The Nation Newspaper

Category: Segun Gbadegesin

  • War-weary already?

    War-weary already?

    It’s no coincidence that my home-visit ended the way it began with familiar taunting and scolding by Opalaba. I couldn’t just sneak out without saying bye for now to my old chum. And I didn’t expect that it would be a “good-seeing you” affair.  With issues burning his tired mind, who can blame the old warrior for being war-weary?

    “So you are on your way back to where you belong?” he fired a familiar salvo. “You parachuted in and are now parachuting out. I am sure, like old anthropologists, you have seen more than enough to make your specialist analysis on the nation of your birth and her people.”

    I knew where this was going and I decided not to catch the bait.

    “I beg your pardon”, I replied.  “When did it become a crime to make intelligent remarks on observation and experience? And I do not hold brief for anthropologists. Indeed I think some of them buy into our interest in separating ourselves from the world just to perpetuate exploitation and corruption. We say our democracy must be different because we are different. Those anthropologists that buy into this phobia theorise cultural relativity. But our human needs remain the same, don’t they?”

    “They sure do remain the same. The matter that afflicts Aboyade also afflicts all Oya devotees. And if we don’t get our acts together now, we never will. But I am afraid our people are war-weary already. We have been through so many wars: war against corruption; war against indiscipline, and war against terrorism. When is it going to end? Opalaba submits.

    In fairness to my friend, I saw that frustration on the faces of the patriots that I encountered. It is the fear of the unknown. Where is all this going to end? How is the country going to fair? Is PMB in full control or is he being teleguided by vested interests? These are the questions I encountered.

    But who can quarrel with the war against corruption? It has eaten deep into the fabric of the nation. The leakages in the oil sector could have adequately taken care of the quality education of the youth. Is there a sector of the economy that corruption has not impacted? The military, police, teaching, medical, immigration, customs, clerical, private security, banking, messenger, postal service, etc are all neck deep in corruption.

    The negative impact of corruption on our economic and social institutions is enormous and it’s not limited to the tangibles. It eats our national body as well as its soul. It dampens the spirit and quickens the death of the body. So why won’t it be fought?

    “You must grant, however, that some are skeptical and have counselled PMB to go softly on corruption so it doesn’t affect economic development”, Opalaba observed.  “I would have thought that without fighting corruption to death, economic development cannot take off. But some experts have cited the case of China and Malaysia.”

    I responded that one factor they missed is the difference between the use of proceeds of corruption in Nigeria and in other countries. Elsewhere national resources are not siphoned outside the boundaries of their nations and the proceeds of corruption are ploughed back into the economy. In Nigeria on the other hand, the economy loses out to corruption because the looted funds are siphoned out to develop other economies. In the beginning it was the developed economies that reaped the fruit of Nigerian corruption. Now it’s Dubai and other gulf nations. We must fight to liberate the nation from a second round of exploitation”

    If the war on corruption succeeds, it will also impact the war on terrorism.  Terrorism is a child of corruption. Corrupted mind sires terrorism. Whether terrorism comes in the form of religious or political ideology, what is clear is that if a mind is not corrupted, it will not turn to terrorism.

    On its part, indiscipline has a close and symbiotic relationship with corruption. On the one hand, corruption is the mother of indiscipline. On the other hand, indiscipline begets corruption. The more corrupt a society becomes, the more undisciplined it is. The ones who milk the coffers of the treasury are the most undisciplined. They already show this character trait by flouting the laid down rules and the oath of office they took. They can buy their way without any qualms.

    On the other hand, indiscipline is the first culprit and therefore the source of corruption. If you cannot discipline yourself, you will succumb to the temptation to steal and accumulate that which is not yours. An undisciplined person is a greedy person. By way of inference then, indiscipline is a source of corruption, which is a source of terrorism. One might argue then that the war against indiscipline, if properly focused, can lead directly to the defeat of terrorism.

    Opalaba agreed but then observed that “we are far from winning the war against indiscipline. Since 1984, when the war was first declared by PMB, the target of the war has become so hydra-headed that it has resisted capture. I recall that two years ago, you made the feat that Governor Ajimobi was performing in Ibadan and other parts of the state the focus of a column titled: “I see therefore I know”.

    “The Ibadan environmental and infrastructural renovation was superb. It was also meant to help traders who had been living on the major roads of the city with their wares to avoid untimely death from traffic accidents, which were quite common then. To make it attractive and appealing, the governor built markets very close to where traders liked to display their wares on the roadside. But go back now and see what has happened. The roadside markets are back and thriving along the Molete corridor as well as Dugbe and Adamasingba areas. What else can a government do?

    “Whether we agree that indiscipline is the mother of corruption or not, it is clear that the son is now the father of the mother because it has taken on a life of its own. It is responsible for the loss of revenue, which should normally fuel the development of human talents, which in turn is the most important ingredient for rapid industrialisation and economic growth. But when resources are not available because they have been lost to corruption, human development is lacking. The human resource that is not developed is not going to be idle. The devil finds work for him. The result is the various forms of anti-social behaviour and easy recruitment into cults and terror gangs.”

    “A few years ago, a New York Times columnist zeroed in on our plight by showcasing states without oil revenue that have made it in the league of great nations just because they had the good sense to develop their human talents. I am not suggesting a one-to-one correlation between good educational system and high level of discipline. I am suggesting tendencies which can be corroborated from global experience.

    “Take a tour of the major streets in our metropolitan areas. You will find hawkers of all kinds of goods. They are mostly youths aged seven to 21. These are supposed to be the most potentially-productive group in a nation. But they are not in school and their country doesn’t mind what they get into. If the war against indiscipline is to succeed, it must start from this group. We gave up on them too soon.

    “We must design a system that provides for the vocational training of dropouts from our mainstream institutions. We must provide a system that allows those who cannot gain admission to the four or five – year university programmes. This is what two-year community colleges are designed to accomplish. It is waste of human talent to have more than half of our school age young men and women hawking pure water on our streets,” Opalaba concluded.

    “I concurred. This is why we cannot be war-weary. If we give up on the three major wars now, there is a guarantee that this nation will crumble under the weight of their collective onslaught.”

  • Restructuring the presidency and the nation

    Restructuring the presidency and the nation

    THERE is every good reason to believe that President Muhammadu Buhari (PMB) means business and is serious about restructuring government agencies for better outcome. The latest evidence is his declaration in far away Washington, DC, the capital of the industrial world last week. To the disappointment of political jobbers but to the pleasure of genuine change enthusiasts, Buhari announced that he will not appoint ministers until he has put in place good structures to prevent the kind of rot that he is trying very hard to clear. Who can quarrel with that?

    As President-elect, Buhari had set up the Ahmed Joda Transition Committee to work with former President Jonathan’s team. The Joda Committee received the 18,000 page report of the Anyim Federal Government Committee on May 25th.  It worked hard to make sense of the report and make its recommendations which it submitted in an 800-page report to President Buhari shortly after the inauguration of the new administration.

    It is significant to note that when he submitted his committee’s report, Joda had urged the nation to be patient with the president as he mulled over the report to determine what was best for his administration and for the country. He noted unambiguously that the transition from one political party to another was not an ordinary one and that the President needed time to digest the report and do the best.

    As a deliberative leader, who understood the historical significance of his election and who took his mandate seriously, Buhari decided to take his time to study the report before moving on with any appointments. This is reasonable especially in view of the disclosure by Chairman Joda that due to time constraint, his committee wasn’t able to interview and seek clarifications from former ministers and government operatives on their hand-over notes which were received only four days to the May 29 inauguration.

