THE ECONOMIST DOES A HATCHET JOB ON JONATHAN, ENDORSES BUHARI?

Icheoku says the gang-up against Nigeria's current march forward is continuing as The British Economist has now officially unveiled its mask by endorsing a brutal dictator and a murderer, a man who The Economist agreed 'has blood on his hands', for Nigeria's president? Query: how can any Nigerian people's loving magazine prefer a man who has murdered Nigerians to a man who is trying his best under the circumstances to improve the lot of the people, admitted his pace might not have been as fast enough as expected, as their president? Icheoku says any Nigerian who does not find some sinister motive in this supposed endorsement of Muhammadu Buhari by The colonial British The Economist magazine, must not have his or her thinking-hat on. What manner of a person or magazine would rather have a murderer ruling the Nigerian people but a nearing bankrupt tabloid with declining readership which is trying to assert and insert itself in a purely internal affairs of Nigeria. 

In their very hateful and extremely biased article - "The least awful", titled "A former dictator is a better choice than a failed president", the magazine wrote "Sometimes there are no good options. Nigeria goes to the polls on February 14th to elect the next president, who will face problems so large - from rampant corruption to a jihadist insurgency - that they could break the country apart, with dire consequences for Nigerians and the world. And yet, as Africa's biggest economy stages its most important election since the restoration of civilian rule in 1999, and perhaps since the civil war four decades ago, Nigerians must pick between the incumbent, Goodluck Jonathan, who has proved an utter failure, and the opposition leader, Muhammadu Buhari, a former military dictator with BLOOD ON HIS HANDS. The candidates stand as symbols of a broken political system that makes all Nigeria's problems even more intractable." 

Icheoku queries, who made The Economist a judge over Nigerians or gave them the right or impetus to decide for Nigerians who to choose as their president? How dare The Economist become this intrusive in who becomes Nigeria's president or even fathom a say, trying to influence the outcome of a purely internal affairs of a sovereign state? Icheoku alerts Nigerians not to fall to this baiting by a stupid racist white people's magazine, out to get Nigerians into reversing all the gains of this past few years, when good governance has catapulted Nigeria into the front of Africa's best economy as well as one of the world's fastest growing economy. As for the white people, who Icheoku knows very well, black people don't matter; and whatever they could do to stall any of their growth anywhere including in Nigeria, they would gladly do and so is The Economist latest dabbling in Nigeria's forthcoming election. Icheoku avers that The Economist is simply propagating the white peoples' well known agenda to stunt Africans and in this case, Nigeria; and they must not be allowed to have their way, not this time. Icheoku says to hell with The Economist and their unsolicited meddling in an entirely domestic affairs of Nigeria. Icheoku says The Economist should know that Nigerians and only Nigerians are and will be the sole deciders of who governs them on February 14, 2015.

Continuing the magazine wrote " Mr Jonathan....stumbled into the presidency.......Mr Jonathan has shown little willingness to tackle endemic corruption. When the central bank governor reported that $20 billion had been stolen, his reward was to be sacked." Icheoku retorts, what has The Economist got to gain by reminding the world particularly Nigerians, that President Jonathan "stumbled" into the presidency when every person already knew the fact of how his presidency began? Yet The Economist was clever by half in not pointing out that President Jonathan had since after the initial "stumbling" into the presidency, WON as of his own right, the presidency of Nigeria in an election. The Economist went way back to 2010 Jonathan's succession to late President Yar'Adua's presidency; but intentionally left out the fact that President Jonathan ran and won the presidency in 2011 and against the same Muhammadu Buhari he is currently locked in a near dead-heat for the same office this 2015. So query, whose hatchet job is The Economist doing with their useless endorsement of a brutal dictator, whom they reluctantly admitted, have the blood of innocent Nigerians on his hand? Yet The Economist would rather a bloody despot sit over Nigerians' affairs despite his  vagrant abuse of their human rights, than for a president, who is doing his best under the circumstance, to continue to safely navigate the ship of the Nigeria state. 

Continuing, The Economist wrote, "Worse, on Mr Jonathan's watch much of the north of the country has been in flames. 18,000 people have died in political violence. Another 1.5 million have fled their homes. The insurgency is far from Mr Jonathan's southern political heartland and afflicts people more likely to vote for the opposition. He has shown little enthusiasm for tackling it, and even less competence. Quick to offer condolences to France after attack on Charlie Hebdo, Mr Jonathan waited almost two weeks before speaking about a Boko Haram attack that killed hundreds, perhaps thousands of his compatriots." Icheoku in response says who gave The Economist the 18,000 number of Nigerians killed by Boko Haram, they are bandying about? Where did they collate the figures from or did they sit in the comfort confines of their London air-conditioned offices and magically conjured the figure of 18,000 Nigerian perished, when none of their correspondents can pinpoint Chibok on the map, betting on their life? The Economist did not address the problem of its Western countries refusing to sell arms to Nigeria to fight the Boko Haram scourge, yet it was frontal in telling the world that 18,000 Nigerians have perished as a result of Boko Haram, with 1.5 million others displaced. Icheoku asks, would this number of Nigerians have suffered this fate if Western governments had rushed aid and help to Nigerian government and military to checkmate this mayhem. 

