Connect with us

POLITICS

Nigeria: Politics in Wig and Gown

Published

on

Spread the love

 By Chidi Amuta

Ordinarily, it would be hazardous to judge the judgment of five eminent Federal judges over an issue as life threatening as the results of a Nigerian presidential election.  Apex power is involved. Big money is at stake. Livelihoods are up on the hoist. The instruments of state and non-state violence are at the disposal of those whose interests are troubled. It is a zone where even the angels will tread very cautiously. But once the judges wisely permitted their ruling on the February 25th presidential election to be televised and broadcast live, they admitted we regular mortals into the legitimate sphere of public theatre and drama. As a television mass audience and a public of voting citizens, we automatically acquired the right to judge the judgment of the learned judges. After all, It is all about us and how we are likely to be governed or misgoverned in the next four years at least.

The day- long theatre of a sea of wigs and gowns in Abuja made impressive spectacle. But it may not have impressed too many ordinary Nigerians. Yet there was something quite remarkable. A largely unjust nation with such a large population of lawyers is in itself anachronistic.  But the ‘show’ failed as either entertainment or mass legal education. The decision to televise and broadcast live the proceedings of the judgment of the 2023 Presidential Election and Petitions Tribunal may have been well intentioned.

After all, democracy ought to be an open festival, more so in the age of instant internet and television. After a whole day of boring caterwauling of legalese and motionless suspense, the predictable verdict is out. Spending a whole day to rehearse and restate a forgone outcome is yet another Nigerian first in what is essentially a political conquest of the judiciary.

To the perceptive, the prelude was sufficient indication of the forgone outcome. The president jetted off to the G-20 meeting in India, seemingly oblivious of what was in the offing. A date for the judgment was carefully chosen to come a day after the 100 day mark of the Tinubu presidency. The ingenuity of that schedule is that most public discussion will be on the emotional matter of the tribunal verdict, thus crowding out whatever discourse there may be on the chaotic first hundred days of a flip flop presidency from the media space. The DSS predictably warned of opposition plans to protest the tribunal verdict. That was enough indication that the verdict will reaffirm the victory of the incumbent. An incumbent could not possibly be mobilizing to protest against its own victory! Unexpectedly, the Court of Appeal, in an unprecedented gesture, joined the DSS in the scare mongering, cautioning the public to stay home on Judgment Day. They all knew what we did not know. But the ultimate credit must go to President Tinubu for a masterful arrangement!

The verdict of the tribunal has come. It has been greeted by a mix of understandable triumphalism and despair depending on where Nigerians stand on the political spectrum. Among Mr. Tinubu’s immediate political family of party devotees and ethnic cheer mongers, the talking drums and trumpets are out. On the other side, especially among the youth and ‘Obidients’, followers of Mr. Peter Obi and the Labour Party, it is an extended period of virtual mourning. Mr. Atiku Abubakar’s followership is more amorphous and a bit confused and muffled. It is to the eternal credit of the political leaders especially the opposition that the hell predicted by the DSS and other merchants of fear have come to nothing.

Prior to the tribunal verdict, however, there was this stubborn hope among Mr. Obi’s nationwide throng of followers especially that, somehow, the judiciary could restore some justice to a system in which the presidential elections of February 25th was universally adjudged to be seriously flawed.  In the minds of this group, the Nigerian judiciary could do one of two things: right what they perceived as an electoral wrong or reaffirm an unpopular status quo in line with its tradition of delivering judgments without justice.

Yet the skepticism remained strong that a judiciary with a strong reputation for corruption and compromise would predictably reaffirm the victory of the incumbent Bola Tinubu. The skeptics have carried the day. After a hundred days of what promises to be a turbulent and bumbling presidency, Mr. Bola Tinubu seems secure in power to begin navigating his way and his country out of very troubled waters.

The actual substance and body of the tribunal judgment proceedings  was quite interesting even if long drawn out and spectacularly boring. Many principal actors were asleep half of the time! At some point, the tribunal judges began to sound more like an aggressive band of defense attorneys out to defend the incumbent at all costs. Most of the evidence adduced by the opposition petitioners , Peter Obi and Mr. Atiku Abubakar, were either dismissed as untenable or routinely demolished.  Most of the witnesses of the petititoners were equally dismissed, discredited or simply rule out on grounds of personal interest or identity conflict. In all, the tribunal was quite dutiful in throwing out what it did not like and selecting what would not hurt a seemingly preconceived verdict.