    In the circumstance, Buhari and his team had to carefully sort issues out on their own. In view of that situation, is it reasonable for the president to start with ministerial appointments? It makes perfect sense to see clearly where the nation is, align its present condition with the destination PMB wants to lead it; and on the basis of these appoint individuals who will be round pegs in round holes.

    In a media interview that he granted after the submission of his committee’s report, Malam Joda observed that Buhari cannot afford to make the kind of mistakes that previous administrations made. He made particular reference to the military era when security reports on prospective appointees were not considered before appointments were announced only for such appointments to be rescinded shortly after they were announced.

    Joda noted further that since Buhari had made up his mind that he was going to have perfect people work with him, every prospective nominee had to be scrutinised well to avoid past mistakes. This explains the need for time and the presidential declaration in Washington, DC. Patience is counseled.

    Beside appointments, the other major issue in Joda’s report is the recommendation for the restructuring of the executive branch. From media reports, it appears that the committee had recommended a maximum of 36 ministers to satisfy constitutional requirement and cover the restructured ministries. If the President accepts the recommendation, he will have started on a good and promising note. From the leaks concerning the ministries and agencies recommended for merger, the committee has rendered a good account of its stewardship. The ball is in the court of the president.

    By the same token, however, with the courageous restructuring of the executive branch, other extant structures cannot be kept in place to avoid pouring new wine into an old bottle.

    First, there is a crying need for the restructuring of the legislative branch and its budget. This has been a sore finger in the body politic and the growing pain can be allowed to linger only at the expense of our national comfort.   Some defenders of the indefensible have argued that among other necessities, each NASS member must have at least 5 aides. But they have not provided any reasonable justification for such wastage.  Sure some private professionals do need aides to care for the house, cook their meals, and carry their portfolios and handbags. But do they charge these to company accounts?

    Second, state governments certainly need restructuring in the face of the obviously unsustainable cost of governance. It is unfortunate that states now depend on federal bail out to pay staff. I am sure that the situation is not totally due to gubernatorial incompetence or profligacy. Most of them inherit huge bureaucracies that put a drag on capital development. The question is whether a few must determine the pace of government investment in infrastructure? Sure every governor needs a rethink of large cabinet for far too many ministries. If PMB takes the lead, states must follow.

    Finally, the nation as a constituency has the most need as far as restructuring is concerned. Unfortunately, this is also the space where the most challenge is. Are members of the president’s party on the same page? Is he able to summon the political courage to challenge his party to take the high road?

    For far too long, at least since 1966, the federal government has grabbed too many functions, with far little success, and a monumental failure in the matter of satisfying the yearnings of the people, which is the sine qua non of governance. We have been getting the same failing results for almost fifty years and we still keep doing the same thing. That is insanity and we need to come back to our national sense.

    In the case of those functions such as citizenship and immigration matters, including the issuance of international passports, which are rightly assigned to the federal government, we err grievously in the over- centralisation of such functions. A passport holder had her name incorrectly written on her passport by Immigration agents. But she was told that the correction cannot be made in Lagos where the mistake occurred. She had to go to Abuja to have the mistake corrected. This makes no sense.

    In every aspect of our national life, we embrace our ethnic nationalities. We protect and promote our diverse cultures, and we respect and seek to conserve our various traditions. What is even embarrassing is that ethnics protect their own kin no matter the depth of corrupt practices they are identified with.

    To succeed, however, genuine and justifiable ethno-national interests need a governance structure that is truly federal. With such a structure, each ethnic nationality can do the most for itself in terms of promoting its cultural traditions and giving the best education to its residents. This is done effectively only by making states and zones the loci of some of the most important functions of government.

    It is true that many states lack the viability needed for success and zonal collaboration becomes essential to generate adequate internal revenue so the dependency on the center is eliminated. Fortunately, it now appears that we have moved away from treating geo-political zones as no-go areas which was where we were during the National Conference. Some had argued then that zones have no place in the constitution and therefore none in governance.

    Speaker Dogara has perhaps inadvertently legitimised zones with his recommendation for the sharing of House principal offices among the six zones as a requirement of Federal Character. We should now expect zones to feature more effectively in our discourse on restructuring. This is an unintended consequence of the embarrassing NASS leadership crisis.

  • Much ado about acting INEC chair

    Much ado about acting INEC chair

    President Muhammadu Buhari (PMB) chose to exercise his constitutional power to appoint as Acting Chairman of INEC, Mrs. Amina Bala Zakari, who has been a national commissioner of the electoral institution, serving along with former Chairman Attahiru Jega. In doing so, Buhari didn’t think that he was setting in motion a whirlwind of controversy.

    No sensible person would think that a simple appointment of an acting chair could be that controversial because not everyone appreciates the pervasiveness of political calculation in the mental orientation of politicians. What will a politician be without a sustained engagement with serious political calculation? Assume X is the appointee, what can we expect in political gain or loss? What else matters, seriously?

    Ought a politician to think in terms of the experience of an appointee? Or why should a politician concern him/herself with the integrity of a candidate for a position? Or with the qualification and singular merit of an appointee? What do all these matter when politics is the be-all and end-all for a politician and must therefore be the gauge for the measurement of executive actions?

    If therefore PMB was taken aback by the noise from PDP about their rejection of his appointee for the acting INEC chair, it is probably because he isn’t a politician in the sense in which it matters to typical politicians.

    It bears reminding ourselves about the genesis and revelation of the whole story. Professor Jega took his well-deserved bow. Of all groups and parties that his tenure impacted, it was only the PDP and their supporters that disapproved of Jega’s performance in 2015 after they had hailed his performance from 2011 to 2015. That marks them out as the most pathetic flip-floppers of the year.

    Recall that some of their intellectual vanguards had even tipped Jega for the presidency before he became their most hated villain. Does it bother then that their despised villain is acclaimed internationally and has just been announced as a recipient of the 2015 Charles T. Manatt Democracy Award?

    On his exit, Jega had handed over to one of the national commissioners, Mohammed Wali, in the same manner that a minister would hand over to a permanent secretary (PS). Does that confirm the PS as acting minister? Does that hold back the hand of the president from appointing a minister or a different acting minister?

    The ministerial analogy is not perfect, but you get the drill. Jega would be the first person to confirm that he didn’t appoint an acting chair of INEC because he knew that he had no authority to do so. The one who had the authority made the appointment and chose who he wanted for the position, pending the appointment of a substantive chair. How can anyone question his authority?

    There was indeed a precedent under a PDP president. When Acting President Goodluck Jonathan directed Maurice Iwu to proceed on pre-disengagement leave in 2010, there was a tussle over who was to serve as acting chair. Philip Umeadi stepped up in what many considered as self-appointment before the presidency directed Maurice Iwu to hand over to Solomon Soyebi, who was the longest serving national commissioner at the time. That was how Soyebi became the acting chair until Jega’s appointment as substantive chair.

    To be fair, no one, not even Mr. Metuh, has questioned the authority of the president to appoint an acting chair. But they question his authority to appoint a particular candidate, in this case, in the person of Mrs. Zakari. But why? Isn’t she qualified? No she is. Doesn’t she have good character? Well, she does. Doesn’t she have integrity? If she doesn’t she wouldn’t have been appointed to serve as national commissioner by a PDP President in the first place. But what exactly is problematic about this woman?

