Category: Segun Gbadegesin

This electioneering season has turned into a drama with several acts and scenes with the ruling party assuming the character of a super dribbler with innumerable tricks.

In Act 1, PDP sponsored series of legal actions against APC’s Buhari to disqualify him and have the coast clear for Jonathan. In Scene 1, supporters of the ruling party contested the qualification of Buhari in the court. A number of these are still waiting to be heard and decided. Buhari, with an equivalent of a Masters Degree from the US War College, is accused of not having the Secondary School Certificate or its equivalent. Who knows, APC may have no candidate after all. In a side show, they also wish him dead with unverifiable claims of terminal illness.

In Act 1 Scene 2, Buhari was alleged to have committed perjury because the Army denied having his certificates which he swore on oath were with that organization. It didn’t matter that other high ranking Generals of Buhari’s age confirmed his declaration. It’s amazing but not surprising that there are judicial officers including SANs willing to take on such baseless cases. ABN of yore had legal representation as well. In these cases we know that the drummer that supplies the beat for the dancing crab is somewhere away from sight.

In Act 2, President Jonathan realized that Nigerians are truly religious people even if many of the sheep and shepherds are godless. This truth could be exploited in a number of ways, the most sincere and less suspect being to publicly request for a national day of inter-faith prayer for peaceful elections, which every true patriot would appreciate. But Mr. President decided to sharpen the division between the faiths, visiting every mega church, knees bent in the full glare of cameras. They prayed for him and in some cases offered him their blessings for reelection. Surrogate pastors went on lecture spree denouncing the opposition and singing the praise of Mr. Jonathan, the messiah.

In Scene 2 of Act 2, it wasn’t enough for the President to show-off his Christianity. It was important for him and his supporters to paint Buhari, his opponent, as the most satanic Muslim on earth. Buhari was demonized as a fundamentalist bent on Islamizing Nigeria. It didn’t matter to them that just as there are Christians in the opposition, so there are Muslims in the ruling party. Neither did it matter that Buhari was the former Head of State who refused to take Nigeria into the Organization of Islamic States. Nor do they now care that Buhari successfully rooted out the Maitatsine sect in Kano. Here political expediency trumps the truth!

There was Act 3. While the effort to disqualify Buhari was still ongoing, the ruling party decided to diversify its strategy. It sent the National Security Adviser (NSA) to the United Kingdom, not to talk about national security but about the elections. He flew the kite of postponement because the distribution of Permanent Voters Cards (PVC) had proceeded slowly and voters might be disenfranchised if elections were not postponed. INEC protested that it had made good progress compared with where it was at the same period in 2011. Nigerians and the international community sensed a grand conspiracy.

When the sound and fury of the protest was becoming an embarrassment, Scene 2 of Act 3 was staged with a grand design in full military regalia. Service Chiefs and NSA, citing national security concerns, effectively staged a coup against the February 14 election date on the ground that the battle against Boko Haram had been set to commence on that very day. The military cannot be distracted from that plan, they insisted. The Commander-in-Chief claimed to know nothing about the plan until it was unfolded. The opposition saw a landmine and carefully avoided getting ambushed. It appealed to its supporters to remain calm. It worked and the curtain was closed on Scene 2 of Act 3.

Soon there was Act 4. Every perspective observer had concluded from the inception of Scene 2 of Act 3 that the whole episode was to buy time for the ruling party and reduce the yawning gap in popularity between Jonathan and Buhari. In Act 4 therefore we were treated to a re-invigorated campaign on the part of Team Jonathan. They threw caution to the wind and removed the glove of presidential honor and dignity. They took a leave from the playbook of the military as in the days of yearnings for Abacha, except that they cannot afford to stay in Abuja.

In Scene 1 Act 4, Dr. Jonathan relocated to the Southwest with numerous bags of dollar bills which he dished out lavishly in meetings with almost all Yoruba organizations including Afenifere, Yoruba Unity Forum, Yoruba Council of Elders, and OPC. A couple of organizations that he cannot trust, including Afenifere Renewal Group and Igbimo Yoruba Agbaye were left out. The President didn’t leave the meetings without securing the endorsements of a good number of these organizations. One exception was the Yoruba Council of Elders which has denied endorsing the president for reelection.

In Scene 2 Act 4, PDP deployed its governors from their various states to converge on Lagos, ostensibly for their regular meeting. In reality, however, they had a more nefarious mission. Lagos is the most populous and most diversified state in the federation. It occurred to PDP that its governors must meet with Lagos residents from their various states to sell to them the candidacy of Jonathan. Here it is convenient for PDP to divide Nigerians on the basis of their states of origin. It didn’t matter that this tactic might create tension between indigenes and residents. This scene had a side show featuring Governor Mimiko and his post-confab summits in Akure and Ibadan.