Interestingly, all witnesses called by the opposition that had any suggestion of technical expertise and competence were all casually dismissed as either lacking merit or relevance to the issues on hand.  The witnesses themselves were cast as persons with either personal pecuniary or other hidden interests or parading expertise that the tribunal said it did not need!

Clearly, the Tribunal was averse to witnesses with a technological bent as they were likely to punch holes in INEC’s leaky armour of technological sophistication. The tribunal simply kept everything at the analogue level as it was in no mood to engage witnesses that would goad them into exposing their own technological deficits. No need to expose the relative ignorance of the learned judges on complex matters of information technology, digital communication or the combustible possibilities of the social media.

Quite conveniently, on the substantive issues of the eligibility of the APC candidate, the Tribunal took recourse to technical conveniences. Questions about Mr. Tinubu’s qualifications were rightly adjudged pre-election matters that ought to have been brought up in the appropriate lower courts and disposed of 180 days before the elections.

But in demolishing most of the grounds of substantive preliminary objections that would have weakened Tinubu’s and INEC’s positions, the Tribunal cleared the pathway for the material evidence in the various petitions. The Tribunal may have staged a valiant legal battle but thrown logic, common sense and national morality to the dogs. So, Tinubu’s refund of $460,000 to the US government had no criminal infraction component. We were however not told what type of transaction the money came from. Was it just a routine errant financial transaction alert that found this huge trove of cash enter Mr. Tinubu’s US account? Maybe, the money was not even connected to him. Maybe, it was an accidental transfer from an unknown vendor of questionable merchandise. Just leave a cloud of doubt in order to degrade the weight of this allegation!

Another curious legal disclosure is that candidates in an election do not have a right to question the eligibility of the candidate of another party for the same election. In other words, it is a fair contest if the other party decides to send in either a Sumo wrestler or killer hulk to duel my frail structure in a wrestling match up!

Strict evidence -based legal outcomes may serve the needs of legal justice. But it often flies in the face of common sense, natural Justice and ignores some of the things that worry ordinary people. These include issues of public morality and the common sense behavior of public institutions. So, the culpability of INEC in the various infractions and irregularities of the election are left to the petitioners to prove beyond reasonable doubt.

As far as the Tribunal was concerned, for as long as petitioners could not discharge the onus of proof of allegations against INEC, the agency is beyond reproach. Worse still, INEC’s own commitments as spelt out in the Electoral Law are conveniently waived, So, INEC did not have to transmit any results electronically or otherwise. It could decide to transmit either electronically or manually or deploy a hybrid system of result transmission.  Yet the same INEC paraded the use of BVAS technology and the transmission of results via its IREV portals as the unique selling points of the last elections. The pubic bought into this hoax since these technologies had worked in state governorship elections in Anambra, Edo, Osun and Ekiti states.

Furthermore, the onus of proving an electoral irregularity at a polling station is that of the petitioners with no bounding obligation on the part of INEC to account for the processes at the said polling station. If a petitioner’s agent has evidence of INEC facilitating the thrashing or falsification of election results, the onus of ultimate proof is still the petitioner. The Tribunal cannot even compel INEC to authenticate the processes at that polling centre.

Matters of general abuse and the use of violence, intimidation and profiling to influence the voting process in different parts of the country did not quite qualify for the attention of the Tribunal. Even the rather incisive on –the- spot report of European Union (EU) observers during the elections was rejected by the Tribunal as immaterial to its verdict and  beneath its purview. In short, the Tribunal gaove out the overall impression that nothing went wrong on 25th February, 2023. All was smooth, free and fair. It was the opposition, the social media, the EU and other international observers that raked up all this unfounded noise! There is nothing to fix about INEC’s processes, protocols and performance. There was no need to adjust the vote tally since the petitioners could not prove either over voting, rigging, under counting etc anywhere in the country! Therefore, the vote scores of the three principal contestants as declared by INEC remain sacrosanct!

