General Babangida must NOT become President of Nigeria

It is being reported that a spokesman for General Ibrahim Badamasi Babangida has told the international media that General Babangida will run for president in the 2011 presidential poll after seeking the nomination of the ruling People's Democratic Party (PDP)

Personally, I cannot think of a more inappropriate candidate for the presidency of Nigeria. If the PDP candidate must be from northern Nigeria, there is a multitude of Nigerians from the north who are better qualified than General Babangida and whose reputations are not tarnished in the way that Babangida's is.

As my friend and fellow blogger Akin so aptly put it, "New Blood NOT Incredibly Bad Blood" is what Nigeria needs at this moment for the country's leadership. "General Babangida is incredibly bad blood" Akin states, and I am in complete agreement. It was under Babangida's tenure as president that corruption became endemic in Nigeria, the economy deteriorated and democracy was shoved aside. In fact, it was on the back of Babangida that the evil Abacha regime came to power.

Nigeria as a nation is already in a weakened state, due largely to the inept and incompetent leadership of recent years, a malaise that potentially will only be exacerbated by a Babangida presidency.

Given that sycophants abound in Nigeria, many of whom were enriched and thereby empowered by Babangida and his evil progeny Abacha, and who therefore are today in positions of power and influence, I am justified in my fear that the voices of millions of concerned Nigerians will be ignored; those who like me dread the return to power of the "Evil Genius", (a nickname Babangida gave himself). Shockingly, Babangida on his website even refers to himself as "Nigeria's Best President". May God help us...

You may want to read this interesting piece written by Sola Salako.

This G20 Summit

History teaches us that is it not very often when two or more countries agree on something that each country will act upon what was agreed on in exactly the same way. In the G20, there are 19 countries and the European Union, which itself is a political union of 27 member states, only four of which are represented independently in the G20. The way I see it, this is a hodge-podge of diverging interests and it seems clear that no form of consensus can ever be achieved in actuality, although on paper the final communique to be produced at the end of this summit will undoubtedly purport that there has in fact been consensus. Recent political history is replete with examples of agreements made on paper, on which are conferred as many different interpretations as there are signatories to the agreements.

The very nature of the G20 itself is such that there can and should be no disagreement. Yet, even before the meeting began it was well known, with regard to regulatory reform, that there was a split between the Anglo Saxon capitalist model of the UK and the USA on the one hand, and the more interventionist European model of Germany and France. Indeed, France's Monsieur Sarkozy even threatened to walk out if no firm measures were taken to rein in the banks and hedge funds.

Gordon Brown's brainwave of a fiscal stimulus, a major new initiative to kick start the various economies has come up against a solid roadblock. Angela Merkel, (and not her alone), has firmly indicated that she has no intention of letting the G20 write her national budget. Not to mention the recent cutting words of Brazil's Lula da Silva, blaming white blue-eyed males for the financial crisis. All in all, I expect little more than rhetoric from this summit, as opposed to solid and detailed figures. The rhetoric will lean towards highlighting the benefits of concerted international effort in dealing with the financial crisis, but few commitments will be had from governments, if at all.

Methinks that one positive outcome of this summit will be the formalisation of the shift of the balance of power from the traditional economic powers like the US, Japan, Germany and the UK, to the newer players like China and India. And particularly in relation to the issue of voting rights in the IMF, taking into account the fact that an enlarged role for the IMF inevitably carries a substantial price tag, a burden that the traditional powers will not be terribly keen to shoulder in the present economic situation.

While trying not to get bogged down with all this economic stuff that we have been bombarded with recently, most Londoners are basking in the limelight of Obamamania. Many know there are several heads of government in town, but everyone, including the almighty BBC, are following Obama around. It's almost like an Obama state visit. And Michelle, she's grabbing all the headlines.