Then there was Act 5. Jonathan decided to bring traditional rulers into the murky water of presidential politics. It didn’t matter to him that every Oba has a diversity of views on politics and religion in his domain. And while our royal fathers still enjoy the respect of their subjects, there is a very thin line between respect and resentment if subjects judge that rulers have overstepped their boundaries.

As in the Abacha era, some royal fathers succumbed to the temptation, abandoning tradition and playing to the gallery of political expediency. This was especially the case in one of the Southwest states with a despicable scum as its governor. In other states, royal fathers were seen in pictures praying with their royal walking stick pointing to Mr. President. In such cases, it could just be prayers for good health and good judgment short of endorsement. But who knows?

Then there was a spectacular Scene 2 of Act 5. Let us call it the redemptive scene. It was the case of the royal father who has always been consistent in dignity and honor speaking truth to power. Oba Sikiru Adetona, the Awujale of Ijebu Ode, reconfirmed that he is a lion among his peers by sticking to the path of decency. He refused to endorse on the ground that he couldn’t control the voting conscience of his subjects. A voice of reason indeed!

Finally there is Act 6. In Scene 1, Mr. President sneaked into residences at night seeking collaborators to scuttle the whole thing through the ING contraption. If he cannot have it, Buhari will not either. Doyin Okupe has been very clear that Jonathan will not hand over to Buhari. Tinubu was allegedly contacted but refused. Atiku was visited but ended up the following morning with Buhari.

Scene 2 Act 6 is the most bizarre. Just 13 days to the election, “Jega must go” is the desperate scream of militants from MASSOB to OPC. Certainly nine billion naira is no chicken change. What is good for the South-south must be good for the Southwest, Gani declared, touting 15,000 potential security job beneficiaries. And Afenifere joined in? The Yoruba have indeed truly evolved! This may be the final act.  As I am about to sign off, a message appeared in my inbox. “Jega will be fired before Saturday”, it reads. The curtain is not yet dropped on this drama of political desperados.

IT is now stale news that Mr. Musiliu Obanikoro is now an “Honorable” Minister. Two weeks ago, I speculated that knowing the ruling party and its undistinguished senators, Obanikoro’s confirmation as a minister was a foregone conclusion. For, all things being equal as a former senator, in spite of the scandal which rendered nothing equal, he would only have to “bow and go.” Opposition senators may protest as they must, but David Mark’s Senate is enslaved to “tradition” and it doesn’t have to bother itself about the rationale for that tradition.

As of Thursday morning when this column had to be submitted, we did not know Obanikoro’s portfolio. But no one should be surprised if Obanikoro is given back his old portfolio in the Ministry of Defence. After all, he is needed for the President’s reelection especially in the Southwest. And whatever anyone might think about the undisguised clarity of Obanikoro’s voice in the Ekiti rigging tape, it is now clear that he was truthful when he declared to Brigadier General Momoh and other PDP chieftains, including Mr. Fayose, that President Jonathan gave him the assignment and he had to deliver.

When Obanikoro told the Brigadier General that he cannot have a promotion without him as Minister of State for Defence sitting on the Military Council, he wasn’t bragging. He assured Momoh that if he was a happy man the following day, the sky was the limit for the General. What Obanikoro accomplished in Ekiti, he will now have to achieve for Jonathan in the entire Southwest. If this makes political sense, does it make moral sense?

There are a few matters arising on this latest brazen display of impunity and arrogance by the ruling party. There is little doubt now that we are being told in clear terms that the electorates don’t really matter. What just happened was a thumbing of the nose of citizens in a “what can you do?” posture.

There is no doubt that PDP cannot win a free and fair election if it depends only on hard-core party members. It needs independent voters who are not beholding to any party. But independent voters are generally more discriminating in terms of candidate’s credentials and record of performance. They are certainly turned off by blatant moral lapses such as Ekitigate that affront the foundation of democracy. Therefore political parties must present their best to woo them and enlist their support. From some of its recent activities, there is no doubt that PDP and the President do not give a damn about voters in general and independent voters in particular. PDP just keeps reminding us of the dreadful past when NDP leaders in Western Region went about bragging that even if the electorates failed to vote for them, they would still win the 1965 election. The outcome is history.