    To politicos like Mr. Metuh, who operate in the Machiavellian world of partisan political calculation, Mrs. Zakari cannot be trusted to be independent because they have traced her genealogy to Buhari. In fact, Mrs. Zakari is Buhari’s daughter, they alleged. Therefore, PDP has vowed to reject any election conducted under her watch. While 13 other political parties applaud the President’s choice, PDP gave it a thumps down.

    How do we approach the matter? Who is right? Who is being funny here?

    I had read about PDP’s position on this matter the first time it broke. Then a few days later I read that there was an internal conflict within the party with its deputy publicity secretary distancing the party from the position of his boss, Mr. Metuh. Then, of course, the party’s NWC decided to wield the big stick, threatening the deputy with suspension because he had had the courage to call out the publicity secretary on what appeared to be a false alarm.

    Mr. Metuh made a case for his position not just in print media but also on television. I think that it was on Channels TV that I saw his most vigorous defence of the party’s position. He claimed that Buhari’s appointee was really the President’s daughter; and that it is never done.

    For Metuh, the President’s action smacks of nepotism and worse. Besides appointing his “daughter” into such a sensitive position, the argument appears to go; the president’s party stands to gain from his action. Metuh’s main concern was that Mrs. Zakari will be an APC sympathiser because of his relationship to Buhari.

    When I heard Metuh suggest that nowhere in the world would a President give such a sensitive appointment to a blood relation, I was shocked. Surely, Metuh knows that in other climes people are not worried about blood relationship; they are worried about the integrity of the appointer and the appointee.

    President J. F. Kennedy appointed his younger brother, the son of his father and mother, Robert F. Kennedy, as the Attorney General of the United States and heaven didn’t fall. But what political office could be more sensitive? Yet no one cared about the false alarm that the opposition is eager to raise here. They cared about the qualification and integrity of the appointee.

    Mrs. Zakari was appointed National Commissioner in 2010. Since no one has accused the PDP president, who appointed her, of giving her the appointment on account of a relationship between them, I can only assume that he looked into her background, her qualification and character, and concluded that she was fit for the job.

    For five years, the woman did the job to the best of her ability and worked with other commissioners to give the country the freest and fairest election in the history of the country to date. If there is anything in her record of service in the last five years that is of concern to PDP, that is what the party ought to bring up and share with the public. This silly talk about family relationship only diminishes the intellect of the accuser more than that of the accused.

     More substantively, it also turned out, as the coalition of political parties in support of the appointment of Mrs. Zakari had taken great pains to reveal that the acting chair was the most senior in terms of time served at the commission. And the fact of her gender, which the President pointed to as a plus, cannot be brushed aside, which is why women groups have also expressed their full support. Does the PDP really want this battle?

  • Change and the unchangeable

    As my readers know by now, whenever Opalaba feels that he has had it, he makes sure that he vents until he satisfies himself. And when I miscalculate such that our paths cross at close range, I am almost always assured of his savage attack. It happened just two days ago.

    I thought I was going to pleasantly surprise my good friend by showing up at his door when he least expected. And like a wounded lion, he pounced on me. “What do you people think you’re doing?” He let his frustration take the better part of him. “I cannot believe that I have been fooled again at 70. Why did I even bother, after so many disappointments from politricksters that you shamelessly associate with?” They told us to expect change. And what did we get? Same old manafiki. A plague on all your houses.”

    Opalaba went on ranting and raging. I hadn’t even been offered a seat. It was only when I turned back to leave that he stopped and I can see heavy sweat raining down his face. My friend was truly enraged.

    He regained his cool and apologised. Then he went on in a more somber mood. “APC advertised itself as the party of change. A people in desperate need of change, including my poor old self, believed and jumped for change. No questions asked, because the status quo had become unbearable and therefore unacceptable. Looking back now, we should have asked probing questions.”

    “Such as what?” I asked. “At least as a non-party independent minded citizen, I should have asked if the party had thoroughly screened its candidates for electoral offices. How many of them bought into the philosophy of change? What do they understand by change? Is their view of change limited to change of personnel or office holders? Or does it include as it reasonably should, attitudinal change? If it doesn’t, why not? And wouldn’t the electorate then have been deceitfully sold a dummy? If it does, how come the party is now faced with challenges of ego, greed and gross indiscipline from the so-called leaders who ought to be the leading lights of attitudinal change?

    Opalaba went on without letting. On my part, I was aware that no response can be adequate for my friend. Seriously, however, I knew that he had a point, and I couldn’t this time dismiss his vituperations as the barking of a crazy dog as I used to.

    Change is the movement from one state to another. As such, every living thing undergoes changes. The only unchangeable is God, who is acknowledged as remaining the same through the ages. Change, for living things, however, may be from a desirable state to an undesirable one. We talk of moving from frying pan to fire as a fitting metaphor for such a change.

    In another form, change may be from an undesirable state to another undesirable state. Neither of such changes is worthy of human endeavour. To deliberately move from one undesirable state to another or from a desirable to an undesirable state is to behave irrationally. Therefore if an effort towards change is intentionally and voluntarily undertaken by individuals or groups, it is to be reasonably expected that the outcome must be a desirable state that is better than the preceding state.

    Many, like Opalaba, invested their hope, without pulling back anything; in the change idea which they expected will be actualised by the All Progressives Congress (APC) government. Of course, it is too early to dismiss the party and its agenda. And it bears pointing out that Nigerians still express confidence in the President’s sincerity of purpose and strong determination to carry out his agenda. Where Opalaba and his likes are understandably concerned is with regard to the depth of the commitment of other stakeholders in the corridors of power. They are sorely worried about those that Opalaba referred to as the “unchangeable.” “How do you change the unchangeable?” He asked.

    “But who are the unchangeable?” I asked. “And how can anyone or thing be unchangeable? Even nature undergoes change. Mountains are denuded; rivers form tributaries, and when changes don’t follow the path of nature, humans step in to impose such changes to their satisfaction. Individuals who refuse to change when there is need for change will find out that they are passed by and soon become relics of history. So what is your point, Mr. Know-All?”

    “Your memory loss as you age is my point”, Opalaba fired back in visible anger. “President Muhammadu Buhari (PMB) is older than you, but he went down memory lane the other day at the APC NEC meeting. He apparently is one that doesn’t forget his beginning; he remembers those who helped him through the various challenges; he recalled the origins and foundation of the party; he named names and he reminded all officers and rank and file of the promise the new party made to Nigerian people.

    “PMB made it clear that the pioneers or foundation members and leaders who sacrificed their time and mental and material resources for the party in the midst of campaigns of hatred, calumny and name-calling thought seriously about the change that they wanted to invest in and the legacy of progressive governance they wanted to bequeath to the next generation of Nigerians. They were serious about change of attitude and outcome and they put their energy into working it out. And he made it clear that this sacrifice by the pioneers and founding fathers and mothers of the party ought to be the guiding light to all, including the late comers.”

    “The question is”, Opalaba added in an emotion-laden voice, “did the late comers to, and second-tier founders of the party also understood what change connoted for the first-tier founders? And if they didn’t, why are we now surprised that some of them appear adverse to change and may indeed be unchangeable? Doesn’t it appear now that they had a different idea of what change means?”

