The Nation Newspaper

Category: Segun Gbadegesin

  • Lessons from COVID-19

    Lessons from COVID-19

     Segun Gbadegesin

     

    There is no shred of doubt that COVID-19 is a terrible scourge. For the faithful, it is a reminder of God’s omnipotence and an incontrovertible pointer to the second coming of the Lord. We are therefore counselled to wisely take care of our spiritual business in preparation to meet our God.

    To the philosopher, it is a powerful evidence of the meaninglessness of it all. Two months ago, the world was riding the wave of economic boom. Today, everything is in tatters without an end in sight. So, what’s the point of our hustling and bustling when what it takes for it all to go to blaze is for an invisible viral agent to show up?

    Between the faithful and the philosophical, there is a convergence of frustration in the pointlessness of our earthly struggles, though they end up with different solutions. For the faithful, the answer to life’s meaninglessness is to ignore the material world and embrace the spiritual because what is certain is the imminence of judgment after death. We will meet our creator.

    For the philosopher, like in everything else, the answer is as varied as their number. For some, the meaningless of life simply confirms the absurdity of any choices that we make. For others, even if it turns out that life has no meaning, this doesn’t have any practical consequences, and it doesn’t change the need to keep our commitments. After all, we continue to live our lives as if nothing is amiss. Recall Marx’s verdict on philosophy?

    Let us, however, look at life from the perspective of tradition. For, as disastrous as this virus is proving to be, like everything else we learn from the Yoruba and African worldview, tibi tire la da le aye: for every negative there is always a positive. From the negativity of this pandemic, there are many useful lessons to learn.

    First, in times of crisis and social dislocation, leadership matters and if it takes a crisis of this magnitude to throw up national heroes and sheroes and help us appreciate them, so be it. Think Ebola, Adadevoh, and Fashola. Now, think Sanwoolu and Abayomi and Ihekweasu. We have leadership assets. Hopefully, we are worthy of their dedication.

    Second, Covid-19 is a leveler—an equal opportunity assailant that doesn’t respect title or status. It afflicts the powerful and the weak. Thus, Prince Charles, PM Boris Johnson, COS Aba Kyari, Gov. Nasir El-Rufai, Gov. Seyi Makinde, etc. It is not about what you eat or doesn’t eat. It is not about the gym you frequent. It doesn’t target the poor on account of their uninformed choices. It is not about your level of education. Of course, we must acknowledge the reality that the rich and powerful may have easier access to testing than the poor.

    It is true, however, that this virus also ridicules wealth in a special way which may be of consolation to the poor and unconnected. Wealth appears useless when you cannot leverage it to access special treatment against the virus. A recent viral video by a comedian brings home this point with wicked humor: Coro ti se won mole (Coronavirus has restricted them here). There’s no jetting abroad for treatment. UK is closed to imported cases of Covid-19. US closed its borders. So did Germany, our most convenient getaways for medical treatment. Therefore, we are here together; no escape from the fury of an invisible killer.

    Third, this means that foresightedness in pandemic planning matters. If we planned ahead with laser beam focus on primary healthcare, specialist hospital beds, physician protective equipment (PPE), N95 masks, investment in public health research, we would be ready now to combat this deadly virus. But did we? The military wasted resources on white-elephant projects for more than 20 years. Even when the late Professor Olikoye Ransome-Kuti spearheaded Primary Health Care as our best bet to promoting public health, it was like the voice of one man crying in the wilderness. If we listened to the voice of wisdom and knowledge then, we would have adequate facilities all over our local governments now. But we didn’t.

    Fourth, it matters how we rationalize our national priorities. Civilians took over from the military 21 years ago. Babies born in May 1999 are adults now. So they have known only civilians in government. But what has been their experience? They are the ones leading civil protests against the excesses of SARS now. They are disillusioned about what the future holds for them. They are worried about our budget priorities.

    If we paid attention to the adequate rationalization of our budget priorities, we would now be reaping the fruit of good planning. But while scores of millions of our people have no access to potable water supply, and dispensaries and maternity centers are closed down across the nation, NASS priorities include a N37 billion renovation of its building and exotic cars for its members, even in the middle of a terrible pandemic. No wonder young Nigerians keep asking: who cursed us? Good question, indeed!

    Fifth, shared sacrifice is essential and this is the right time. Even now, with all the urgency that is required, with the shortcomings of our budgetary allocations, we can still wage this war against the virus with shared sacrifice that sees this war as the most urgent task even as we fight the other wars. For if we lose the battle to COVID-19, we will have no one to fight the other wars, including the war against insurgency and the war for economic prosperity. Therefore, the beginning of national wisdom is a national commitment that recognizes the dreaded virus for what it is.

    Sixth, in view of the experience of other nations that are going through this crisis, we know that the worst is yet to come. Therefore, we must brace ourselves for the troubling days and months ahead. This means that the president must lead from the front. As the father of the nation, he must constantly seek to calm our restive nerves with soothing words. He has rightly delegated responsibility for national action to the experts. But from time to time, the nation needs to hear from its father so it doesn’t feel abandoned to its fate.

    The president has the goodwill of other leaders and he is in a position to leverage his friendship with them. We chose not to close our borders to China when other nations did. It was a good decision. Now our good turn deserves a payback. We need to ask China for help. China has tangible experience dealing with the virus. It deployed thousands of doctors to Wuhan region at the peak of the pandemic and those doctors succeeded in bringing Wuhan back from complete annihilation. Now, they are back in their various locations with that experience. We can learn from them if the president would reach out to President Xi Jinping. This is the time for that exchange when we are still far from the implosion that is sure to come.

    Seventh, COVID-19 must be credited for bringing out the worst and the best of our humanity. First to the worst. With the first cases of the contagion reported, state governments and the Nigerian Center for Disease Control (NCDC) promptly rose to the occasion by issuing instructions and guidelines on self-isolation for the exposed and social distancing for everyone else. Unfortunately, pluralities of citizens chose defiance over compliance. Political parties held rallies and preachers assembled their members in thousands, all for their selfish interests. Now, we are seeing the fruits of those irresponsible behaviors germinating in real time. It is hoped that a strict enforcement of the new presidential order will stem the tide of explosion of infection.

    Finally, we must appreciate the individual philanthropic gestures in support of the battle—from political leaders, including Asiwaju Bola Tinubu, Alhaji Atiku Abubakar, NASS members and Ministers, to NNPC, oil, banking, and communication sectors’ giants such as Chief Adenuga, The Alakijas, Elumelu’s UBA, Access Bank and Dangote, Samad Rabiu’s BUA, Union Bank with 54Gene, First Bank, and others. Given this public solidarity with national resolve, COVID-19 is a goner!

  • The ‘public’ in public service: Toasting Olawale Oshun at 70

    The ‘public’ in public service: Toasting Olawale Oshun at 70

    Segun Gbadegesin

     

    HONOURABLE Olawale Oshun, a quiet and unassuming maverick, who has been in the frontline of progressive initiatives in the Southwest since the beginning of the 4th Republic, and who, before then, had demonstrated his fidelity to democratic norms in Nigeria, with scars to show for it, just turned 70. And the garlands are justifiably in full display, flowing around the neck of a self-sacrificing man of honor to whom we owe a debt of gratitude.

    Wale Oshun doesn’t appear like your average maverick. He doesn’t carry himself like a dissident. Indeed, a good chat with him leaves you wondering how he got himself involved in politics in the first place. Then, when you learn that he was a prominent leader in the struggle against military dictatorship, which earned him a forced exile, you cannot but wonder aloud. Surely, appearance can be deceptive. For behind the gentle demeanor is a steely resolve against injustice and oppression and their purveyors whether in military uniform or civilian garb. Here, then, is a rebel for the cause of freedom, justice and good governance.

    Wale Oshun was elected as a member of the House of Representatives in the Third Republic and was elected by his colleagues as Chief Whip. He was comfortable delivering to his constituency until the Babangida regime decided to annul the June 12 Presidential election which Chief M. K. O. Abiola had won. A non-maverick interested only in his own comfort would play along. But the rebel in him chose a different path, that of resistance against dictatorship. It was also a path of hardship.