Now to the matters arising. First, the nomination of Obanikoro as minister by Mr. President was morally obnoxious. Recall that Obanikoro lost the primary for the gubernatorial election in Lagos State. But this is not the issue. After all, one candidate must win and others must lose. The point was the characterization of Obanikoro by party leaders in Lagos. Bode George described him in uncharitable terms. So did Ogunlewe. Many of the party members would have nothing to do with him. If someone was thus flatly rejected by his state chapter, what was the moral sense of giving him a ministerial appointment? The ostensible rationale was to compensate him so the party can present a unified front at the election. So the appointment was a bribe and the President didn’t see anything wrong with this. At any rate if Obanikoro was so roundly chastised by his chapter, and leaders didn’t see any electoral value in him, what was the point of compensation or bribe? The President needs him.

Second, it was shortly after his nomination that the bombshell of the Ekiti Rigging Tape was dropped. But for the moral conscience of the young army Captain Koli who used good judgment to record the conspiratorial meeting of daredevil politicians, their wicked scheme wouldn’t see the light of day. Now we know and Mr. President knows. He could have done the needful by withdrawing his nomination pending the clearance of the nominee after adequate investigation. Doing so would have led credence to his avowed but largely only-on-paper “transformation agenda”.

But Mr. President looked the other way. Even without an investigation, Dr. Jonathan dismissed the tape as a fabrication. Then one after the other, the meeting participants confirmed their participation and authenticated their voices. Still Mr. President did not recant his unguarded dismissal of the allegation. It was quite extraordinary that even with the confession of culprits whose voices were heard clearly on the tape, Mr. President still dismissed the authenticated episode as a fabrication! Therefore he didn’t withdraw the nomination of a person as minister even with the knowledge that that person abused his power and office when he conspired with others for the manipulation of elections in Ekiti State and they were caught on tape. How sad!

Why has this not risen to the level of moral outrage for every morally conscious citizen, including members of the ruling party? Why, even with the benefit of the uncontroverted evidence, members of the ruling party didn’t see it for what it is? The generalization principle of ethics states that what is right for one person must be right for every relevantly similar person in relevantly similar circumstances. In the context of election manipulation, if it is right for the President’s party, it cannot be wrong for the opposition party. The only difference is that the President’s party has the military and the police under its control. However, if the pendulum swings, and the opposition becomes the ruling party, would the President’s party happily accept election manipulation as a matter of fact?

Third, it tells a lot about the values we hold as a people that those in high places who should serve as role models to the young people still finding their way in a hostile world are caught in a web of lies, cheating, stealing, and outright brigandage, all to get ahead. What do they teach their children? Well, we know, because a lot of the social media responses and commentaries on online news demonstrate beyond doubt that this country is in deep trouble for ages.

Some young people, many of whom are linguistically challenged are also ethically challenged. Just as elders see every action and event from the prism of politics and calculations of selfish interest, for a good number of young Nigerian citizens, politics is the be-all and end-all of life and it is driven by ethnic and/or religious affiliation. What is the hope for Nigeria as a nation? And how do Afenifere elders, Yoruba Elders Council, Yoruba Unity group, and Obas react to this? It’s good for Yorubaland to have another minister, right?

Fourth, the Senate received the nomination of Obanikoro shortly before the outing of Ekiti State Rigging scandal. Senate leaders could have decided to have their names written in platinum by sending it back to Mr. President or giving the nominee a hearing during which time the truth of his involvement would come out. This is what is done in every civilized democracy where individual senators have their eyes on history and their place in it.

Our senators must know that what happened on Wednesday March 11, 2015 is now archived in Senate history. 20, 50, 100 years from now, Nigerians, including their offspring will know the role they played in this show of shame. Senators talk about tradition as if tradition is self-justifying. It was the tradition in some parts of our country to throw twins in the bush for fear that they were evil spirits. We had a tradition of human sacrifice in many parts of the country. Were these morally justified? The tradition of not grilling former senators for confirmation even when it is public knowledge that they have fallen short of the distinction that tradition confers on them is simply morally obnoxious. If we didn’t know before, we now know.

My objective in this two-part series has been to review the balance-sheet of the two leading presidential candidates on the basis of their past records and present credentials. While some distinguished Nigerians have expressed their concerns with the two, the election has come down to a choice between them. The sensible approach then is to place their “problematic” credentials on a scale to determine which is the negatively or positively weightier. In other words, we must make a rational choice based on the balance of relevant factors. Last week, I focused on President Jonathan. Today I take on General Muhammadu Buhari.

One of the negatives critics identify with General Buhari is his military background versus the need of the nation for a president that would respect democratic norms. The question is whether Buhari is able to move from the command and control orientation of the military to the consensus building requirement of democracy. His critics are quick to make reference to Buhari’s “high-handedness” as military Head of State for twenty months from December 1983 to July 1985 when he was toppled in a bloodless coup. For them, those are scary times which they don’t want to relive and they are not convinced that the General has changed with the times.

