Thursday, 16 February 2017


As the National Assembly (NASS) considers the 2017 budget, an item  under the Ministry of Health’s (MOH) submission proposes to spend ₦915 million for the provision and distribution contraceptive commodities as part of counterpart fund. This unethical waste of scarce resources is worrying and symptomatic of lack of strategic thinking that this administration is struggling to overcome in several areas of policy administration. To deconstruct the underlying principle behind the proposal, part of government’s sustainable development drive is to control population by distributing condoms and abortifacients. On analysis, the disconnection between the goal, formula and result confirms that this argument is specious.

First, spending taxpayers’ contribution on an item which a significant part of the populace find objectionable and immoral violates their rights as guaranteed by sections 38 subsection 1 of the 1999 constitution (as amended). If people want to use artificial contraception, one would guess they are constitutionally free to do so. We all should not have to pay for it.

 A detailed review of government’s proposal shows concerns that an increasing population will occlude meaningful National Development; however, distributing contraceptives without targeted education on responsible parenthood will not produce meaningful result. Designed to prevent conception, distributing contraceptives without a move towards trying to engender change in behavior through a holistic, knowledge-driven, and result-oriented approach; government will on an annual basis keep spending incrementally, our scare collective commonwealth on an action that is futile as the population continues to rise.

To understand this a bit more, consider the following: in the last decade, data released by the Family Planning 2020 (FP 2020) early last year, suggested that Nigeria was among the top 10 contraceptive providing nations in the world accounting for 22% of the total contraceptives provided by these 10 nations (Predominantly African) by 2013 & 2014. Over the same period our population has increased by over 30% the highest percentage increase since records began. This implies that despite the increased supply of contraceptives, our population has continued to rise and the extent to which government is willing to increase contraceptives coverage to meet their intended aim remains unknown.

In conversation on population control, a historically insidious proposition for any government to embark on, the MOH has made no effort to drive Responsible Parenthood; a principle that takes into account the individual’s biological, psychological, social and economic state in planning for birth. Without recourse to this principle, proliferating contraception will only create a black hole in government finances where no correlation exists between expenditure and desired outcome. Responsible Parenthood ensures the person is properly informed on the reliability, the efficacy, side effects, and costs of the statistically effective fertility awareness based technique to prevent and attain conception. A correct judgment can then be made based on proper information that takes into the account the individual's circumstances, faculty, and environment.

Finally, it is unfortunate that the government will succumb to the ruse from western backed aid agencies that flood our continent with contraceptives but not books or medical supplies. The FP2020 report showing that 80% of the top 10 contraceptive nation are African nations is not a coincidence and assisting in providing comprehensive education and quality health service that covers responsible parenthood would be preferable than bombarding us with condoms and abortifacient.

In reviewing the 2017 budget, the NASS should query this morally bankrupt provision in the MOH budget to decide if it forms a judicious use of scarce resources. ₦915 million can achieve meaningful development if used in other critical areas. Nigeria’s challenge is not its population but the fair distribution of its resources. Even a large population should arguably be a source of strength but that is a discussion for another day.

This article was first published on opinion piece (@ynaija) on 16th February, 2016. 

Thursday, 1 December 2016


The victory of Donald John Trump on 8th November, 2016 in the US election felt like a cyclone of Conservatism sweeping across the continents. This was the latest in a trend that suggests the gradual rise of Conservatives around the world. This rise has confounded much of the Left who we can argue control significant segments of the establishment that include Government, Media, Academia, so-called Technocrats and even Business. This “Quasi-Progressivist” movement appears to be collapsing under the weight of its own delusion and hypocrisy and would do well to take time out to reinvent itself.

The UK general election 2015 was a sign of this rise beginning to manifest. For a party that struggled to form a government in 2010 and had to enter a coalition with the Liberal Democrat to form a government, the Conservative Party win in the 2015 election was the first surprise that hit much of the Leftist establishment. In the month leading up to the 7th May, 2015 elections, most of the polling suggested a hung parliament. It was beyond anybody’s wildest imagination that the Tories would meet the required “absolute majority”, but they did. Clearly, the polling was wrong and though I have read several reasons for the inaccurate polls, the question remains, why the shift? For me, the answer is simply a failure of the Left. The people are beginning to see through its fa├žade and are reacting.