    Wale Oshun was the Secretary of NADECO Abroad, a role he played with distinction, despite the demeaning conditions of an omo onile olona in the crosshairs of the bespectacled horror man and his ilk. In his capacity as NADECO Abroad Secretary, I interacted by correspondence with Oshun from 1995 when I served as President of Egbe Isokan Yoruba in Washington, DC up to 1998 when I served a President of Egbe Omo Yoruba, USA.

    In 1996, at the initiative of Baba Chief Antony Enahoro, a new forum, World Congress of Free Nigerians (WCFN) was inaugurated to mobilize Nigerian pro-democracy organizations engaged in the struggle. The inaugural meeting was held in Washington, DC from September 26th to 29th 1996 with Baba Enahoro and Professor Wole Soyinka as co-chairs representing NADECO-Abroad and UDFN respectively. I served as Congress Director. In that capacity, Hon. Oshun and I had quality-time interaction and I got to know him and his passion for justice.

    It was, however, the 2nd WCFN Congress in London that sealed my deep respect for Oshun. I relied on him and his team for the local organization of the Congress which held from June 12th to June 14th, 1997 coinciding with the 4th anniversary of the annulment of the June 12, 1993 presidential election. Despite the usual internal wrangling and attempted sabotage by pro-military agents, the congress was a huge success.

    A particularly distressing occurrence, however, was an apparent collaboration between a religious group and pro-military agents. As Wale Oshun recorded in The Open Grave: NADECO and the Struggle for Democracy, the betrayal of justice by religious organizations was a most shameful aspect of the June 12 crisis. A mosque in London refused to host a memorial service for Kudirat Abiola on Saturday, June 7, 1997 as part of the events organized for the Congress.

    Yet, after the death of Abacha the following year, the leaders of the same mosque were the first to volunteer their venue for an Abiola memorial service. Were they fearful of consequences the previous year? To rub salt into the open wound of justice, the sermon at the 1998 memorial service centered on the needlessness of crying over a lost mandate by Abiola since another Muslim, namely General Abubakar, had taken over the mantle of governance. In other words, what mattered to the clerics at the mosque was the faith of whoever was in charge. Understandably, as a champion for justice, this double-face and double-speak was painful to Oshun, himself a devout Muslim. But it was a regular occurrence across a wide spectrum of religious and social organizations in those days.

    I recall this and other similar episodes in the checkered history of the struggle for democracy and justice for a purpose. When we talk about public service, we have often focused on those who serve the public as either elective or appointive public office holders. We have asked questions of them. We have queried their integrity. We have questioned their loyalty to the nation and to their constituents. We have often raised the bar in our assessment of their credibility. This is all well because it comes with the territory they choose to occupy. And, in any case, without such a laser beam, there is a tendency for public officers to fall victim of their idiosyncrasies.

    However, we also stand the risk of missing out on the second part: the public.  If public service is to better the life of the public, and therefore, if public officers are to be evaluated from this vantage point, what demand should we make of the public? What motivation should we expect of the public? If we denounce greedy and self-centered motivation on the part of public officers, should we also chastise the public for entertaining similar motivations? If we blame public servants for disobedience of rules and regulations, should we also hold the public accountable? To what extent must the public be held to the demands of justice without which there can be no peaceful co-existence?

    These are pertinent issues in our new age of a global pandemic that threatens the health and ways of life of billions of people in the world. We are quick to point to the shortcomings of government officials —and there are plenty of these to note—but what are we to make of erratic public response to guidelines coming from governments, especially when they appear to disrupt our normal lives? Do we have the moral choice to pick the guidelines we wish to obey or respect even when we put our lives and those of others in danger?

    Back in January 2020 when the first wave of Coronavirus infection was crippling China, my foremost fear was what Nigeria’s response would be, first on the part of government, and second on the part of the public. I knew and still know that we have a crippled health system, no thanks to years of neglect. The picture of Okeho General Hospital published by a young man, Tayo Irantiola, this past week with blown-off roofs and wasp-infested hallways is replicated throughout the country. With such a sorry state of the health system, the nation cannot cope with millions of ICU-headed cases from this pandemic. Therefore, what is required is prevention, with the public heeding restrictions of movement and government enforcing such.

    The first case of the virus was reported four weeks ago. From the experience of Italy, we know that once it visits a nation, cases quadruple every three days. We have been lucky, and we must thank the governments of Lagos and Ogun States as well as NCDC for their efforts.

    But the public has been anything but cooperative. Owambe parties, worship services in churches and mosques, weddings and funerals were going on as if nothing was at stake. Godless clerics irresponsibly assure their ignorant flock about “corrosive anointing” against the virus. Political parties hold rallies against the dictate of reason. Where, then, is the social responsibility of the public?

    The civic education of the public is the unfinished business of our time. In view of recent efforts pushing a renewal agenda, I am optimistic about the Southwest leading this effort with Olawale Oshun and his team in the driver’s seat. Under his able leadership, Afenifere Renewal Group (ARG) committed itself to revamping the value system that sustained the old Western Region. Born of this effort is the Yoruba Academy and Development Agenda for Western Region (DAWN), which has spawned the Western Nigeria Security Network (Operation Amotekun).

    Happy 70th, Honourable!

     

  • Takeaways from the APC crisis

    Takeaways from the APC crisis

    Segun Gbadegesin

    With the aversion of its recent crisis, All Progressives Congress (APC) stakeholders, including the President, National Leader, Party Chairman, Governors, National Assembly and State Assembly members, NWC, NEC, and National Caucus members, can exhale and heave a sigh of relief that the dream is not dead. The temporary hiccup is over and hope is alive that progressive governance will endure.

    There is no doubt, however, that as the crisis deepened in the last few months, there was also a heightened anxiety about the future of the party. Not a few wondered if it was all over for a party that emerged with a promise only seven years ago. How time flies, and with it the euphoria of invincibility especially post-2015 and 2019 victories. Going forward, it is in the interest of party leaders and stakeholders to ponder the lessons from their recent romance with fratricide and the party’s corporate brush with political demise.

    First, it is worth reminding ourselves that a political party is a device created for the purpose fielding candidates for elections and winning. To do so, however, they must subscribe to some common position or share a common ideology which they present to the electorate. A continuous focus on this purpose and its realisation by leaders and followers alike is an indispensable condition for the success of the party.

    Second, success here is not measured only by victories recorded at the polls, important as that standard is, but, more importantly, by how much of its agenda and programs the party is able to realize for the nation in any election cycle in which voters give it a mandate. This is the ultimate goal. Of course, for this final end to be realized, it must first win elections. Therefore, electoral victory cannot be taken lightly. However, the point being made here is that winning elections is not an end in itself; it is only a first step, the means to the further end of achieving its ideal of the good for the people.

    Third, APC was a child of circumstance, sired in the urgency of a moment of national anguish with Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), a ruling party run amok with kleptocrats and arrogant treasury looters with zero concern for the development of human beings, in the saddle of power. We know about anti-terrorism security funds that went into political campaigns and private pockets when the country had lost vast territories to Boko Haram insurgents. We know of tens of millions of dollars investment in the power sector, yet the nation remains in darkness. For sixteen years the largest party in Africa sponsored three administrations at the center and in the majority of states and our federal and inter-state roads are death traps. This was the undeniable reality from 1999 to 2015.

    Fourth, APC cobbled together a merger of hitherto splinter groups each with no encouraging prospect of a national electoral victory; but each with significant strengths in different zones and/or states. Importantly, each had within its fold some political power brokers with progressive ideas and were willing to set aside differing individual and group concerns about the makeup and ideals of the others for the purpose of collectively taking on the ruling party. This was how Action Congress of Nigeria (ACN), Congress for Progressive Change (CPC), All Nigeria Peoples Party (ANPP), and a faction of All Progressives Grand Alliance (APGA) became APC.