Interestingly, this charge has been addressed by Buhari on a number of occasions, most recently at his Chatham House address. While acknowledging the concern about his military background and record as military Head of State, Buhari assured his audience of his conversion to the tenets of democracy. He has to; otherwise he will not succeed because the institutions of democracy require consensus building qualities in a president.

It is important to also note, however, as one of the retired Generals observed a while ago that civilians have no good reason to blame the military for intervening in politics in those days because military intervention would not have been necessary if civilians had not lost their sense of good governance. Many would recall the prelude to December 1983 and the near-anarchy that prevailed. The police was in professionally irresponsible cahoots with the ruling party and the economy was in doldrums. The sense of helplessness on the part of the people was the reason for the wild jubilation over the announcement of military intervention just as it was in January 1966.

Second, as far as his critics are concerned, at 72, General Buhari is too old for the rigors of the presidency. The uncultured and uncouth among them, including Governor Fayose of Ekiti, have made this the foundation of their opposition. Fayose has sponsored several advertisements playing God and cautioning Nigerians of the impending demise of Buhari. When this backfired in the midst of a boisterous denouncement of the adverts, he backed down only to resurface with a press conference to announce that Buhari’s London visit was not to visit Blair or give a talk at Chatham House, but rather to see a doctor. He even gave the location of the hospital which Buhari checked into.

Tony Blair’s confirmation that he met Buhari and the announcement of the General’s scheduled talk at Chatham House did not persuade Fayose. For him and his fellow ageists, it was all a hoax. The PDP Publicity Secretary joined in to question the integrity of his APC counterparts: why are they doctoring pictures? suggesting, without a compunction of conscience, that the picture Buhari took with former Prime Minister Blair and Governors Amosun and Saraki was dated or fake. The question this scenario raises is the following: If health is not compromised, is age really a negative?

Perhaps the most serious “negative” that critics have dwelled on the most is the allegation of religious and ethnic bigotry against Buhari. This is not something coming from the poor and lower classes of the society. This charge has been brought directly and circulated far and wide by intellectuals including professors, high profile clerics, and industry giants. They are afraid that Buhari will Islamize Nigeria in a jihadist war against the south.

In a country with religious and ethnic diversity, this is a weighty charge. But what is the evidence? That is not important as long as the perception is alive and is nourished with fear. Does Buhari’s background in the matter of religious devotion lend any credence to this charge of an islamization agenda? Have Buhari’s presidential campaigns since 2003 pointed in this direction of an Islamic aggression?

While there is no doubt that religion has featured prominently in this election, it is true that this has not come from the camp of Buhari who has been pilloried by the ruling party as a religious bigot. We are yet to see a video of Buhari kneeling before an Imam or hopping from mosque to mosque for the blessings of the congregants. If Buhari is so much into islamization, why is he not mobilizing the Muslim Umah in these elections? Buhari has also addressed this matter in a thoughtful presentation to the Catholic Bishops.

On their part, Buhari’s supporters have identified three areas of the candidate’s strength as the positives that really matter for the leadership of the country in the present stage of its democratic and economic development.

First they point to his endowment of leadership discipline, a trait that even his staunchest opponents can attest to and which supporters attribute to his military background. Thus, while opponents are wary of that background in a democratic setting, supporters taunt the discipline that he has acquired from it as what the country needs now to clear the rot and mess of sixteen years.  There are indications as well that it is the matter of his discipline that scares his opponents. They know that a Buhari presidency will close all the loopholes that fertilize the lust for greed and unmerited acquisition as well as the tendency towards impunity in government which has characterized the camp of the ruling party since 1999.

Next there is Buhari’s widely acknowledged incorruptibility and disarming honesty. He headed the Ministry of Petroleum as Minister under the first regime of General Obasanjo and he discharged the responsibilities of the office creditably. Under Abacha, Buhari was head of the Petroleum Trust Fund (PTF) and despite the allegation of lost funds Buhari was cleared by the investigative panel. President Obasanjo who ordered the investigation confirmed this recently. And there was no reason Obasanjo would cover up for Buhari, knowing their political differences as rival presidential candidates in 2003.

Finally, according to his supporters, Buhari’s track record in dealing with religious insurgencies in the North since his days as GOC is well known. It was Buhari that dealt decisively with the Maitatsine sect in Kano in the 80s. It was he that sent back the invading Chad insurgents. If Buhari was at the helm when Boko Haram first reared its violent head, supporters insist that he would have effectively led the charge against it. He would certainly not have underestimated the strength and senseless determination of the sect to wreck havoc in the polity.