In reaffirming the victory of the incumbent over the claims of the opposition petitioners, the Tribunal was replaying the familiar path of jurisprudence in all matters where the order and peace of the state are challenged. Even ahead of the verdict of the tribunal and those of a possible Supreme Court outing, it is obvious that a reaffirmation of the sovereignty of the incumbent is the easiest option for the judiciary.

The logic is simple, elementary and ancient, deriving from early political philosophies from Thomas Hobbes to John Locke and even Machievelli. Going to the Tribunal or the Supreme Court is a quest for justice according to law. But justice is only possible when law and order prevail in an orderly state. In an anarchy, neither law nor order are possible. Therefore, every judiciary, in matters that challenge the stability of the state and the legitimacy of the sovereign, will always rule in favour of the incumbent order. That is the only guarantee that unites all citizens. The state must exist as an orderly whole in order to make the pursuit of our individual rights, freedoms and quest for justice possible in the first place.

But once an ultimate political consideration such as the survival of the state overrides specific legal arguments in determining a judicial outcome, judges unconsciously don the garb of political partisanship. The lawyers’ wig and gown become part of the costume of political actors and the citizens begin to see judicial outcomes as an extension of the partisan fray.

When politics invades the behavior of judges, something often goes horribly wrong. In a democracy, the high command of the executive (mostly politicians) invade and even gobble up the judicial branch. The acquiescence of the legislature follows naturally. Authoritarianism becomes a ready temptation. In these parts, nothing touched by politics remains the same. Worse still, anything embraced by politicians gets terminally deformed. This is the terminal risk that the Presidential election Tribunal ran earlier in the week. In stepping beyond law towards ultimate politics, the Tribunal may have usurped the role of the Supreme Court as the ultimate guarantor of the state according to constitution as the final law of the land.

As the haze over the Presidential Election Petitions Tribunal (PEPT) clears in favor of the incumbent, fewer Nigerians now look up to the Supreme Court to make any difference in outcomes. Nigeria’s murky gangster politics seems to have prevailed once again even as the public reservation lingers that Mr. Tinubu’s mandate is based on a flawed election.

In the ensuing months, most Nigerians are more likely to be concerned about where the next meal will come from rather than what the next presidential election holds in store. In this regard, Mr. Tinubu and his team have their task now better defined by that sea of wigs and gowns at the Tribunal.

Dr. Amuta, a Nigerian journalist, intellectual and literary critic, was previously a senior lecturer in literature and communications at the universities of Ife and Port Harcourt.


Spread the love
Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

POLITICS

Ceasefire or Cycle? Gaza and the Politics of a Manufactured Peace

Published

on

By

Spread the love

Baba Yunus Muhammad

When dawn broke over Gaza on the 9th of November, 2025, it brought neither peace nor silence. The roar of Israeli jets shattered the pretense of calm as explosions tore through crowded neighborhoods, refugee camps, and hospital shelters. By morning, at least 104 Palestinians were dead — 35 of them children. Among the ruins stood the Insan camp, a temporary refuge for cancer patients, reduced to dust and disbelief.

The strikes came just three weeks after a ceasefire agreement that the world hailed as a “turning point.” For Palestinians, ceasefires have long ceased to mean peace. They are pauses — brief, exhausted silences before the next storm.

Anatomy of a Fragile Ceasefire

The October 10 ceasefire, brokered by U.S. President Donald Trump, was the latest in a series of fragile truces. Like its predecessors, it emerged not from mutual understanding but mutual fatigue. Israel retained control of Gaza’s airspace, borders, and sea routes; its drones continued to hover overhead; its army remained positioned just beyond the fence. Gaza, meanwhile, was expected to disarm while receiving little relief from a blockade that has strangled its economy for more than seventeen years.

Netanyahu’s renewed airstrikes followed a firefight in which an Israeli soldier was killed. Hamas denied initiating the clash, accusing Israeli troops of provocation. The immediate spark came amid public outrage in Israel over Hamas handing over fragments of a hostage’s body — remains Israeli forces claimed to have recovered two years earlier. The symbolism ignited nationalist fury, and Netanyahu reached for a familiar weapon: war.

