013. It involved telephone interviews of a random nationwide sample. 1,004 randomly selected phone-owning Nigerians aged 18 years and above, representing the six geopolitical zones in the country, were interviewed. With a sample of this size, we can say with 95% confidence that the results obtained are statistically precise – within a range of plus or minus 3%. NOI Polls Limited is Nigeria’s leading opinion polling and research organisation, which works in technical partnership with the Gallup Organisation (USA), to conduct periodic opinion polls and studies on various socio-economic and political issues in Nigeria. More information is available at

This press release has been produced by NOI Polls Limited to provide information on all issues which form the subject matter of the document. Kindly note that while we are willing to share results from our polls with the general public, we only request that NOI Polls be acknowledged as author whenever and wherever our poll results are used, cited or published.

NOI Polls hereby certifies that all the views expressed in this document accurately reflect its views of respondents surveyed for the poll, and background information is based on information from various sources that it believes are reliable; however, no representation is made that it is accurate or complete. Whilst reasonable care has been taken in preparing this document, no responsibility or liability is accepted for errors or fact or for any views expressed herein by NOI Polls for actions taken as a result of information provided in this report. Any ratings, forecasts, estimates, opinions or views herein constitute a judgment as at the date of this document. If the date of this document is not current, the views and content may not reflect NOI Polls’ current findings and/or thinking.

Press Contact
The Editor


Dick Tiger

The Life and Times of a Boxing Immortal
Library of Congress Control Number:
Word Association Publishers
312 including b/w photographs
Soft Cover:
ISBN 978-1595-71042-0
$18.95 (US) & £12.99 (UK)
Dick Tiger was perhaps the greatest fighter to come out of the African continent. Emerging from an environment devoid of substantive traditions in boxing, he would overcome a litany of obstacles before becoming a two-time undisputed world middleweight titlist and an undisputed light heavyweight champion.
The Life and Times of a Boxing Immortal, the first comprehensivebiography of Dick Tiger, puts the man in the context of his times. A migrant fighter to Liverpool, the repository of West African-born fighters who kept the British game alive during the industry wide recession of the 1950s, Tiger later moved to America where he established a marquee value seldom attained by non-American fighters and where he played a prominent role as an in-house fighter at the
 ‘Mecca of Boxing’, New York City’s Madison Square Garden.
His life also personified the hopes, aspirations and the tragedy of the Igbo ethnic group. An avowed apostle of Biafran secession from Nigeria, Tiger’s support
would cost him dearly. Here is Dick Tiger as never before explained: The blue-collar fighter,ageless ring-man, commercial venturer, Nigerian patriot and Biafran rebel. From empty bottle trader to wealthy realtor, from Nigerian boxing booths to Madison Square Garden, from journeyman fighter to championship fighter: The Life and Times of a Boxing Immortal is a compelling story of human dignity in triumph and in tragedy.

Academia © 2013
BayelsaRestoration Watch

News and Titbits on Bayelsa Restoration Agenda

Onimisi Wordsmith



Living Life Naturally


Just another site

Matt on Not-WordPress

Stuff and things.

Jim Caffrey Images Photo Blog

photography from the ground up

This Ruthless World

Adventures in absurdity

Citizens Network

For Peace And Development in Nigeria