Category: Segun Gbadegesin

On October 1, President Buhari will roll out the drums on his administration’s achievements especially since the last independence anniversary, but more generally since the beginning of his presidency. He will tout his achievements in infrastructure, including massive investments in road construction works going on around the country, the rejuvenation of interstate train system, the ongoing economic diversification efforts, anti-terrorism struggle and, of course, the fight against corruption.

On their part, the president’s opponents will do all they can to invoke nature and force it to rain on his parade. They will point to bread and butter issues that afflict the well-being of the population. They will decry salary backlog in states and local governments. They will highlight the persistent division among Nigerians under the President’s watch. They will shout about lopsided appointments in the federal workforce. And of course, they will pooh-pooh achievements in the anti-terrorism and anti-corruption efforts.

Neither side will be completely honest or forthcoming about the true nature of the national crisis. But as our people know too well, the honey bee and the wasp may deny culpability as much as they like, there is visible evidence of the farmer’s swollen eyes. As wearers of the shoe, the people can unmistakably point to where it pinches. The rain that started beating us since at least 1999 is still heavy and hard. We are a nation in crisis.

Most fundamentally, we have a crisis of national self-doubt because we have not come to terms with our existence as one united nation and this is more than half of what ails us and limits our growth. Consider an analogy. An individual entertains serious doubts about his or her existence. Does anyone expect him or her to make any progress in life? What impact can a self-doubting person make? Does he or she even have the presence of mind to set goals and plan toward their achievement?

A nation in doubt of itself is like an individual in self-doubt. It cannot fulfil its destiny because of its internal tumult. At 58, Nigeria is still at the point it was in 1953 when the late Chief Anthony Enahoro moved the motion for independence and hell broke loose. Thirteen years later, and six short years after independence, we fought a bloody war of unity. We might argue that those episodes were understandable. Nations put together by external masters go through such initial toothache. But fifty-eight years after? And we are still arguing about our common existence?

Consider our sister nation to the south. Rwandans went through hell. Who would think that Rwanda can ever be one nation again considering how genocide tore into the heart of the country in 1994? Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, reflecting on the Rwandan experience in 2014, 20 years after genocide, observed that in 1994, Rwanda was “a shell of a nation.” But with strong leadership, not just of one person, but the united leadership of the political elite, Rwanda has turned the tide and has recorded amazing progress.

In the words of Mr. Blair: “Over the last decade economic growth has exceeded 8% per annum. Investment is flowing into Rwanda and investors are made welcome. Even without natural resources, the country is economically vibrant.” Most importantly, “Rwandans are increasingly united. There is a strong patriotism and belief in government—–a majority of the population, born post-genocide, has inherited the possibility of a different future.”

Even with comparable experiences of internal conflict, however, there is a stark difference between Nigeria and Rwanda in terms of a determination to move on. Children born after the civil war are the most virulent objectors to the idea of one nation. They may have their reason.

Tony Blair again gives us a clue: “In little over five years more than a million Rwandans have lifted themselves out of poverty. The proportion of children dying before their fifth birthday has more than halved, and when they reach seven years old, they can nearly all go to school. Most of the population is covered by health insurance, and malaria deaths have fallen more than 85% since 2005. Crime is very low. Women can walk the street at night safe.”

Compare the Rwanda statistics with Nigeria’s and you will understand the difference between Rwandan sense of patriotism and Nigerian apathy.

There is a crisis of national self-regeneration. A nation with a neglected youth population cannot expect to have a future. But look around your neighborhood and you will not miss the sea of heads that roam about aimlessly and hopelessly. Unlike Rwanda, we have many more children out of school than are in school. Those in school hardly have good education and therefore are hardly expected to contribute to the development of the country. Why are we surprised that they resort to hard crime? This accounts for our national crisis of value degeneration, the subject of this column some weeks ago.