    My friend argued that the challenges the party has with the National Assembly election of principal officers is just a symptom of a fundamental issue, which is that there is a disconnect between the understanding and mentality of some about what power means and the message that the party has caused to be delivered to the electorate. This fundamental issue reflects the extant challenges that have been integral to the Nigerian post-independence state, but which the post-military era has simply multiplied exponentially. It is unfortunate, but the truth is that the majority of those who go into party politics choose this path for reasons other than the virtue of public service.

    The political drama that was the NASS leadership elections has all the characteristics of a soap opera that is cast in the hellish kingdom of ego, greed, crass ambition, religious zealotry, ethnic jingoism, corruption and corruptibility, and an aristocratic mentality in a populist party. The actors in the sordid drama are no agents of change, at least not the change that the party sold to the electorate. They are for change in their material conditions and their spiritual poverty simply facilitated the diabolic plan that they fashioned and delivered with perfection.

    What option is there for the party in the face of this tragic development? It must stick to change and pursue it. It must call out the unchangeable for what they are and let Nigerians know them and be their judge. Otherwise the party cannot deliver change that Nigerians overwhelmingly desire. To capitulate and succumb to the position of the unchangeable is to commit party suicide because it assures it of an undesirable result in 48 months.

  • Navigating our bureaucratic quandary

    The civil service is indispensable to the successful outcome of government functions. As the institution charged with the design and implementation of government policies, its role cannot be overestimated and governments know that their success depends on an efficient and productive civil service. This is why democratic governments especially take seriously their relationship with their civil servants and defend them and promote their interests. And when they perform as they are expected to or beyond expectation, governments are not reluctant to sing the praise of their bureaucratic wing.

    Western Nigeria under the leadership of Chief Obafemi Awolowo was rightly boastful of having the best civil service in the country between 1954 and 1959. That was a time of mutual respect between government and civil service. Chief Simeon Adebo was full of praise for the team that Chief Awolowo put together, observing that the political leadership had a firm grip on its policy objectives, having done its homework, thus making it easy for the civil service to perform as efficiently as it did. Returning the favour, Chief Awolowo said that the Western Region was fortunate to have the best civil service in Africa with a clear focus on service delivery.

    The Western Region civil service model was possible because of the synergy that existed between the political leadership and the bureaucracy. Each of the pair had a good understanding of its role. Though design and implementation of policies are normally understood as the purview of the civil service, it was clear from the onset that Chief Awolowo and his team were on top of the design part and Chief Adebo and his team acknowledged this much. The Action Group adopted a welfarist policy thrust and the civil service was saddled with responsibility for implementation strategies.

    In its performance of its functions as best it can, the civil service of the old west made life livable for the citizens of the old west. From the implementation of the free education programme to the delivery of agricultural services, citizens not only enjoyed the benefits of their membership of the political community, they were also actively incorporated into participation in the affairs of their communities. It was this understanding of civil service as an effective partner of political leadership that the modern Southwest inherited from its immediate past.

    Beside the efficiency and commitment of the pioneer civil service cadre of the West, there was also the important element of judicious management of resources that characterised the administration of Chief Awolowo. The administration lived within its means and civil servants had no choice but to understand and live with the reality as enunciated by the Premier and his team. To this extent, the Western Region not only did not depend on the Federal Government, it also loaned funds to the central administration.

    It was a clear and unambiguous policy of that government that recurrent expenditure including its compensation budget must be kept to the minimum relative to its capital budget. This was understandable. At the time that Chief Awolowo took over, the infrastructural development of the region was at an abysmal state and he and his team were in such a hurry to carry out developmental programmes.

    Second, as a student of political economy, Chief Awolowo knew something about diminishing returns on investment. In this case, there was an optimal level of employees that the civil service could use and he made sure that it wasn’t exceeded. Of course, there were demands from political associates and perhaps, humanly speaking, he wasn’t able to dismiss all such requests for appointment. But the service was not bloated and it was not as unwieldy as we have it in many of our states and the centre today. It was the discipline of a leader that made it possible. The reward was that capital development took off in exponential terms under Chief Awolowo.

    Fast forward to the present, and the difference cannot be clearer. Surely, we have to also understand the difference in the demographics of the present vis-à-vis the past. One of the highlights of Chief Awolowo’s revolution was the development of education at all levels and the introduction of universal free primary education in 1955. This alone ensured that 12 years after, there was a four-fold increase in the number of available workers and naturally there had to be enormous pressure on the government as the single most important employer of labour.

    The trend has continued since then, especially with the return of party politics in 1979 and 1999. Both at the federal and state levels, it is common knowledge that we have a bloated and unwieldy civil service. Of course, these are relative terms. It is not the absolute number that makes an entity unwieldy; it is relative to the task and to its productivity. There was no question of diminishing returns in the 1950s and 60s. The task was enormous and the number was just optimal. It’s a different story now.

    One story is that the numbers in the books are not a true reflection of reality because of the existence of ghosts among the workforce in various ministries. Second, among genuine flesh and bone humans, a good number only appear for the sake of appearance with no visible work effort because there is none for them to do. For this group, the mornings are useful for good amala and gbegiri breakfast, while the afternoons are good for old-time gossips. In either case, the funds that could be used for developmental projects go into waste because those who take such funds immorally aren’t likely to use them to good end even for themselves.

    These all add up to the disproportionate recurrent budget vis-à-vis capital budget of the various states. Where a state’s compensation budget gulps a whopping 70 per cent of its total budget, leaving only 30 per cent for development purpose, there is something seriously amiss and civil servants should be the first to volunteer ideas for the reversal of such anomaly. Just as we find it unethical that the National Assembly has a budget allocation that is greater than that of many states of the federation, so it must be considered unfair that a State or Federal Civil Service should have a compensation budget that is two-thirds of its total budget.

    These observations can be misconstrued. I have not here advocated for the laying off of workers from the civil service, as I am fully aware of the dislocation this might cause. However, I know that this current situation cannot be sustained and therefore there must be a concerted effort on the part of the service itself to find a solution to the problem of productivity in the system.

    One solution is the rationalisation of the number of ministries and it appears that the Federal Government has taken the lead in this respect. Excess staff members can be reallocated to productive engagements within the system. There also has to be a new formula for measuring productivity and a pay system that rewards it accordingly. To say that the present system whereby the Federal Government has to bail out states in the matter of salary payments cannot be sustained is to state the obvious.

    There is no magic wand to reverse the unfortunate economic downturn in which we now find ourselves. For a start, however, the public sector must facilitate the development of the private sector and attract investors, foreign and domestic, through incentives, which include infrastructural development. Needless to add, this desirable approach requires huge capital investment with which our current bloated recurrent budget must have to compete. In the short run therefore, something must give, if we are to enjoy a lasting economic bliss in the long term.

  • Change and NASS

    Nigerians voted for change and they rightly expect their representatives to implement change. It isn’t clear however that their representatives take change seriously. The National Assembly (NASS) crisis is a fundamental threat to the change agenda.

    There is an argument that All Progressives Congress (APC) must not waste time on NASS matters because there are greater and more urgent priorities—power, corruption, unpaid salaries, etc. What this argument misses is that NASS cannot be ignored because these priorities on which APC promised to focus its attention cannot be resolved without a united NASS led by credible change agents. Therefore, while NASS is not all there is to change, its role in the change Nigerians desire cannot be overestimated.