War as Political Theatre

To understand why ceasefires collapse, one must look beyond the battlefield to the political theatre surrounding it. Netanyahu has long used Gaza’s suffering as a backdrop for domestic consolidation. Each escalation allows him to recast himself as Israel’s “protector,” diverting attention from corruption charges, coalition infighting, and mounting social unrest.

For Hamas, resistance remains a key source of legitimacy. Under siege since 2007, governing one of the most densely populated and impoverished territories on earth, defiance is a declaration of existence. Each exchange of fire sustains the cycle: Israel bombs to restore deterrence; Hamas fires back to restore dignity. Civilians are left to mourn, rebuild, and wait for the next pause — one that will hold just long enough for the world to look away.

Ceasefire Without Justice

Ceasefires in Gaza are often truce agreements without justice. They pause the violence but leave structural oppression intact. Since 2009, more than a dozen ceasefires have been declared, yet the roots of the conflict — occupation, displacement, blockade — remain. The siege restricts movement, bans exports, and limits imports, including medical supplies and construction materials. Unemployment hovers around 50 percent, electricity is rationed, and most children have never known freedom.

The Global Theatre

President Trump’s declaration that “nothing will jeopardise the ceasefire” while endorsing Israel’s “right to hit back” exposes the moral contradictions of global diplomacy. The United States presents itself as a peace broker while supplying Israel with weapons that make peace impossible. Europe, too, speaks of international law even as it trades with settlement-based companies and arms the Israeli military. The result is complicity. For Palestinians, the “international community” has become a bitter phrase — a chorus that mourns the dead but funds the killers.

Counting the Cost

Behind the numbers lie human stories. Children who had survived multiple wars, doctors performing surgeries by flashlight, teachers turning bomb shelters into classrooms — all perished or struggled to survive in this latest attack. At the Insan camp, a sanctuary for cancer patients, survivors described a night of terror and despair: “We thought a medical facility would be safe. Now we know that nothing is.”

Amid devastation, Gaza endures. Volunteers dig through rubble with their bare hands. Teachers reopen classrooms in the shadows of ruins. Mothers cook what little food remains for neighbors who have lost everything. Survival itself is resistance.

The Economics of Occupation

Every war leaves Gaza poorer and more dependent. The destruction of infrastructure is systematic: roads, factories, schools, and farms targeted to erase economic independence. The blockade prevents reconstruction, ensuring reliance on international aid, often routed through Israeli checkpoints and banks.

Occupation thus creates a paradox: humanitarian relief sustains the very structures that destroy lives. For Islamic economists, this reveals the moral bankruptcy of a global financial order that profits from misery. Decolonisation, therefore, is not only political — it is economic. Ending occupation requires dismantling systems that convert suffering into commerce and war into industry.

Africa’s Mirror

For Africans, Palestine’s struggle is painfully familiar. From apartheid South Africa to colonial frontiers in Algeria and Kenya, the continent knows what it means to have land stolen, identity erased, and resistance criminalized. African solidarity with Palestine is not sentimentality; it is historical memory. Nelson Mandela captured this truth: “Our freedom is incomplete without the freedom of the Palestinians.”

Economic justice, rooted in ethics, equity, and human dignity, must be the foundation for lasting peace — not only for Palestine but for the Global South as a whole.

What Will It Take?

The question before the world is simple yet profound: Will the ceasefire hold?

History offers little optimism. A truce that leaves occupation intact is a truce built on sand. Peace cannot be sustained by fear or imposed by force. It requires justice — not as rhetoric, but as reality.

For Gaza, justice means an end to siege, reconstruction without interference, accountability for war crimes, and recognition of Palestinian rights. It demands that the world confront its complicity and act beyond rhetoric. Islamic ethical principles remind us that peace (salam) cannot exist without justice (adl), and wealth should serve humanity rather than domination.

Will the Ceasefire Hold?

Not as it stands. A ceasefire can stop bullets, but not the machinery that fires them. It can pause violence, but not the ideology that justifies it. True peace will hold only when Gaza is free, Palestinians are sovereign, and the international community prioritizes justice over geopolitics.

