MAKIA: Route to the Saudi Sword

The recent revelation that three Nigerians, recently detained by Saudi authorities on allegations of drug trafficking, had been framed by an international drug trafficking syndicate operating at Malam Aminu Kano International Airport (MAKIA) further confirms the persistence of such nefarious activities, bringing to mind a similar scandal in 2019 that nearly cost an innocent woman her life in the Kingdom.

The syndicate’s modus operandi begins by targeting unsuspecting travellers at MAKIA who appear to have little or no experience in international air travel protocols.

Exploiting the fact that such travellers rarely turn up at the airport check-in counter with enough luggage to take up their full luggage allowance, if they are even aware of it, the syndicate members covertly tag and check in drug-containing luggage under the traveller’s names.

On arrival in Jeddah or Madinah, the syndicate’s Saudi-based Nigerian accomplices monitor the luggage processing. If the bags make it through undetected, they somehow manage to claim them, sometimes with, and other times without, the traveller’s knowledge or involvement.

However, if the bags are flagged, the accomplices vanish, leaving the unsuspecting travellers to be apprehended and subjected to the Kingdom’s strict judicial system, where drug trafficking can carry the ultimate punishment: public beheading.

Despite Nigerian authorities’ assurances since the 2019 scandal that all structural and operational loopholes exploited by the syndicate had been addressed, the latest incident demonstrates that these measures were insufficient. It also underscores the growing notoriety of the otherwise reputable MAKIA as a hub for international drug trafficking syndicates specialising in framing unsuspecting travellers.

If organised crime of this sophistication can occur at the relatively less corruption-prone MAKIA, one can only imagine what might be happening at Murtala Muhammed International Airport in Lagos or Nnamdi Azikiwe International Airport in Abuja.

Only Allah knows how many innocent people, framed in this way and too unlucky for their ordeals to be publicised or their innocence to be proven, ended up publicly beheaded in Saudi Arabia.

Although the Nigerian government has assured that it will leave no stone unturned to secure the exoneration of these innocent Nigerians currently facing drug trafficking charges in Saudi Arabia, it should not take the situation for granted.

Meanwhile, it should also take decisive action to address this menace at MAKIA and other airports across the country. After all, the few individuals apprehended may represent only a fraction of the culprits, with many others likely still out there.

Politics of Iran-Israel war

 

As the war between Israel and Iran rages on over the latter’s nuclear program, a look at its antecedents and underlying politics provides the right context to comprehend the circumstances surrounding it. 

Iran's nuclear program dates back to the 1950s, under the then Shah of Iran, Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi. In 1979, Ayatollah Khomeini led a revolution in the country, overthrowing the Shah and establishing a theocracy that declared enmity against the United States and vowed to expand the revolution across the Middle East and beyond.

Until 1979, Iran’s nuclear program was Western-supported and civilian-oriented, aimed at achieving rapid technological advancement.  

Following the revolution, the West terminated its support for the program, while the new regime in Tehran suspended it, arguing that it was un-Islamic in the first place.

However, in the 1990s, Iran quietly resumed nuclear development, citing its need for nuclear energy for peaceful use. By 2000, Iranian defectors and Western intelligence agencies had begun suspecting Iran of pursuing a nuclear weapons capability.

The United States and its Western allies oppose Iran acquiring a nuclear weapon for fear that its regional rivals, e.g. Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt, may equally pursue their own nuclear programs, thereby triggering a nuclear arms race across the already volatile Middle East. 

The US is worried that a nuclear-armed Iran could be more audacious in supporting its proxy militias in Iraq, Yemen, and, until recently, Syria and Lebanon, which threaten U.S. interests and allies in the region. There are also concerns that with nuclear weapons in Iran’s hands, the risk of accidental or intentional nuclear conflict in the region is greater.

Besides, the US believes that if, by any means, Iran manages to acquire nuclear weapons, its (US) allies in the region and elsewhere will lose confidence in its security guarantees, which will hugely affect the potency of its ‘global leadership’ and diplomatic influence.

Meanwhile, Iran, which is a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), has maintained that its nuclear program is for peaceful use, hence doesn’t contravene the treaty that bans non-nuclear-weapon states from developing or acquiring nuclear arms.

