My job is to comfort their victims, share their horrific deeds, and document their interminable exit

The metaphysical model of death is a three-way process–social withdrawal, biological (organ) shutdown, and psychological departure (mental exit). Former Zimbabwean leader Robert Mugabe has finally fulfilled these conditions at 95–two years after he was forced to relinquish power to end a disgusting 37-year rule.  

By Anthony Obi Ogbo

Mugabe’s final moments were a contrast to his years as a dictator.  His physical changes were vivid as he emaciated hourly. Grounded on his ailing bed in a treatment facility in faraway Singapore, this dictator watched his external world gradually diminished into a hopeless state that eventually lured him into his current perpetual sleep.  

Do not get me wrong: from that Austrian-born leader of the Nazi Party, Adolf Hitler, and the Killer-leader of the Soviet Union, Joseph Stalin, through Benito Mussolini of the Kingdom of Italy, every dictator, including Mugabe has a success story. He was an icon of freedom in Africa’s political fraternity. Undeniably, he is a pan-Africanist who once championed the liberation movement of his people. In fact, his influence on the history of Zimbabwe remains ineffaceable.   

Today, two years after his ejection from office, Mugabe is finally dead. He may not be allowed into Heaven because he would question God on why he created the White Race. Equally, he would be denied entry into hell because he might go there to seize their lands.  So where would the almighty Mugabe go?

But why would a dictator who once claimed the ownership of a country he ruled and abused for 37 years die in a treatment facility in another country? That is the characteristic of the African dictator who would deny their constituent healthcare but send their families abroad for treatment; who consequently would run down their education system and send their families to the most expensive schools in the west. Mugabe is no exception.

His leadership of the former British colony was red marked with bloodshed, persecution of political opponents and a pattern of large-scale election roguery. Mugabe watched his people perish under senseless political, social, and economic policies that triggered uncontrolled inflation, leaving his country the worst economy in the continent.  He shut down the opposition and tortured his critics as a hobby. He usually would invoke a pretentious “Blame-the-west” tactics to sidetrack his leadership woes.

His forced- resignation on November 21, 2017, made good news nationwide as Zimbabweans took to the street to celebrate an end to Mugabe’s dictatorship. He was 93 at the time and could not stand on his own for 20 seconds. Today, two years after his ejection from office, Mugabe is finally dead. He may not be allowed into Heaven because he would question God on why he created the White Race. Equally, he would be denied entry into hell because he might go there to seize their lands.  So where would the almighty Mugabe go?

I have nothing to do with their ailing moments. Thus, I have nothing to do with the death of Mugabe. As a matter of personal values–I do not mourn dictators. As a compassionate soul, my job is to comfort their victims. As a journalist, I have a duty to share their horrific deeds and document their interminable exit. I document and share spectacular images of their funerals and compile those deceiving eulogies by hypocrites that grace their funerals. Notwithstanding these values, I would say, Rest in Perfect Peace Mugabe.

Nevertheless such is life–a weird stage where distasteful clowns make appearances, perform and eventually leave. Mugabe played his role on this stage as a repentant self-made demigod, who annoyed peace until eventually, the blows of his wicked powers were subdued by death.

Please do not accuse me of mischievously being insensitive because that is not the intent. I have nothing to do with their ailing moments. Thus, I have nothing to do with the death of Mugabe. As a matter of personal values–I do not mourn dictators. As a compassionate soul, my job is to comfort their victims. As a journalist, I have a duty to share their horrific deeds and document their interminable exit. I document and share spectacular images of their funerals and compile those deceiving eulogies by hypocrites that grace their funerals. Notwithstanding these values, I would say, Rest in Perfect Peace Mugabe.

♦ Anthony Ogbo, PhD, Adjunct Professor at the Texas Southern University is the author of the Influence of Leadership (2015)  and the Maxims of Political Leadership (2019). Contact: anthony@guardiannews.us

Forbes “who-is-who or who-is-Not” series remain a marketing strategy facilitated through a questionable process to woo the highest bidders, but the repercussions are eating deep into their integrity. 