The Brexit vote, the next big battle in the ideological war, was a shock that jolted much of the Left wing establishment. It is a widely acknowledged theory that the Conservative party promised an EU referendum to stem the rise of UKIP that was progressively hemorrhaging the party which included losing 2 members of the backbench. This in my opinion was a clever move, vindicated by the outcome of the 2015 general elections and like the elections; the polling were off the mark.

The result of the US presidential election surprised many, largely because of what I considered to be “the dogmatic following of the narrative” of large parts of the mainstream media and Leftist dominated establishment. The Princeton election consortium survey gave Hillary Clinton a 99% chance of Hillary Clinton becoming the president; the New York Times gave her an 85% chance while predicted that she had a 71.4% chance of winning. At this point, considering the predictions, I would like to note that Trump’s eventual victory was not even close. Both camps are at the moment engrossed in a battle of what I refer to as “the politics of popular vote” in order to seize the narrative on the elections. However, he won 10 more states than Clinton and should be awarded 74 more Electoral votes on 19th December, 2016. Remember, Obama won plus 4 States against Romney and plus 6 states against John McCain. He took 3084 of the 3141 counties in America’s heartland. Let’s not kid ourselves that his victory was in a way marginal or that he has no mandate. This was a trashing whichever way you want to look at it.

We can lay the blame largely on the failure of the Left and I have upon reflection identified 3 main reasons.

First, is the fatal disconnect between the Left and what it claims to represent, Social Liberalism, in its ideal and truest form. Liberalism as a political doctrine speaks to the need for freedom of the individual and the need to enhance and protect this freedom. On the other hand, Socialism speaks equality of all, commonality and the need to safeguard the interest of the weak in guaranteeing their equality. However, it is my opinion that the Left have long departed from the core of these ideals. They have been incapable of blending and presenting these two philosophies into a coherent and consistent representation of their movement. They have in an authoritarian manner moved to place a set value and rights above others. We have seen an increasingly worrying attempt to suppress people’s freedom of conscience, beliefs, expression and values because it is at variance with a section of society. The weak and voiceless in the society at every stage of life are constantly threatened, attacked and in danger of extermination by the Leftist dominated establishment.

Secondly, the tone and nature of the debate from most of the Left appear arrogant, condescending and demeaning. They assume they know what is best for society and simply attempt to force it on everyone irrespective of contrary evidence. It is common to hear Leftist refer to Brexit and Trump supporters as ‘bigots’,’ racists’, ‘fascist’,’ xenophobes’,’ homophobes’, ‘Islamophobes’, ‘misogynist’, ‘bullies’ and so on. I find it tiresome and intellectually lazy. They simply pass on the opportunity to  lay a coherent argument on issues that a lot of people genuinely feel have negatively impacted on their livelihood such as “uncontrolled immigration”, “unfettered globalization”, “lopsided trade deals”, “terrorism”, et al, but are instead happy to tag them with characterizations. This in my opinion appears to be an attempt to shut down any form of reasonable debate for lack of an appropriate counter narrative that speaks to the issue. This pseudo-intellectual and pretentiously elitist style of dishing out these labels at opponents is unintelligent and the “forgotten men and women” are simply not buying it any longer and contrary to what so called progressives might think people not stupid either.

Finally, it’s the hypocrisy of the Left, I find most fascinating. The ease at which they flip positions that is contrary to what they had previously argued against is astonishing. Let me lay down a few instances.
The UK Government promised to implement the decision of the referendum after parliament had passed the EU referendum act of 2015 by a ratio of 6 to 1. However, since the vote, there appears to be an attempt by the establishment using the court and parliament to subvert the wish of the majority of the British voters with arguments such as “the Brexit vote was based on lies and fear” and “Nobody voted to leave the single market”. Well, the former is tacit acceptance of the failure on their part to articulate the “counter narrative” to the “ordinary people” while the latter is simply untrue as the possibility of leaving the single market as a result of Brexit was known and discussed.
In looking at the US elections, I vividly recollect Trump being asked whether he would accept the outcome of the election during one of the debates to which he replied “I will look at it at the time”. He was heavily criticized by the Left as they claimed his response was a danger to US constitutional democracy and could undermine peaceful transition as well lead to riots and protests if he eventually lost.

