Analysis
Samba of Spin and Crisis of Conscience in Nigeria
By Chris Agbedo
History is not lacking in the infamous tradecraft of state propaganda and political spin. They are professional merchants of falsehood, the spin-doctors, who master the art of turning lies into political currency. In the chilling annals of Nazi Germany, Joseph Goebbels, Adolf Hitler’s Minister of Propaganda, earned notoriety for his ruthless doctrine: “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.” An ‘evil genius’ of some sort, Goebbels’ masterful manipulation of mass psychology laid the foundation for what would become modern state spin, a carefully manufactured narrative deployed to sedate or deceive the populace in the service of power.
In the 20th century, totalitarian regimes, including Stalinist Russia and Maoist China, weaponized disinformation as tools of political control. Even in democracies, spin doctors, that is, those behind-the-scenes whisperers, who massage public perception, have assumed pivotal roles, often conflating the lines between strategic communication and outright falsehood. From the Watergate scandal in Nixon’s America to Blair’s “sexed-up” Iraq dossier in Britain, the machinery of state spin has too often been used not to clarify, but to obfuscate. From the propagandists of Nazi Germany to modern political strategists, they shape narratives, flatten dissent, and obscure inconvenient truths. In democratic societies, the spin-doctor assumes a subtler but no less dangerous role, one of twisting facts not necessarily to oppress, but to distract, delay, and deflect. When curators of alternate truth operating from a parallel universe dance to the samba of spin, power abandons conscience and integrity in governance reigns supreme. In Nigeria, this craft is alive and well, with modern-day Goebbels raising spin to a cunning art form, whether distracting from illness, security crises, or governance failure.
Politically, spin presumes truth is malleable. It births a political culture where truth is disposable, and choreographed optical illusion is everything. Psychologically, it pits perception against substance. From this standpoint, spin functions as a coping mechanism, an avoidance behaviour aimed at delaying the confrontation with uncomfortable truths. But in sociological terms, especially in fragile democracies like Nigeria’s, spins are corrosive. They reflect a distrustful relationship between rulers and ruled. Indeed, they delegitimize institutions, foster conspiratorial mindset, and widen the already gaping trust deficit between the rulers and the ruled. Philosophically, it flirts with the idea that deception can serve a higher purpose. Spin raises the perennial dilemma posed by Plato’s Noble Lie: is it ever acceptable to lie for the ‘greater good’? But very rarely does spin invite moral reflection. Yet, every once in a while, conscience breaks through.
Quickly, let’s take a backward leap into history and recall the samba of conscience as a moral parable. In 1984, the legendary Afrobeat musician and social critic, Fela Anikulapo Kuti, was jailed by a military regime under dubious charges. While in prison, something extraordinary happened. The very judge who had sentenced him came to visit, remorseful, confessing that “his hands were tied” by the powers that be. Fela, never one to mince words, erupted: “Judge come beg me for forgiveness!” It was a scene of dramatic reversal—the oppressor undone by his own conscience, the prisoner now the moral authority. In response to the incident, an ace journalist, writing in their column, described the judge as “a lucky man who has a conscience that beats samba in his ears.” It was a poetic turn of phrase—suggesting that the judge’s late awakening, though insufficient, still marked him as one of the rare few in power whose conscience refused to die. Power humbled by remorse, the Justice’s act of contrition remains one of Nigeria’s most vivid moral parables.
Fast-forward to 2017, when the samba of spin drowned the din of conscience as Mallam Garba Shehu, former Special Assistant on Media and Publicity to late former President Muhammadu Buhari clung to the allurements of power to enroll himself into this infamous league of spin-doctors. In his recently launched book, According to the President: Lessons from a Presidential Spokesperson’s Experience, Shehu peeled the mask off his own complicity, recounting how he spun and concocted the now infamous “Rats ate the wires” story, which was purely a calculated lie designed to divert attention from President Buhari’s failing health in 2017. Mr. Shehu now admits in his memoir: “I concocted the rat story to divert attention from Buhari’s sickness…In my view, that spin worked.” There was no admission of wrongdoing. There was no sense of remorse; just a cold, tactical confession. If the judge in Maiduguri was dancing to the rhythmic cadence of his conscience, Shehu turned it into PR choreography.
