Ask ZiVA 728x90 Ads aiteo  



Some Nigeria’s analysts see Muhammadu Buhari’s emergence as the  “accepted” “saintly tough-guy” Nigerian corruption killer in a  different light from the general make-believe one. These analysts  attribute Buhari’s final success after many failed attempts to become  Nigeria’s democratically-elected president to some external  influences. They claim that some powerful international figures have  often meddled in Nigeria’s internal affairs to affect the outcome of  events in the country. And Buhari’s recent victory at the polls was  not an exception.

One remarkable example that these critics cite is the especially  patronizing speech by the American President Barack Obama just before  the 2015 Nigerian presidential election which brought Buhari to power.  In his speech Obama urged Nigerians to maintain a united country no  matter the outcome of the election. Many saw the speech in which the  president used an old Biafran-Nigerian wartime “genocidal slogan:”  “To keep Nigeria one is a task that must be done” as an outward  expression of clandestine political machinations which in the end  installed a preferred candidate in Nigeria’s supreme leadership  saddle.

In the opinion of many observers, Buhari is an Islamic extremist who  believes that he; “will continue to show openly and inside me [him] the  total commitment to the sharia movement that is sweeping all over  Nigeria,” and “God willing, we will not stop the agitation for the total  implementation of the sharia in the country.” Those are Buhari’s own  words. For having the foisted posture of the “saintly tough-ruler”  as well as an Islamic fundamentalist, Buhari fitted well the ideal  consensus candidate of Nigeria’s Islamic north. He was chosen because  he was believed to be a capable and willing candidate who would boldly  implement the so-called north’s long term ambitious Islamic agenda for  Nigeria – extending the global Islamic caliphate project to cover the  entire country, including Christians’ and other religions’ areas.  Nigeria for many reasons has long been considered important in this  local and global Islamic caliphate agenda. It is said that the ultimate  goal of this agenda for countries in Africa’s south of the Sahara is  to eventually overrun and conquer them for Islam like those in the  northern half of the continent. The advocates and financial sponsors of  this agenda see the conquer and subjugation of the entire Nigerian  geography as being strategic because by virtue of its position and clout  the country will serve as a launch pad whose reaches cover the entire  target-region.


In Nigeria today there are two manifest champions of this “global  caliphate” agenda. They are members of the deadly Islamic terrorist  group Boko Haram who have very strong connections with the most powerful  people in Nigerian political, military and business establishments. The  second group is also an equally well-connected Islamic terrorist group  modeled after the fearsome Sudanese Janjaweed. Its members are mostly  Fulani, members of the ethnic group (the group sometimes referred to as  Nigeria’s “born-to-rule” over others) from which the current  Nigerian president comes. They are generally known as the Fulani Cattle  Herders (FCH.) Like Boko Haram, Fulani Cattle Herders are also  generously financed by the northern elite and ruling oligarch class.    In the last few decades Saudi Arabia and some other Islamic countries  like Iran, Turkey and Nigeria have dreamed of and fanatically pursued  the archaic fantasy of an eventual Islam-subjugated world. These  countries have expended in the process, a chunk of their petrodollar and  other national incomes in pursuing the agenda. Some observers think that  they have been successful in more ways than most people will care to  admit. It is believed that among other achievements, that perhaps their  greatest is being able to successfully infiltrate the Western news media  establishment. Through this subversive penetration of the mainstream  news and information dissemination process of Western societies, the  jihadists have over the years, exerted pervasive subtle but unmistakable  influence on the editorial opinions of media outlets in the West. Some  analysts think that the prevalent editorial stance of most mainstream  Western media where each tries to outdo the other on who would best be  described as the most “politically correct,” “tolerant” and  “civilized liberal,” can hardly be explained otherwise.

The infiltration seems to be so thorough and complete that today no  matter how realistic and objective a critic is, there will always be a  way to accuse him or her of being  “politically incorrect,”  suffering from “islamophobia” and expressing a “dangerous far  right extremist views.” Today anyone can easily bet their most valued  possessions to predict that the editorial opinions of Western media will  always sing in unison the well-rehearsed chorus that “not all Muslims  are terrorists” therefore the critic who deviates from the accepted  “liberal” and fear-induced “civilized tolerance” is condemned  and labeled; “unsophisticated,” “bigoted,” “crude” and  “uninformed racist.” The new Western standard is simple; even after  the attacker had called the authorities on the phone to announce their  reason for the attack, Western authorities in the name of “not being  at war with Islam,” should spend an endless period of time  investigating to ascertain the motive behind the attack.

The ultimate goals of all terroristic or Islamic jihad campaigns are to  receive attention, elicit fear and intimidate or cow the target-victims  (the infidels.) Those goals have substantially been achieved in many  places around the world, Nigeria inclusive. The ongoing global jihad has  not only successfully used fear and intimidation to cow much of the  international community, it has also compelled everybody to “tolerate  and endure happily” the prevailing globe-wide displays of barbaric  Islamic violent extremism. So, the fear campaigns have successfully  cleared the way for the emergence into powerful offices, such extremist  bigots like Buhari in dysfunctional societies like the Nigerian country.  As a result, people in the mold of Nigeria’s present leader, rather  than being censored are patronized by such world leaders like United  Nations’ Ban Ki-moon with such unrealistic words like: “You are  highly respected by world leaders, including myself. Your persona has  given your country a positive image.” Yet the so-called Nigeria’s  “positive image” is nothing more than the continued descent to the  lowest levels of religious intolerance and flagrant abuses of the human  rights of peaceful citizens. The brutal killings of hundreds of  non-violent Biafran separatist protesters by government security forces  are too recent to be swept under the carpet by the patrons of these  extremist elements.

While campaigning for and on assumption of office, Buhari did not need  to present any complex political agenda. Having proved himself as an  Islamic fundamentalist, he could cash in on the well-established global  jihad’s political capital of the “global caliphate.” Nevertheless,  Buhari who became the posterchild of Nigeria’s  “saint-and-tough-guy” messiah, winning became a do-or-die obsession.  At 70 plus years, he became desperate as he felt that time was running  out on him. In his own words; “baboons and dogs would be soaked in  blood” should he fail again to win the election to become Nigeria’s  next president in 2015.

Buhari and his handlers managed to convince the uninformed public that  he was the “poor” candidate who never stole money since his more  than forty years in public office (but there are abundant public records  to the contrary) who is suited to kill the monster of Nigerian  corruption. Yet this wretched candidate was able to easily afford the  $10 million consultancy fee of the American political strategist David  Axelrod of the Obama phenomenon. So, an indigent Buhari who would kill  the Nigerian corruption saw nothing wrong in paying a “modest” $10  million to a foreign political consulting firm for a local election in a  country where the people live on less than $2 a day.

Written by Osita Ebiem.