A violation of fundamental standards in professional study experimentation is a big deal. In fact, the integrity of all experiments and professional research studies are often preserved by codes for scholarly conduct and ethical behavior implanted to minimize false reporting and other disreputable activities. Given this circumstance,   a chain of publications by Forbes using specific experimental ratings to pronounce who is rich or poor among regions, gender, and other categories of businesses is emitting some red signals.

By Anthony Obi Ogbo

Forbes is an American bi-weekly business magazine reputed for who-is-who features related to finance, industry, investment, and marketing. With outstanding circulation figures, this magazine has been around since 1917, spinning topical feature stories on every subject areas, including communications, science, politics, and law.

However, contradictions and controversies that pervade Forbes research and publications must not just be ignored.  For instance, the recent arrest of one Obinwanne Okeke (Forbes 100 Most Influential Young Africans 2018) in the United States by operatives of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) has validated every suspicion.  Okeke, an acclaimed global entrepreneur who has long been celebrated by Forbes was nabbed for allegedly defrauding top American companies of huge sums of money.

For years, Okeke, chairman ‘Invictus Group’ was Forbes-endorsed model for entrepreneurial success. He had appeared on the cover of Forbes Africa who named him one of ’30 Entrepreneurs Under 30 to Watch’. He was one of the featured speakers at the Forbes Under-30 Summit EMEA 2017 held in Tel Aviv and Jerusalem, Israel. This summit convened the greatest young entrepreneurs and game-changers from America, Europe, the Middle East, and Africa to foster world-changing ideas.

In the age of information technology, the major concern remains how Forbes could explain this romance without authentic verification of Okeke’s sources of income.

This article is not intended to attack the fundamental nucleus of the entrepreneurial process or success. In strong words, it is critical of how a few editors can just sit down in an obscure Jersey City office and joggle up figures to control who-is-who or who-is-Not.

In my last book, Maxima of Political Leadership,” I explained how Forbes controverted its own grading track with study ranks and figures that were inconsistent with reality. I faulted Forbes 2018 World’s Most Innovative Companies because none of the top six made it to the first ten companies listed in their World’s Most Valuable Brands. Thus, it would be hard to explain how Forbes top 7 technology-based most valuable firms (Apple, Google, Microsoft, Facebook, Amazon, Samsung, and AT&T) were not found in its top list of innovative firms. Strange, isn’t it?

To make its activities more distrustful, Forbes has been consistent with its promotion and publication of unscrupulous global merchants with a questionable source of income. The publication would always label their sources of income as “oil and gas” or “self-made.” But the question is, when has “self-made” become a source of 10-figure business income?

This might be the case with this woman called Ms. Folorunsho Alakija who was leading a high-volume offshore scheme. Forbes romanced with Alakija’s wealth without appropriately investigating the ethical matters behind her very source of oil and gas business. Yet Alakija made it to Forbes lists of Power Women 2016, Billionaires 2019; Africa’s Billionaires 2019; with her source of income listed “oil and self-made.”

Forbes further totally failed to investigate that this woman’s wealth was tied to two of the most corrupt regimes in the continent’s history of politics. Alakija’s fashion business was tied to Nigeria’s president Ibrahim Babangida family, whereas her oil and gas ventures were indirectly sourced and sustained by President Olusegun Obasanjo.

 It may be recalled that in 2016,   Obasanjo bragged during a public speaking that Mrs. Alakija, was among the 25 billionaires he made during his tenure as President. Alakija,in turn,  accused Obasanjo’s administration of forcefully taking back a bulk of the profit generated from the said oil venture.  The revelation without a doubt was that these corrupt leaders and business folks were busy enriching themselves off of public funds in a country where unemployment and poverty rate are off the roof. 

Aliko Dangote, of the Dangote Group, is no exception. Dangote is an acclaimed Africa’s richest man who would claim he made his money being the continent’s largest cement producer. Dangote made it to Forbes lists of Powerful People 2018, Billionaires 2019, and Africa’s Billionaires 2019, with his sources of income listed as cement, sugar, flour, and again “Self Made.”