    Fifth, APC came up with a progressive agenda and programs of action that appealed to a cross section of the national electorate. In retrospect, it must be conceded that a lot of voters were already simply fed up with the lackluster performance of PDP and its proclivity to arrogant excesses in its stewardship of the nation’s resources. The people were ready for an alternative. Even with this background, it didn’t hurt that APC had a platform that appealed to and attracted many voters, especially those inclined to a new beginning for the nation.

    What is a progressive agenda for governance? It puts people, blood and flesh human beings, in the center of its actions and policies with the ultimate goal of improving their lot. Thus, APC promised increased economic prosperity delivered through moral probity in governance, party discipline, compassionate policy choices, diversified economy, and a strong determination to battle wrong, and fight the war against corruption to its logical conclusion. It also vowed to prioritise constitutional amendment to devolve power to states for a more balanced development.

    Sixth, unfortunately, with its victory at the polls in 2015, it soon became clear that different purposes and agenda predominated the minds of different actors and agents of the new ruling party. With the sole purpose of some of the actors just for the spoils of battle, friction was inevitable, and the better part of the first term of President Buhari was consumed with resolving conflicts between the presidency and the National Assembly, and between the various factions of the party. In the end, NASS leadership which had joined the party from PDP found its way back to their old party in time for the 2019 elections.

    Seventh, with what the party considered a good riddance, it fought the 2019 elections with all it had and it scored victory at the national level and in many states. But the old demons have not been completely exorcised, and it found itself scoring own goals in some states, including Oyo, Rivers, and Zamfara. These recalcitrant demons are the reason for the crisis that almost ended the chairmanship of Comrade Oshiomhole and with it, an uncertain future for the party itself.

    In his reaction to the crisis, APC National Leader, Asiwaju Bola Ahmed Tinubu suggested that what ails the party is what he refers to as the 2023 ambition virus. He has a point and the analogy of a virus is insightful. We know that viruses hardly die off. They may hibernate for a while only to resurface with a vengeance when the condition is right. The 2023 virus is just a more deadly variant of the 2015-2019 virus which afflicted the party leading to the decamping of nPDP members.

    The question the party must resolve now is how to deal with the virus of ambition and manage it such that it doesn’t demobilize it going forward. One of the greatest challenges facing party development in Nigeria, and perhaps many other African democracies, is personalization of party structures. As in governance structures, we have failed to develop institutions, a network of rules and practices which do not rely on the frailties of human personality to function.

    The refrain we hear from the present crisis is that some governors are eyeing the presidency in 2023 and they want to hijack party structure to achieve their ambition. Being ambitious is not a sin. But if ambition leads you to destroy the vehicle which it needs to succeed, then it is self-defeating and self-contradictory. Unfortunately, the ambitious individual not only self-destructs, he/she also ends up destroying the hope of many for progressive governance.

    What is the solution? Create institutions that bypass individual ego and idiosyncrasies. In the heydays of Action Group, the people owned the party. At the ward level, members paid membership dues and were given membership cards. They had a say in the running of the party. It was also a national party, though it recorded its highest number in the Western Region.

    Now it appears party chairmen at local, state and national levels, and governors are seen and treated as gods. They control party structures and therefore the destinies of members. This is a recipe for disaster, an incessant struggle of all against all in a quasi-state of war. What must be done is to assure everyone desirous of a political position of fair competition in a direct primary in which every registered fee paying member is an electorate. This puts members in the drivers’ seat and gives them a sense of ownership.

    In the five years since APC emerged as ruling party, it should have led the effort to institutionalise party development in Nigeria. It is still not too late to start now.

  • Trashing tradition

    Trashing tradition

    Segun Gbadegesin

     

    MUHAMMADU Sanusi II reigned as Emir of Kano from 2014 to 2020. Installed as Emir by the Kano State Government under former Governor Rabiu Kwankwaso in June 2014, Sanusi was deposed by the current Kano State Government under Governor Abdullahi Ganduje in March 2020. A governor installed him, another governor deposed him. Government chooses; government rejects. It is a testament to the reality of raw political power.

    This reality is not confined to Kano State or the North in general. It is the reality of constitutional democracy in this post-colonial state with republican pretensions. In its adoration of individual freedom and political liberty, republicanism is the polar opposite of monarchical rule. It could be suggested then that the conflict we are seeing between premiers, governors, and heads of states on the one hand and traditional rulers on the other hand is inevitable. One group is democratic; the other aristocratic.

    That suggestion is grossly misleading. First, that we operate a democratic system doesn’t make every elected official a democrat. We have democrats in name only (DINO). Hence, complaints about elections which are nothing more than selections or daylight robbery. Second, as democrats, political leaders value and canvass the support of traditional rulers to advance their political interests. This is especially the case where traditional rulers have sound footing in the tradition of their people, and are loved by them. When the going is good, political leaders don’t denigrate tradition or the holders of traditional offices.

    Third, however, unlike their great grandfathers, many contemporary traditional rulers, having the same benefits of modern education and training as political leaders, but with additional training in traditional governance, are likely to have a better understanding of the needs of their people than some governors.

    Yet there is no denying the reality of our republican constitution which effectively subordinates traditional institutions to the agency of the modern state, and a charge of insubordination is all it takes for an emir to be removed from office. If a governor appoints, a governor could very well depose.

    Is there an alternative reality in which a different development is possible? Could there be a workable combination of monarchy with liberal democracy and each institution respects the other with a smooth working relationship between them? This is not far-fetched. Our colonizers still manage such a system, don’t they? We haven’t heard, at least in recent history, of a Prime Minister of the United Kingdom sending a letter of deposition to a King or Queen of England.

    Couldn’t there be an alternative selection process that insulates the appointment of traditional rulers from governors? Isn’t it possible that tradition selects its rulers and its selection is rubber-stamped by the modern liberal state without the possibility of the latter wielding a power to depose? How?

    In “The Fulani Emirates of Northern Nigeria” (The Geographical Journal, 1904), J. A. Burdon, a former Colonial Officer of the Northern Protectorate, discussed the elaborate and complex process of selecting the Emir of Bida, a process that made the Emir not only well-trained and competent, but also accountable to his people: “…the fundamental principle is the intense veneration of age…..Promotion through the various offices of state up to the highest is a matter of selection based mainly on seniority.”

    Indeed, Burdon suggests a similarity between the Bida tradition and the British systems, comparing the Emir with the Queen, the Council of Princes with the House of Lords, and the Council of Commoners with the House of Commons. The Emir expresses an interest in making an appointment to the Council of Princes. The individual mentioned approaches the Emir with an interest. The Emir publishes this interest and waits for a month to see if the person is acceptable to the people. If that is the case, the appointment is confirmed. If not, the matter is dropped and someone else may be considered.

    This is the beginning of the “apprenticeship” to the emirate. In Burdon’s words: “Through these Council of Princes the future Emir enters the service of the state, climbing the ladder of promotion by force of character, wealth, and public service till he reaches at a ripe age the position of heir-apparent, from which he succeeds by right to the emirate.” At which point, he also appoints his potential heir from the Council of Princes, who will go through the same procedure. The British found this system admirable and they decided to work with it rather than demolish it.

    Nigeria adopted parliamentary democracy from Britain and immediately began to trash its traditional institutions. Listening to Governor Wike of Rivers State in a viral video ridiculing traditional rulers to their face is as pathetic as they get. You have to wonder what cultural values he himself espouses. Admittedly, some traditional rulers have not been particularly mindful of the dignity of their offices and have tarnished the image of the institution. A monarch that engages in a boxing match in public against another monarch has not proved himself worthy of the throne. What cannot be denied is that his appointment was made by the modern state.

    But the case of Sanusi versus Kano State government is especially disturbing for its implications for democratic norms, human rights, and the dignity of traditional institutions. According to the Governor’s office, Sanusi was removed for insubordination and “total disrespect for lawful instructions from the office of the state governor” and for failure to attend state functions. Of course, for every effect, there is a cause, and in this case, there could be more than one cause. But what kind of crime is insubordination?