Rwanda has no natural resources. Yet, it is able to achieve 8% growth, give good education to its youth, and offer health insurance to its citizens, cutting malaria deaths by 85%. Nigeria has natural resources but is unable to give good education to its youth and its citizens die prematurely of malaria and other preventable infectious diseases. What makes the difference in these outcomes despite the advantage Nigeria has resource-wise?

It is corruption and a diseased and greedy leadership that is enmeshed in it. With a security vote that is bigger than the allocation to local governments available to governors, with a sense of impunity that enables cabinet members and heads of parastatals to dig their hands into the purse of government with no accountability, with a National Assembly that allocates funds to itself without a sense of responsibility to the people, the resources that should go into education and health end up in the pockets of tin-gods. With these, they call the shots and recycle themselves for political offices. We have a national crisis of con-artists.

But it is not all a tale of woe. There is a silver lining with people taking the driver’s seat on voting. Ultimately, there is a prospect of change if genuine democracy is enthroned. Whoever comes on top in the rerun of the governorship election in Osun State, one huge takeaway from the exercise should delight all Nigerians: democracy is winning the race against its enemies, known and unknown.

It is hard to believe that a state ruled by a party that also controls the center finds itself as the underdog in an electoral battle. But this is no longer news. It has happened before, indeed twice recently, in nearby Oyo State. This is evidence that we have moved past the do-or-die electoral politics of the early days of this republic especially between 2003 to 2011 when federal might was used with impunity to crush political opponents and INEC was anything but independent as it shamelessly served as a branch of the federal government.

It is easy to forget the moral atrocity committed by morally bankrupt national leaders who now sanctimoniously assume the role of critics-at-large and present themselves as crusaders for good governance. But we have a duty to remind them of the havoc they did to the stunted growth of democracy in the land.

If we discountenance the 1999 elections because the military was the umpire, we were witnesses to the 2003 coup against the will of the people. It got so worse in 2007 that even the most important beneficiary of the electoral heist, late President Umaru Musa Yar’ Adua was so embarrassed by the depth of the depravity that he was forced to set up an Electoral Reform Committee.

Since 2015, INEC has commendably proved itself as our fortress against dictatorship parading as democracy. If the people are free to choose their representatives at the polls, they know what their interests are and will vote accordingly, even when leaders try to impose their wills on them. Of course, if they allow themselves to be bought by funds siphoned from the national coffers, they will have burnt their behinds by negating their interests.

As government of the people by the people and for the people, democracy has a fundamental requirement: the people are to be in charge. Where and when it is impossible for the people to rule themselves directly, as is the case with all modern states, they are to delegate the responsibility of governance to their preferred representatives, voluntarily chosen by them. This is supposedly the next best alternative to direct democracy.

African nationalists and freedom fighters used to criticise the Western practice of democracy, including its party system, on the ground that it is prone to disunity and instability. Mwalimu Nyerere once boasted that Tanzania’s one-party system was more democratic than the two-party systems of the West. It was an unjustifiable self-adulation at best, a condemnable deception at worst.

A one-party system of democracy is an oxymoron. It lacks the freedom of association that a two-party or multi-party system guarantees. If the inherent conflict associated with party system is a problem, a no-party system is a viable alternative. And it is closer to our traditional village governance system where elders meet in the village square and debate until they reach a consensus.

We try to persuade ourselves to believe that we have escaped the village system with its mix of authoritarian and democratic tendencies. But it is a false belief. While we love the allure of democracy and we consider it an honor to be counted among the elite states that embrace democracy, our old habits refuse to die. So, we espouse democracy in name while we are closet authoritarians.

The tendency permeates our entire system. But nowhere is it more visible or more prone to be damaging to our standing as a democracy than in the choice of our representatives—councilors and chairs, governors and states assembly members, national assembly members and president. In this all-important business of democracy, we have a unique approach which does not fail to amaze our fellow human beings elsewhere.

