Yes, the press in sub-national geography should ask their governors critical questions about how state and local government resources are deployed, just as they must raise same question against the Federal Government.

The hypocrisy of Bwala's mission in Ibadan would make anyone want to puke. Isaac Brown, for instance, asked Bwala if he hadn't seen the road infrastructure in Oyo State, much of which impacts local administration. While I say that the state can still do more, yet, because I have been in Ibadan for over 30 years, I know the people recognize that no previous governor in the state's history has executed as much infrastructural renewal as the incumbent has done. Res ipsa loquitur - the facts speak for themselves, as lawyers say. You don't have to be Makinde's lackey to recognize this fact.

It was this undeniable reality, this resistance to a pseudo-federal narrative, that Bwala came to break. He failed woefully. Resorting to ad hominem attacks, regime lickspittles broad-brush Brown, Bwala's interviewer, one of Ibadan's best broadcasters, with baseless allegations of collusion with the state government. The charge is simply infantile. It does not wash. It is akin to the wonky belief that any pretty lady is a slut. Next time, those who sent Bwala should send someone else who knows how to pronounce tọọrọ (two and a half pennies).

In a similarly misguided vein, last Thursday, Nigerians had the opportunity of reflecting on the concept of National security vs. State censorship. Minister of Information and National Orientation, Mohammed Idris, asked newspaper editors - in the name of "patriotism" - to strip the activities of terrorists, bandits, and other criminal elements of the privilege of appearing on their front pages. "Yes, we have to do our work, we have to report whatever happens, but you must know that the best reporter, the best editor, is the one who knows what not to report in the interest of nation-building. Please, take these terrorists and criminals off your front pages. This is what they crave, free of charge," he pleaded.

Idris was simply reactivating the old ivory-tower debate: What constitutes national security? This question gained currency during the Ibrahim Babangida regime. Defense experts and intellectuals have long submitted that national security is not the security of the president; it is the security of Nigerians. It is not measured by the armaments a government defence procures, but by national food security and personal safety of the people who make up the nation. Today, all those have vamoosed from the Nigerian equation.

By the same token, national security is not achieved by scrubbing stories that embarrass the presidency from the front pages of newspapers. National security means actively securing the peace and tranquility of the country and keeping her borders safe from blood-sucking demons. The Federal Government has been fatally ineffectual in that regard. Keeping those grim stories on the front pages ensures that insouciant Nigerian leaders - who might otherwise remain unbothered by the daily slaughter of citizens - are publicly pressured into taking action. It also keeps the vulnerable very alert. Acceding to Idris's request simply invites insurgents into every Nigerian's backyard, like thief in the night, leaving them free to slaughter us at their whims.