Of course, the US and Israel never believe Iran. Israel is particularly worried as it considers Iran’s nuclear program a direct threat to its very existence. After all, Iran’s anti-Israel rhetoric and threats to eliminate the Jewish state have been particularly constant. Interestingly, in their tactical PR strategy to attract the solidarity and sympathy of global powers, successive Israeli politicians have always exaggerated Iran’s threats against Israel; that way, they secure disproportionately favourable concessions and privileges for Israel on the world political stage.

Furthermore, Israel always leverages its strong alliance with the United States and its Western allies to push for sustained pressure on Iran to compel it to abandon its nuclear program.

Ironically, it's an open secret that Israel has nuclear weapons, which it, for tactical reasons, neither confirms nor denies.

On their part, and regardless of their professed solidarity with Iran in this war, Persian Gulf Arab countries, Egypt, and Jordan, believe Iran pursues a nuclear weapon capability to leverage the political weight that comes with it to dominate them in geopolitical struggle.

Now, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), which had been involved in Iran’s nuclear program before the 1979 revolution, resumed inspecting Iran’s nuclear sites in 2003 after some Iranian opposition exposed undeclared Natanz and Arak nuclear facilities in Iran in 2002.  

Since then, the United States has accused Iran of pursuing a nuclear weapon capability, which Iran has always denied, insisting that its nuclear program is peaceful.

The United Nations Security Council imposed economic sanctions on Iran, while the United States unilaterally imposed more sanctions on it.

Many diplomatic initiatives failed to break the resultant deadlock, while tensions in the region continued to rise. 

There was, however, a temporary breakthrough when the United States, during the Barack Obama administration, China, Russia, France, the United Kingdom, in addition to Germany, on the one hand, and Iran, on the other, signed the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) under which Iran agreed to reduce uranium enrichment, dismantle atomic reactors, and accept regular inspections of its nuclear facilities by International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). In return, economic sanctions were lifted. 

Israel was never happy with that agreement, crying foul that it was designed in such a way that it would eventually allow Iran to acquire a nuclear weapon capability.

Saudi Arabia was also suspicious about some provisions of the agreement and equally concluded that the agreement provided a window for Tehran to acquire nuclear weapons eventually. Since then, it reportedly went ahead to secretly launch a nuclear program with China, Russia, South Korea, France, and, speculatively, Pakistan, as technical partners.  However, there has been no confirmed report about the level it has achieved so far.

In 2018, President Donald Trump unilaterally withdrew from the JCPOA, rendering it effectively useless. He also went ahead to restore U.S. sanctions on Iran. In return, Iran resumed limiting the IAEA's access to its nuclear facilities as it resumed uranium enrichment.  

As economic sanctions continued to cripple Iran’s economy, it accelerated the process of uranium enrichment anyway. Meanwhile, Israel, using its notorious intelligence agency, Mossad, managed to assassinate several key Iranian nuclear scientists and conducted many aerial attacks on Natanz and other nuclear facilities in Iran.

Upon his return to the US presidency, Donald Trump demanded Iran submit to fresh negotiations. Though Iran initially resisted, insisting on reviving the JCPOA, it gave in, paving the way for the negotiations to start in Muscat, Oman.

However, after several rounds of talks without headway, tensions began to rise again as the end of the 60-day ultimatum given by Donald Trump for the talks to conclude was fast approaching. Trump had warned Iran of military action should the talks fail.   

Meanwhile, on 13 June 2025, and less than two days before what could have been the last round of talks between the United States and Iran, Israel surprised the whole world by launching aerial bombardments on Iran and ground operations by Mossad agents scattered across Iran.

A full-scale war erupted between the two countries, with Iran firing hundreds of ballistic missiles and drones into Israel, and Israel using fighter jets and drones to attack Iran.

Now that the United States has attacked Iran’s three major nuclear facilities, including the purportedly 800-meter-deep Fordow nuclear facility bunker, it remains to be seen to what extent the US involvement will affect the course of the war and its implications in the aftermath.

Though there have been cease-fire initiatives, the war doesn’t seem to come to an end anytime soon, given the rigidity that characterises the stances of the parties involved. This is particularly true as the longer the war lasts, the greater the risk of further escalation and wider regional conflict.    