    Sanusi is a gadfly. He decries procreation without responsibility for offspring. He rails against the Almajiri beggar culture. He condemns elite neglect. He denounces corruption. He is an outspoken critic of government. The Jonathan administration found him an irritant in 2013 and suspended him as Governor of Central Bank. He was harassed by security agents who seized his international passport. It was around that time that he got appointed as Emir. And the fearless critique of government policies didn’t abate.

    For a governor who understands that he is infallible and that criticism comes with the territory, perhaps this would not matter. Either he develops a thick skin or he accepts criticism in good faith and tries to incorporate suggestions of critics in policy reviews. But an intolerant elected official may suffer a bruised ego in the face of any criticism including constructive ones. This is what has just happened.

    Governor Ganduje created new emirates in Kano, ostensibly for effective and balanced development. But not many people buy this innocent rationale. For many, it was to whittle down Sanusi’s power and influence. Sanusi apparently got the message. The state’s charge that he wasn’t attending state functions may have stemmed from this issue. And, of course, it further poisoned the relationship, leading to the final act of the governor wielding the big axe and removing the Emir from office.

    But Sanusi was not only deposed; he was also exiled from Kano to Nassarawa State. And this raises a valid question about the constitutionality of the government’s action. Sure, there are precedents going back to the first republic. But is it right? Can citizens be prevented from exercising their freedom of movement? Can a state law supersede a constitutional provision? Can banishment and exile be administratively imposed?

    The constitution guarantees every citizen the right to move freely and associate freely. It grants them the right to live anywhere in the country as they wish. If the governor has a right to remove Sanusi from the throne, does he also have the right to send him to exile? It appears that this right has always been assumed, and many of the earlier victims have never challenged it. This may be an opportune time to do so.

    Sanusi’s intellect cannot be cowed. As a true Muslim, he has accepted Kano government’s decision as an act of God. He has an exciting life ahead of him. Governor El-Rufai’s courageous offer of an appointment to him shows that Ganduje’s vendetta is not an APC-endorsed action. Who knows what else is there coming to SLS?

     

  • Remembering a consistent federalist

    Remembering a consistent federalist

    By Segun Gbadegesin

    On Wednesday morning, as I contemplated my choice of topic for today, my friend called. This time he was a serious thinker, the complete opposite of the joker image that he almost always presented. He wanted to congratulate me in advance of the birthday of my son, Ademola, which comes up today.

    Of course, Opalaba didn’t forget. He was there with my father on the eighth day naming ceremony in panic mode awaiting my arrival from Ife, while my wife, fully engaged by the baby, put her faith in God. I arrived late because I had a morning class that I couldn’t afford to skip. I thanked my friend for the memories. And I thank God for my son’s achievements over the years and for his successes.

    Then, announcing himself as “your aide-memoire this week”, as if I needed one, my friend, with excitement, also reminded me that my son and our idol share a birthday.  “Remember the avatar himself has his 111th posthumous birthday coming up on Friday? That’s a significant number”, my friend added. “Sure, I replied enthusiastically. Too bad Baba left us as orphans before we reached the age of maturity.” “Too bad”, Opalaba intoned, and I could feel the sadness gushing out from the receiver.

    “Oh, and there is another birthday this week”, my friend announced as he overcame his emotion. “Oh yeah? Whose?” I asked. “The other Baba of course! Don’t tell me you don’t know that General Obasanjo turns 83 on Thursday.” “Oh, how nice! I wish the other Baba many happy returns”, I replied.

    “That doesn’t sound enthusiastic”, Opalaba challenged me. “We should give the old man a break. After all, he is now all over the place preaching the gospel of true federalism which Chief Awolowo preached and acted upon his entire life, and for which he was vilified by Obasanjo and others. I see his new role as that of a repentant unitarist now in league with true federalists. What else do you want?”

    “I am glad that you accept that he was a uniformist before he is a federalist, and that he was against restructuring before he was for it. I like a consistent federalist better. I like better those who don’t shy away from what they know is right no matter what the consequence is. I like those with unshaken principles even when they understood it would cost them their life-time ambition. By gosh, I like better the one who paid the price of principled consistency when others conspired against him.”

    Opalaba was silent, a signal that he wanted me to continue.

    “Look at it this way,” I requested. The British colonizers of Nigeria were unitarists. They preferred to rule Nigeria as a unitary system. Awolowo confronted them with a thoughtful position that objectively analyzed the fact that Nigeria is a conglomeration of diverse nationalities; and as such, federalism is the best approach to its governance. He never abandoned this position even when he was its only advocate. So-called nationalists mocked him as a tribalist. Later, they all came back to embrace his position.

    “But who were the “basejes” and spoilers that destroyed the federal structure? It was the military government starting in January 1966. If we concede that due to its hierarchical system of authority, military governors had to take orders from their superiors at the center, what they did was understandable. But it shouldn’t excuse their imposing the same system on the civilian administration on the eve of their (military) return to the barracks in 1979. But that was what they did.

    “Again, however, the civilian administration that took over in 1979 had every responsibility to review the constitution that the military handed over to them. They didn’t. Instead they took it, and advanced it with the introduction of Presidential Liaison Officers which institutionalized federal presence in the states. And, of course, the military returned with a vengeance in 1984.

    “Fast forward to 1999, and another unitary constitution was imposed on the country. This time, the beneficiary was General Obasanjo who gladly ran with it with a heavy hand. Remember Odi. Remember the impeachments of Ladoja, Fayose, Dariye, and Alamieyeseigha. And the emergency declarations. Remember the shoot at sight order on OPC. And please recall the hounding of late Dr. Fasehun, the leader of the organization.

    “If you effectively wielded the weapon of unitarism for eight years and you didn’t see anything wrong with it, I have the right, and indeed, the duty, to be skeptical of your new gospel of federalism and restructuring.

    “Let us assume that the stress of office and the commitment to get things done for the country may have clouded the vision of the former president. But ten years after his presidency in February 2017, he mercilessly mocked Jonathan’s national conference as a distraction and proudly confessed that he did not read the report. Then, in January 2018, we began to see a shift in outlook. From seeing those who sought restructuring as greedy politicians, he now sees risks of division without renegotiation of the country’s unity and listening to the complaints of ethnic nationalities.

    “In his March 1 address at the first memorial lecture in honor of Dr. Frederick Fasehun, the former president recalled that true federalism was the agitation when he was in power but that it has now morphed to restructuring, and he advised President Buhari not to let the agitation advance to self-determination struggle. It was a good advice. What I didn’t see from media reports was a sense of regret, if not apology, to Nigerians for why he didn’t accede to the demand for a true federal system when he had the power of say so.

    “That takes me to the question of the difference, if any, between true federalism and restructuring. This is important to clarify because many have mischievously dismissed the demand for restructuring on the ground that it’s a vague concept, or that the agitators don’t really know what they want, or that there are varieties of views on the matter and, therefore, the demand lacks merit.

    “Simply put, one is a means to the other. The goal is true federalism. The demand is for the political system of the country to be restructured from its present unitary slant to a true federal structure. We wouldn’t need restructuring if we had not deviated from the original federal structure at independence.

    “As Professor Ladipo Adamolekun reminds us in an insightful article for Publius in 2005, the first phase of Nigerian post-independence system was “an apprenticeship to true federalism phase (1954-65)”. This was followed by a “federal dominance phase under military rule (1966-79 and 1984-1999)” and “a muddling through phase under civilian rule (1979-83 and 1999 to date).” Even though Adamolekun characterized the first phase as an apprenticeship phase, it was very clear that the country and its leaders were good apprentices who quickly learned the trick of the trade to the benefit of the nation.

    “The true federalism phase was “characterised by political devolution and intergovernmental competition, during which regional governments recorded tangible results.” This is the result that every advocate of restructuring of our present unitary or “muddling through” system has been urging: tangible results.

    “What is vague about this? It was a time when regional governments paid workers salaries without approaching the federal government cap in hand. It was a time when internal security was handled effectively. It was a time when development projects beautified the landscape of various regions and local communities. What we have now is “military federalism” which once catered for the need of the military, but which civilian administrations since 1999 have shamelessly adopted.