In Chapter 10 of his book, Shehu recalled how the spin was born. A damaged cable was casually attributed to rats during a conversation in the Chief of Staff’s office. Faced with mounting media inquiries about Buhari’s health and capacity to resume duty, Shehu latched onto the rat theory and ran with it. At that time, the political atmosphere was toxic with speculations. Maazi Nnamdi Kanu, leader of IPOB, had publicly alleged that Buhari had died in the UK and had been replaced with a body double – Jibril from Sudan. The theory, ridiculous on the surface, nevertheless gained traction. An ex British MP for Falkirt West and Falkirt, Eric Stuart lent extra currency to the conspiracy theory when he pronounced then President dead by sending a condolence via his Twitter handle, @EricJoyce to Buhari’s wife.
Buhari’s prolonged absence, his visibly diminished public appearances, and evasive answers from presidential aides fertilized the soil for conspiracy to grow. And then came the rat story, a masterstroke of absurdity designed to shift national conversation from the President’s health to the exotic tastes of Nigerian rodents. The media, in Shehu’s words, “ate it up.” The BBC even ran it as one of the top stories of the day. Nigerians – half disbelieving, half amused – gasped, laughed, and moved on. But what seemed like a clever deflection was, in truth, a brazen betrayal of public trust. Now, years later, Garba Shehu confesses, not with contrition, but with a touch of boastful reflection, as though he were proud of having pulled off a master-class in distraction, not minding the objections of VP Yemi Osinbajo and Minister Lai Mohammed. If only Mr. Shehu appreciated the self-destructive implications of his open admission of guilt, he would have thought twice before yielding to the primitive pressure of spin, all in the name of blind loyalty to his principal.
Was Buhari better or worse for it? Did the rat story save his image or expose his vulnerability? Did it stabilize the Nigerian State or sow deeper distrust? These are questions Garba Shehu must answer. Because for all his bravado and braggadocio, the cost of his spin was not paid by him alone; instead, it was borne by the Nigerian people that for weeks debated the metaphysics of presidential identity. He never did. Mr. Shehu may have written a book, but he has also written himself into a corner—a character, whose conscience wouldn’t let him rest until he confessed, albeit too late. Unfortunately, the confident swagger and revelry with which he swooned all through his rat spin like a WWII hero hardly suggested the disposition of a contrite heart. This is less-surprising in a political culture where truth is disposable, and image or optical illusion is everything; where the capacity to leverage state power to manipulate citizens, gaslight a nation, and bury the truth under convenient fiction suffices as a political capital.
There is a moral injury here. Shehu, by his own account, deliberately misled the nation. He was not merely a loyal aide trying to buy time for his boss; he was a craftsman of deception, peddling bare-faced lies in the guise of official communication. That the story “worked” for a time does not make it any less dishonest; nor does it absolve the institutional complicity of the presidency and those in it who allowed, endorsed, or benefitted from the ruse. Lai Mohammed, Nigeria’s former Information Minister, and Vice President Yemi Osinbajo may have disagreed with the rat decoy as Mr. Shehu openly admitted, but their dissent was quiet and ineffective. This silence, this complicity by omission, is how systems of deception thrive. If truth had more defenders within the Villa than fiction, Shehu’s story might have ended differently. But it did not and the nation paid the price.
What then shall we say of a government that needed rats to explain away its own decay? How many of those wrong-headed policies such as ‘Ways and Means’ financing were curated, concealed, or amplified by Garba Shehu’s media machinery? How much public memory was sculpted by sanitized narratives—from rodents to survival through foreign medicine? Did his spin help fuel decisions that harmed the nation? Did his lies cover the tracks of incompetence, negligence, or worse? Perhaps, the samba beat of his conscience might have been deafening; yet, the pull of hubris would nudge him on to double down.