First, we entrench a party system that generates political parties by the minute. At the last count, there are more than 90 political parties in Nigeria and we are not done yet. But try and come up with the differences in ideological orientation of these parties and you will fail woefully. Uncle Bola Ige famously christened the Abacha political parties as the five fingers of a leprous hand. Our Fourth Republic political parties are the hundred legs of a centipede. The choice of one over the other can only be a preference informed by personal interest, which is why defection has become a pastime of the rolling stones of this era.

Second, our system-wide homage to the authoritarianism inherent in our various traditions ensures that our “democratically” elected officials, from the ward level to the government houses, see themselves as super human deputies of the gods, a status which tradition assigned to kings and queens, who now hold their positions at the pleasure of the new “democratic monarchs”. With the power of the purse, and the monopoly of force at their beck and call, democracy must bend to their will.

Third, once in authority with all the trimmings of office and its immense advantages, leaving office and losing them all is a bitter pill to swallow. Many former governors in the United States take up positions in academia, consulting, or nonprofit organisations where they use their experience to advance and promote issues of importance to them and the nation Our governors instead nominate themselves for senate because nothing else is a fit for their ego.

Fourth, our inherited authoritarianism ensures that once in power, we cannot entertain criticism or opposition. Those who fail to understand this principle and assume that democracy protects our freedom to express our opinion without fear of persecution are in for shock. They must be prevented from advancing their interests in any shape or form, talk less of holding political positions in elective or appointive capacities.

This is the truth. Authoritarianism rules.

All Progressive Congress (APC) has had its own share of political crisis in recent times. Mass defection is only one and not the most critical. An influential member of the party who is also an official of the National Assembly told me almost a year ago that what could stand between the party and victory in 2019 is internal to the party. He said that the choice of candidates for the party was the Herculean task that it cannot screw up.

When the Chairman of APC, Comrade Adams Oshiomhole, announced prior to the Osun State APC primary that the party had resolved to adopt the direct primary approach, I thought that the party has finally got it. But alas, I was too fast.

Let’s avoid sentimentalism. The party constitution allows for both direct and indirect primary as well as choice by consensus. Therefore, whichever of these three any individual or group insists on is within their right. Of course, what is important is what the party as a group agrees to. And the rational approach to coming to such a decision is to weigh the pros and cons of each for the success of the party at the polls.

There is little doubt about the advantages of direct primary over indirect primary or consensus. Consensus sounds attractive because it presumably avoids conflict. But it shares with indirect primary, the perception of an imposition of a candidate on all party members. In both, a select few—whether appointed or elected as delegates to party convention—decide for the party who their candidate is.

In the various analyses and expositions since the controversy broke, another disturbing issue has been raised. It is the elephant in the room: corruption. One delegate who contributed to the discourse conceded that delegates invested in their election or selection and it would be unfair to deny them the opportunity to reap from their investment. For him, direct primary which throws the election of candidates open to the members of the party does just that. Powerful governors also have an interest in controlling who succeeds them and/or who gets the nod of the party for higher offices. It is a matter of protecting their behind.

There is more. Some of our progressive governors are themselves born authoritarians. They ride to power because they sell themselves to party leaders and members as progressive democrats who care for the people. When they assume power, however, they show their true color. They put on a know-all garb and no one can reach them again. With a broken system that allows gubernatorial appropriation of state resources, they become almighty king-makers, and no one dare challenge them. For them, the national party decision on processes and procedures means nothing if it is against their interest. This accounts for the phenomenon of governors announcing the names of candidates for various elective positions on a notice board! Where is the openness and transparency? This is what our democracy has come to.

Direct primary is no respecter of persons. But the equality of interests which it assumes is the bulwark of democracy. Surely, there are some genuine challenges to the successful execution of direct primaries, the most important of which is the availability of an accurate register of party members. But this is not an insurmountable challenge. In this brave new world of technology, membership registration and regular update is a no-brainier.

