I did my post field presentation in 2010 thinking that by 2011, I should be done with my PhD but I was wrong. A friend of mine who finished in the same Department (Political science) and the same Faculty (Social Sciences) was the first person to draw my attention to what I have come to tag: “The Politics of Abstract”. I was telling him about my determination to finish the doctorate programme in 2011 when he told me in Yorubá: Dapo, o ṣẹṣẹ bere (Dapo, you are just starting). I asked him: ‘Why the curse now’? He said it was not a curse but the truth. He passed this route five years before me, so, he knew what he was talking about. According to him, Unibadan has turned “Abstract” to a curse, or, is it a course? He told me that he spent three to four years before they approved his abstract. I reminded him that the entire programme itself was three years. He laughed and said: ‘That’s brochure duration. In UI where you have several “ancient of days in small letters”, it is not possible’. ‘What do you mean by “ancient of days in small letters'”? ‘They are the “small gods” of UI who believe that there is no perfect thesis but will still demand for a perfect abstract. They are very easy to identify. Any time you see them attending meetings or seminars in their ankara, especially in the evenings, you could be sure that they are going to “tear” somebody’s paper or somebody’s abstract” to pieces’. ‘What has ankara got to do with tearing of papers or tearing of abstracts’?, I asked. ‘It makes them feel so comfortable to do their job professionally and professorially. When they wear ankara, they can ask you 25 questions on a seven-page paper’. From his submissions, there was no doubt that my friend was very angry with the way the Faculty of Social Sciences had treated him. Who would not after spending three to four years on abstract?
Well, I made him realise that my case would never be like that. He said: ‘It is possible you wouldn’t go that route because you have a powerful supervisor who is also the Deputy Vice Chancellor’. I told him that my Supervisor, Prof. Adigun Agbaje, an erudite scholar, had completed his term as Deputy Vice Chancellor (Academic) and was going on a four-year sabbatical-cum-accumulated leave. He didn’t allow me to finish when he said: ‘I am telling you that he would come and meet you where he left you’. I rejected his evil prophecy immediately with irreverent indignation. ‘Why are you talking like this’? I fumed. ‘As DVC (Academic) I can tell you without mincing words that your supervisor would have offended some of his colleagues who would want to take their pound of flesh from you, more or less, you have become a collateral damage in the “politics of abstract”‘.
I thought he was exaggerating the rumpus of revenge beyond redemption not knowing that really and truly, I “had just started”. For one year, I discovered that all my efforts were like all motion no movement. For a very long time, my abstract was being tossed up and down for simple tense abbreviations like “shouldn’t and wouldn’t.” On this alone, I spent five to six months because the next meeting did not come as quickly as I had projected. After this, we began debating the contextual difference between “responded” and “replied”. This too took some time. By the time we got over this , it was 2012. Unfortunately, it was a Faculty responsibility, meaning all departments must be represented.
The most complicated part of the abstract consideration had to do with the epistemological approach. In a Faculty where Sociology, Geography, Political Science, Economics, Psychology and Urban and Regional Planning were domiciled, it was expected that multiplex approaches of theoretical significance would determine the conflation of an in-house framework. This, however, should not in anyway constitute a deficit in the material and mental aggregation of what a student’s perception agrees to be the pathway to intellection. When an abstract is subject to a multidisciplinary assessment or multiple interpretations, the technique of evaluation did not necessarily have to satisfy the multitudinous frameworks of all domiciled gnoseological phenomena. In the whole university, the Faculty of Social Sciences appeared to be the only one involved in this abstract imbroglio. Its reluctance to derobe itself of sedatory conservatism in a world that is galaxied by the energy of voguishness is dulling its nuggets for invention.