Perhaps, Mr. Shehu was not a lone ranger in this spin business. In the early years of the Buhari administration, a grotesque tragedy played out in Benue State in January 2017. Scores of farmers were massacred by armed herders in what turned into a humanitarian and security catastrophe. Roughly 71 caskets were laid out in a gory precision awaiting mass burial. It was such a heart-wrenching sight! The visceral grief of bereaved communities prompted national outrage; yet, it also inspired one of the most damning examples of spin-driven cynicism from the seat of power. During an appearance on AIT, the presidential spokesperson, Mr. Femi Adesina, was asked about the violence and the ancestral claims of displaced farmers. His response was chilling in its callousness: “Ancestral attachment? You can only have ancestral attachment when you are alive…; if you are dead, how does the attachment matter?” He went further, urging victims to surrender their land for ranching to preserve their lives. “People should offer land for peace sake…if you have land that you can give, give”. The message to Nigerians was clear. Abandon your heritage or end up dead. You can either freely choose to die defending your land, or parcel out your community, and it is your fault if you cannot let go.
Few days before late former President Buhari was committed to mother earth, Mr. Adesina revved up the spin engine with a self-indicting statement, intended as a defence of his boss’ reliance on UK hospitals as a matter of survival. “He always had his medicals in London…One has to be alive first to get certain things corrected… If he had said, ‘I will do my medicals in Nigeria…’ he could have long been dead because there may not be the expertise needed.” This “survival spin” amounted to a confession that under Buhari, Nigeria failed to invest in healthcare. For over eight years, spanning both military and civilian tenure, Buhari never built a worldclass hospital capable of serving him or Nigerians. That failure wasn’t side-lined; it was crowed about. Adesina’s boast underscores the depth of systemic neglect. Nigeria’s healthcare failed its own president, and its citizens. The irony? Buhari still died in London after billions were spent protecting his life abroad.
All the spins, all the evasions, all the billions wasted; yet, the inevitable caught up. And in death, even the most fortified lies dissolve into dust. It’s now left for Nigerians to learn, reflect, and demand more than rats and rationalizations. Who knows how many modern-day spin-doctors walk the hallowed corridors of power, crafting tales, fabricating narratives, and spinning half-truths to shield powers and principalities from public scrutiny? Let them ask Shehu and Adesina: “How market?” Perhaps, they may be tempted to stay the course of spin and still answer, ‘It is working’. Luckily, no amount of spin can cancel the verdict of conscience or erase the testimony of the oppressed. Let them ‘carry dey go’.
Finally, the Fela–Judge episode reminds us that true accountability can come from the unlikeliest of sources. Conscience, when unavoidable or inescapable, can upend power. The samba of conscience can shake the high and mighty. This explains why Nigeria needs a samba for conscience, not spin. The samba of conscience must become a thunderclap of reform. But Nigeria needs more than samba; it needs change. Words of admission must lead to reform – invest in world-class healthcare; stop using injury and fear as policy excuses; demand honesty, not spin. Let today’s spin-doctors remember the lessons of rats, London hospitals, ancestral land, and public confession. Let the surge of conscience not be ornamental but catalytic because, truth may dance slowly, but eventually, it leads the samba.
The samba of spin-doctors’ conscience may play softly in the background. But the question remains: Will it grow loud enough to awaken others? Or will it fade, drowned by new distractions, new rats, and new deceptions? For Nigeria’s sake, let the din of conscience knock down the ‘Jericho Walls’ of spin and liberate the Nigerian State from the crisis of conscience.