Until then, each ceasefire is not the end of war, but preparation for the next. Yet hope persists — in Gaza’s hospitals, in classrooms rebuilt from rubble, in mothers who refuse despair. The ceasefire will hold only when the world’s conscience does — when justice, not expedience, becomes the guiding principle.

Footnote:

AFRIEF Webinar — “Palestine: Stolen or Decolonised?”

The Africa Islamic Economic Forum (AFRIEF) will host a two-hour virtual webinar exploring the political economy of Palestine, the structures sustaining occupation, and pathways toward decolonisation. Scholars, economists, and policy experts will examine how ethical finance, economic justice, and international solidarity intersect with the struggle for Palestinian sovereignty.

This webinar builds on discussions highlighted in this feature, providing a platform for informed dialogue on justice-oriented economics, human dignity, and the moral imperatives that must guide responses to Gaza’s ongoing crisis.

Baba Yunus Muhammad is the President of the Africa Islamic Economic Forum and a political and economic analyst with a focus on sustainable development, global trade, and Islamic economics. He writes regularly on issues of economic justice, governance, and the intersection of faith and finance


Spread the love
Continue Reading

POLITICS

The Economics of Legitimacy: When Power is Stolen, Prosperity is Postponed.

Published

on

By

Spread the love

Every economy rests on a foundation deeper than currency or trade — it rests on trust. When citizens no longer believe in their leaders, when institutions are captured and laws become elastic, the economy’s moral infrastructure collapses. This is the real cost of Africa’s democratic decay.

Illegitimate power corrodes fiscal discipline. Leaders who rule through manipulation rather than consent spend to survive, not to serve. They inflate bureaucracies, buy loyalty, and mortgage the future for immediate political calm. Public debt balloons, corruption thrives, and the poor — who have no lobby — bear the cost.

The link between governance and growth is now undeniable. The African Development Bank estimates that corruption and mismanagement cost the continent up to $150 billion annually. Countries with transparent elections enjoy three times higher foreign investment and twice the rate of economic diversification. By contrast, states governed by decree or deception face chronic capital flight and social unrest.

For the Islamic economist, legitimacy (sharʿiyyah) is not only a political concept; it is an economic principle. The Qur’an ties justice (ʿadl) to sustenance (rizq): “If the people of the towns had believed and been mindful of God, We would have opened for them blessings from the heavens and the earth.” (Qur’an 7:96).

Where rulers govern through consultation (shūrā) and accountability, nations prosper. Where deceit rules, even natural wealth turns into a curse. The lesson is clear: no budget, bond, or bailout can compensate for the loss of legitimacy.

……….Power Without Expiry Dates: The Continent’s Longest Reigns and the Price of Their Politics

Across Africa, the ballot box is losing its moral weight. Constitutions promise renewal, but power lingers. From Cameroon to Tanzania, the story is the same: elections are held, but accountability is postponed. What emerges is not people’s choice but political endurance — and the longer rulers stay, the weaker their nations grow.

In Cameroon, Paul Biya has ruled since 1982 — a staggering 43 years — recently securing another victory amid boycotts and fraud claims. Yoweri Museveni of Uganda, in power since 1986, continues to suppress dissent and throttle the internet at every poll. Teodoro Obiang Nguema of Equatorial Guinea has outlasted every African Union chairman since 1979, routinely “winning” with over 95% of the vote. In Eritrea, Isaias Afwerki governs without a single national election since independence in 1993.

Others are newer but no less troubling. Alassane Ouattara of Côte d’Ivoire claimed a constitutional “reset” to justify a third term in 2020. Samia Suluhu Hassan of Tanzania returned to power in 2025 with 98% of the vote, following arrests of opposition figures and curbs on the press. In Guinea, Mamadi Doumbouya — the military ruler who once promised civilian rule — has now banned opponents while announcing his own candidacy.

These are not aberrations; they are the architecture of Africa’s political stagnation.