    “Some might think that it serves their personal or section interests to keep military federalism as the governing philosophy of the country. What is clear, however, is that it will not endure. Hopefully, the Constitution Review Committee of NASS sees the big picture as Awolowo and the Founding Fathers did. Whether it can act in the interest of the nation as Awolowo did is a different matter.

    Happy 111th posthumous birthday to Chief Awolowo, epitome of courage and vision.

  • The end times

    The end times

    Segun Gbadegesin

     

    EARLY morning mid-week, my phone rang. The caller ID showed “out of Area”. I had no idea who was on the other end.  I answered courteous” “Hello, Good morning.”

    “Hello there, Old Chum. Have you prepared yourself for the final end?” the caller replied. Of course, I couldn’t miss my friend’s voice. But it has been a while, and this was only his second call this year. I couldn’t also sincerely be surprised what my friend may be up to any time. But asking if I was prepared for the end was, even for him, a new level of craziness.

    “Excuse me?” I feigned ignorance of who was on the line. “Are you sure you have the right number?”

    “Of course, how can I not see this coming” he snapped. “Asking you if you are prepared for the final end suddenly ignited your loss of memory and you now can’t figure out who the hell is on the line. Truth is bitter. But if you are still behind in your work of faith, you had better gotten yourself together. These are not good times. These are end times.”

    “My Father and my God, I just prayed for peace and joy a moment ago. Is this how you answer a loving child’s prayer of faith?” I muttered incoherently to myself. But I couldn’t let Opalaba spoil my day.

    “Good morning my friend. But I am wondering what this is all about, and what side of the bed you got up from this morning. But if you must have an answer to your question, it is simply that you are in the least position to question the preparedness of anyone for the end. You have a big log in your eyes which you are well-advised to remove before worrying about me. I’ll be alright when the time comes. Thank you.”

    Thirty seconds passed before Opalaba found his voice. “Look, I am tired” he intoned. Are you following the news, both domestic and foreign? Have you ever experienced a time such as this? How else can I wrap my head around it than think of the end of time? As for me, I am now ready, and I am just trying to get my best friend in shape.”

    I cannot pretend ignorance about what troubles my friend’s mind. But I wanted to push him further.

    “So, let me get this right. You are tired of the news coming from domestic and foreign sources and in your tired mind, end time is the logical thought. I agree that you are tired. But what comes logically with tiredness is clumsy thinking. You are getting crazier and you need help. Your expertise in internal medicine will not help here.”

    My friend flew into a rage. “Really? You must be thankful for the ocean that is between us. Otherwise, my craziness would be effectively confirmed in an instant.”

    “Alright, my good friend. Tell me more about these news that signal the end times for you.” They can’t be that frightening, are they really?

    “Now, we’re talking”, Opalaba excitedly replied.

    “Look here, my friend, you and I were in Sunbeam Department. We were in Sunday School and CTU. We were taught about the end of times. Nations will rise against nations. There will be increase in natural disasters. False prophets will arise who “through covetousness shall with feigned words make merchandise of you…” (2 Peter 2: 3). There will be increase in materialism. In general, the last days will be perilous as Apostle Paul warned Timothy in 2 Timothy 3:1-4. You know all these are happening now, don’t you?

    “Yes, I know”, I confessed, to my friend’s delight.  “But I am yet to see what is new here. Everything that you just highlighted has occurred repeatedly in the last 2,000 years since the predictions were first pronounced. Yet, the world as we know it has not ended!” What is new?

    “You have a point there”, Opalaba responded. And I have just the news that you crave right here in motherland. If these things I am about to reveal don’t confirm the coming of the end to you, nothing will.”

    “I am all ears” my good friend.”

    “Look, the north is not monolithic after all! Opalaba roared into the handset. “That tells me that Nigeria is making progress and coalitions of like-minded citizens will continue to emerge with strength to create elite consensus for durable democracy.

    “First, security across the nation has been a divisive issue. But the times, they are a-changing!  As you know, Arewa Youth Consultative Forum commended the Southwest for the Amotekun initiative. It then announced its own outfit, Shege Ka Fasa. But the Sultan of Sokoto strongly objected to the initiative. And Alhaji Yerima, the President of the forum wasn’t in the least impressed. He accused Northern leaders of not coming up with effective solution to the security problem but would attack those who try.

    “What is more encouraging is the endorsement of Amotekun in the Southwest by Miyeti Allah (MACBAN) whose members showed up at the various public hearings on the initiative. Apparently, the Association has realized that the security outfit is in their interest, and they see how the initiative has strengthened the unity of Yoruba people across religious and partisan divides, leaving no cracks for any invading lizards to penetrate.

    “On the political boiling pot of 2023 presidency, Yerima’s Forum has also put its feet down. Left to them, the North must retain the Presidency and must not give an inch to the south. But a serious North Eastern Youth Mobilisation Congress has publicly and excitedly expressed its support for power rotation to the South in 2023. And did you not hear Governor Malam Nassir El-Rufai’s conscientious emphasis on fairness and justice in a recent interview? For him, the North will honor the general consensus in Nigeria that “the Presidency should rotate between the North and the South.” That is Mallam El-Rufai!

    “Do you need further evidence that the end times are knocking on our national entrance door?”

    “Indeed, I am now more convinced than before that you need a psychiatric evaluation”, I shot back.

    “Wait, there is more”, Opalaba responded without emotion.

    “I know you are an old man. Of course, I am older. But have you ever seen anything like our present election fiasco? The highest Court of the land is being petitioned to self-review and self-indict. Yes, I anticipate your response: ‘What is wrong about reviewing a wrong judgment? The 12 2/3 judgment of 1979 should have been reviewed.’ That is the difference, my friend. The Justices of 1979 were bold in their wrong decision. They refused to be cowed by better argument and they reveled in the injustice of their verdict. There was no self-review. They only denied making that judgment a precedent.

    “Now we have Imo and Bayelsa judgments queuing for review while the Presidential election verdict is eagerly waiting for its turn. By the time we are done, every election case that ever came before the Supreme Court would be up for review. I want a revisit of the 1979 case. And please don’t ever think that since the two contestants are resting in the Lord, there is no interested party. I am an interested party!

    “If these political and judicial news from the homeland don’t suggest to you the end times, I have more, this time from our blessed USA. Do you know that socialism is alive and well, and winning in the heartland of capitalist democracy? Senator Sanders of the “Bernie Bros” fame is leading in delegates count. He just solidified his popularity among millennials and minorities with his Nevada victory, baffling the Democratic establishment. You know what our good old uncle would say: Trump’s spell is working.

    “There are a few lesser signs, if you want to know. With pestilence such as coronavirus in China, locust invasion in East Africa, Saudi Arabia and Yemen, Lassa fever in dear country, and the disaster that was Dow this past Monday, Lord, make it end soon. I am ready. Are you?”

    “No, my friend! Too much thinking is running you crazy!”

     

     

  • A paradigm of probity at 85

    By Segun Gbadegesin

    Nigeria had a great beginning with great institutions and patriotic leaders who excelled in placing the nation above self. This was true of the first indigenous leadership of the military and civilians. Respectively, they fought in the battlefield against foreign adversaries and in the legislative houses for freedom and justice. They won the respect of the world and achieved independence for the nation.

    Unfortunately, however, Nigerian millennials only know about the rot and corruption in the political system and the egomaniacal conduct of so-called leaders who are there only for the self and its debasement. The era of the military regime, beginning especially from 1975 to 1979, and from 1985 to 1999 was, to a large extent, responsible for this degradation, for which the country is currently paying an unbearable cost, from kidnapping and banditry to terrorism and everything in between.

    Today, this column pays an overdue homage to one of the unsung exemplars of probity and accountability in public life as he achieves the ripe and enviable age of 85.

    Brigadier General Oluwole Rotimi (rtd.) may not now be a household name. Indeed, we may forgive millennials for thinking that the military was/is a den of corrupt lions who devoured the country’s resources without accountability. I strongly believe, however, that if those angels that God dispatched to Sodom and Gomorrah were returned to our shores in the depth of its moral decadence, they would have found a sizeable number of men and women of honor in the military, and would have granted the prayer of an Abraham to save the institution. Undoubtedly, one of those men of honor would have been General Oluwole Rotimi.