    If the present impasse were just about the matter of appointments into NASS leadership positions, perhaps it can be resolved and contending forces reconciled. For this to happen, the actors must be willing to submerge personal interests for the larger group and national interests. However, it may not be about appointments after all. It may be the outcome of a fractious coalition of special interests.

    Assume, for instance, that the impasse is about calculations toward 2019 even when the incumbent has not publicly declared an intention to retire. In this case, it seems clear that we are back to the unfortunate climate of suspicion that birthed new Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), in which case APC is just a wrecking platform in the unassailable analogy of Chief Bisi Akande.

    From this reasoning, the only inference is that innocent electorate have been sold a dummy, yet again! Yet, to believe this or to reconcile oneself to that possibility is a short course to depression. I choose optimism and the path of sanity instead. To achieve sanity, I think we have to isolate the issues that we are dealing with. Then we can see what the prospects are, if any, for reconciliation.

    For one side to the conflict, it has been suggested that we have here a contention between party supremacy and individual or group ambition. And for this side, party supremacy has a moral edge. After all, without the party, individuals cannot pursue or achieve their political ambition. If individuals wreck the party, they will have no base to pursue their ambition. This ignores the possibility that some individuals may choose to ditch the party and seek their interest in some other parties. The new PDP defectors chose that path months ago and may choose it again and go back to PDP where they came from.

    For the other side, it is not about party supremacy but about internal democracy and parliamentary convention. They claim that they are not against the interest of the party, but are actually protecting those interests.

    Given what has occurred, the opposing side finds it hard to believe this reasoning. “Would someone who cares about the interest of the party cede to another party a position that belongs to his party so he could emerge as Senate President?” they ask. “If that wasn’t the intention, what prevented Senator Bukola Saraki from requesting that the election be delayed to allow his fellow party members arrive the chambers? Assume he wasn’t in a position to do so at the time, how about now? Can’t he at least show his loyalty to the party now by taking steps to correct the anomaly?” Thus far, the Senate President appeared to resist that idea.

    There is more. The latest resistance to honour the request of the party for the appointment of Senate officers, including Senate Leader, Whip and Deputy Whip signals an even more serious issue. There are insinuations that the Senate President refused in part because he doesn’t want his “rivals” to be in such sensitive positions.

    This is a strange reasoning, to say the least. Senator Saraki doesn’t see a PDP Deputy Senate President as a threat, but he sees his party members as political rivals who cannot be trusted! Compare how President Obama appointed Mrs. Clinton to the most coveted cabinet position in his administration, thus putting together “a team of rivals”, which strengthened the party and his administration.

    The positions of the Senate President and House Speaker suggest to observers that there is something else going on. If Saraki and Dogara are reluctant to appoint party- endorsed candidates into leadership positions in the Senate and the House respectively, is it too far-fetched to sense a 2019 calculation going on? But what does this calculation mean for APC, for President Muhammadu Buhari and for Nigerians, who voted for change?

    First, for the APC, it means that at the dawn of its victory, the party has succumbed to the disease and paralysis that struck the PDP at the dusk of its reign. Isn’t it too soon? But as tragic as it is, it shouldn’t come as a surprise. PDP started out as a party of contractors and business partners. Members knew what they wanted out of the bargain. Politics for them was business.

    That was the mindset when a Southwest party leader accused Chief Bola Ige of ingratitude, on the ground that they had invited him to the dinner table but he returned the favour with a critique of their approach to national interest. “What national interest other than the acquisitive and possessive interests of the elite party members?” That was, and is, PDP.

    ACN is the major legacy party of APC with core progressive principles. With an ideological orientation that prioritises social welfare, it prides itself as a descendant of UPN and SDP. With its achievements in the Southwest, it needed an alliance of like-minded groups to capture the centre. Buhari’s CPC, with its leader’s famed integrity and love for the welfare of the masses as well as its large Northern following, was a good fit. What wasn’t clear was whether other individuals and groups shared the same political worldview. But electoral politics is a game of numbers and no one can really fault the pioneers of the APC idea for dealing with the reality.

    With obsession with numbers come different motivations and intentions. There are individuals who felt that their political interests were threatened in the PDP and sought other means. APC was a willing tool and they jumped ship. If what they wanted out of their association with APC wasn’t anything as grandeur as the change mantra implied, they naturally will feel unnecessarily burdened by the imposition. They can therefore jettison change without a moral qualm.

    For the group in question, the 2019 calculation is simply consistent with their original motive and intention. If it doesn’t jell with the grand mission of the party, it’s just too bad. They cannot toe party line and they cannot acknowledge party supremacy where their understanding of self-interest is at stake. For them, that is what politics is all about.

    Second, for President Buhari, the 2019 calculation on the part of Saraki, Dogara, and their collaborators means that his leadership is being questioned and he is being treated as a lame duck, even before he gets started. How is he going to receive the cooperation of a divided NASS led by a divided majority of his own party?

    When the President sends his ministerial nominees to the Senate for confirmation, what can he expect? Will the “rival” groups within APC cooperate to confirm the nominees or will each group look for who among the nominees belongs to which camp? As far as change is concerned, can we expect any serious legislative agenda that targets and delivers APC’s promises to the electorate? As long as the conflict endures and the mutual suspicion lingers, it is doubtful.

    Third, for the nation in general, and for the masses that voted for change, it means  we are not out of the woods yet and the crab in us must watch its head with its eyes. This is my reading of Chief Bisi Akande’s warning. It is good that Northern political elite have denied a conspiracy against the Southwest. It is important for them to work hard with individuals and groups in the Senate and the House to restore normalcy and party unity. The alternative is MAD, aka, Mutually Assured Destruction.

  • The challenge of moving beyond race

    There are incurable racists. Anyone who doubts this should go to Mother Emmanuel, Charleston, North Carolina, the Black church where a racist wreaked havoc last week, leaving dead nine innocent souls studying the Bible in God’s sanctuary.

    Do racists really have any genuine object of their racism? Or is the object only a construction of their sick imagination? When Dylan Roof looked in the eyes of nine church men and women and ranted about why they had to die in his hands, what did he see? Did he really see a species different from him? Of course not! He saw what he was brought up to believe, what his narrow minded peers planted in him. He couldn’t see a biologically different species because there is none.

    Scientists have long accepted the truth that the classification of human beings into racial groups based on assumed differences in genetic or biological properties has no foundation in reality. But back in the days of slavery and Jim Crow, the word of science didn’t really matter. Politics did. And still does.

    The seed that bigotry planted, politics watered, and it germinated and bore the fruit of hate. The ensuing embrace of the fruit brutalised communities of colour which came to reluctantly accept the existence of race and rallied to assert and protect the dignity of the Negro race.

    This was why W. E. B. Du Bois, back in 1897, declared the “verdict of science” on race that “we have at least two, perhaps three, great families of human beings—the whites and Negroes, possibly the yellow race” and that “other races have arisen from the intermingling of the blood of these two.”  However, as if unsatisfied with this “final word of science”, Du Bois goes on to suggest that it “is nothing more than an acknowledgement that, so far as purely physical characteristics are concerned, the differences between men do not explain all the differences of their history. And that great as the various races of men, their likenesses are greater, and upon this rests the whole scientific doctrine of human brotherhood.”