Mr. Dangote was not honest about his business. Dangote has systematically colluded with various regimes in Africa to stockpile government contracts; colluded with regimes to quash competition and create a monopoly and product scarcity to drive price and demand. He had used billions made off of unscrupulous ventures to conspire with different interests to influence elections through backdoor donations and sponsorships; and consequently used his wealth to direct political and economic interests to himself.

With its sloppy features and documentary stories often promoting crooked billionaires with questionable character, Forbes should be investigated to determine if there is collusion in the process to fabricate figures for abnormal profit.  Research studies should seek truth and cultivate new knowledge to grow social development. In modern research, legal and ethical issues associated with the subject and researcher are a great component. Fabrication and manipulation of data make up serious scientific misconduct. Forbes must come clean.

Forbes “who-is-who or who-is-Not” series remain a marketing strategy facilitated through a questionable process to woo the highest bidders, but the repercussions are eating deep into their integrity.  The motivation to commit scientific misconduct in these publications are obvious–to boost circulation, enlarge advertising base, and rake in revenue by auctioning their ratings.

♦ Anthony Ogbo, PhD, Adjunct Professor at the Texas Southern University is the author of the Influence of Leadership (2015)  and the Maxims of Political Leadership (2019). Contact: anthony@guardiannews.us

Revolution breeds anarchy. Political activism becomes hooliganism when they are engineered by unscrupulous political vandals with ulterior motives.

So when the owner of the Sahara Reporters Mr. Omowole Sowore was arrested by security agents for his planned violent protests against the Nigerian government, some activists went on the air to preach the civil liberty gospel. The major argument was that arresting this activist in a protest that has not occurred is undemocratic because no laws have been broken. That makes sense, but utterly nonsensical in practical terms.

By Anthony Obi Ogbo

The basic way to manage domestic terrorism is to wrestle the symptoms and mitigate them. Leaders who fail to follow this rule are often caught up with horrendous incidents where they would end up counting dead bodies.  As I write, the United States of America are reeling from yet more gruesome sights of violence and death when in less than 13 hours and nearly 1,600 miles apart, two mass shootings left at least 29 dead and 53 injured.

Sowore’s arrest triggered a long thread of disagreement in the social media about the empirical meaning of the term “revolution.” Some defended Sowore’s proposed revolution as a mere protest because there were no violent undertones, whereas others suggested that his call might bring violence and anarchy. In fact, some compared the current administration with the previous regime of Dr. Goodluck Jonathan – arguing that the latter offered unprecedented freedom to his opposition. But democracy does not work like that.  If indeed the former President Jonathan failed to prosecute vandals who threatened his regime with violent revolution that might not be democratic but a clueless display of idiocy.

In political governance, the severity of a call for a revolution would depend on the actors, their conduct, and political environment.  But for Nigeria, a nation which has endured a horrific civil war, multiple coups, and several destructive and violent protests, a call for a revolution by a controversial group or individual might not just be overlooked by any meaningful law enforcement.

There is no doubt that the word “Revolution” is broad and lacks unambiguous meaning in basic definition. Also, most scholars would agree that the universal objective of any revolution would be to facilitate a transformation from an existing state to a higher level of system success – which may or may not be violent. However, in political governance, the severity of a call for a revolution would depend on the actors, their conduct, and political environment.  But for Nigeria, a nation which has endured a horrific civil war, multiple coups, and several destructive and violent protests, a call for a revolution by a controversial group or individual might not just be overlooked by any meaningful law enforcement.

Sowore’s latest case is basically a misleading political venture. From all indications, he wanted to be arrested so as to build a political base from a socially vulnerable populace who would see him as a hero. He was the Presidential Candidate for the African Action Congress (AAC), a party he founded. However, he failed terribly in the election. 

His political career crumbled soon after the election, when in July, a Federal High Court in Abuja validated his suspension in his own party. He was suspended February 23, for allegedly engaging in anti-party activities. This was when Sowore switched his title to “comrade.”