    For this belief, we have an indubitable evidence in the public domain. In July 1975, General Murtala Mohammed led a coup that sacked the government of General Gowon. I remember vividly because my colleagues and I were just returning from a one-year National Youth Service deployment when the announcement of a coup was blared on air.

    Mohammed, a war commander, was evidently incensed by the deterioration of the system of accountability and was determined to sanitize the institution. He declared all Military Governors personal no grata. He ordered a probe of their activities and vowed to march them all to the Bar Beach. The atmosphere was tense. Rotimi was sure of himself. The probe was conducted by the military hierarchy. Only two of the governors, late Brigadier General Mobolaji Johnson and Brigadier General Oluwole Rotimi, were exonerated.

    Clearly, upbringing and background are important factors in human success. But so is a personal ethic and determination to be above board despite temptations. Traditionally, the Yoruba believe in the metaphysical significance of Ori or destiny. We are what we are pre-destined to be in our pre-natal existence. But interestingly, our people also hold firmly to the view that a person must remake himself or herself: “I have been made. But I will remake myself.” This remaking of the self is what makes our conduct deserving of praise or blame. For how could anyone be praised or blamed for what they are not responsible for, if they were only recipients of a destiny that they had no hand in choosing?

    General Rotimi’s story is one of a continuous making and remaking oneself. It is an inspiring story of sheer determination to follow one’s dream, of refusal to succumb to setbacks even when they are undeserved, and, therefore, a story of victory against all odds. At 85, he can raise his head high, even if he has only a modest material means because, to paraphrase moral philosopher Kant, he is an outstanding achiever in the Kingdom of Ends.

    General Rotimi chose the military career as a young secondary school student, thanks to his experience in the Cadet unit of King’s College, Lagos. But with a Grade 1 Secondary School Certificate, and later the HSC, the door to educational advancement was wide open to him. Yet his career counselor could only reach a deal with him to first complete university education, and if he was still interested in military service, the counselor would get him in. This was still the colonial era military. He wasn’t sure of his career trajectory. Certainly, there was no motive of corrupt enrichment. It was a motive of service in the tradition of military generals he had read about in history.

    That motive was to track General Rotimi’s professional life from his time as Quartermaster General during the civil war, his service as Governor of the old Western Region, and his time as Nigerian Ambassador to the United States of America. All the way, it was service with the guidance of God and conscience.

    It is noteworthy that General Rotimi served as Quartermaster General during the civil war. Yet, when he was retired in 1975 at age 40, and after serving for four years as governor of the old Western Region, he had virtually nothing! As Quartermaster General, he oversaw procurement and logistics for the army. That was a time with little or no vetting! This means that he could inflate contracts with impunity. But he didn’t. There is ample evidence that he also rejected the voluntary patronage of army contractors who could have compromised his integrity. In the end, he had no inexplicable material possession to show for his time in the army.

    If General Rotimi’s discharge of his duty as Quartermaster General without compromising his integrity is remarkable, his service as Military Governor of the Western Region was marked by a laser focus on development and zero tolerance for indiscipline and corruption in the civil service. Of course, it is to be expected that as military rule took hold in those early days, a lot of impunity invaded the system, and civil servants soon developed a tradition of godfatherism previously unknown to the institution. It was also a time fraught with civil unrest as a result of the peasant agitation against the system of taxation, which they protested as unjust and unbearable.

    What was especially inspiring in his administration of the Western Region was General Rotimi’s focus on the priority of education, agriculture, health, and rural development, a testimonial to the welfarist approach of the civilian government that the military had toppled. For instance, in the 1971/72 budget of the Western Region, a whopping 42% was the share of education, including higher education, because the then University of Ife (now Obafemi Awolowo University) was owned by the regional government. Agriculture was still the mainstay of the regional economy and taxation was taken seriously by government and people of the region. Self-help development projects were promoted with government pledge of a 2 to 1 matching grant to communities that succeeded in raising funds for self-help projects such as cottage industries. It was a successful scheme.

    If General Rotimi’s discharge of his duty as Quartermaster General without compromising his integrity is remarkable, his service as Military Governor of the Western Region was marked by a laser focus on development and zero tolerance for indiscipline and corruption

    As noted above, at the end of his service as governor, General Rotimi was cleared of any abuse of power or corrupt practices. He went into private life with the satisfaction of serving his country to the best of his ability. That was until 2008 when newly elected President Umaru Musa Yar’Adua tapped him as the Ambassador to the United States of America. A lifetime of devotion to God and country with a background of moral probity cannot but animate a person to greater service.

    John Stuart Mill famously argued that it is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied, better to be a Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied. This is because Socrates knows better than a fool what makes life satisfactory. Rotimi knows better than some corruption minded fool that it is not the accumulation of illicit wealth that makes human life good.

    He approached his ambassadorial assignment with the same focus on probity. But he was dealing with human parasites who had zero interest in the niceties of moral life. He ran into conflict with those powers, and he was recalled from his position. With the outcome of the investigations, court proceedings and verdicts, it is General Rotimi that laughs last.

    Happy Birthday, General! Your great story should be an inspiration to future generations.

     

  • Constitution review-again!

    Segun Gbadegesin

     

    FOR the umpteen time since the birth of the present constitutional republic, its foundational document, elegantly known as the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, is about to be reviewed. As keen observers of our political world would acknowledge, it appears that every new National Assembly (NASS) takes it as its responsibility to peer through the document to ferret out what it determines as inadequacies. It is remarkable that with all these quadrennial efforts, the document is as flawed as it was at birth. Are you wondering what it says about the efforts? You are not alone.

    As to be expected, this news has elicited mixed reactions from Nigerians. From wailers to hailers, from enablers to cynics, from genuine sceptics to professional mockers, from unwavering federalists to hard-core unitarists, there is no shortage of comments on this new initiative. Is the effort genuinely nationalistic or self-centered? Are there predetermined outcomes or will they allow the chips to fall where they may? Does it envisage a new progressive federation or same old behemoth?

    Let me however defend NASS on one important matter regarding its mandate. There have been a few objections to its taking on the responsibility of constitution review. Some commentators insist that since sovereignty belongs to the people, it should be the people’s duty to review the constitution, which would imply enacting a brand new constitution in place of the military-imposed document.

    While I do not disagree that the country may be well-served with a brand new citizen-produced constitution that discards the grossly inadequate 1999 constitution, it is also important to recognize that the document provides for its periodic review and evaluation by NASS. Section 9 (1) provides that “the National Assembly may, subject to the provisions of this section, alter any of the provisions of this Constitution.” Part of the provisions referenced is that the act of alteration must be supported by two-thirds of members of both Senate and House of Representatives and approved by a resolution of the Houses of Assembly of not less than two-thirds of all the States. The relevant questions are what recommends any effort at alteration? How effective will it be? And will a brand new constitution be better?

    Unfortunately, the brief statement attributed to Senate President Ahmed Lawan only leaves even sympathetic observers asking for more. According to Lawan:

    o             The committee represents the Senate and the entire National Assembly even though the House will also constitute its own Constitution Review Committee.

    o             Distinguished Senators who are not on the committee can still participate with submissions and advise to the committee.

    o             In addition to members of NASS, the committee will engage all Nigerians including statutory bodies like INEC, and Civil Society groups.

    • Nigerians are interested in the Constitution Review and there are several issues they feel strongly about.
    • The Constitution Review Committee is the platform where such issues are brought and interested citizens should make presentations.
    • NASS, particularly Senate, wants “a stable country”, “a country that gives every citizen the opportunity to actualize his or her dream”, “a security that is enhanced and an economy that works for everyone.”

    Following these observations, the Senate President offers an open invitation:

    • “Any organization or individual who has anything that should be taken on by the committee should make submissions to the Constitution Review Committee.”

    Obviously, these are off-the-cuff comments by the Senate President. But, in the absence of any formal statement that justifies the rationale for the committee at this time, as well as what its terms of reference are, we have only these comments to peep into the working of the mind of Senate leadership.