    But what is “the whole scientific doctrine of human brotherhood”? Du Bois does not tell us. As a child of his age, he cannot just shrug off the idea of race with its suffocating grip on humanity. Thus in his Eureka moment, Du Bois gives us his own verdict: “the history of the world is the history, not of individuals, but of groups, not of nations, but of races, and he who ignores or seeks to override the race idea in human history ignores and overrides the central thought of human history.” And he defines a race as “a vast family of human beings, generally of common blood and language, always of common history, traditions and impulses, who are both voluntarily and involuntarily striving together for the accomplishment of certain more or less vividly conceived ideals of life.”

    I have read Du Bois at least once a year in the last 20 years and each time, something new is presented to me from the versatile mind of this ancestor. For instance, with a closer attention to Du Bois’s reference to “the whole scientific doctrine of human brotherhood” in which he appears to have anticipated the science of human genome and its wonderful conclusions, he could go all the way to declare the idea of race division as unscientific and unacceptable. Instead he caved in.

    Long after Du Bois’s concession, there have been reviews of the “verdict of science” on race. The American Association of Physical Anthropology declares that, “all humans living today belong to a single species, Homo Sapiens, and share a common descent…. There is great genetic diversity within all human populations. Pure races, in the sense of genetically homogenous populations do not exist in the human species…”

    In 1998, The American Anthropological Association (AAA) declared that “human populations are not unambiguous, clearly demarcated biological distinct groups. Evidence from the analysis of genetics (e.g. DNA) indicates that 94% of physical variation lies within so-called racial groups. Conventional geographical “racial” groupings differ from one another only in about 6% of their genes. This means that there is greater variation within “racial” groups than between them.”

    Tracing the history of the race concept and its practice in the US, the AAA declares that, “given what we know about the capacity of normal humans to achieve and function within any culture, we conclude that present-day inequalities between so-called “racial” groups are not consequences of their biological inheritance, but products of historical and contemporary social, economic, educational and practical circumstances.”

    The foregoing consensus notwithstanding, there is a strong interest in keeping race as a tool of science. This interest appeals to two different but related reasons. The first argues that since race classification is embedded in the routine collection and analysis of scientific data, it is not practicable, possible, or desirable to purge science of race. The second argues that while race may not be a scientifically meaningful concept, as long as it continues to influence social life through several paths, including racism, race classification must have a role to play in fighting the injustice of racism.

    With regard to the first argument, there is no doubt that race classification is embedded in the routine collection and analysis of scientific data. But it is also true that the collection and analysis of scientific data may be carried out in disregard of the verdict of science. If in fact there is no scientific foundation for race, and if there is no biological race, then the collection of “scientific” data on race is in defiance of science and it is as such scientifically invalid. To purge science of race should not therefore be impracticable or impossible. For it would only require doing away with the collection of “scientific” data on race, that is, doing away with bad science.

    It is true that due to centuries of classification without scientific validity, some group have enjoyed privileges while others have been deprived. The result of this is still very much with us. The politics of race, rather than the biology of race, is the driver of hate, discrimination, and dehumanization.

    Race is not an accurate “pie slicer” to slice people into genetic groups. It is a social classification. So though science assures that biological race is a myth, racist ideology succeeds in creating a system that effectively slices people into groups of differing powers and opportunities.

    The power is unassailable, and the opportunities are immense. Consider what has been noticed in the wake of the execution of innocent Bible study participants. Upon his arrest, Roof was handled with care and respect by the officers. He was protected with body armor from possible harm. Compare this with the arrest of an innocent young Black girl attending a pool party in Texas. The police officer threw her to the pavement and sat on top of her in her swim suit. Then he aimed his gun at the young men and women around.

    While some liberal commentators courageously saw racism in Roof’s act, others dogged the question. They described Roof a misguided kid or a sick child who needs help. They psychoanalyze the issue on behalf of a racist murderer. This kind of psychoanalysis doesn’t generally take preeminence in the case of a Black suspect.

    But the power is more brazenly flaunted. In the wake of Roof’s murderous attack and the public revelation of his hate manifesto on his webpage, there is a debate about the continued relevance of confederate paraphernalia including the battle flag. Should there be a debate, really? For many Southerners, including self-identifying liberals, these symbols of oppression are symbols of their heritage for which they are proud.

    There are descendants of slave owners who would defend slavery till death. One told an interviewer that slavery was the best social security that America offered Blacks. And he didn’t consider himself a racist! “If I am a racist, why would I have so many Blacks working for me?” he asked.  We still have a long ways to go to move beyond race.

  • 10 posers for NASS

    10 posers for NASS

    Now that the 8th National Assembly (NASS) has been inaugurated, despite the controversial and rebellious manner in which its leadership was elected, and since the ruling party has reconciled itself with the rebellion and accepted the reality of the moment, congratulation is due to all members and leaders.

    The important role expected of the legislature in the making of just laws in liberal democracy is very well-known. More importantly, however, in view of the promise of change that attracted millions of our people including first-time voters, to the ruling party, the legislative branch, whose members willingly subscribed to the change mantra and campaigned on its promise, is obligated to take legislative initiatives in support of change. This is the justifiable expectation of the electorate who weathered the most violent political storm for the sake of change.

    Though it’s been only 10 days since the NASS leadership elections, and the body is not expected to resume for full legislative session until next week, it is an appropriate time to alert our distinguished NASS members about the most important expectations of our people. It is appropriate time for two related reasons.

    In the first place, citizens are eager for change and unfortunately, they are receiving feelers which appear to send the wrong signals. In the second place, since we are still in the wee hours of the new dispensation, it is right time to sound a note of warning to all political actors and operatives that our people are mad as hell and will not be fooled again. It is in the light of this empirically validated consciousness of the state of the nation that I share the following 10 posers with NASS members.

    One: As distinguished members of the National Assembly, what is your idea of change? Since you consciously campaigned for votes by appeal to the need for change, this question applies especially to you members of the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC). However, it also applies to you members of the minority party, Peoples’ Democratic Party (PDP), in both chambers. Though you did not campaign by appeal to change, you understand that the majority voted for change and as democrats you must accept it and live with it.

    Moreover, it is a known fact the present APC leadership in both the Senate and the House had entered into an alliance of sort with PDP members, albeit against their party leadership position but with the blessing of PDP leadership. If this is true, as I think it is, it would appear that PDP legislators have a stake in the success of their respective houses. Now that there is a coalition of rivals, PDP cannot wash its hand off the success or failure of the Senate and the House.

    In the light of the foregoing, then, a relevant question follows: Does change for you our legislators mean just change of actors or does it include change of ideas and practice? If it means change of actors only, how sensible and morally justifiable is it? Why would anyone expect voters to respond to a call for change of actors without a corresponding change of ideas and practices that had failed the people? Therefore it seems reasonable to expect that the people voted for change of ideas and practices.

    Two: If you understand that the people voted for change of ideas and practices what such ideas and practices occurred to you NASS members as needing change? Is corruption one of them? What about governmental impunity? Is greed a practice that requires a rethink? How about financial waste and leakages?

    Three: If any of the above occurred to you as NASS members newly sworn in, how do you plan on executing change in such areas? Does it occur to you that change must start with you and be self-initiated? If it doesn’t, does it occur to you the moral issue that faces advocates of change who are not prepared to self-initiate change and self-impose its requirements? How can you go about mouthing change if you don’t lead in the necessary action and if it doesn’t start with you? Are you an advocate of “do as I say but don’t do as I do” with the moral contradiction it implies?

    Four: If you come to terms with the need for self-initiation and self imposition of change, where does it occur to you to start? Which aspect of change is easiest for you to execute, bearing in mind that what concerns you severally and collectively is the easiest to deal with, especially since you can move from there to what concerns others?