Direct primary is the most democratic option for the choice of party candidates for election in a true democracy. It assures registered members of a party that they are in charge. In turn, those members, feeling empowered, are encouraged to use their voting power to elect candidates of their choice. Even if their candidate loses the primary battle, they are highly motivated to vote for the candidate of their party in the general election. This is how democracy is supposed to work. It is not meant for one man or one woman, no matter their position, to impose their will on the people.

Democracy insists, clearly and justifiably, that every adult citizen is a stakeholder in its project. A progressive party must respect this important norm of democracy.

AAA: “ My take on the efforts to situate the roots of our moral malaise goes deeper into the “stupidity” of the choices of the kinds of cultural, institutional and personal choices and arrangements we make and celebrate that together fix our currently dysfunctional and degenerative society.”

Me: “I agree that the choices of our cultural, political, and economic institutions can ameliorate or aggravate our personal choices especially in the matter of greed. I intend to pursue this line of thought next week.”

AAA: “Segun, don’t forget to tackle the issue of “stupidity” as the baseline for all the evils under the category of your current patriotic expositions. You, of course, know and understand that if “rationality” is given a predominant place in human endeavors then “stupidity” (with its consequential evils) can be reduced to tolerable level in society.”

Upon reading “A nation’s moral abyss” last week, Dr. Amos A. Akingba (AAA), well known for his passion about the promise of Nigeria and the unfortunate dilemma of a nation that is great in potentials but is condemned to a moral abyss, sent me the message summarized above. I responded as indicated. He had the last word, an elder’s instruction: don’t forget to tackle the issue of “stupidity”.

Therefore, I have two tasks today. First, I will discuss further how cultural, political, and economic institutions that we choose might impact our natural tendency to be greedy. Second, I will explore the matter of stupidity and rationality in choice making.

My argument last week was that among ignorance, poverty, and greed, the last is the major culprit because it is a cause of poverty and ignorance. Therefore, to the extent that we individually indulge and nurture greed, we are also effectively cultivating poverty and ignorance.

The period of our history when we embraced the traditional culture of modesty was the time when we also witnessed the most ethical development outcomes led by leaders who were keen on progressive development of their regions. However, those individuals might not have been self-restrained if the culture was not averse to greed. Therefore, we must take cognizance of the restraining influence of indigenous culture. A son or daughter who brought shame to the family or community because of greed was liable to condemnation and ostracism.

All these changed with the destruction of the indigenous systems of morality, first by colonial invaders, and second, by a new intellectual, business, and political elite created in the image of prodigal military oligarchs who felt no moral compunction about satisfying their desires at the expense of the country. Today, that mentality of “enjoy today for tomorrow we all die” is widespread, from the lowliest to the highest. Therefore, if there is to be a change, we must embrace traditional cultural restraints.

Whether we made a choice of our cultural, economic and political institutions or they are imposed on us, we must come to terms with their significance. They can negatively or positively impact our approach to making personal choices. Clearly, if they are weak and unresponsive to the needs of the nation, they are likely to impact our personal choices negatively. This has been our experience thus far.

Now to the issue of the “stupidity” of our choices as the major culprit in our descent into the abyss. I sympathize with this view of the matter. But let us explore the issue of choices further.

We make a choice of ends as well as means. The stupidity or rationality of our choice of means is dependent on our choice of ends. If my end is to get to London from Lagos as quickly as possible, it would be stupid of me to choose travel by sea as means. However, if I have no time constraint, I may rationally choose sea voyage for adventure. Note here that the rationality of means depends on the choice of end. To judge the rationality of my travel end, other things about my situation needs to be known. Can I afford it? Will I miss an important event? etc.

What is our end as a nation? What means have we chosen to reach that end? This, I think, is the heart of our challenge. We cannot judge the rationality or stupidity of our choice of means, whatever that is, without an agreement on what our choice of end is.