    The comments can be categorized into two parts. First is the procedural matter of the operation of the committee. The committee will reach out to all Nigerians and it will take submissions from individuals and organizations. Second is what may be considered as substantive issues of constitutional significance. And this is where many observers would be right to wonder what the whole exercise is about other than vague ideas regarding economic equality, enhanced security, and stability, which the Senate President identified in his floor remarks.

    Let us admit that “there are several issues that (Nigerians) feel strongly about.” But not all such issues are constitutional matters, otherwise we would have an unwieldy document that invades the privacy of citizens. Surely, many people feel strongly about monogamous versus polygamous marriages. Do we want our constitution to wade into that issue?

    On the other hand, economic wellbeing and citizen security are already provided for in the extant constitution that is the subject of the work of the committee. But what exactly is in play in these matters? And why have previous constitutional amendment efforts failed to take care of them?

    Take for instance, economic wellbeing of citizens. The constitution provides that “the State shall abolish all corrupt practices and abuse of power.” (Section 15 (5)) And Section 16 (1) (a) provides for the harnessing of the “resources of the nation and promote national prosperity and an efficient, dynamic, and self-reliant economy”, while Section 16 (1) (c) provides for the “control of the national economy in such a manner as to secure the maximum welfare, freedom and happiness of every citizen on the basis of social justice and equality of status and opportunity.”

    It would follow therefore, that the deprivation of economic wellbeing experienced by citizens is less a matter of constitutional oversight that need amendment but more of constitutional implementation that requires attention from the presidency to the states.

    How about security?  Under “Public order and public security, Section 11 (1) empowers the National Assembly to make laws “for the federation or any part thereof with respect to the maintenance and securing of public safety and public order and providing, maintaining, and securing of such supplies and services as may be designated by the National Assembly as essential supplies and services.”

    And subsection (2) gives the same right to States Houses of Assembly stating that: “Nothing in this section shall preclude a House of Assembly from making laws with respect to the matters referred to in this section…” However, this provision appears to be rendered ineffective by the Second Schedule which gives the exclusive legislative powers on Police and other government security services to the Federal Government. From which it follows that states must depend on the federal government for their security, a situation which has, to say the least, placed the states in precarious security conditions in recent times. Why have none of the previous constitution reviews since 1999 taken any firm position on this matter? Why are states and local communities becoming sacrificial lambs to bandits, kidnappers and terrorists? And will this new effort by NASS summon the necessary courage to deal with this constitutional lacuna?

    Finally, the matter of stability is on the mind of Senate President Lawan, and rightly so. National stability has never been more of a serious issue in our federal system of government. And the reason is not far-fetched. The country was founded on the principle that a diverse population thrives best under a federal system of government which respects diversity without abandoning unity. Indeed, the founding fathers saw diversity as the strength of the nation and they warned against an ambitious homogenization policy that tended to alienate cultural groups.

    While the country entered independence with a three-regional structure, which soon became four, it was latter realized that the lopsided structure which guaranteed a perpetual majority of one section in national government was an impediment to stability. More states were created by the military. But the military also did away with the federal system that had been the bulwark of protecting diversity in favor of a uniformity that has become a destabilizing force.

    Since 1979, this problem has been swept under the rug of national deliberations as if it will go away by itself. It will not. If NASS is serious about the stability of the country with a view to building a nation we can all be proud of, it will lead a serious effort to reinstate true federalism in the system. Everything else is shameless deceit.

     

  • Divisiveness aggravates insecurity

    By Segun Gbadegesin

    Nigeria is under siege, no thanks to the reality and the perception of insecurity. Having withstood every weapon in the arsenal of security agencies, insurgency and banditry appear to be winning despite assurances to the contrary. Add with the menace of kidnapping and armed robbery, the feeling of helplessness is not a bit misplaced.

    Unfortunately, Nigeria is also a dangerously divided country. Yes, this is a country with a heterogeneous population. But after more than a century of being cobbled together by an external power, it appears that Nigerians are no more united now than they were on the eve of amalgamation. That says a lot not only about policies but also about politics and the deep-seated roots of division.

    The way this combination of insecurity and divisiveness has been playing out since 2013 is, to say the least, alarming. In a recent statement, President Buhari heartbreakingly observed that “Boko Haram is tearing us apart.” He was right. And that is where the perception of insecurity kicks in. For beside the fact that stares everyone in the face, there is also the negative perception of motives lurking in the consciousness of many citizens. There is an “us against them mentality” and a “they are out to get us” fear.

    This perception and this fear have contributed immensely to the country’s inability to speak with one voice against the various forms of insecurity that have overwhelmed the country. And for this reason, it appears that the agents of insecurity have been emboldened to peddle their ware and to continue to cause havoc. Unfortunately for them, elected officials and political leaders find themselves in the unenviable position of being perceived as helpless and clueless. This is not a recent development.

    In January 2014, during the peak of the first wave of the Boko Haram terrorist attacks, President Jonathan optimistically assured the country that “Boko Haram is temporary. Boko Haram will surely go.” He vowed that “we will collectively liberate this country from the hands of any evil person…” That was six years ago. This turned out to be an overdose of optimism. We have done nothing “collectively” to liberate the country. Indeed, we have enabled the victory lap of terrorists with our individualistic, sectarian, ethnic jingoistic, and partisan approach to what should be a united front against terror and crime.

    Surely, a collective approach to the fight against crime and terror does not preclude objective and constructive criticisms that focus attention on defeating these agents of evil waging war against the country. Thus, when appropriated resources that should go into the war are being diverted for partisan political gains, as was the case with the former National Security Adviser, the moral outrage was justified. But it was belated because the discovery came only after the 2015 elections.

    There is no doubt, however, that all sides in the political power play share in the blame of indulging in partisan bickering and not knowing when and where to stop for the greater good of national security and the safety of citizens. Now, virulent partisans have been joined by other cliques and factions, from religious fanatics and bigots to ethnic jingoists and warlords, with only a fraction of the population thinking about, or acting for, the common good of all. Yet it should be clear that we either face the common enemies with our collective force or we fall on our faces to their rampaging onslaught. Again, a united approach does not preclude constructive criticism of policies and programs of government. Indeed, it is required by citizen responsibility for their own safety and security. And when such criticisms are offered, government must treat them with respect and appreciation, knowing fully well that leaders are not omniscient beings.

    Upon his assumption of office in 2015, President Buhari approved the recruitment of 10,000 policemen and women. In April 2016, he justified this action with his observation that “no nation thrives without security, and neither can a nation lay claim to security without an efficient policing service.” And he promised to “continue to support initiatives that will guarantee the reform and modernization of the Nigeria Police.” That was four years ago.

    Part of what every section of the country, including politicians, religious leaders, ethnic leaders, labor, and students must do is to hold the president and his team to their words on this matter of policing. How fast are they moving in the light of the pressure on the police from criminals? How effective are the measures being taken in this direction? And if they move fast with effective measures, and results are less than satisfactory, how accountable are they holding the leadership of the police?

    In April last year (2019), the President approved the establishment of community policing in the country. This was during the height of the kidnapping crisis, and a response to the outcry of citizens for protection. But it has been almost a year and the matter came to the fore again only this week with the announcement of the prospects of recruitment. Even in that announcement, the spokesperson for the Inspector General of Police admitted that community policing was not a new thing and that it has always been in the books. Indeed, in this fourth republic, it has been bandied around since 2004 when agitation for state police began. Why then is it taking so long to implement?

    These are common grounds that every citizen can relate to.  Why is it that instead of a common front against terror and crime, the country is divided against itself?

    Frustrated by the apparently unending crisis of insecurity, citizens raised their voices to state governments as it should be. While the federal government is constitutionally responsible for the security of the citizens with its control of the police, citizens choose to confront the government that is closest to them and with the ability to deliver. While local governments are closest, they are appendages of state governments. Therefore, the latter are the target of citizens under siege.