By Emeka Ugwuonye
The conviction of Nnamdi Kanu on November 20, 2025, appears to be a near certainty. As we contemplate his fate, it’s essential to focus on what will happen after he is convicted and sentenced, rather than getting caught up in debates about rendition, repealed laws, or other issues that primarily serve to entertain some and fuel the egos of his IPOB followers.
One potential outcome is that Kanu will be transferred to Kuje Correctional Center, a significant change from his current detention at the DSS facility. In Kuje Prison, Kanu will have privileges that he did not enjoy in the DSS, including less restrictive monitoring and access to regulated visits. He will likely receive visits from various politicians who wish to feign concern, as well as from his supporters and followers who view him as a messiah. The prison will become their new holy land.
Financially, he should not have any problem: Biafra is a selling brand. Unlike at the DSS facility, where communication with the outside world was limited, he will have access to a phone in prison, enabling him to manage his activities and issue directives to IPOB members from behind bars.
The prison authority has the power to transfer him to any other prison in Nigeria. However, there are compelling reasons why Kanu will probably remain in Kuje Prison. First, he will inevitably file an appeal at the Abuja Court of Appeal, making it essential for him to be in close proximity to his lawyers as they prepare for this process. Second, there are valid safety concerns; transferring him to prisons in northern states could expose him to threats, including possible harm from Boko Haram members, while relocating him to southern prisons carries the risk of escape.
After his conviction, filing an appeal will be one of Kanu’s immediate actions. Unfortunately, his chances of success may be severely impacted by his earlier decision not to present a defense during the trial. The appeal court primarily reviews the performance of the lower court and does not accept new evidence; therefore, Kanu’s failure to mount any defense will significantly complicate his efforts to overturn the judgment. What basis could he have for reversing the verdict when he didn’t provide a counter-argument for consideration? By choosing to represent himself and refusing to submit a defense, he has effectively hampered his own case.
Additionally, the support of Igbo politicians may not be as reliable as some might hope. Many do not want Kanu released, viewing him as a potential threat to the status quo. Their apparent concern is often driven by fear rather than genuine support. Politicians like Charles Soludo and Peter Mbah have recently secured their positions; they are vulnerable to IPOB sympathizers.
With the 2027 elections on the horizon, it is doubtful that they would want Kanu released before the election cycle, as his presence could contribute to instability. Consequently, the length of time Kanu spends in prison remains uncertain. The corrections officials might also impose limitations on his privileges, restricting his access to communication and potentially making his experience in prison more difficult.
Furthermore, the DSS may advocate for continued surveillance, convincing prison authorities that they need to monitor Kanu closely, even while he is incarcerated. This ongoing oversight could lead to further restrictions on Kanu’s ability to communicate privately with his supporters.
Many unknown factors still surround the situation, but one thing is clear: Kanu’s journey from conviction to potential pardon will be fraught with challenges, uncertainties, and the complex dynamics of Nigerian politics. As events unfold, it will be crucial to observe how these factors will influence Kanu’s fate in the coming months.
*By Ofonime Honesty
For years, the story of small businesses has been one of resilient hustle hampered by a familiar adversary: access to capital. A struggling tailor with a waiting list of clients cannot afford an industrial machine. A rural farmer watches his business struggle due to his inability to expand and invest in modern tools. Even the tech startup with a brilliant idea operates on little, or zero budget.
This narrative is what the Akwa Ibom State Government and the Bank of Industry (BOI) are aiming to rewrite with a landmark N4 billion intervention fund, one of the most significant private sector injections the state has seen in recent years.
Announced recently, the comprehensive loan scheme for Micro, Small, and Medium Enterprises (MSMEs) is designed to be more than just a cash disbursement. Its objectives are multi-faceted: create over 5,000 new jobs, stimulate economic growth, boost agricultural productivity, and ultimately enhance household welfare across the state’s communities.
The program represents a deliberate and structured intervention to build the economy from the ground up. Rather than simply giving out loans, the initiative focuses on investing in the businesses that form the backbone of the local economy and equipping them for sustainable growth.