Aristotle suggested that the ultimate end of any human endeavor is happiness or living well. He also gave the state the responsibility for promoting the happiness of citizens. Generations of political thinkers have simply provided series of footnotes to this Aristotelian doctrine. And political leaders have been judged based on their fidelity to this view. Yet it is not uncommon for some states to be outliers.

If the end of the state is the happiness of its citizens, what is the most effective means of achieving this end? There is obviously no universal answer to this question. Hence, the variety of approaches in political and economic ideologies, from liberalism to authoritarianism, from communism to capitalism, and from federalism to unitarism. For reason of space, we cannot go into the merits and demerits or stupidity and rationality of political and economic ideologies.

But in the matter of the rationality or stupidity of the structure of governance that individual states choose as means to the end of citizen happiness, Chief Obafemi Awolowo propounded a theory that has not been disproved. In a multiethnic and multilingual country, the federal system of government is the most effective means to achieve political stability and progress, and thus the happiness of the people. If this is valid, and if the happiness of the people is our end as Aristotle suggested, and we choose a unitary structure of governance for a multiethnic state, we have made a stupid choice.

But the “if” is significant. Despite constitutional provisions, I am not sure that we have a consensus on the end for this country or for every citizen. We entered our independence era with a morbid fear of one another, cheered on by the masters of “divide and rule” who set us against ourselves. This fear caused a civil war and years of military rule, which applied a wrong medicine for treating the fear. It didn’t work. But what the military ended up doing is reopen our hearts and minds to the natural urge for greed, which they themselves exemplify in varying degrees. With oil money freely flowing, it worked.

Now, while the fear of the “other” still motivates us and prevents us from a consensus on the end of the nation, a more sinister challenge is the monster of individualism and greed which cuts across ethnicities and nationalities. This makes it easy for the elite to reach a consensus on how to rape the economy for their benefit without minding an ethnic uprising. It is all done within the rubric of the rule of law. NASS controls its budget and can prescribe emoluments as it wills. The average citizen welfare may not be a priority and they don’t have the last say because their vote is subject to negotiation in the marketplace of vote buying and selling.

If, despite constitutional provisions, the elite consensus about the ends of the Nigerian state is the operative one, and if they choose the means that align with their choice of ends, what is stupid or rational is relative to the end of the elite. There is a worse-case scenario. With ambitious ego run amok, there may not even be an elite consensus and then you have a clash of individual ends. With this, there is bound to be a clash of means as well, each most effective for the ends for which it is chosen.

Clearly, we are in a worse situation than we initially thought. Our politics is in a free-for-all mode in which a Hobbesian war of all against all is in full view. It is not a coincidence that Hobbes’ theory is applied to a situation of anarchy in the state of nature. With our moral abyss condition, we are undoubtedly in a metaphorical state of nature.

 

 

 

On the precipice of decadence for some time, this country has drifted gradually into the abyss, an existential hell-hole from which an exit is uncertain. Hence the hopelessness of any national endeavor, even those led by a saintly leader, were there any.

Where does one even begin? Foraging fraudsters all over the land. We created a unique statute with which the nation herself became synonymous on the global arena. Who in the world is not scared stiff of Nigerian 419?

Infamous prowling human kidnappers amassing huge material wealth while inflicting pain and sorrow on their victims. Yet they enjoy the “respect” of their fellow citizens for their wealth, and the protection of those charged with protecting the public from their kind.

Predator professors who sexually harass their students in flagrant disregard of age-old ethics of their profession. And who suffers the consequence but society? With grades offered based on vulgarity of bodily pleasure instead of an objective assessment of performance in course, a student is primed for failure in life and the nation’s investment in education is lost.

But if you expect parents to protest a conspiracy to ruin the lives of their wards, you are a foreigner to our contemporary cultural collapse and the extent of our moral calamity. Many parents are in cahoots with the wreckers of our educational system. Associating success with diplomas, they would willingly pay for the best grades and negotiate their children’s access to miracle centers. The consequence of all these is not perceptible until after graduation when they are unable to get decent jobs.