Incidentally, the moment that President Jonathan confessed his underestimation of the Boko Haram many Nigerian commentators on social media placed the responsibility for the death and displacement of fellow citizens squarely on him. How does a president underestimate the strength of an enemy of the state who from the beginning did not hide its disdain for the country? You can only give what you have, and in the matter of discharging himself creditably in his oath to protect the territorial integrity of the nation, Buhari surely has it.

In sum, then, of all the concerns of Buhari’s critics about his past record, the most relevant and weighty is his record as military Head of State. But it wasn’t an unmixed record of negativity. He accomplished a lot, especially in the matter of dealing with religious fundamentalism, corruption, and instilling discipline across the board. For his supporters, this is exactly what the country needs now. And to his critics, Buhari has declared himself a “converted democrat.” We will know soon if the nation believes him.

This week and the next I address voters still undecided about the two leading presidential candidates. In a state of hesitancy, how do you decide? Place the “problematic” credentials of each on a scale, determine the weightier, and make a rational choice on that basis. I start with President Goodluck Jonathan.

Jonathan’s critics identify multiple negatives in his leadership record. They charge him with unacceptable weakness in respect of the most important responsibility of government: security. Not just opponents, intellectuals supporting the president also acknowledge that he is soft on security. The evidence is glaring. More than 200 Nigerian girls are still held by Boko Haram terrorists. Those are potential doctors, engineers, accountants, senators, and president. Jonathan was in denial at first. But since accepting the fact, what has he done? He has politicised security to the point of getting security chiefs wade into the murky water of politics and throwing professionalism overboard.

With respect to the all important goal of eliminating or reducing the lethal grip of corruption on the country, Jonathan has also been indicted in the court of public opinion as weak and ineffectual. For Nigerians who reject the distinction between stealing and corruption, the reality of corrupt practices in the PDP-led government is undeniable. The intervention of professionals such as former CBN Governor Charles Soludo only confirms their fears. And when the Coordinating Minister for the Economy suggested that corruption cannot be fought effectively without the establishment of relevant institutions, even with the EFCC, ICPC in addition to the police and the courts, not a few jaws dropped in disbelief.

Impunity—an in-your-face arrogance and abuse of power—throughout the polity is a veritable feature of corruption. As the central government with the monopoly of power over security agencies, the Jonathan administration has upped the ante in the unlawful use of the police and the armed forces. With the demeanor of an innocent soul at the beginning of his term, Mr. President has over the years learnt the ropes and concluded that to have a shot at the second term he must use federal might to advantage.

Not many would deny the likeability of President Jonathan. But he has around him some devilish hawks that have demonstrated their disdain for decency and legality because these qualities don’t win elections in their warped judgment. A truly decent and strong leader would call his men and women to order if he really believes that no position is worth the blood of Nigerians. But that is just a manner of speech from the throne of deceit. It has never been from the heart of a convinced gentleman.

There are lots of evidence, the most recent being the outing of the Ekiti election rigging scandal. The tape revealed abuse of power and impunity in high places. But even without his listening to it, President Jonathan dismissed the recording as “fabrication”. And when the shameless characters whose voices were captured in the tape owned up, did the President apologize to Nigerians and do the needful, which in its barest minimum would be to set up an investigation panel—if only to pretend that he was still interested in the protection of electoral integrity? No! He just looked the other way.

An unlimited presidential power cannot be limited by the voice of the people for fairness and justice. Not only has the President chosen not to conduct an investigation, he has rewarded one of the men involved in the abuse of power with a ministerial appointment. In a decent society it will not happen. Even if the President didn’t know about the tapes prior to the nomination, he would withdraw the name of the nominee from further consideration until he is cleared of any wrongdoing. But this is Nigeria and no one would be surprised if all that Musliu Obanikoro has to do is to take a bow before the Senate of the Federal Republic of Nigeria and receive a portfolio to resume plundering where he left off. And we complain that the world doesn’t give us respect!

Jonathan heard the wicked rant of AIG Mbu, vowing to murder 20 civilians to avenge the killing of any one of his men. In a civilized country with laws and procedures, this is coming from an officer who has shown himself as the most brutish police partisan in dealing with the opposition, from Rivers State to the Federal Capital Territory. But does this promise of self-help justice bother the President? If the past is a prelude to the future, it is not too far-fetched to predict that a second term of the President may see Mbu at the top of the police hierarchy. The AIG himself has recently signaled this possibility.

How about the deliberate politicization of religion for cheap political gain? We have not seen the kind of deliberate use of religion that we are experiencing now in a presidential election since 1999. And where is it coming from? We have been treated to the President of a multi-religious nation hopping from one mega church to another ostensibly to thank them for praying for the country. But we know what is going on, don’t we? President Jonathan has the bully pulpit to pronounce against the use of religion and ethnicity in dividing the nation, but he seems bent on mining them for election purposes. So when he chose not to condemn Niger Delta militants stoking the embers of war should he lose, the President is sending the wrong message to a nation whose diversity is its strength.