Rigged Votes, Real Losses

Weak governance has an economic signature — and it’s written in red.
The IMF reports that Africa’s average risk premium on sovereign bonds stands at 6.8%, more than double the emerging-market norm. UNCTAD finds foreign investment fell 12% in unstable states since 2019. Youth unemployment averages 33% across the region. Tax systems collect barely 13–15% of GDP, compared to 33% globally. The African Development Bank estimates 5–7% of GDP is lost yearly to corruption and mismanagement.

Where leaders cling to power, capital flees. Where institutions collapse, the poor are left to pay in silence.

Where Ballots Bow to Bayonets

Across the continent, only a handful of nations — Botswana, Mauritius, Cabo Verde — maintain genuinely free and fair elections. Others, like Kenya, Ghana, and Senegal, wobble between progress and regression. The majority now live under systems where democracy is a façade: Tanzania, Uganda, Cameroon, Côte d’Ivoire, Guinea, and Egypt — all red on the Freedom House map, where gavel, crown, and tank replace the ballot box.

The Democracy–Development Disconnect

The numbers expose the paradox: the top 10 authoritarian states have an average per capita income of USD 2,100; the most democratic average USD 6,700.
Over 25 African nations have known one-party or one-man rule for more than a quarter-century.
Only nine have experienced peaceful power transfers in the past decade.
And according to Freedom House (2025), 77% of Africans now live under “partly free” or “not free” regimes.

“No economy can flourish where institutions are hollow, and no democracy can endure where justice is for sale.”
\Justice Is the Currency of Governance

Islamic values offer a forgotten metric of leadership. The Prophet ﷺ ruled through shūrā (consultation), ʿadl (justice), amānah (trust), and maṣlaḥah (the public good). These principles are the “coins” of moral legitimacy — yet today, most regimes rate dangerously low on each. Governance has become transactional, not ethical.

Until Africa restores the moral foundation of its politics, democracy will remain ritual — and economic reform, an illusion.

……..When the Pulpit Falls Silent: Why Africa’s Ulema Must Speak for Justice

Silence is not neutrality. In the Qur’an, the Prophet Shuʿayb was sent to a people whose commerce was unjust; he warned them that cheating the scales invites divine wrath. Today, across much of Africa, our scales — political, economic, moral — are badly tilted. Leaders cling to office through manipulation, youth lose faith in ballots, and public wealth is consumed by private greed.

This is not merely a political failure; it is a spiritual one. The Qur’an commands: “O you who believe, stand firmly for justice, witnesses for Allah, even if against yourselves or your kin.” (4:135). If the faithful will not hold rulers accountable, who will?

Africa’s mosques and religious institutions wield enormous moral authority. They educate, they counsel, they comfort — but too often, they retreat from confronting injustice for fear of politics. Yet the Prophet ﷺ said: “The greatest jihad is to speak a word of truth before a tyrant ruler.” Silence before oppression is not prudence; it is complicity.

Imams, scholars, and Islamic economists can champion reform without partisanship. They can preach about stewardship (amānah), integrity in public service, and the sin of corruption. They can organise civic literacy workshops that teach believers their constitutional rights and responsibilities. They can remind the wealthy and powerful that every dinar taken unjustly will be accounted for before Allah.

Africa does not lack constitutions; it lacks conscience. When mosques become centres of justice education, when the faithful demand accountability as a religious duty, when economic policy is shaped by moral restraint — then democracy will cease to be a ritual and become a trust once more.


Spread the love
Continue Reading

POLITICS

Samia Suluhu Hassan: Power, Pragmatism — and a Presidency Under Strain

Published

on

By

Spread the love

Baba Yunus Muhammad

When Samia Suluhu Hassan assumed Tanzania’s presidency in 2021, she arrived on a tide of cautious optimism. The sudden death of her predecessor, John Magufuli, had left the country in shock and uncertainty. Samia’s calm tone and early conciliatory gestures—restoring international ties, meeting opposition leaders, reopening dialogue with donors—were widely read as signs of a gentler, more pragmatic leadership. Yet four years later, that optimism has largely faded.