    Look at it this way. If I discover a deficiency in my approach to life and I notice that my son is going in the same direction, to help my son get back on the right tract, I must first deal with my own problem. Our legislators are the guardians of our national destiny. Admittedly, we have all gone astray in the matter of our priorities. We expect our national guardians to lead us back on the path of moderation and decency. But they must first remove the logs in their legislative eyes.

    Five: In light of Four, how do you as NASS members perceive the recent report on your salaries and allowances in the context of the economic situation prevailing in the nation? Do you think that it is fair, excessive, or inadequate in comparison with other jurisdictions and other sectors of the polity?

    Six:  Assume that you consider it fair, what is the basis of that assessment in light of comparison with other countries, including our peers and those more advanced?

    Seven: If you consider it excessive in comparison to other demographics, what can you do about it? What will you do about it? Do you have the legislative power to reduce your remuneration and allowances? If you don’t, why not, since you have enormous legislative powers? If you do, will you?

    Eight: In particular, can you really morally justify the provision for wardrobe allowance no matter how little it is? If you can, will you also support the provision of wardrobe allowance for teachers, lecturers and other professionals?

    Some of you are retired governors and you are receiving generous pensions from your states. Will you also consider yourself eligible for full remuneration and allowances from NASS? Some of you are former ministers who received handsome severance allowances from the Federal Government. Are you also eligible for full remuneration and allowances from NASS? What message are you sending to ordinary Nigerians struggling to survive?

    Nine: How about the overall budget of NASS? Do you consider it excessive in the context of our overall economic situation and the mass poverty in the country? The Deputy Speaker has suggested that N150 billion is not too much for the body because it is only 3 per cent of the national budget.

    Do you know, as Premium Times has revealed, that NASS, with no more than 2,000 people including members and staffers, has a budget that is greater than the budget of 19 states in the federation with population averaging four million people? How do you justify the allocation of such disproportionate resources to your institution? Is it in terms of the work that you do?  But it has also been reported that while NASS gobbled N600 billion in four years, it passed only 106 bills out of 1063. Or is it in terms of the prestige of the institution? Or the risk that members take in getting elected? You must agree with me that change must start with you.

    Ten: Finally how do you as NASS members plan to carry the masses along the path of and toward change? The reaction to the recent announcement of remuneration and allowances has been overwhelmingly negative. To one page of the report in ThisDay there were 57 comments covering five pages of regular paper print and all of them were negative. “Is this the change we voted for?” is the common refrain. Isn’t it too soon for NASS and the new Executive to alienate the masses that voted massively for change?

    Just a thought!

  • NASS the 8th

    NASS the 8th

    The eighth National Assembly (NASS) was inaugurated on Tuesday, June 9. A product of the sweat and labour of Nigerians for change, the new Senate and the House had seemed to embody the aspirations and hopes of the deprived and denigrated masses of a great but oxygen-deprived nation.

    With a newly-minted presidency, and a self-critical judiciary that is poised to discharge its onerous responsibilities in the hallowed chambers of justice, Nigerians who voted for change deserve a collaborative NASS in the country’s march to greatness. Are they in for a rude shock?

    The question above makes sense even when normalcy prevailed and stability was assured. There have always been good reasons for worry about the intrusion of ego and greed in the conduct of the business of NASS. In the first 16 years of the fourth republic, Nigerians have had a feel of what NASS can and cannot do by way of self-promotion. They know that its members are among the highest paid public servants in the civilised world and that they justify this by appeal to the risk they take in getting to their prestigious positions (“NASS unveils ego bill” in this column, 27/11/2009).

    Nigerians are aware that the productivity of our law-making institution has not justified our investment. They know about the performance of oversight functions of federal institutions and agencies in the service of self. They are familiar with the scandalous budget approval systems. Therefore our compatriots invested their time, energy and resources into the last elections hoping to see a change. Will they?

    The party with the majority in the chambers of NASS had presented its agenda for change to the people. It presented to voters the individuals that it considered capable of promoting the agenda and endorsed them for election. As such the party has an indisputable stake in the success of the legislative bodies charged with carrying out its agenda as endorsed by the electorate.

    This logic of party interest in the activities of NASS and in the performance of the executive branch cannot be faulted. PDP lost the elections because Nigerians were dissatisfied with the performance of the former president and the seventh National Assembly.

    Let us admit then that APC did not overstep the boundary of acceptable party behaviour in its effort to reconcile interests and broker a consensus towards the election of NASS leadership. It is especially important to recall the several contending power centres in the matter.

    The Northeast insisted that it contributed the second largest votes to the success of the president. It dared the party to zone the position of Senate presidency elsewhere and it would use its numbers to scuttle the process. It also claimed it had the highest ranking member in the Senate and in accordance with the practice in other democracies, the most senior member ought to get the position. It is a sound argument based on convention and tradition.

    In an effort to do right by all interested parties, the National Working Committee (NWC) of the party chose to conduct a mock election to come up with a consensus candidate. Since it has a simple majority in both chambers, a united front represented by a consensus candidate for each position will guarantee victory in the houses. So it thought. Again, that strategy cannot be faulted.

    The party and the NWC apparently underestimated the contradictory forces in the fractious coalition it had brought together and the various interests which are difficult if not impossible to satisfy or reconcile. While the logic of its approach toward reconciliation and consensus is unassailable, the contending forces that it had to deal with were working with a different logic and a different mindset. In the end the leadership was dealt an outcome which it had deliberately sought to avoid. A frustrating case of damned if you do; condemned if you don’t!

    A consensus cannot emerge where there are deep-seated animosities and antagonistic interests. Besides, the contending forces are not just geographical zones but also political zones and friendship zones. The “New PDP” caucus considers itself a political zone within the APC coalition along with the geographical zones and expects to be treated as such. There is also the spiritual zone where religion reigns. For residents of this zone, APC must do well by all religions.

    Perhaps a more fundamental issue is the presidency’s position on the matter of NASS leadership. This is important because Mr. President is the leader of the party and his position right from the beginning has been that he has no preferred candidate and will work with anyone that the chambers elected.

    Every time that the president’s message came out, I sought to see whether there was a caveat: Did he mean anyone that the party presented? No such caveat or condition, and not a few understood him as meaning anyone that the NASS chambers elected. What wasn’t clear was whether the president didn’t mind having a PDP senator as Senate President. Or did he assume that whoever was elected will be an APC member? His messages didn’t go into these details.

    The NASS APC members opposed to their party’s preference for a consensus candidate took a favourable interpretation of the president’s message and ran with it. They dug down, honed their game and worked with the opposition minority party, making a deal that produced Dr. Saraki, APC (Kwara) as Senate President and Senator Ekweremadu, PDP (Enugu) as Deputy Senate President (DSP). Now a NASS with an APC majority will be “APC In Name Only” (APCINO). Incredible!

    What was most baffling and frustrating in this is not the election itself but, to many, the way it was conducted with a bare quorum which effectively excluded APC senators-elect, assembled elsewhere for a meeting with Mr. President on consensus candidates. A cruel cut, indeed!

    This process and its outcome are unprecedented and they raise a number of questions. Will there be an APC leadership caucus in the Senate and the House? Who will participate as members?

