Like an automaton, one of the first decisions of Information Minister Dora Akunyili was her desire to re-brand Nigeria’s image presumably at home and abroad.
It is a kind of continuity, an echo of her immediate past predecessors, which is not common in public appointments in Nigeria.
In a way, the minister’s decision dismisses views of skeptics that her capability suited her more for health ministry on the ground that she is a pharmacist. Instead, she is living up to expectation that as a ministerial material, she is versatile.

Not unexpectedly, since Dora Akunyili embarked on her mission to re-brand Nigeria, she has attracted criticisms from obviously well-meaning Nigerians. Well-meaning in the sense that it is too early to forget how similar projects in the past impacted more in the large public fund consumed or avoidable jamborees abroad instead of clearing the rubbish first in Nigeria.

There are other skeptics who do not even believe in any idea or need of re-branding at all. The necessary question therefore is: Does Nigeria need to be re-branded? In short, is Nigeria so already mis-branded to require, especially urgently, any re-branding? Without any kidding, Nigeria needs re-branding.
We may argue over why, how, when or the type but nobody can fault if the effort is necessary. How has Nigeria been mis-branded and by whom or when? Without ignoring the major contributions of the financial criminals of various sorts comprising public office holders and ordinary citizens, we should at the same time, face the reality that, even if inadvertently, official pronouncements substantially damage the country.

Since Nigeria is the real slaughter-house for mis-branding the country, the necessary re-branding should start here, specifically, Aso Rock, Abuja. Starting the re-branding at Aso Rock is not only for a proper job but to also reduce very drastically, ala world recession, the possible high-cost of avoidable jamborees abroad, which may in fact, swell opposition to, or possibly quench the minister’s effort.

Why Aso Rock? The stain of mis-branding Nigeria officially grew from there and spread uncontrollably from 1999 to 2007 since when, almost like a heredity, the poor show has also continued. How did Nigeria’s misbranding begin, officially that is?
Olusegun Obasanjo rose to power in 1999 on a bogus platform of combating corruption. His hypocrisy on this issue was bad enough but it was even worse that in the name of an anti-corruption crusader, he embarked on a personal ego-boosting aggrandizement at the expense of the country’s image. Shortly after Obasanjo commenced his first term in office, Nigeria hosted in Abuja, the Commonwealth heads of states and governments conference, remarkably for the second time in our history, the first time being January 1966.

On the eve of the opening of the Commonwealth conference and with these guests already settled in their hotels, Obasanjo first commandeered all radio and television stations in the country for an embarrassing prime-time broadcast in which without any restraint, he levelled wild allegations of corruption against a federal minister, some permanent secretaries and key government officials. Of course, the unsuspecting print media all flashed Obasanjo’s self-serving allegations as their lead stories.

When therefore these Commonwealth leaders and their officials were supplied Nigerian newspapers both in their hotel apartments and conference hall, the picture all of them could have was Nigeria as a corrupt country, rightly or wrongly. How worse could Nigeria have been mis-branded? Whatever happened to patriotism at Aso Rock and the media.
Ordinarily, editors should have been more concerned about Nigeria’s image among the Commonwealth guests around instead of crashing for Obasanjo’s gimmickry.

Of course, the Lynda Chalkers among the Commonwealth leaders most unintelligently patronised Obasanjo for thereby crusading against Nigeria. Who is that leader in Britain, New Zealand, Canada, India or Australia to time the eve of the opening of an international conference of that magnitude to mis-brand their country?

In reality, underneath Obasanjo’s pretence of crusading against corruption was his selfish long term projection for self-perpetuation in office. British government, for example, under Prime Minister Tony Blair, after being lobbied by the then information minister, Tony Nweke, agreed for Obasanjo to implement his third term provided he could get the constitution amended accordingly.

They all were deceived by the wild propaganda that Obasanjo was the only Nigerian to tackle corruption.
Worse still, if Obasanjo meant well instead of destroying Nigeria’s image before Commonwealth leaders attending a conference in Nigeria, the evidence should be so certain to convict the defenceless public officers and the Federal Minister Obasanjo defamed as corrupt. Rather, what happened? All the accused – Federal Minister, Permanent Secretaries etc, were discharged and acquitted for want of evidence.

Internal Affairs Minister Sunday Afolabi, died of stress in the process. The Permanent Secretary returned to her post. Why in the first place was she unfairly portrayed among Commonwealth leaders as corrupt? In short, all the accused were innocent of Obasanjo’s damage to their persons and Nigeria’s image. How many of the Commonwealth leaders Obasanjo self-servingly misinformed about Nigeria’s image eventually knew of the innocence of those accused of corruption?
Yet, Obasanjo was not done in his insatiable desire to acquire the status of an anti-corruption crusader. Again, he chose the eve of a scheduled meeting with a World Bank official at Aso Rock to make another prime-time radio and television broadcast alleging corruption against a Senate President, a Federal Minister of Education and some members of National Assembly.

Much to Obasanjo’s joy, all Nigerian newspapers available for the World Bank official already portrayed Nigeria as a corrupt country with Obasanjo crusading against that crime. Needless to mention the man’s praise for Obasanjo on meeting him.
The Senate President, the Federal Minister and members of National Assembly concerned, might themselves deserve no pity. But we should be equally (if not more) concerned about Nigeria’s image deliberately dented before a World Bank official.