The October 2025 election cemented her power in dramatic fashion: an official landslide, nearly 98 percent of the vote, granting her and the ruling Chama Cha Mapinduzi (CCM) an overwhelming mandate. But it was a victory shadowed by suppression and fear. Opposition figures were disqualified or detained, campaign events broken up by security forces, and independent media throttled by new restrictions. When results were announced, protests erupted in Dar es Salaam, Mwanza, and Arusha. Police responded with curfews and force. Several deaths were reported.

The government insists it acted to preserve peace. Critics see the episode as proof that Tanzania’s democracy—once a regional example of quiet stability—has sunk into managed authoritarianism. The overwhelming vote margin, many observers argue, speaks less to popularity than to the absence of any genuine competition.

It is an irony of power: the leader once cast as healer now presides over an anxious nation. The ruling CCM, in office since independence, remains a formidable political machine. Its networks reach into nearly every district, its control of state resources entrenched through decades of incumbency. Samia’s presidency, in this sense, has deepened a long Tanzanian tradition—order without openness.

On the economic front, the picture is no less complex. Tanzania’s GDP growth has remained robust by regional standards, powered by construction, mining, services, and agriculture. Inflation is moderate, and the debt ratio comparatively healthy. Yet beneath these steady macro indicators lies a story of structural fragility. The country’s tax base is too narrow to sustain ambitious spending; vast public projects have piled up commitments without always yielding productivity gains. Youth unemployment is rising, rural inequality widening, and climate pressures increasingly threaten agriculture—the livelihood of most Tanzanians.

Multilateral institutions have praised Samia’s investment drive but warn that without deep revenue reform and stronger governance, Tanzania risks “growing without transforming.” Much of the growth remains urban and capital-intensive, leaving a restless young population excluded from its rewards. The president’s Vision 2050 blueprint—meant to drive industrialization and self-reliance—faces the same fiscal dilemma as similar plans before it: too few domestic resources, and too little political transparency to ensure that what’s spent is spent well.

The political climate only compounds those concerns. Human-rights organizations describe an expanding list of violations: arbitrary arrests, restrictions on assembly, forced evictions linked to development projects, and intimidation of journalists. In many regions, opposition rallies can only proceed under heavy surveillance, if at all. To international partners, Samia’s government projects a narrative of discipline and sovereignty; to her critics, it is a system increasingly allergic to dissent.

For ordinary Tanzanians, these dynamics are not abstract. Economic frustration meets shrinking civic space in dangerous ways. Farmers displaced from ancestral land, students struggling for jobs, and activists facing arrest—each is a symptom of a deeper imbalance between growth and justice. The protests that followed the 2025 election were not merely about votes, but about a sense that the system listens less and commands more.

Still, Samia remains a formidable political force. She has built her authority within CCM through a mix of pragmatism and patronage, consolidating the party’s factions and cultivating an image of motherly resolve. Her soft-spoken manner belies a leader keenly aware of power’s machinery and the price of control. In that respect, she has not betrayed her predecessor’s legacy so much as refined it—turning Magufuli’s confrontational nationalism into a more polished, internationally palatable form of dominance.

Tanzania’s future now stands at a delicate crossroads. One scenario envisions continued growth under tight political control—orderly, predictable, and perhaps efficient in the short term, but brittle in the long run. Another imagines a gradual opening, where the government restores civic freedoms and empowers institutions to check excess. The third, darker path would be escalation: more protests, harsher crackdowns, and international isolation that unravels the country’s economic promise.

The choice, ultimately, rests with the same woman who came to power preaching unity. Samia Suluhu Hassan governs a nation that still believes in its potential—a nation young, resource-rich, and eager for dignity. Whether she leads it toward inclusive prosperity or entrenched control will define not just her presidency, but Tanzania’s next chapter in history.

About the Author:
Baba Yunus Muhammad is the President of the Africa Islamic Economic Forum and a seasoned political analyst focusing on governance, democracy, and socio-economic transformation across Africa. He writes extensively on the intersection of faith, leadership, and political reform on the continent. His work bridges politics, economics, and moral philosophy, highlighting how governance and ethics shape development outcomes across the continent. babayunus@icloud.com


Spread the love
Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2024 Focus on Halal Economy | Powered by Africa Islamic Economic Forum