Already, however, as students with a background of sleaze, they would have been socialized into the abyss. Nobody starts criminal or anti-social life in adulthood. On-campus cult life graduates into a crime career facilitated by guaranteed unemployment. They become easy recruits into political thuggery by politicians hardly different in outlook.

Ideally, politics is about public service and politicians are imbued with a desire to sacrifice time, material wealth, and sometimes health, in the service of the public. Their reward is the recognition of a grateful public and the legacy of a great service rendered. The Kennedys, the Mandelas and the Awolowos of this world, to mention those who have bid farewell to Mother Earth, remind us of the nobility of public service which many still genuinely aspire to.

Not to take away from the virtuous motivations that drive some contemporary politicians to public service, we must grant that there are a few who belong in the category of the departed who take seriously the purposive mission of politics. But they are simply too few to make a grand mark without the support of the disproportionate number of hustlers. This is the crux of the matter.

Politics is the master key in the life of a nation. It opens the doors of development and progress as politicians jettison self-interest and pursue the common good in the design of suitable constitution that takes account of its demographic realities. They then strategize about requisite institutions–economic, educational, health, social services, etc.–to move the nation towards the realization of the common good of development and progress for citizens. The development and strengthening of such institutions from the beginning ensures that no individual or group can arrogate to themselves a disproportionate amount of power capable of derailing the nation.

We were on track for that kind of outcome in 1960 with the adoption of a federal constitution. Many politicians of that era passed on with their dignity intact even though they had little to nothing in material wealth. They invested in education, so children had good head-start. They started to build an economy based on the natural assets of the country which was (and still is) agriculture. With planned development strategy, they provided employment opportunities in public and private sectors for graduates of high schools, trade schools, technical colleges and universities. The regions of the federation engaged in healthy competition to the benefit of their residents and the entire country was on a trajectory of development.

From the strength of the politics of development, other institutions took their strength. Religion maintained its function of social and moral control, keeping other institutions honest and individuals under leash. Generally, religious leaders of yore were not beholden to politicians. They were satisfied with their choice of career which they considered a calling and were not in competition with their congregants in business or the professions. Theirs were voices of restraint on bad behavior.

Unfortunately, not anymore. Religion is now an integral part of our moral abyss, having inserted itself into the debacle that politics has become. Preaching prosperity rather than restraint from immorality, they bless wealth without knowing its source. They emphasize division instead of affirming the unity of the nation through prayers. Most disappointing, however, is that whatever moral lapses are found in politics or business are not alien to the modern church or mosque. Sexual immorality is a common denominator.

So where is the salvation? How does the nation get out of this moral abyss?

The first question is “do we recognize that we have a problem that warrants solution?” We deceive ourselves when we believe that all is well because the Chinese are parachuting in and out and we are going to have a China-based foreign exchange. From dollar to yuan is no relief for the decadence that we have gotten ourselves into.

Next question: “do we collectively have the will to get out? If there is the will to get out, there is a further question: “what is the cause of our moral decline? What got us into the mess?” Above, I offered a description of what the moral abyss is and of its contents. But how did we get there? What was the trigger that pushed us to and off the cliff?

Some have identified poverty. Others ignorance. Each has a point. However, ignorance and poverty are more an effect than cause in the dangerous slide down moral abyss. At best, each is a victim of greed. And, unfortunately, in varying degrees, each of us is morally culpable in the matter of greed.

Greed is a selfish desire for more of something (e.g. money) than is needed and to the detriment of others. Even in societies that we envy for development, our culture of greed is unknown. A typical middle-class Westerner has minimal needs: food, housing, kids’ education, and to a very small extent, clothing. His or her weekly wage or monthly salary is adequate for his or her needs. He also saves for vacation and for emergencies. And in case there is an emergency that goes beyond savings, the institution creates a means through the credit system. He doesn’t need politicians to bail him out for funeral ceremonies or children’s education. She doesn’t entertain the luxury of aso ebi. And a minister of God cannot extort him for seed-sowing.