I am however surprised that the same set of people are now justifying the protest and riots by Clinton supporters as exercising their “first amendment rights”. Also given the attempts for a recount in some states, they have clearly not accepted the outcome of the result the same way they wanted Trump to at the time. Neither have they demanded that Clinton and Obama call their supporters to order.
On the charge of racist voters, let us consider this: In 2008 and 2012, 93% and 95% of blacks voted for Obama respectively, while 88% for Clinton in 2016. How is that trend not racist, but express concern over race when only 58% of white votes for Trump. Trump won more Black and Hispanics voters than Romney did in 2012. And besides swing states like Florida, Ohio, Iowa, Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania all voted for Obama twice, but flipped to Donald Trump in 2016. They do not have any coherent data to support their conclusion that his victory was down to racist voters.
In this wave of Conservatism that is sweeping throughout the world, France appears to be a fascinating place to watch out for with the steady rise of Marine Le Pen and her National Front party coupled with the emergence of Francois Fillion as Republican Party nominee for Next year’s election. The elections are scheduled for next year and though I think Le Pen’s chances are slim given Frances two tier presidential election voting system that might see her losing out in the second round of voting, it will be interesting to follow no matter the outcome as it now appears that France will be tilting “Right” by next year.

Nigeria has lessons to learn from all of these. A sign of Leftism with characteristics of incoherency, style of debate and hypocrisy is gradually creeping its way into the sociopolitical space in Nigeria. Some of it masked as feminism, which has for long aligned itself with the Left and strikes you with its phony and pretentious outrage especially when it comes to social issues. Someone commented that their C-in-C has turned herself into a “mascot for Black Leftist Feminism”, which is sad as it demeans her talent as a brilliant writer. It is important that Nigerians are able to identify and reject it for what it is. We already have enough to deal with as a nation.

In concluding, I would suggest that this might be the best time for the Left to do some soul searching. The importance of the fall of Leftism cannot be overstated because it gives them the opportunity to truly reflect on the consequence of its actions over the decades and seek a return to the true ideals of social liberalism.

Tuesday, 3 June 2014


If you can make it to Abuja, I will like to cordially invite all of you to the upcoming International Pro-Life Conference Abuja that is scheduled to take place from June 5th-7th. It is being organized by the Culture of Life Africa and the Action Family Foundation on behalf of the Catholic Bishops' Conference of Nigeria.

 The Conference will feature a broad array of topics, facilitated by International and Nigerian speakers, on various emergent threats to human life and dignity arising from global policies and practices in healthcare, law, education, and even humanitarian aid, all embedded in a new morally-deficient culture which is destructive to life, marriage, family and faith. There will also be in-depth discussions on solid strategies that Africans can deploy to resist the corrosive affronts of the utilitarian culture which is now being aggressively promoted across the world.
Our hope is not only to execute a great conference for the Nigerian Bishops, but also to start off a solid platform from which to make a coherent response to the Culture of Death which seems to be seeping and spreading into every nation across the world.
Knowing the great passion and potential of our people and our nation, we are hoping to spark a renewed commitment to the defense of marriage, motherhood, family and most essentially human life (from the moment of conception).

I sincerely hope that you would join us in Abuja and also that you might find a way to play a role in any way you can, in propagating this mission and message of life and dignity.

EVENT: International Pro-Life Conference and March for Life Rally
VENUE: National Christian (Ecumenical) Centre, Central Area, Abuja
DATE: June 5th through to 7th, 2014 
TIME: 10AM each day
THEME: Witnessing to the Dignity of Every Human Life".
Chief Host: Archbishop Ignatius Kaigama, President of the Catholic Bishops Conference of Nigeria
special guest speaker: Congressman Chris Smith, Member of the U.S. House of Representatives who is also the Chairman of the U.S. House Subcommittee on Africa, Global Health, Global Human Rights, and International Organizations

This Message is brought to you on behalf of the Founder & President, Culture of Life Africa: 
Obianuju Ekeocha (Ms)

For Further information please contact the above via email:

Saturday, 3 May 2014


If you are reading this, then you are well aware of the case between Bishop Campbell and Deacon Nick (the author of “Protect the Pope” website) both of the Diocese of Lancaster. Well, if you are not, get a summary here, here and here.