The foregoing are weighty negatives. But Jonathan certainly has his positives. Not a few of his supporters base their advocacy for his reelection on his convocation of the National Conference. This is especially the case with the southern leaders, particularly the Southwest, who have been in the vanguard of the struggle for the restructuring of the country through a Sovereign National Conference. Apparently towards the end of his first term, Jonathan was persuaded to believe that to have a chance in the Southwest he had to accede to the demand for a national conference. The mere convocation of the conference was therefore enough for some of the Southwest leaders to throw their support behind the president.

It was also a smart move for the president to accept the challenge so late in his first term because while the report was ready, the implementation must have to wait until after the election and a new National Assembly. And since he was the convener, the campaign of his supporters now is that he is the only one that can be trusted to implement the report. What is not being honestly discussed is the unpredictability of the composition of the new National Assembly and the State Assemblies. Given the reality of a strong opposition and the new minority status of PDP in the House of Representatives going into the election, what kind of NASS will the president work with if he is reelected? If his supporters ever gave this a thought, it has not diminished their enthusiastic support for him on this singular issue.

Supporters have also beaten their chests on behalf of the president on account of his stewardship of the economy and the achievement of the “First in Africa” status. They give the president credit for his leadership effort in restructuring the power sector and some of the breakthrough in the area of agriculture. Achieving the status of “First in Africa” is certainly a feat. But what does it amount to? Does it place food on the table of the millions of unemployed youths? How has it improved the lives of workers and pensioners? This is where Soludo’s intervention hit hardest. While we celebrate the “First in Africa” status, we failed to recognize the negative impact of the depletion of foreign reserves in the last four years.

In sum then, going into the election, President Jonathan’s negative evaluations are weightier than his positives. He is undoubtedly aware of this. Indeed, many Nigerians believe that the shift in the election schedule has something to do with it. We will soon know if the tactic works or backfires.

As old warriors forge new alliances, we must respect everyone’s right of association and preference for particular candidates or political parties.  Yoruba sages remind us that it is imprudent for everyone in a room to face the same direction during sleep. What is disturbing is the irrational prioritisation of sentiments and expediency over principle.

In the South in general, and the Southwest in particular, I have observed three categories of political actors and their orientation in this election cycle. I dismiss one of them for the weakness of its principle or lack thereof. The second is also dismissible but for a subtle variant that one can reason with. I can have intelligent discussion with the third.

The first category includes those who because of their pathological hatred of one individual would have nothing to do with whatever party he is associated with. This is their choice for which I cannot do anything. I would only advise, as the Yoruba would: baa ba le ni taa ba ni, iwon laa ba nii sota mo. (If you cannot catch up with your enemy, imagined or real, prudence dictates strategic retreat)

Second, there are those for whom the principle “our son or nobody” is the basis of their support for President Goodluck Jonathan. This is the position of the Niger Delta militants. Since it is impossible to have an intelligent exchange with anyone with this mindset, I cannot waste my time dealing with them. They cannot deny, however, that should every Nigerian go with this principle, Jonathan couldn’t have become President in the first place. In a previous submission, I have called the Northern irredentists out on this matter as well.

The Southern Nigerian Peoples’ Assembly (SNPA) is a more refined group with similar mindset. Its core leadership comprises founding and leading members of the PDP and their sympathizers, but in its January endorsement of President Jonathan, it claims to represent the whole of the Southern zones. Granted that there are many such organizations claiming to speak on behalf of whole regions and zones even when there are other dissenting tendencies from such zones, SNPA is not an odd one out. Let me then grant it the right of association and the freedom to express opinion not on behalf of the whole region but at least on behalf of itself. My question with regard to its endorsement is a rational one: What was the reasoning that led the SNPA to the decision?

I can glean two reasons from media reports. The first, according to the excerpts from SNPA’s communiqué was “to ensure equity, fairness, and justice.” Now, if this was 2011 when Dr. Jonathan first presented himself as presidential candidate, I would have no problem. Indeed not a few, including yours truly, based their support for him partly on the ground that as a minority, it was important for Nigerians to vote for Jonathan so as to give the South-south a sense of belonging. That argument is unfortunately no longer valid today.

The question now must be “how has Jonathan used the opportunity to lead?” What value has he added to democratic norms and to Nigerians’ sense of pride and achievement in the last four years? The answer to these and other foundational questions should be the basis for any rational endorsement of the president. Unfortunately, there are those, including some respected elders, with the worrisome reasoning that an incumbent is constitutionally entitled to two terms no mater his performance or voters’ verdict at the polls.