Se bi o ti mo is a cultural parlance that places premium on modesty and decries flamboyant lifestyle and the greed that it breeds. But we have become proponents of possessive individualism. Even men and women of God who used to be models of moderation now model excessive greed which is not even displayed by their successful business/professional congregants. And, from the policeman on traffic checkpoint, to customs agent at the border, to the clerical officer and messenger in the state and federal services, and local government chairmen and party officials, greed breeds corruption. Corruption births inefficiency, which creates weak institutions.

If we would go back to our cultural heritage of living within our means, if we would abandon our greedy lifestyles, if we would resist the temptation to go cap in hand to public servants for our wants, then we can call them out if they fail to provide for the nation’s need in security, education, health, and infrastructure. We can insist on going back to the original structure that gave us a lease on life in the beginning. And while there may be some irredeemable souls irretrievable from the abyss, the nation could start a new course for the many that are redeemable.

 

 

 

 

 

The State Security Services (SSS) just struck again. But this time is different. It met its match in an accidental politician, a professor of constitutional law, and a man of God, who understands that there is life after politics.

The siege on the National Assembly by officers of the SSS, presumably on the order of its Director, Malam Lawal Daura, was an assault on the rule of law. Acting President Osinbajo rightly declared the siege “a gross violation of constitutional order, rule of law, and all acceptable notions of law and order.” And with the termination of the appointment of Malam Daura, he swiftly followed through on his promise that all those involved in the siege will face disciplinary action.

The National Securities Agencies Act of 1986 charges SSS with the responsibility for ”(a) the prevention and detection within Nigeria of any crime against the internal security of Nigeria; (b) the protection and preservation of all non-military classified matters concerning the internal security of Nigeria; and (c) such other responsibilities affecting internal security within Nigeria as the National Assembly or the President, as the case may be, may deem necessary.” Notice that the reference is to State Security Service (SSS) and NOT Department of State Services (DSS). The change to DSS, which has gained currency since 2011, is presumably the agency’s extra-constitutional act.

Significantly too, Article 3 Section 2 of the Act also provides that “in the case of the State Security Service and the National Intelligence Agency, (the Principal Officers, i.e. Directors) “shall be responsible directly to the President” (my emphasis). This raises a pertinent question: If the Acting President was not aware of the siege on the National Assembly, who authorized it? The answer is not far-fetched. In every administration since 1999, SSS Directors have illegally and criminally taken Nigerians hostage to their selfish interests to curry the favor of their masters even if those masters were kept in the dark about the motivations of their appointees. Until NOW.

PDP has rushed shamelessly to cast the first stone in this matter when it has been involved in despicable adulterous relationships with security agencies to undermine democracy since 1999. For space limitation, we cannot go back to the beginning. But in the last two years of the last administration, we witnessed the abuse of Nigerians, especially the media and the opposition, by security agencies purportedly working for the interest of the government and the ruling party.

In April 2013, the police detained Leadership newspaper journalists on an allegation that the journalists deliberately published a false story about a “Presidential Directive” on opposition leaders. And when that story broke, the Presidency was alleged to have directed the police to clamp down on the journalists.

The Presidency argued then that once it convinced itself that the Leadership story was false, it denied it and “the rebuttal from the Presidency was appropriate.” However, in an apparent defence of the high-handedness of the police then, the presidential response speculated that Leadership story, which it considered “fictitious” was intended to “cause civil strife, engender a breakdown of law and order and negate the values of our democracy” and it concluded that it is a “very grievous act which should not be ignored.”

Thus, in that case, while the PDP administration denied directing law enforcement officers to clamp down on Leadership journalists and detain them, it had no scruple defending the detention because it is “natural” for the police to “act in the public interest.” PDP saw no evil then.