    The Senate President owes his leadership position to the opposition PDP. The latter knows this and will be ready at a moment notice to ditch him and promote his deputy to the position. Will he risk this prospect to work for the change agenda of APC? Are his PDP supporters going to let him pursue the change agenda? In the meetings of Senate leadership with the President to discuss policy and strategy matters, will the DSP be in attendance?

    In his acceptance speech, Senate President Saraki promised to defend the independence of the Senate. To a certain extent this is logical in the context of separation of powers. However, it is ominous in the context of the power struggle and the machinations that led to his emergence. Does Senate independence mean the pursuit of an independent agenda different from the agenda of change that the party presented to the electorate? I hope not.

    There have been comments about who the loser is and who the winner is in this sordid affair. I think it is unhealthy to engage in that game. It will not help us sort out the important issues going forward. And going forward we must. Therefore in the interest my sanity, and to ensure that my emotional investment does not blow up in my face, I would like to assure myself that all is not lost.

    In that spirit, I plead that reason must prevail, that maturity must be displayed, and that full reconciliation must be pursued. The president and the party leadership must think of all their sacrifices, swallow their frustration, and initiate efforts towards reconciliation.

    On his part, the new Senate President must resist any temptation to bite his party’s fingers. He must refuse the urge to ditch the party’s agenda. Top of that agenda that is within his immediate reach is the initiation of legislation to drastically cut the budget of NASS including the personal emolument of its members. This will demonstrate to Nigerians the seriousness of NASS, the eighth in the matter of change.

    On this 22nd anniversary of June 12, let there be change!

  • The first week

    The first week

    Just as morning shows the day, the first week of the Buhari administration is a signal to what to expect in the next four years. It is not too early to identify the resolve and operational style of the engineer and conductor as the Buhari/Osinbajo train takes off in full speed.

    We cannot afford to miss the import of the president’s inaugural address. Those who complain that the address doesn’t contain a laundry list of policy items misjudge its intent. Its goal is to present the president’s governing philosophy to the nation, to remind the people of their proud heritage and thus call them into a fruitful partnership, and to reassure the global community of Nigeria’s readiness to take on the mantle of leadership for Africa’s economic and political development. On these important areas, the President delivered a powerful message which was not lost on the assemblage of leaders and dignitaries around the world.

    Five special messages are clear and distinct in Buhari’s inaugural address. First is the deliberate effort to reaffirm his campaign pledge to govern with the fear of God and serve as the president of all Nigerians. “I belong to everyone and I belong to nobody” is more than a sound bite. It is a powerful message to all, including the doubters. It is to allay the fears of those who demonised him and terrified prospective voters with baseless claims of prison time for opponents that Buhari declared that “the past is prologue.” For a president with a mission to rally the nation to confront the very difficult issues she faces in these trying times, Buhari doesn’t have time for revenge. This is change.

    Will he remain true to this pledge? A good question, the answer to which the president himself has provided, not in words but in action. Shortly after the inaugural, the president declared that his government has not banned anyone from travelling, and warned overzealous officials that ministers and other officials of the Jonathan administration must not be “subjected to any undue harassment and intimidation at the airports or at any other points of entry and exit.” He urged that fellow citizens must be treated with courtesy and respect, and that due process must be followed by officials at the border. This is as firm and clear as he can get to demonstrate fidelity to his pledge.

    The second message that came out forcefully was Buhari’s zero tolerance for terrorism in general and Boko Haram insurgency in particular, which he declared as the most immediate of the national challenges. For a start, the president directed that the command centre be relocated to Maiduguri “until Boko Haram is completely subdued” and Chibok girls and other innocent persons held hostage are rescued. This is a General’s insight.

    Buhari has since met with the Service Chiefs and must have given them the marching orders to prosecute the fight and “avoid human rights violations in operations” as he pledged in his address. The President’s Wednesday visit to the President of Niger Republic was a further demonstration to the doubting Thomases, of his resolve to tackle the security challenge frontally.

    The third message of the address is on the economy, with the president fingering the epileptic power situation as the major culprit of the nation’s poor economic performance. To those for whom the economy has performed superbly, especially since rebasing, this assessment must be bitter to taste. But for the millions who live in abject poverty, and for industries performing at sub-par and millions of youth without job, it is the commonsense depiction of reality.

    The president rightly noted the close to $20 billion expansion in the power sector since 1999 which have only “brought darkness, frustration, misery and resignation among Nigerians.” The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and expecting different results. Therefore, “we will not allow this to go on” is the president’s firm resolution that Nigerians will certainly find reassuring but for which they will also hold him and his administration accountable. With the disclosure of careful studies that are already “underway during this transition to identify the quickest, safest and most cost-effective way to bring light and relief to Nigerians”, I suspect that Nigerians will not have to wait for long.

    The fourth message is to the international community, which has waited patiently but in frustration for Nigeria to take its rightful leadership position in the comity of nations, globally and in the African region. The challenge is reconciling domestic strength or lack of it with international expectations without being embarrassingly compared to the physician who is unable to heal himself. You cannot claim to be partners with others in the war against terrorism if you half-heartedly prosecute the war within your border. You cannot honestly pledge cooperation with the international community in financial crimes if you cannot confront financial criminals in your backyard.

    Buhari can faithfully make the pledge because he has confidence in his ability and will to fight corruption in the public and private sectors. And he knows that the overwhelming majority of Nigerians have his back in this important war. The key to the success in this fight is the collective resolve of our people. Buhari has vowed to get to the root of corruption even at the local government level. But since he is not an omnipresent being, he cannot be expected to know what goes on in the 774 local governments plus more local development areas around the country.

    The final message is a presidential call to unity and greatness. In light of the foregoing paragraphs, it is perhaps the most important message. It’s a lofty appeal to the better angels of our people, and a reminder of the great heritage of a proud people who despite the divisions of tongue and religion, have so much in common.

    We must “remind ourselves that we are heirs to great civilisations” the president says. And “the blood of those great ancestors (of ours) flows in our veins.” In other words, we are the children of our forefathers and mothers. They were known for greatness in various ways. Our brothers and sisters outside the borders of Nigeria in faraway America and the Caribbean continue to relate to their homeland with pride, invoking the names of our ancestors.

    The president’s message is that we must look inward to the strength in our diversity and combine our cultural resources to fashion a great civilisation for ourselves and our descendants. Hitherto, we have only perceived our differences as weakness. The blame for this can go round.

    There mustn’t be a superiority or inferiority complex on the part of any section of the country. There cannot be a deliberate attempt to marginalise any section politically, culturally, or economically. If we want a united and progressive nation, we must treat every group as an integral part of the whole. We must rethink our ideal of politics and ensure that every part of the country matters.

    Surely, there have been occasions when division and disintegration appeared the only solution to our challenges. We have sometimes entertained reasons to go back to pre-colonial or colonial times. We may have been moved by the political principle of ethnic or national separatism.

    However, we are now at a place where this principle cannot be effectively implemented without bloodshed, and we must go for the second best. That is what the idea of true federalism is all about. It has worked well in the other places with our sociological complexity. There is no reason it cannot work with us. People rightly fear domination by others they don’t trust. Grant them some cultural, political and economic freedom within a federal system and they can be fully integrated into the multiethnic or multinational political community.

    This is a challenge for President Buhari to take up. The call for true federalism is a reasonable call in light of our past. The founding fathers whom the president praised for “establishing a viable and progressive country” embraced true federalism. The independence constitution was a true federal constitution. Let us take our cue from their wisdom.