In fairness to SNPA, it also felt that performance should be factored into its reasons for endorsing the reelection of the president. The group claimed that “the decision to endorse President Jonathan is based on a thorough assessment of his manifest strides and achievements in the past three and half years as the President and Commander in Chief.”

What were the achievements of the president? How do they compare to the failures of the president? Unfortunately, SNPA did not provide a list of the “manifest strides and achievements” that Jonathan made as President. On this page last week, I gave a list of my concerns with the President’s stewardship of the nation. I don’t see SNPA’s endorsement speaking to any of those concerns.

In the third category are the elders for whom I have a lot of respect because of their past record of consistency in courage. How I wish that that record is preserved for eternity without being tarnished on the altar of expediency! The support of old Afenifere for President Jonathan’s second term ambition comes from two sources.

First, there is an undeniable animosity against Buhari derived from volatile regional relationships that began in the pre-independence era to the first and second republics. The obvious truth that there are no permanent friends or permanent enemies in politics, only permanent interests, has not been effectively applied to resolving this perennial conflict with the North. On its part, the North has not helped matters with its apparent idea of “born to rule” which played out in the aftermath of the annulment of June 12, 1993 elections.

In a real sense, then, there are serious issues. I know, however, that were the 1993 elections not annulled, we had a good basis for forging a new relationship across our ethnic and national divide.

Fortunately, we now have a similar basis with the new nationwide political alignments that have been forged by the APC. In any case, it is a fact that Yoruba nation has not always been on the same page with its Southern allies as it has always been marginalized. Even when Yoruba leaders made enormous sacrifices in support of Southern causes, they were always abandoned by them at election time. That was the case from 1959 to 1998. In the height of Abacha’s murderous grip on the Southwest, Chief Tony Anenih and Ikemba Ojukwu led a well-publicized delegation to the US in support of Abacha against Abiola and NADECO. Are we now in solidarity towards a Southern Nigeria Republic?

The second issue driving Afenifere’s support for the president is its conviction that he is the only one that can restructure the country. Some have even claimed that elections are diversionary; what matters is restructuring. And in spite of their avowed commitment to democracy, they do not mind having a dictatorial imposition of the president on the nation. I am stunned by this resort to “the end justifies the means” philosophy.

It is true that southerners in general (though by no means all and certainly not even all southern members of PDP) supported the national conference and looked forward to the implementation of its recommendations. It is also true that the President was persuaded of some political gain, and now is time for his supporters to claim the gain for him with the argument that he alone can implement the conference recommendations. I think this argument is misguided.

Here’s the issue. Assume that the president wins. There is no guarantee that he will implement the recommendations because he will need the National Assembly and the states for implementation and, given the present composition of the National Assembly, we have no clue as to what party will likely control it after the elections.

I have on this page suggested that the reasonable approach would have been to place the conference recommendations on the ballot in these elections. If a solid majority vote for the implementation of the recommendations, it will force the hands of both the elected President and members of the national and state assemblies. Without this, supporters are just in the dreaming state, and it is therefore disingenuous for them to canvass for the reelection of the president on this shaky ground.

As I made clear last week, I do not believe that Pastor Bakare is flying anybody’s kite with his suggestion that “the report of the 2014 National Conference is the Fair Havens in which Nigeria must winter to avoid the storms that are ahead.” But his view of this “Fair Havens” is more optimistic than mine and the reality that I perceive is far from fair. First, we would first have to settle the constitutional question of term elongation for the President and other political office holders. In the present National Assembly (NASS) I don’t see this happening. Then we have to present the report before the same fractious NASS and all the State Assemblies. Meanwhile, the undercurrents of political calculations and scheming for the elections are not going away. Assume we have the next four years, I can reasonably predict that there would be no resolution of the important issues.

Second, as Pastor Bakare himself confirmed, we have a report of the Conference. In his campaign stump speech in Lagos, Jonathan expressed reservation about presenting the report to the present NASS, which he claimed has some issues. But are there no aspects of the report that he can constitutionally act upon by executive order? Why are we still waiting on his action after about five months since the report was submitted? Assume that the general elections were delayed in order to settle the matter of the Confab report as Pastor Bakare canvassed; will a different National Assembly be created for the purpose?