We have not always been unified in discharging our moral obligation to condemn the politicisation of our security agencies whenever and wherever it occurred. Those who stood to benefit from the invasion of masked armed forces in Ekiti in 2014 did not lift a finger nor raise a voice in protest. Then there were the leaked tapes of conspiracy to rig and we thought that we had reached a new low. Still, PDP saw no evil.

Further still on Ekiti, the incumbent APC Governor Fayemi, conceded defeat as the results were announced and pledged to set up a transition committee for a smooth transition to Governor-elect Fayose’s administration. APC, the defeated governor’s party, decided, independently of its candidate, to challenge the result in court.

E-11, a social-cultural organization of Ekiti indigenes had its own beef against the elected candidate. The organization had approached the court to challenge Fayose’s eligibility for office in view of an alleged perjury. But the candidate and his party, PDP, won’t have the court adjudicate in the matter. With a retinue of followers, the governor-elect also approached the court, not to respond by way of a counter suit. Rather his was a Mano a Mano challenge to their Lordships. His die-hard followers descended on the Justices like hungry lions confronting raw flesh. They had their feed while the governor-elect and the police watched with glee. PDP saw no evil.

From Friday, June 6, till Sunday, June 8, 2014, Nigerian security forces staged a comeback to their old game of intimidation and harassment. They laid siege on the media, disrupting the free flow of information. As widely reported by all the major media houses, the army placed soldiers in strategic locations throughout the country, especially in Abuja, Ibadan, Lagos, Benin, Jos and other northern cities, detained newspaper distribution vans and their drivers, and confiscated the newspapers they were to deliver. Apart from costing the publishers and distributors enormous losses, the exercise also caused many vendors and distributors legitimate means of livelihood.

The soldiers were acting on orders. The army is charged with security and whenever it has intelligence reports about the activities of a segment of the public with a great potential for causing harm to the country, it must act. That was the story, and it was not a new one. We heard it before during the era of brutal dictatorship.

On its part, the Jonathan administration’s spokespersons, never short of excuses, quickly parried allegation of dirty tricks against the presidency. They wondered how President Jonathan who magnanimously signed the Freedom of Information Act can turn around to scuttle the free flow of information. However, they argued that, as Commander-in-Chief, Jonathan supported the action if it was the result of intelligence. It was doublespeak at its worst. PDP saw no evil then.

In February 2015, SSS and OP-MESA, with over 50 security operatives from Abuja stormed the APC Data Center in the Ikeja area of Lagos and arrested 25 APC data agents and three security guards. The then APC Publicity Secretary, Alhaji Lai Mohammed, reported that the team of invaders had no search warrant for the premises. They pulled down the gates and spent over two hours ransacking and vandalizing the center. They destroyed dozens of computers and servers.

DSS claimed to have acted on a tip-off that the center was being used as a warehouse by a former Governor of Lagos State, Bola Tinubu, to produce and issue fake Permanent Voter Cards, while another version had it that weapons were being kept at the center. Mohammed blamed the invasion on PDP and the federal government. No one suffered any consequence. PDP saw no evil.

It is undeniable that since 2015, SSS has not acted any different from its predecessors. It has also acted with impunity, unfortunately with little or no pushback from the Executive. It has even sometimes acted against the President and in collusion with Senator Saraki as in the case of the confirmation of EFCC Chairman Magu. Therefore, speculation has been rife even about this NASS invasion given the personal relationship between Saraki and Daura. A full-scale investigation is undoubtedly warranted.

Acting President Osinbajo deserves a special commendation for defending the rule of law. While we may not reverse the high-handedness of the past, we must punish this present assault on democratic norms. Instead of resorting to the usual gotcha politics, there must now be a common resolve by all political leaders and parties to put security and intelligence agencies where they belong as agencies for the preservation and promotion of democratic norms and the rule of law on behalf of elected officials.