The programme framework outlines clear eligibility criteria aimed at ensuring transparency and impact. To qualify, businesses must be formally registered with the Corporate Affairs Commission (CAC) and have their operational headquarters within Akwa Ibom State.
Applicants must also provide valid means of identification during the application process.
The application process is a four-stage journey designed to vet and prepare applicants. It begins with online submission of business details through the official portal at https://aksgboiloan.akwaibominvest.ng, followed by a rigorous document verification stage where applicants must upload all required supporting documents.
Crucially, successful applicants will not receive funds immediately but will undergo mandatory capacity-building training with the Ibom Leadership and Entrepreneurship Development (Ibom-LED) agency before final approval and disbursement.
This training component serves as the soul of the scheme, building business acumen alongside providing financial capital. The approach aims to ensure businesses thrive long after the loan has been repaid.
For aspiring entrepreneurs dreaming of expanding their operations, the application portal is a gateway to possibilities.
This intervention is a game-changer since MSMEs represent one of largest employers of labour in any developing economy, and injecting N4 billion directly into this sector will definitely create significant ripple effects.
By Emeka Ugwuonye
6. Did the Court of Appeal decide that Kanu should not be tried for treasonable felony?
ANSWER: Not quite. While the Court of Appeal made a ruling regarding Kanu’s trial, that judgment was subsequently appealed to the Supreme Court, which reversed the Court of Appeal’s decision. As a result, the findings of the Court of Appeal have become irrelevant.
Currently, the law is defined by the judgment of the Supreme Court, which takes precedence over any previous appellate rulings. This means that Kanu can indeed be tried for treasonable felony, as the Supreme Court has upheld the charges against him. In legal terms, the most recent and authoritative ruling is what matters, and at this moment, that ruling supports the continuation of Kanu’s trial for the offenses he faces. It’s essential to recognize that legal outcomes are shaped by the highest court’s decisions, not by earlier judgments that have been overturned.
7. Should the judge have explained to him all these things when he asked the judge that question in court?
ANSWER: No, the judge should not have provided that explanation. Doing so would have amounted to the judge offering the kind of assistance that is typically provided by legal counsel. Nnamdi Kanu made the choice to represent himself, which means he cannot expect the judge to clarify or elaborate on legal matters outside the established rules of the court.
Moreover, Kanu’s question was posed in the context of his challenge to the court’s jurisdiction. This issue will be addressed in the court’s forthcoming judgment, and it would be inappropriate for the court to divulge information that pertains to a decision that has yet to be rendered. Judges must maintain impartiality and adhere to proper judicial protocol. Providing guidance or clarity on legal questions during court proceedings could compromise that impartiality and undermine the integrity of the judicial process.
In summary, it is essential for defendants to seek clarification and understanding from their legal counsel rather than from the judge. The legal system is designed to ensure that each party is responsible for navigating it according to established procedures and rules. By choosing to represent himself, Kanu has placed himself in a position where he must rely on his own understanding of the law, and the court must remain neutral, providing a level playing field for all parties involved.
8. What is the implication of Nnamdi Kanu representing himself?
ANSWER: Representing himself is arguably the gravest mistake Nnamdi Kanu could make. While he has the legal right to defend himself, this is a right that no reasonable person should choose to exercise in a complex legal battle. It’s akin to firing your doctor and attempting to perform an appendectomy on yourself—an act fraught with peril and devoid of sound judgment.
Self-representation in legal proceedings can lead to disastrous consequences, as it places the individual at a significant disadvantage. The law is intricate, filled with procedural rules and nuanced arguments that require expert knowledge and experience to navigate effectively. By opting to represent himself, Kanu risks undermining his defense and jeopardizing his position in court.