Icheoku says as with every tabloid out to gotcha you, The Economist just did a nasty hatchet job on Nigeria's President Jonathan, trying to whip up sentiments and inflame passion and ignite ethnic tension in a society that is already roiling over. What does The Economist want to achieve by stating that "The insurgency is far from Mr Jonathan's southern political heartland and afflicts people more likely to vote for the opposition?" Who told The Economist that those Boko Haram enclave would readily prefer Muhammadu Buhari to Jonathan. Who told The Economist that the president shows little enthusiasm in taking his country back from these insurgents from hell called Boko Haram? Further, what is wrong with President Jonathan consoling the French people following the fate they suffered in the hands of some Islamist terrorist; in similar manner as Northeastern Nigerians have suffered under the Boko Haram insurgency? Instead of The Economist questioning the French for not consoling Nigerians for their own loses, they are busy attacking a President who merely extended a hand of fellowship for the French people in their time of mourning; admitted President Jonathan did not personally visit France like so many other heads of state and governments, numbering forty-four, during the march of solidarity with France. Possibly The Economist desires to plunge Nigeria into anarchy with their exaggerated figures of Nigerians killed as well as those displaced as a result of the Boko Haram insurgence. Icheoku is emphatic that the number of victims and affected Nigerians as quoted by The Economist is very much over-exaggerated figures; and not what is on the ground as The economist would otherwise like the world to believe.

Further, The Economist wrote, "The singled bright spot of his rule has been Nigeria's economy, one of the world's fastest-growing. Yet that is largely despite the government rather than because of it; and falling oil prices will temper the boom." Icheoku queries, if it was indeed solely because of the people of Nigeria rather than an effectively tailored Nigeria government policies, why did the same Nigerian economy not achieve the same growth under previous governments in Nigeria, since the people of Nigeria always remained a constant in the equation? Icheoku says if it was merely because of the people and not the government, were the people sleeping through past governments and suddenly woke up to miraculously change things for the better under the present government? The fact of the matter remains that from the gloating of The Economist that "falling oil price will temper the boom," it is clearly obvious why the magazine wrote the nonsensical and not that they truly and honestly meant well for Nigerians by advising them on who to elect as their president. Icheoku says therefore Nigerians must rise up in unison and tell all these Western imperialists vultures and their The Economist megaphone, to shove it. To hell with these colonialists who have refused to help their former African colonies achieve greatness and are continually sabotaging every effort being made by black Africans to free themselves from shackles of under-development.

The Economist wrote, "Nigerians typically die eight years younger than their poorer neighbors in nearby Ghana," but they failed to add that under the Jonathan's government, there was an improved life expectancy, regardless of whether or not Nigerians died eight years younger than their neighbors. Query: did Nigerians suddenly started dying eight years younger because President Jonathan magically brought about the outcome? The fact of the matter is that The Economist, reading in between the lines of their acerbic commentary on the Jonathan's government, is clearly demonstrating an asinine hatred for President Jonathan, a man they merely addressed as "MR", not even acknowledging his office as president of Nigeria or his doctorate degree by addressing him as a Doctor or PhD. 

But it seems The Economist was only interested in propagandizing their hatred for President Jonathan, pointing out only his perceived failures, while tactically remaining mute as to the root causes of the supposed failures. A more objective magazine, which has no dog in the fight, would have objectively pointed out the challenges faced by the Jonathan government which is being sabotaged both internally and externally, especially by the western conspiracy not to have him succeed. Icheoku calls on Nigerians to now truly see the February 14 election for what it is - a full liberation from all these powers of darkness and truly declare their independence from these elements. The election is equally a test of their intelligence in choosing wisely a better and more people's orientated president to lead them. Otherwise how could anyone including The Economist, seriously prefer an elementary school certificate holder to a PhD holder for Nigeria's president; especially one who has the blood of Nigerians on his hand? Nigerians should ask The Economist, if it were in the United Kingdom, would they elect a murderer as their prime minister or would such a murderer instead have since be locked up and away in prison, where he belongs instead of campaigning for him to move into Nigeria's Aso Rock?  Icheoku asks The Economist, would they let a Muhammadu Buhari into their 10 Downing Street and if not why are they canvassing for his lease of Aso Rock? 