    In the southwest, state governments, overwhelmed with the public demand, responded with a joint approach that takes advantage of economies of scale, taking into consideration the open borders between them. Operation Amotekun was birthed with a view to relieving the national police by providing intelligence. In short, Operation Amotekun promises to be the Southwest’s contribution to security through community policing.

    Read Also: Amotekun: An opportunity almost missed

    This is a welcome development which should be attractive to everyone, including the federal government, other state governments, peace-loving associations, traditional rulers, and ethnic nationalities. One would expect that, just as the introduction of universal free primary education, initiated in the Western Region of yore, became a model for other regions, this idea of regional security apparatus emanating from the southwest should be emulated by others.

    But we assume too much. Divisiveness has taken the best of the nation. Others, especially the North, see Amotekun as inimical to their interest! Miyetti Allah cried foul and threatened to withhold the 2023 presidency from the southwest. Haba! How do we get to this? Are herdsmen not going to benefit from community policing? Who cursed this nation?

    In April 2018, Christian Association of Nigeria (CAN) took to the streets in several major cities to protest the killings of Christians in the Middle Belt. The next day, Muslim Rights Concern (MURIC) issued a statement calling the attention of CAN to the fact that Muslims too were victims of insecurity. MURIC would have preferred a joint protest of Christians and Muslims so there was no perception that CAN’s protest was against a Muslim president. The first part is understandable. A joint protest would be more effective. But what prevented MURIC from approaching CAN when the protest was announced to offer Its suggestion for a joint protest?

    National Assembly leadership as representatives of the people recently pondered the issue of insecurity seriously enough that they took the matter to Mr. President. But if I am right that divisiveness is aggravating insecurity because it is clouding our common vision, they need to do more. There is need for a security summit that tackles divisiveness in the fight against terrorism and crime.

  • Makinde vs. Malami

    Segun Gbadegesin

     

    IS it a case of executive lawlessness? Or is it another case of ministerial overreach? Or is it an inevitable product of a constitutional quandary?

    Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF) and Minister of Justice Abubakar Malami is just recovering from a close shave with the menacing claws of the mean-spirited leopards of the West. But, it appears that he’s not one to be cowered by such an experience in the hands of any big cat. So, this time he got himself into another squabble, with Engineer Seyi Makinde, the PDP governor of the Pacesetter state. Trouble seems to come with the territory the AGF occupies. For him, it appears unavoidable.

    Let us, however, be clear that the AGF’s trouble with Oyo State is not of his own making. It is the lacuna created by the 1999 Constitution on the matter of local government autonomy vis-à-vis the states’ claim of supervisory authority over the third tier of our federal system of government.

    Section 7 (1) of the 1999 Constitution declares that “the system of local government by democratically elected local government councils is under this Constitution guaranteed; and accordingly, the Government of every State shall, subject to section 8 of this Constitution, ensure their existence under a Law which provides for the establishment, structure, composition, finance and functions of such councils”. (my emphasis)

    The key declaration here is the constitutional guarantee of “democratically elected local government councils” with the burden placed on every State to “ensure their existence” by legislation. The constitutional mandate appears clear enough. States are to create enabling legislations to establish democratically elected local government councils for each local government area. However, since 1999, states have done anything but respect this constitutional provision. At best, they have mostly ignored it, or at worst, they have been openly contemptuous of it. Why?

    To the question “Why?” there are charitable and uncharitable answers. The uncharitable answer depicts human nature is egoistic and state governors are just being human. This requires mind-reading for which I am not well-equipped. Therefore, I will not go there.

    The charitable answer focuses on the constitutional quandary on the nature of local governments. States governments do not see the local government as an autonomous tier of government. However, such states are being too clever by half. Afterall, the 1976 Local Government Reform was very clear in its intent of making the local government an autonomous tier of government just like the states.

    Furthermore, however, the governors have also been helped by the ambiguity of the constitutional provisions. First, there is the provision cited above, which mandates democratically elected local government councils. Second, however, there is also the provision of Section 162 which requires a State Local Government Joint Account to be supervised by the State Government. So, we have a case of political autonomy without financial autonomy. But we know that without the latter, the former is dead. Governors know this and have exploited the constitutional quagmire.

    Two efforts have been made in recent times to correct this anomaly. First, though, the National Assembly came late to this recognition, it eventually passed the Local Government Autonomy (Amendment) Bill in 2018. The amendment gives teeth to Section 7 (1) with a provision that withholds legal recognition from local government councils that are not democratically elected: “A local government council not democratically elected shall not be recognized by all authorities and persons and shall not be entitled to any revenue allocation from the Federation Account or the state government”. Further, “It shall not also exercise any function exercisable by a local government council under this Constitution or any law for the time being in force.”

    Though the 8th National Assembly had passed this Bill, for the same reason alluded to above on the attitude of state governments to local government, it did not secure the necessary two-third concurrence of the State Houses of Assembly.

    The second effort was the recent guideline from the Nigerian Financial Intelligence Unit (NFIU) which sought to boost the financial autonomy of local government councils by releasing them from the suffocating grip of state governments. As to be expected, the governors, through its corporate entity, Nigerian Governors’ Forum (NGF) kicked against the guidelines. It accused NFIU of dabbling into a matter that is beyond its mandate and it insists on the letters of the 1999 Constitution which provides for State, Local Government Joint Account.

    Recently, the 9th National Assembly has waded into the controversy with a bill to amend the 1999 Constitution by abrogating the State, Local Government Joint Account and making provision for each local government to create and maintain its own special account to be identified as Local Government Allocation Account. Federal allocations as well as allocations from Internally Generated Revenue of the state shall be deposited directly into this account.

    Going by the failed experience of the 8th National Assembly to secure the concurrence of two thirds of State Assemblies for its local government autonomy bill, we cannot be optimistic about the success of this new initiative. But we are also not unmindful of the unreliability of inductive reasoning.

    The foregoing takes a cue from the constitutional muddle that provides for democratically elected local government councils but also makes provision for those councils to be tied to the financial apron string of state governments which effectively denies them autonomy. For state governments, this is the way it should be because they don’t see local governments as an independent tier of government. Therefore, dissolving elected local government councils, or refusing to conduct democratic elections, and creating ad-hoc caretaker committees to which they appoint their loyalists, are all in tandem with this belief in the dependency of local governments on state governments.

    As it should be, the initiatives and counter initiatives have been largely limited to the National Assembly, State Assemblies and State Governors. The Federal Executive has not had much to do with the back and forth beside waiting to assent to or withhold assent from a bill that is passed to the President. Until now, with the AGF’s letter to Oyo State Governor Makinde. But that letter was not just out of the blues. It was pursuant to the decision of the third branch, which has the constitutional mandate to clear constitutional fogs.

    On Friday, December 9, 2016, a Supreme Court panel of five justices issued a decision on an appeal filed by the Governor of Ekiti State and Others against the judgment of an Appeal Court over the power of the governor to dissolve democratically elected government councils. In that unanimous judgment, the Court decided against the state government, nullifying Section 23B of the State Law on Local Government Councils which provides that the State Government could dissolve a democratically elected local government council and replace it with a Caretaker Committee, because that section is inconsistent with Section 7 (1) of the 1999 Constitution.

    Since this is the verdict of the highest court of the land, it is expected to be valid for all state governments in their interaction with their local government councils. Yet, according to recent media reports, at least 13 states, including Oyo State, have either dissolved their democratically elected local government councils or have neglected to conduct democratic elections since the ruling.

    With a subsisting Supreme Court decision in place, instead of sacking the democratically elected chairmen and councilors, the Oyo State Governor should have approached the Court to challenge the legality of their election. Now, he has belatedly and curiously gone to the High Court of Oyo State to have his dissolution of the local government councils protected from the Supreme Court decision.

    As Chief Law Officer, Malami feels an obligation to correct this anomaly which amounts to a mockery of our system of law. There is just one problem. Despite his official status, the AGF is seen as a political appointee with partisan interests. But the Supreme Court itself must certainly have an abiding interest in the enforcement of its judicial decisions. Therefore, the victims of executive judicial coup and the AGF need to exercise their right and responsibility to seek the Supreme Court’s intervention in the impasse.