But then, who indeed was casting the first stone? Who bribed House of Representatives members each with a sum of five hundred thousand naira displayed for the public and the media in the National Assembly’s conference room? The purpose? Not only to abort the then on-going impeachment proceedings against President Obasanjo but also to commence counter impeachment proceedings against Obasanjo’s scourge and the then House Speaker Ghali Na’Abba?
Who bribed National Assembly members each with fifty million naira to amend our constitution for Obasanjo’s third term? Was that not the same man mis-branding Nigeria as a corrupt country to enhance a bogus reputation of an anti-corruption crusader?

After Obasanjo’s exit from Aso Rock, there is no change in mis-branding Nigeria except in style. In the last days of Nuhu Ribadu’s EFCC, President Umar Yar’Adua allowed himself to be used, rather unconsciously as Nigerian government endorsement of a stage-managed United Nations Seminar in Abuja, at which all Umar Yar’Adua’s predecessors (notably except Olusegun Obasanjo) were portrayed as corrupt.
A paper prepared by the EFCC for an inconsequential UN errand chap claimed at the seminar that between 1960 (independence year) and 1999, all previous Nigerian leaders stole four hundred billion dollars.

As an incumbent, it was very indiscreet of President Umar Yar’Adua to have allowed his person to be used to denigrate his predecessors with a keynote address. Otherwise, Umar Yar’Adua should have asked the organisers of the conference why a pedestrian UN official should come to Nigeria to discredit our country and past leaders, some of them in their graves and not in a position to defend themselves.
Did Umaru Yar’Adua confirm from the Accountant General of the Federation how much Nigeria indeed collected as revenue between 1960 and 1999? More importantly, why did that seminar in Abuja limit its focus to 1960 to 1999? For obvious reasons. Olusegun Obasanjo, Nuhu Ribadu’s benefactor was in charge of our revenue between 1999 and 2007, a period of eight years.

If indeed, Nigeria collected four hundred billion dollars revenue for forty-years (1960-1999) which figures are in fact false, the average Nigerian, not the least Umaru Yar’Adua, knows how much Nigeria collected as revenue under Obasanjo from 1999 to 2007. So why did the paper at the UN seminar leave out that period? And Yar’Adua graced such a theatre to mis-brand Nigeria?

But the real issue is the very idea of inviting an inconsequential UN chap for a seminar to negatively portray Nigeria. Would America’s George Bush (currently Barrack Obama) or Britain’s Gordon Brown have graced such a bogus seminar with their presence to mis-brand his country?
By the way, Umaru Yar’Adua’s father, Musa Yar’Adua was a minister (first of establishments and later Lagos Affairs) in the first republic. Umaru Yar’Adu should therefore know if Nigeria had any money at all to be looted as claimed at the seminar he (Umaru Yar’Adua) ill-advisedly attended at Abuja.
Why was it that our leaders at that time (1960-1966) left virtually nothing for their families to inherit? Yet Umaru Yar’Adua carelessly endorsed the false allegation of a stolen four hundred billion dollars.

While still on Umaru Yar’Adua, he has also joined the bandwagon of attracting media headlines in requesting for a return of purported public funds deposited in Switzerland. Yes, Switzerland, especially with the mindset, directly or impliedly, Sani Abacha. By now, if any such fund exists, Switzerland authorities should have refunded the money to Nigeria or shut up. We have been at it for ten years starting from Obasanjo’s first day in office in 1999.
Umaru Yar’Adua was therefore engaging himself in unwarranted mis-branding of Nigeria when he chose the moment of presentation of credentials by the new Swiss Ambassador to be seen (that is Yar’Adua) as crusading for the return of a purportedly looted money deposited in Switzerland.

Of course, because we engage in this stupid ritual of self mis-branding as a nation, any successive Swiss envoy sweetens our taste on that issue.
The media are not left out. When new in Nigeria or feels out of limelight for some time, all a Swiss envoy needs to do is to mention the boredom of looted funds in his country and all the media would be falling over themselves in cheap publicity both on electronic and print media.
To see that President Yar’Adua joined in such mis-branding of Nigeria? Did Nigeria collapse the world economy with untraceable trillions of dollars? A large proportion of the current world recession was caused by graft and fraud in the financial sector.

Has any of Britain, Untied States, Germany, France, etc mis-branded their country as fraud-ridden?
Last time in Ghana, Nigeria’s High Commissioner Musiliu Obanikoro graced an event where the Swiss envoy in that country found it so cheap to accuse General Sani Abacha of exploiting Swiss laws to deposit looted funds. The occasion suited High Commissioner Obanikoro and of course, Nigerian media, which elaborately publicised the Swiss envoy’s comment, even when accredited to far away Ghana.

In effect, we joined the Swiss or the Swiss always join us to mis-brand Nigeria. Otherwise, the Swiss Ambassador either in Ghana or Nigeria should have been asked if Switzerland did not have the laws for accepting looted funds, could Sani Abacha have exploited their laws. Since Sani Abacha, have other Nigerians not deposited looted funds in Switzerland, Britain or United States? In any case, why has Switzerland not refunded any money in their country?
There is therefore no doubt about the need to rebrand Nigeria. It is a tough task for the Ministry and Minister of Information. Can Dora Akunyili have the guts to start the re-branding by prevailing on Aso Rock to stop or at least minimize mis-branding of Nigeria?

Dora does not have to vet Umaru Yar’Adua’s speeches or control his attendance at public engagements. Whichever way, she must devise some means of some input. If mis-branding of Nigeria at official level can stop, the need for re-branding will not only minimize but will also be less expensive.
The challenge of re-branding Nigeria should start right here. Enough of mis-branding by playing to the gallery or jumping into the bandwagon.