Why would The Economist wish for Nigerians what they would not accept nor take - to have a murderer preside over the British affairs? Imagine a Muhammadu Buhari who The Economist admitted was a military coupist, whose rule was "nasty and brutish" and whose "buharism"-styled governance was destructive, yet they want such an animal to be Nigeria's president? A Muhammadu Buhari who  quoting The Economist, "banned political meetings and free speech, detained thousands, used secret tribunals and executed people for crimes that were not capital offenses", yet The Economist wants such a perverter and traducer of the Nigerian people to become Nigeria's president? Icheoku berates The Economist that they are merely putting words into Nigerians' mouth when they inferred that 'many Nigerians think such a scumbag should be given another chance' as their leader. The truth is that the evidence on the grounds, short of the APC propaganda, is at variance with this conclusion and does not collaborate their assertion.  

Icheoku says imagine The Economist wishing Nigerians "a sandals-wearing ascetic" for president when Nigeria is not an ultra religious conservative wretched society? Nigeria is also not the poorest of the poor countries in Africa or even when measured against other countries of the world to have such poor-rat non-motivational character as their president. The Economist would rather have for Nigeria, a president who is severely too austere, very mean and who abstains from anything that makes life worth living? Icheoku berates this as another subterranean evidence of an extreme attempt by the white man controlled The Economist to see Nigeria cut to size and pushed back into the doldrums of economic inactivity and its attendant poverty. Look at The Economist, green with envy and complaining that Nigerian ministers could afford expensive wrist watches? Icheoku asks if not Nigerian ministers, who? If Saudi Arabia, an equally oil producing country could afford such exhibitionism and The Economist does not see anything bad with their ministers, why Nigeria's? Icheoku would like The Economist to know that majority of Nigerian ministers come from money and have expensive taste atypical Nigerians, before coming to serve in their various capacities as ministers. So salary or not, they could afford good stuff including "expensive wristwatches worth many times their annual salary", as they do not depend on their meagre salary to afford a comfortable lifestyle. 

Icheoku says The Economist was quick to point out that Muhammadu Buhari "repeatedly stood for election and accepted the outcome when he lost", but cleverly avoided or did not include the mayhem his defeats wrought on the country, resulting in numerous loss of lives and properties in the hands of Buhari-encouraged irate supporters? What a magazine that supposedly has no dog in the fight but which failed woefully in masking its bias, writing a very skewed commentary on Nigeria's forthcoming election. The Economist was equally telling Nigerians that only "a Northerner and Muslim" could have legitimacy to govern Nigeria, when Nigeria is not a Muslim country but a secular multi-ethnic and multi-religious country, not exclusively Northerners? Icheoku says Nigerians, now you know who actually is fueling the born-to-rule mentality of the Hausa/Fulanis - the people who skewed the contraption called Nigeria to favor the Hausa/Fulani in the first place, despite what Lord Lugard pointed out in his hand-over notes  in 1918 is their obvious shortcoming. 

The Economist is also telling Nigerians that only a military man can rule Nigeria and that Nigerian army is demoralized; yet the United Kingdom is not ruled by a military man and neither did The Economist include that the reason for the initial demoralization of the Nigerian army is the initial lack of weapons to fight Boko Haram, which The Economist's Western brother countries conspired to deny Nigerian army in their battle against the insurgents. Icheoku says The Economist did not even acknowledge the fact that some substantial progress is being made under the circumstance, especially the gains recorded as well as the push and confinement of Boko Haram out of several states to now merely a corner of the Northeastern Bornu State. 

Lastly and very luckily too, The Economist as well as their Westerner antagonists of Nigeria and their President Jonathan, will not vote in this Nigerians  election. Only Nigerians would and therefore it is for Nigerians to decide who to choose as their president and not a thousand of biased The Economist or any of their Western haters. Icheoku says Muhammadu Buhari is not the change Nigerians desire nor deserve and therefore Nigerians would not have him as their president. Muhammadu Buhari cannot save Nigeria but would plummet all the gains of the past years if given the mandate; but luckily Nigerians know better than The Economist is giving them credit for by trying to influence their election and would once again tell Muhammadu Buhari, no, thanks but no, to his offer to rule them. Icheoku maintains that President Jonathan has repeatedly shown his will and capacity to galvanize the country as one indivisible entity and would not stand by and watch the country go up in flames like the Balkan states, which The Economist's people supervised its devolution. But unlike the Balkans, Nigerians would not let these Western vultures preside over the fragmentation of Nigeria and on February 14, would deny them their ill-wish to see Nigeria gone with the wind. On February 14, tell The Economist that their game is up an blown open, VOTE GEJ.