Let me first acknowledge that I am a huge admirer of the work of Deacon Nick and would love his “Protect the pope” website to continue the good work it does in service to God and the Church especially as we look forward to the Synod on the Family called by Pope Francis. I have no doubt that his website would add a veritable voice to the debate as we prepare for this Synod.
Unfortunately, I have been less than impressed with the manner in which the whole episode has been handled and I will lay no blame on either party as this has been a classic case of misunderstanding.
With all the information available to me as at “press time”, here are a few of my observations:
1.         I believe Bishop Campbell is a great admirer of the work Deacon Nick does, in his defense of the teachings of the Church and the Petrine office. I have seen no reason to suggest otherwise.
2.         Bishop Campbell’s reason (as stated in the press release) for his request for Deacon Nick to “pause” for a “period of reflection” is not entirely unreasonable.
3.         This same concern as expressed in the letter has also been expressed by some including myself on a few occasions on twitter. (and if my memory serves me correctly by @ccfather who has on about two occasions expressed similar concerns on articles posted on Protect the pope by Deacon Nick through his blog)
4.         Bishop Campbell has the right and a duty to encourage the “Unity of the Church in the service of the Truth”. This requires a great deal of “Charity” even  as he carries out the functions of his office to “Lead”, “Teach” and “Sanctify” the people under his care in the “One”, ”Holy”, ”Catholic” and ”Apostolic” Church.
5.         Deacon Nick for large parts has been great and as I have earlier expressed, is a great admirer of his work. I would like to see him blogging again and soon.
6.         Deacon Nick also needs to take on board some the concerns expressed by the Bishop through his staff as he would be aware of some them through his conversations with other faithful and orthodox Catholics on twitter.
7.     There is no credible report to suggest that Bishop Campbell allows known “dissenting groups or individuals” to mislead the people placed under his care in the Diocese of Lancaster, as some of the press report of this seems to implicitly suggest.
8.         Consequently, Bishop Campbell cannot be blamed if other Bishops in their Dioceses fail to carry out their duties diligently by allowing the said entities mentioned in 7. Above to mislead and scandalize their faithful.
9.         I am of the opinion that this (essentially) private conversation should not have been made public and should have been tactfully dealt with internally by both parties as this has led to the misunderstanding and misrepresentation that we now have.
10.     I am also of the opinion that Bishop Campbell has handled the situation very well and in good faith, but has been made to look bad as a result of the circumstances mentioned in 10. Above.
11.     This is not a criticism of Deacon Nick as he has also done nothing wrong in his work of Defending and Upholding the Truth contained in the Catholic Faith (just like his Patron Saint). We all are guilty of, (“myself included) sometimes straying into territories expressed in the concerns in 3. And 5. Above. But in the case of Deacon Nick because of the position he holds in the Diocese of Lancaster, it is entirely reasonable that the Bishop exercise some oversight in order to avoid fostering division within the “Body of Christ”

Tuesday, 15 April 2014

Prayer for Nigeria in Distress

All powerful and merciful father, you are the God of justice love and peace. You rule over all the Nations of Earth. Power and Might are in your hands and no one can withstand you. We present our country Nigeria before you. We praise and thank for you are the source of all we have and are. We are sorry for all the sins we have committed and for the good deeds we have failed to do.
In your loving forgiveness, keep us save from the punishment we deserve. Lord we are weighed down not only by uncertainties, but also by moral, economic and political problems. Listen to the cries of your people who confidently turn to you. God of infinite goodness, our strength in diversity, Our health in weakness, our comfort in sorrow, Be merciful to us your people. Spare this nation Nigeria from chaos anarchy and doom. Bless us with your kingdom of justice, love and peace. We ask this through Christ our Lord, Amen.

Saturday, 16 November 2013

Rochas’ abortion law MUST GO

This is a reply to A. Abimbola Adelakun article in the punch newspaper (online) on September 19, 2013 titled “Rochas’ abortion law should stay".