Third, Dr. Jonathan’s answer to the above question does not support Pastor Bakare’s proposal. He told his audience that if he was re-elected, he would present the report to a new NASS. Indeed, before the President made this declaration, a good friend who once routed for Buhari but is now in Jonathan’s corner had indicated that he would like Jonathan to be re-elected so that he could be held accountable for the implementation of the Confab report. That is a more defensible approach. Obviously, however, there is no guarantee that Jonathan will be able to deliver on this even if he gets re-elected because he cannot be sure what kind of NASS Nigerians will elect.

Fourth, we don’t need to postpone the election in order to approve and implement the Confab report. An election is a referendum on the choices of an administration during its four years of service, and in the case of this president, six years. If voters endorsed the decision of President Jonathan to convene the National Conference and to implement its reports, they would consider it in their calculations. I don’t recall that Jonathan campaigned on the convocation of a National Conference in 2011, and it wasn’t until very late in his tenure that he was persuaded about its need. Therefore, voters should have the opportunity to evaluate him on this late conversion, and on his overall stewardship.

Fifth, if restructuring is an important issue for the polity, it is not too much to ask the presidential candidates to explain their positions on it to the voters before they (voters) head for the polls. Hopefully, candidates will have opportunities for debate on issues because such is an occasion for the electorate to get to know more about their prospective leaders. However, if voters don’t care about issues of restructuring and constitutional amendment, we cannot force them and we must be reminded about the inviolability of Lincoln’s wisdom: “Elections belong to the people. It’s their decision. If they decide to turn their back on the fire and burn their behinds, then they will just have to sit on their blisters.”

There is another position that has not been canvassed openly, but which has been articulated by those close to the thinking around it: “Let elections be postponed for two years so that Jonathan can have his eight years in office and this would satisfy the Southsouth. Then the North can have its turn with candidates from the major parties coming from the zone.” I have addressed the issue of resolving the North-South tension in particular and ethnic tensions in general via this suggested practice in my submission last week. What is new here is the idea of elongating the President’s term so as to obviate any potential storm coming from a dissatisfied zonal or ethnic constituency, should Jonathan lose his re-election bid.

The President, being an avowed democrat and intellectual, should be the first to reject this subterfuge as an unacceptable precaution against ethnic tension. There is a reason we have a constitution that prescribes term limit for office holders. No one is guaranteed two terms in office by default. National political offices are not designed for particular zones, but for particular individuals. That was why we all fought against the cabal that tried to prevent Jonathan from taking over as President upon the illness and eventual demise of Yar’Adua. Their argument then was that Yar’ Adua’s presidency was for the North and the zone should be allowed to present a candidate to complete his term. This was rejected by intelligent and patriotic citizens. It is therefore preposterous and outrageous that someone can be thinking in ways similar to the thinking of that disgraced cabal.

Finally, the most crucial issue raised by Pastor Bakare is the readiness of the electoral umpire, INEC. This matter is also touched upon by The Washington Post editorial. Is INEC ready or not? To this, there is an additional question: Are security agencies ready or not? There have been conflicting reports in the media concerning this important matter. Fortunately, we are now told that INEC has confirmed its readiness and has rebuffed suggestions to postpone the elections. It has also confirmed that it has the “financial and mental” capacity to conduct the polls. This is a relief, but we must be on our guards. For it is still unclear what will happen in the Northeast where territories including several local government areas have been taken over by Boko Haram. How will elections be conducted in such places and in locations with IDPs?

With respect to our security agencies, especially the Police and the DSS, there is a serious cause for concern. We remember 1983. The Inspector-General (IG) then was most assuredly the attack dog of the ruling party. And from the utterances and body language of the current IG, history is being repeated. It appears that between the Police and the DSS there is a competition for the trophy for the most Loyal Agency to Presidential Desire of Glory (the acronym adequately defines what they are).

It is unfortunate that knowledgeable people who should be the first to say “No” to police abuse and intrusion in matters of politics cheer on such abuses. When a Minister of Police Affairs publicly declared that he had ordered the arrest of persons who make “inflammatory speeches” in a liberal democracy that we claim to practise, it was beyond the pale, especially since he and his lapdogs get to determine what is inflammatory. That no one in the audience that was full of people who had been brutalised in the past for speaking out their mind raised a voice to call him out was truly mind boggling, to say the least.

In conclusion then, we can and will ride out the gathering storm if INEC is prepared and security agencies play the role of an impartial umpire, which is the oath of duty to which they swore. For as our experience with recent elections attests, if elections are seen to be free and fair, even if the results are contrary to their desires, the majority of our fellow citizens do not behave like the PDP governors at the NGF Chairmanship elections. Voters are sufficiently reasonable to accept the results they don’t like, provided the election is transparently fair. And with the certitude of a mutually assured destruction that is bound to follow an unjust assault by one part of the country on another, rational citizens who lose out in a fair contest would willingly concede.

Concluded