His political career crumbled soon after the election, when in July, a Federal High Court in Abuja validated his suspension in his own party. He was suspended February 23, for allegedly engaging in anti-party activities. This was when Sowore switched his title to “comrade.” He quickly consulted prominent activists opposed to the regime to market his project. He used his social media platform to share videos advocating a violent revolution in a proposed nationwide protest scheduled for August 5, 2019.” In his own words, Sowore vowed, “This is just a rehearsal of what is going to be the biggest revolution in this country”, claiming that some “big wings” in the opposition parties especially the PDP had already accepted it as a new face in the country.

Based on Sowores proposals, we may not need to recite any laws to assess his objectives. He is a self-acclaimed revolutionist who wants to lead a violent rebellion against his government. In some of the videos he posted in the social media, he incited young folks to joining his cause – suggesting unrestricted resistance and possible showdown. Such proposals would definitely leave any law enforcement with several options to mitigate chaos as well as investigate possible violations. 

Just a little background – Sowore  is not a new name in current Nigeria’s leadership crisis. He is not a part of the current government, but the role he played during the electioneering season that elected the incumbent leaves him without further introduction in the Nigeria’s political history.  He operated the Sahara Reporters, an internet controversial news blog which he started and operated at the time in his Manhattan’s studio apartment.

He untruthfully claimed that Sahara Reporters was set up to fight corruption and wrong government practices – thus received undisclosed grants from both the Ford Foundation and Omidyar Foundation. Contrary to these objectives,  Sowore was accused of using this platform as a bargaining tool to court unscrupulous politicians whom he collaborated with to blackmail the previous regime headed by Dr.  Jonathan.

He untruthfully claimed that Sahara Reporters was set up to fight corruption and wrong government practices – thus received undisclosed grants from both the Ford Foundation and Omidyar Foundation. Contrary to these objectives,  Sowore was accused of using this platform as a bargaining tool to court unscrupulous politicians whom he collaborated with to blackmail the previous regime headed by Dr.  Jonathan.

For instance, the regime accused Sowore of  receiving a $5m mansion-gift from the major opposition party, the All Progressives Congress (APC). The regime claimed Sowore is being bribed to use his online news platform to “mislead and hoodwink gullible and highly brainwashed Nigerians through highly biased, junk, sensational and sectional journalism.” But Sowore denied the allegations, describing President Goodluck Jonathan as a “cheap blackmailer and liar’. In fact, Sahara Reporters at the time published an unsubstantiated poll which showed that Dr. Jonathan “would be defeated by 75% if pitched against Buhari”  in the 2015 general election.

But besides the aforementioned trade of accusations and counter-accusations, Sowore’s collaboration with the APC in pulling down the incumbent at the time to elect this current regime remains as clear as spring water. He supported unequivocally, all fabricated campaign propaganda orchestrated by the opposition and promoted editorial columns and video blogs tailored to frantically destroy the structure of Nigeria’s politics in order to pave way for his opposition collaborators.

So the issue is how such a character could turn around and become a “Comrade” overnight  in the same democratic structure he painstakingly destroyed. Do not get this wrong.  Sowore has the right to agitate his grievances with the regime or their policies. In a democracy, the statutory functions of civil liberty is not negotiable. The regime cannot authoritatively interfere with the citizens’ rights to peacefully assembly, protest, speak out, or advocate a redress of policies. But it must also be noted that in constitutional democracy where written laws direct all functions of the government, a call for a revolution could be treasonable, especially where it is perceived to obstruct national security or public safety.

A protest or call for revolution loses the civil liberty protection where actors and actions or proposed engagements undermine the laws of the land. Furthermore, whereas freedom to protest is unequivocally legitimate, inflammatory communication systematized by actors loaded with ulterior motives to invoke ferocious actions might be subversive and felonious.

♦ Anthony Ogbo, PhD, Adjunct Professor at the Texas Southern University is the author of the Influence of Leadership (2015)  and the Maxims of Political Leadership (2019). Contact: anthony@guardiannews.us