There are a few things about A. Abimbola Adelakun article on September 19, 2013 titled “Rochas’ abortion law should stay” that has compelled me to write this response. Large parts of it contained disturbing language, sentiments and soundbites that have long been used by professional and career pro-abortion campaigners to advocate for a procedure that even by her acknowledgement has a terrible physical and psychological effect on women. It hovered around the peripheral issues concerning the politics of abortion playing out in most countries, appealed to emotion and even delved into religion whilst expertly ignoring the “mighty elephant in the room”. This has always been the “modus operandi” of career abortionist.
Before I go ahead to deconstruct her arguments, I think it is important to deal with this “proverbial elephant”. When it comes to abortion, it is sometimes necessary to leave the politics out and deal with the substance. What we are talking about here is the Sanctity of Human Life, the rights accorded it and at what stage. Let me state three facts at this point. Firstly, human life begins from the moment of conception. None of us can point to any other moment other than conception and say “that is when I began to be me”. Abimbola did not tell us when human life actually begins. As human beings, it is important not to deny that our physical development at our present age is not the same when we were teenagers, adolescents, infants, babies or foetuses. Even the word Foetus which comes from the Latin word Fetura –ae, f means a young brood or offspring.  We all started (me and you) as one. ‘We are who we are now, physically, because we developed from what we used to be’. Once conception has taken place and an embryo is formed, if you give it time, let’s say 9 months or 28 years, the only other thing it could be is an infant or adult respectively. It cannot be something else, ever!
Secondly, in a civilized society, Human Life should be preserved, protected and nurtured from the point of conception to its natural end. Finally, every human life is bestowed with certain inalienable ‘rights’, the foremost amongst them: THE RIGHT TO LIFE. Any argument that doesn’t address these three premises directly would be begging the question. This was what made her article the more frustrating because at no point did she make any attempt to address any of these which is very crucial to the moral issue surrounding abortion, but was happy to dance around its politics –left vs. right, liberals vs. conservatives. Let’s forget this ideological label for once and face moral question of abortion. Being prolife is much of a leftist position as it is a conservative stance. It was Medhi Hassan who once wrote in an article for the Newstatesman: here

“Abortion is one of those rare political issues on which left and right seem to have swapped ideologies: right-wingers talk of equality, human rights and “defending the innocent”, while left-wingers fetishise “choice”, selfishness and unbridled individualism.
“My body, my life, my choice.” Such rhetoric has always left me perplexed. Isn’t socialism about protecting the weak and vulnerable, giving a voice to the voiceless? Who is weaker or more vulnerable than the unborn child? Which member of our society needs a voice more than the mute baby in the womb?
Yes, a woman has a right to choose what to do with her body – but a baby isn’t part of her body. The 24-week-old foetus can’t be compared with an appendix, a kidney or a set of tonsils; it makes no sense to dismiss it as a “clump of cells” or a “blob of protoplasm”. However, my motive for writing this column is not merely to revisit ancient arguments, or kick off a philosophical debate on the distinctions between socialism (with its emphasis on equality, solidarity and community) and liberalism (with its focus on individual freedom, autonomy and choice) …”

Let’s deal with the question of “choice” that is always bandied about by career abortionist. It might sound counter intuitive, but I am all for choice (i.e I am prochoice) and individuals acting freely, but as I have mentioned on another forum “When the term a ‘right to choose’ is used, it speaks to its very essence: the question of freedom. Even common law grants us this very essential faculty, but as in common law, this freedom is not absolute. This usually becomes clear when it involves two or more people. As a result, society has a mechanism to ensure the balancing of the very exercise of this freedom. To choose implies that there is more than one alternative. “So, if I am free to choose from more than one alternative why stop me from choosing in this case?” you may ask. Well, society has the responsibility to balance rights in order to ensure a sense of justice, equity, but more crucially to all facets of human society; to a sense of what is Right.  Make no mistake about this, when a woman is pregnant, the ‘rights’ of two (or more in the case of twins…) individuals are at stake.
Abimbola’s failure to address these facts, but instead portray everyone with a prolife persuasion as a religious nutter” doesn’t fly.  You don’t need to have a faith to recognize the importance of protecting life.  This is a subject that bothers on natural law and as such should imprint in the conscience of all people whether you are Theist, Atheist or Non-Theist. One of the world’s most renowned and celebrated Atheist, the late Christopher Hitchens was known to be very much prolife as with a lot of other people with no faith.  So, let’s get this straight, Abortion for whatever reason is an intrinsically evil act, faith or no faith.
An unwanted Pregnancy is not the end of the world. There are families out there prepared to adopt the child and take care of the baby should the mother be in a position not be able to. I cringed and almost leapt out of my skin when I read this in her article:

“And to those who make the banal argument of if-your-parents-did-not-give-birth-to-you-would-you-be-here, I ask in return, “Since your birth, what good have you done the planet?”