For instance, while the Faculty of Arts would dispose of its abstract baggage with despatch having resolved its theoretical logjam with a familiar and traditional approach that comes with a fraternal memoradum, the Faculty of Social Sciences would be escalating the crucible of its students via an elongation that stemmed from its repugnance for elegance and progressivism. It was not impossible that the Faculty was deliberately indulging in performative grandstanding just to hype itself as a “tough one”. Methinks that serenading the amour propre of “ancient of days in small letters” as against the prowess of the citadel conflicted with hermeneutics. Intellectualism is about humanity and not individuality. When this distinction is impaired, the confidence in the system collapses with a simple thought of tyranny. A sensitive system should protect a three-year programme from being stretched to six or seven years simply because of abstract. This is the humanity in intellectualism. It is not impossible that this insensitivity is what is causing the feeling of vindictiveness among the students to the point that ordinary ankara worn innocently by lecturers has been configured by students as garment of academic oppression.
As my friend had prophesied, my supervisor left me in 2010 writing my abstract and came back in 2014 to meet me still writing my abstract. Few months after his return, my abstract was approved and the title of my thesis was registered after necessary “corrections”. On Wednesday, 23 July 2014, I had my oral defence and it was successful. On 17 November 2014, during the university’s convocation, the Vice Chancellor, Prof. Isaac Folorunsho Adewole presented my doctorate certificate to me. It was a well -deserved birthday gift.
In 1987 when my lecturer and supervisor, Dr. Sola Ojo advised me to look for scholarship or sponsorship that would enable me travel abroad to study United States-Israeli relations, which was the topic I wanted to do initially for my doctoral thesis, I didn’t know the battle of life would change the course of my destiny. I thought I would be through with it by 1990/91. I did not because I found myself deep in the politics of my state, Lagos. I found the power dynamics and the elite intrigues stimulating and I decided to study that as an aside. Now, as a stakeholder in the power game, I went back into it to conclude what we started. We could not afford to lose Lagos, our political base, to BRF and his boys if we wanted to achieve our greater project at the national level.
The original plot of the “Tinubu Must Lose Lagos” project had BRF as the Symbol of the Group and Obafemi Hamzat as the gubernatorial candidate of the group. Later, Supo Sasore surfaced from nowhere as Fashola’s “Man Friday”. Fouad Oki was the Chief Mobiliser. In one of my newspaper engagements with their “pool scribblers”, I appealed to Hamzat’s conscience, while reacting to his paid advert on Tinubu. This was what he said in the advert: “I, Dr. Kadri Obafemi Hamzat owe Asiwaju Bola Ahmed Tinubu a lot of gratitude because God has been using him for me… Specifically, apart from God Almighty, Asiwaju has been contributing to my successes in government and outside. He was the one that brought me back to Nigeria from the US and all that I have achieved politically must be attributed to his support”. In replying to this testament, I wrote a piece titled: “Ambode and the Politics of BRF’s Successor” in The Nation of 5 October 2014, in which I appealed to Hamzat’s conscience. I wrote as follows: “Kowtowing and showing reverence to one’s benefactor is not stupidity but a sign of strong moral character and maturity. Why must a man be desperate to fulfill his ambition by betraying the one who gave him the inspiration for the ambition… Assuming but not conceding that Tinubu’s candidate (Ambode) loses the election to Hamzat, will Hamzat and his sponsor take delight in celebrating the fall of Tinubu in Lagos”?