Furthermore, there appears to be an inclination for Kanu to enjoy the spotlight and assert his voice, but that desire should not override practical legal considerations. The courtroom is not a forum for personal expression but a formal setting where skilled attorneys utilize their expertise to advocate for their clients’ best interests. By eschewing professional legal representation, Kanu not only diminishes his chances for a favorable outcome but also engages in a self-defeating strategy that could have serious ramifications for his case.
READ ALSO: ANALYSIS: How Israel and allied defenses intercepted over 300 Iranian missiles and drones
In summary, while the choice to represent oneself is protected under the law, it is rarely a wise decision—especially in a high-stakes legal environment like the one Kanu finds himself in. Professional legal representation is crucial for ensuring that rights are upheld and justice is pursued effectively. Ignoring this reality is a significant miscalculation that Kanu may come to regret.
9. What is the implication of him refusing to present his defense?
ANSWER: Initially, I considered the possibility that his decision might be a strategic one. However, it has become clear that this refusal to present a defense is a significant miscalculation. By not offering a defense, Nnamdi Kanu leaves himself completely vulnerable, providing no counterarguments against the allegations and evidence brought forth by the prosecution. As a result, the prosecution has a clear path to victory.
Without any defense to challenge the prosecution’s case, the court is effectively compelled to convict him. The legal principle at play is that the court has already established that the prosecution has presented a prima facie case—which means they have provided sufficient evidence for the case to proceed. Kanu’s failure to defend himself means that he is allowing the prosecution’s arguments to stand unopposed.
This situation puts Kanu at a serious disadvantage and effectively undermines any chance he had of achieving a favorable outcome. When a defendant does not testify or present evidence in their favor, the court is left with only the prosecution’s narrative, increasing the likelihood of a conviction. It is crucial in any legal proceeding for a defendant to engage actively in their defense, as neglecting to do so can lead to a self-inflicted defeat.
10. Can Kanu be tried in Nigeria for broadcasts he made outside Nigeria?
ANSWER: Yes, Kanu can indeed be tried in Nigeria for statements made outside the country. The law takes into account the location where the effects of an action occur, rather than where that action was carried out. A person can commit treasonable felonies or incitement from abroad, especially if the incitement has the potential to impact individuals or events in Nigeria.
The crucial factor is where the individuals being incited are located or where the unlawful act is intended to be executed. This principle underlines the legal precedent that holds individuals accountable for their words and actions, regardless of their physical location at the time.
Moreover, the Terrorism Prevention Amendment Act of 2013 was specifically amended to extend its reach beyond Nigeria’s borders, allowing for the prosecution of offenses committed outside the country if they have implications within Nigeria. This means that Kanu’s statements from abroad could fall under the jurisdiction of Nigerian law, especially if they are perceived to incite unlawful activities or threaten national security.
In summary, Kanu’s geographical location does not absolve him from accountability under Nigerian law. He can be prosecuted for his statements made outside Nigeria as long as those statements have consequences within the country. This legal framework emphasizes the importance of holding individuals accountable for their actions, irrespective of where those actions are conducted.
-
News5 days agoShari’ah Council urges Tinubu to immediately sack INEC chairman
-
World6 days agoBREAKING: US Revokes Visas of 80,000 Nigerians, Others
-
Analysis6 days agoHow Nnamdi Kanu’s claim that the Nigerian court lacks the authority to try him falls flat
-
News6 days agoBREAKING: Judge sets date for judgement in Nnamdi Kanu’s trial
-
News6 days agoBREAKING: Nnamdi Kanu capitulates, agrees to open his defense
-
News6 days agoGet ready for onslaught against terrorists — Army chief tells troops
-
News2 days agoTension in Abuja as soldiers block Wike from entering disputed land
-
News6 days agoMan rapes, strangles woman to death in Rivers State
-
News13 hours agoBREAKING: President Tinubu Snubs Wike, Backs Lieutenant Yerima, Military
DDM News
-
News3 days agoOver 200 killed as Boko Haram, ISWAP clash in Lake Chad