Abimbola, maybe you might not have done any good to the planet, I for one have and I am sure a lot of others have. While her comment that “Catholics are already ahead of the Vatican dictates” is about as silly a statement as you will ever come across. So, because some (very important qualification) Catholics  use contraception despite the church’s teaching does not in the same vain make  Catholics ahead of the Church because some Catholics ‘lie’ or ‘steal’. To be frank, I am not sure that comment deserved the dignity of a reply.
And on the question of Maternal Mortality Rate, abortion is not a medical treatment and there is no evidence to show that it saves life.  It is known in medical parlance that “Abortion is never medically necessary to save the life of a mother”. On the other, hand experience has shown that it leaves women in a worse state than they were before the procedure.
 It is important to clarify that there is no correlation between strict abortion laws and the rate of maternal mortality (MMR). It, on the other hand, depends on the quality and accessibility of healthcare to pregnant women. If you look at the chat (courtesy of the CIA) on maternal mortality rate (MMR) worldwide, you will notice that countries with poor healthcare system (African countries) top the chat. Countries like Poland, Malta, Lithuania, Ireland and so many others have a lower MMR than even the US or UK (with liberal abortion laws) with their very restrictive abortion laws. Chile with one of the most restrictive abortion laws in the world has a low MMR (almost comparable to that of the UK and US). Taking the Chile example, it was noted that the MMR has undergone a tremendous reduction over the last 50 years, despite the fact that it has continually tightened its abortion law over the last 25 years. It showed that MMR fell irrespective of the change in law. I think this is the point Gov. Rochas Okorocha should reflect on and as with education and other social infrastructure, healthcare especially for pregnant women (planned or unplanned) should be of pristine quality and easily accessible.
In the world today there is a momentum and a ground swell of popular opinion going against the abortion mindset. In the state of Texas (where Abimbola presently resides) a new law restricting abortion and which could lead to the closure of a lot of the clinics was recently passed into law.
Anyone who has seen a sonogram or seen when babies struggle for life during an abortion procedure will never deny the humanity of an unborn baby. That is why wealthy abortion providers are prepared to fight at any cost to prevent a change in law that will require women seeking to procure an abortion to sit through the ultrasound scan of the baby first, to prevent them having a change of heart. There have been numerous cases of women opting against having abortion after viewing the ultrasound scan. We know of the case of Abby Johnson (who herself had 2 abortions in her early 20’s), a planned parenthood Director in Texas who became prolife when viewing a baby struggle for life during an abortion procedure. There is also the story of Dr Bernard Nathanson, a doctor who was known to have carried out more abortion than any other doctor in his base of Newyork City. He went through a change of heart when viewing on an ultrasonic scan, the baby he was trying to abort, evade his clinical equipments. He vowed, from that day, never to carry out an abortion again. Norma McCorvey, popularly referred by her pseudonym of ‘Jane Roe’ of “Roe vs Wade”, the infamous supreme court ruling that paved the way for the legalization of abortion in the US, is now a prolife activist and unsuccessfully sought to have a judicial review of the 1973 judgment. These cases are replicate worldwide and are increasingly becoming the norm. This is the reason why a lot of abortion providers are struggling stop the law from changing and remain in business. Why would Nigeria then seek to be moving towards abortion when the rest of the world is trying to move the other way.
Contrary to Abimbola’s belief, opinion polls consistently show that more women are against abortion than men the world over. In fact a You-Gov poll conducted last year in the UK showed that 49 per cent of women, compared to 24 per cent of men, support a reduction in the abortion limit.  The “march for life” that is held regularly around the world is overwhelming dominated my women of all ages.
 As an indigene of Imo State, I would advice Gov. Rochas Okorocha to listen to the voice of his people and to do away with such dehumanising, vile and obnoxious law. He should strive to use his mandate to provide for and protect all human life to be best of his abilities from the “womb to the tomb”. After all he was put there by them to be their servant as he regularly reminds all in the media.