To be candid, I admire Hamzat and he knows it. In reacting to one of my articles during the episode, he called me to express his displeasure with my attack on him as a non-indigene. ‘Egbon, I just finished reading your article in which you referred to me as a non-indigene. Egbon, I am sure you know that my mother is from Epe’, he disclosed. I really didn’t feel happy with his predicament but at the same time, I must tell him the truth: ‘Honestly, I had always thought that Baba, I mean, your dad, was from Lagos until he became the Olu of Afowowa Sogaade in Ewekoro Local Government. Besides, I am not happy that you are allowing BRF to use you against Oga…’ The phone went off. He didn’t hang up on me. I was driving at that time because I was on my way to church. It must have been the network. He is a very nice guy like his dad. Of all the elders in the party, his dad was the closest to Oga. Oga trusted him to a fault but he never for a single day betrayed Tinubu. It was the same thing he did to Lateef Jakande. Alhaji Olátúnjí Hamzat was Jakande’s right hand man. I was not happy that Obafemi couldn’t disengage himself from BRF’s government the moment he saw that the former was engaging Tinubu in brickbats. I was in Oga’s office when he was being introduced to us on his first visit to Alausa. His elder brother, M. O. Hamzat was one of the Special Assistants in my group. He was S. A. on Computer Education. Besides, I worked with their step-mum in the Ministry of Information in 1990/91. So, I could call myself a friend of the family.
Aside from the issue of loyalty, I was against BRF because he was insensitive to the religious sensibility of the state. Since 1999, the Governor’s seat had been occupied by two moslems in quick succession and for 16 years. For trying to foist another moslem on the state would have provided Jimi Agbaje, PDP’s candidate, a soft campaign weapon against the party. In his desperate bid to defeat Ambode and enthrone his own candidate in office, BRF raised Sasore from the blues few days to the party’s primary. Sasore’s posters literally littered the whole of Lagos, which left people wondering whether he was the candidate of the APC in the state. This kind of publicity blitz was beyond what an individual could embark upon. Only the state possessed the capacity and the appurtenances to galvanise an anonymous entity to such an intimidating ubiquity, the type that Sasore enjoyed in a matter of days. The desperation and hostility for Tinubu was too palpable. The mobilisation against Ambode, (indirectly, Tinubu) was so massive that on the day of the primary, nobody was sure who would carry the day. I actually wanted to go to Onikan Stadium but Oga said I should stay back with other security details around. We would be monitoring from Bourdillon. It was a terrible scene. For the first time ever, I saw uncertainty written all over Oga’s face. He wasn’t feeling comfortable. He was pensive and gloomy. He probably was wondering about the paradox of life when a fellow he brought to power was working for his own fall from power. For a man who said he had been betrayed several times, his mental stability had also betrayed him this time because he was not sure if Tunde was not going to rig his stooge into power. I didn’t understand BRF’s reason for bringing in Sasore at the last minute. What was he coming to do right that Hamzat had done wrong? Why did he decide to sponsor two candidates in one and same election? What was the whole Sasore’s game about? Was it meant to have two strong candidates from the same group that would deny Ambode a bloc vote? At the end of the election which took place at the Onikan Stadium on 4 to 5 December 2014 , Ambode won the primary with 3,735 votes while Hamzat came second with 1,201 votes. Sasore scored only 121 votes. This was how the Vanguard newspaper of 5 December 2014 reported the story: “The National Leader of the All Progressives Congress (APC) Bola Ahmed Tinubu and the Governor of Lagos State, Babatunde Fashola were yesterday locked in a final battle over who becomes Governor of the state next year. The final battle culminated at the party’s governorship primary at the Onikan Stadium… While Tinubu rooted for Ambode to succeed Fashola, the incumbent governor was queuing behind his former Attorney General and Commissioner for Justice, Supo Sasore to succeed him”. Having successfully emerged the APC gubernatorial candidate for the state, Ambode went ahead to win the state election on 11 April 2015 with 811,994 votes while PDP’s Agbaje scored 659,788 votes. It was one of the closest gubernatorial elections ever in the state.
That was how we tamed BRF and his boys. It was the most interesting power game in Lagos politics. The only one that could compare to it in terms of plotting was the Dapo Sarumi and Femi Agbalajobi episode. The difference between the two was that the Sarumi-Agbalajobi 1991/92 episode led to the decline of Jakande’s political influence and dominance in Lagos politics, while the Ambode-Hamzat-
Sasore episode helped to consolidate Tinubu’s political hegemony in Lagos State.
Concluded