    

Return of Sunusi: The dilemma ahead

 

The return of Muhammadu Sunusi ll as Sarkin Kano is yet another manifestation of the influence of politics on the traditional Masarauta establishment, which, after all, has always been used and abused by politicians.

Since the British conquest of the Usman Dan Fodio Islamic sultanate in what subsequently became part of today’s northern Nigeria, the enthronement and dethronement of emirs (Sarakuna) have always been motivated by underlying political interests. 

Throughout the colonial era, the British would only enthrone aspiring princes deemed the most loyal to the British colonial establishment as leaders of their respective emirates. This practice enabled them to maintain their colonial grip through those proxy-Sarakuna. And since then, successive generations of military and civilian administrators have followed suit, enthroning and dethroning Sarakuna literally at will. 

The only shift in this regard is that, in the past, the influence of political leaders would mostly come to play only when a throne became vacant mainly due to the death of the Sarki, when the incumbent governor would influence the emergence of his successor, as it happened in 2014 in Kano that led to the enthronement of Sunusi. However, now that the trend is becoming systematic, it will indeed, if left unchecked, render the reins of Sarauta effectively tenured, subject to the tenure of the governor behind it. 

After all, just like his enthronement in 2014 by then-Governor Rabiu Musa Kwankwaso and his subsequent dethronement in 2020 by then-Governor Abdullahi Umar Ganduje, Sarki Sunusi’s return to the Kano throne remains politically motivated within the context of the power struggle in Kano politics between Kwankwaso and Ganduje, two provincial vindictive enemies hell-bent on finishing off each other.  

By the way, as a subservient Kwankwaso ‘boy’, Governor Abba Kabir Yusuf himself is a mere fighting tool in the hands of his godfather in the struggle. 

Interestingly, Kwankwaso has tactically put his vengeful mission against Sunusi on hold for now, pending finishing off Ganduje and his legacy. 

Sunusi incurred then-Governor Kwankwaso’s wrath as a then-Lagos-based bank executive when he kept dishing out disparaging criticisms against Kwankwaso and his government. For instance, in an article he titled “The Kwankwaso Phenomenon”, Sunusi described then Governor Kwankwaso as a “rural aristocrat” who “surrounds himself with provincials and places key posts in the hands of rural elite”. He also compared Kwankwaso’s government to “the classic comedy of the Village Headmaster in a village council”. 

Kwankwaso got mad at Sunusi and demanded his sacking by his then-employer, United Bank for Africa (UBA). He threatened to stop his government’s dealings with the bank in case of non-compliance. 

Anyway, now that Sunusi is back, it remains to be seen how it plays out between him and Governor Abba, considering Sunusi’s penchant for publicity stunts involving controversial utterances against government policies and wrongdoings. 

As much as Sunusi is excited about his return to the Kano throne, the development represents a tricky dilemma for him that also tests his supposed commitment to outspokenness against government wrongdoings. 

On the one hand, Governor Abba won’t tolerate his stunts in the name of outspokenness; no governor will, either. And unless he (Sunusi) has, this time around, decided to desist from his stunts to keep his throne, Governor Abba, under Kwankwaso’s influence, won’t hesitate to go to any extent, including dethronement, to deal with him. 

On the other hand, his desistance from his stunts would undoubtedly mean the end of the reputation he has somehow earned as an outspoken critic of government wrongdoings.  

Electoral victory: Whose Addu’a does Allah accept?

 

There is a general but simplistic assumption that electoral victory necessarily implies Allah’s endorsement of the winner and His disapproval of the loser. 

Politicians, potential beneficiaries of the electoral victory of politicians, and overzealous followers engage in supposedly wholehearted Addu’a for their and their benefactors’ electoral victory.

The practice of Addu’a for electoral victory has grown into a phenomenon and has indeed become an integral part of politicking in Nigeria. It has, in fact, turned into an industry of a sort where huge amounts of resources are invested in engaging amateur, part-time and professional Addu’a service-providing malamai who provide their services to the highest bidders or whom they expect higher gain from them of whatever kind.

Besides, with the growing phenomenon of holding the so-called special prayer sessions in public places for the success of one politician or another, the ‘political Addu’a industry’ has been growing further, attracting more investments from politicians. This is even though such so-called special prayer sessions bear the hallmarks of Bid’a.

