The line between the right to peaceful assembly or protest as indicated in Section 40 of the 1999 Constitution and the resort to violence, rioting or looting under whatever pretext is not so diaphanous. You can tell from a distance.

It's ultimately a function of motive. You either want to protest peacefully for a genuine cause or flood the streets to cause chaos, riot and loot in disguise. For each, however, there are clear consequences to deal with - both natural and constitutional.

It was in no way a surprise that the demonstrations against bad governance, which started August 1, became bloody in many parts of the north but largely a peaceful exercise in the south of Nigeria. Indeed, a few break-ins in the south were purposeful. Locations with food were the target, justifying the essence of the protest: hunger and hardship. It's still a crime though.

Yet, there was a marked difference between the north and the south, which unfortunately exposed the distinction between the thinking as well as the mindset of the leaderships of both regions.

Dr. Hakeem Baba-Ahmed, a foremost northern leader of the Arewa Consultative Forum, once captured this leadership inadequacy when he said only the north could rescue itself. He argued that the current northern leadership has failed its people in recent time and thus, expecting help from outsiders is shameful, defeatist and a waste of time.

From the governors to other key northern leaders, who perhaps for political reasons, goaded the protesters on, because the constitution guarantees them the right, have all seen the result of playing politics with everything in the face of sincere leadership. They simply failed to see the bigger picture.

Perhaps, a broadcast by the president, Bola Tinubu, could help a bit. But the bulk of the work rests on the northern leadership, and hopefully they have learnt from their failure to act right when they should. Even for the south, it is not yet uhuru. The country is not just in a mess; it is a mess.