On their part, winners in elections and their followers brag that their electoral victory necessarily implies Allah’s acceptance of their Addu’a hence His endorsement of them. They equally mock their opponents and attribute their loss to Allah’s disapproval of them. Whereas, in reality, nobody knows for sure whether or not a particular electoral victory implies Allah’s endorsement, or whether or not a particular loss implies His disapproval.

Because, the fact that politicking under democracy is inherently characterized by gross dishonesty, hypocrisy, cunning, deceitfulness, bribery and other serious vices, which arguably all politicians perpetrate in their struggle to outmanoeuvre one another, makes the whole system too filthy for Allah to have anything to do with it, in the first place,  let alone endorse any politician against another.

The winner, therefore, only wins thanks to his ability to somehow outdo his opponents in that regard, and the losers only lose due to their failure to outplay the winner, while none enjoys Allah’s endorsement, for all are equally guilty of the same grave sins, regardless of the extents of their involvements, respectively. After all, they actually never take that Addu’a seriously in the first place; they only feign commitment to in the context of their manipulation of religion for political interests.

Electoral victory under democracy is just like winning in gambling, which obviously never implies Allah’s endorsement.

Though craving for power and the temptations of what comes with it are irresistibly tempting, they aren’t worth the price of politicking under democracy, with all that it entails, which those involved pay in the hereafter.  

Nigerian economy and the Washington package

 

Now that Nigeria has finally embarked on the total implementation of the Washington Consensus package of neoliberal economic policies, what becomes of the country’s economy, in the long run, remains to be seen. 

As a product of consensus among the Washington-based World Bank, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the United States Department of the Treasury, the package was purportedly designed to guide developing countries bedevilled by protracted economic crises to recovery and achieve sustainable economic development. 

Also, as a capitalist template with inherent and unmistakable lopsidedness in favour of the rich and those with access to public resources, the package encourages governments to literally but gradually wash their hands of the critical economic sectors in favour of profit-oriented local and foreign investors.

Under pressure from neoliberal international financial institutions, successive Nigerian governments have gone to various extents in selective and partial implementation of the package, triggering rounds of controversy. 

However, now with the country going fully and irreversibly capitalist, there is no more time to waste in criticising capitalism and romanticising some obsolete socialist and populist ideas that are no longer realistic. After all, the reform policies can still work out if the federal government pursues requisite measures, which include, among other things, total transparency in governance, governance cost-cutting and prioritisation of the strategic sectors of the economy that have a direct bearing on people’s lives. 

In other words, for the reform to be effective, governance at all levels must be too transparent to accommodate any act of corruption; and anti-corruption measures, including appropriate punishments, must be in force and deterrent enough to deter any would-be perpetrator. 

Likewise, appropriate governance cost-cutting measures must be implemented judiciously to save resources without prejudice to productivity and efficacy.   

Equally, public spending must strictly follow the public’s priorities that entail appropriate investments in strategic sectors with clear short, medium and long-term goals measured not by mere figures but by their real effect on people’s living conditions. 

With these and other requisite measures in place, the investment atmosphere in the country will be transparent and competitive enough to attract local and foreign investors with appropriate job-creating investments that would facilitate real and sustainable economic development. 

That way, and with time, the local and foreign rent-seeking opportunists and profiteers, who have dominated the business sphere in the country, making hugely disproportionate returns compared to their real investments, will have to follow suit to remain relevant or simply lose out. 

Unless the Tinubu administration pursues these measures with appropriate commitment, the reform will end up counterproductive, thus making life even more unbearable to most Nigerians. At the same time, a tiny politico-business clique continue to wallow in abundance.

Interestingly, there has been conspicuous silence on the part of our local West-admiring Washington Consensus apologists, who have advocated total capitalist reform as the only panacea to the country’s persistent underdevelopment. Ordinarily, having passionately advocated it, they should now feel morally obliged to show some understanding, or at least fake it, over the ensuing escalating hardship in the country. 

Besides, though supposedly experts in economics and other related fields, none have developed a viable alternative economic recovery package or even introduced viable inputs to the Washington Consensus package to make it relevant to our peculiar circumstances and other underlying challenges.

Daddy