The Nation Newspaper

Category: Emeka Omeihe

  • A nation in distress

    Nigeria is seriously distressed. Not only has it failed to serve as a melting pot for ethnic, religious and primordial cleavages, the Nigerian state has over the years, tended to reinforce these fault lines.

    Thus, we can only talk of the Nigerian nation in a very loose sense of the term. Its strict application which will entail the wielding together of the disparate entities and imbuing in them a common sense of belonging and national identity remains largely illusory. For this, we have had to contend with aberrant competition between primordial tendencies and the central authority for the loyalty of the citizens.

    National integration which should have formed the fulcrum of political action since independence has since taken the back seat. Little wonder the plethora of systemic dysfunctions that have overtime stood on our way to genuine national progress. Boko Haram insurgency, militancy and armed banditry, agitations for self-determination and the insurgency of the Fulani herdsmen are clear manifestations of systemic stress and inability of the centre to cohere.

    The system is not just working. Concerns have continued to mount on suitable and sustainable approaches to statecraft for genuine national development and progress to proceed unhindered. In this search, a number of ideas have been recurrent. Some of these, though not entirely novel, have come to dominate public discourse of recent.

    Two strands of opinion trend in the public space as veritable strategies to re-position and re-invent the country. Before now, restructuring had been canvassed as holding the ace.  But in the last one month or so, the challenge of leadership assumed some prominence. The primacy of knowledgeable and patriotic leadership in the nation’s statecraft though not novel, assumed renewed national flavour with the recent outings of two key former heads of state. In their loaded letters to President Muhammadu Buhari on why he should not run for another term, Olusegun Obasanjo and Ibrahim Babangida canvassed a paradigm shift in the political recruitment process.

    The main thesis of their presentation was that Buhari does not have what it takes to lead the country in terms of the necessary professional skills, strength of the body, knowledge of contemporary leadership dynamics and requisite academic training. They both routed for well educated, dynamic, knowledgeable and young Nigerians with the requisite capacities to grapple with the complexities of the dynamic world.

    They crave for visionary leaders in the mould of the ‘philosopher king’ envisioned by Plato. Obasanjo went further to volunteer an assessment of the two major political parties- APC and PDP with a damning verdict that good leadership can no longer emerge from the two parties given their lack lustre performance in governance. He then moved for an alternative platform- a paradigm shift in the spirit of the Kuhnian revolution where a new order emerges to supplant an existing one.

    Since then, some political actors have given varying interpretations to that message. These interpretations vary from the selfish to the most unreasonable; the unrealistic to the impracticable. It also came with the undertone that none of those in APC or PDP would fit into the leadership matrix Nigeria needs at the moment. That is obviously an overgeneralization. Even then, Obasanjo’s qualification to determine the requisite national leadership template is still largely contentious irrespective of the accident of having occupied that office for the length of time he did.

    That however, does not diminish the import of his presentation. It does not irrespective of the faulty attempt to view his call for paradigm shift from the narrow prism of age. Their suggestions represent a composite of qualifications not limited to age. There are two strands of Obasanjo’s thoughts on leadership as encapsulated in that letter. The first is the desirability for more purposeful, knowledgeable and enterprising leader with the strength and capacity to grapple with the wider dynamics of statecraft. This goes without saying.

    The other and more contentious is the conclusion that neither the APC nor PDP is capable of producing good leadership for this country any longer. This flies in the face of reason. At best, it is a poor guesswork, lacking any root in empiricism. The reason for his position is not hard to fathom. In his desperate bid to find justification for his third force, Obasanjo had to embark on a predetermined vengeful voyage of writing off the prospects of good and quality leadership emerging from the two dominant parties. Neither the past poor performances of the PDP which he led nor the failings of the Buhari led-APC would suffice for a vote of no confidence in their capacities to throw up good and efficient leadership in the future.

    The other flaw in Obasanjo’s presentation lies in its undue focus on political parties rather than the intervening systemic variables that impinge on and determine the direction of our political recruitment process. Here, such mundane issues as ethnicity, religion, geo-politics and the inordinate attempt by sections to dominate others come very prominently. Their destabilizing tendencies have overtime reinforced what foremost political Philosopher; Richard Joseph characterized as prebendal politics- the struggle for public office to acquire power and wealth for one’s immediate family and members of his ethnic group.

    Geo-politics saw to the emergence of Obasanjo, Jonathan and Buhari. It will also continue to shape and colour our political recruitment process now or in the nearest future as long as our politics fails to develop beyond the categorization of Joseph. In it can also be found why corruption has become part of our national life. How Obasanjo’s new brand of leaders will emerge and fare when mundane tendencies majorly determine political recruitment and action remains contentious? How such idea will be given vent by those who see leadership at the centre as opportunity to skew national patronage disproportionately to the section from which the president comes is another issue. What of vested interests both in and outside of government whose main concerns are to maintain their stranglehold on the nation’s politics and economy for selfish ends?

    What these underscore is the inevitability of attitudinal and orientation change. For as long as we are stuck to old attitudes and prejudices; opposing innovations and time tested approaches to co-habitation and national integration, for so long shall we continue to throw up leaders tainted by our ruinous pasts. We are all part and parcel of the ailing Nigerian state. We are all part of its past and present prejudices. Whatever leadership that emerges now, will still owe its allegiance and success to the complex forces that will throw it up. Hard as they may try, they will still have to contend with debilitating influences and forces that saw to their emergence. Buhari’s leadership is a case in point.

    That is where restructuring cues in very appropriately. Sadly, Obasanjo has been ambivalent on this critical re-engineering therapy even as Babangida lends his full weight to its imperative. It is difficult to evolve the leadership being craved for in the face of the daunting imperfections of extant federal order. Even when we succeed in throwing up quality and good leaders, they will soon be corrupted and disabled by inordinate competition to take advantage of the very rich, influential and powerful central government. Corruption; do or die politics and all the centrifugal tendencies that have stood on the way to national integration are reared and sustained by the disproportionate wealth and power at the control of the federal government.

    Devolution of powers, fiscal federalism and equity between and among the component units will substantially whittle down these negative tendencies and facilitate national integration. For now, these negative influences will continue to incapacitate those thrown up for leadership until they are successfully stymied to the satisfaction of the constituents. Is it surprising that schism is at an all time high now?

     

  • Danjuma: Letter or no letter!

    Theophilus Danjuma is by all reckoning, a well-respected Nigerian. He played very critical roles in the evolution of modern Nigeria state. As a former Chief of Army Staff and defence minister, he is deep rooted in the dynamics of our national security operations.

    Danjuma is reticent but frank. When he spoke on the conduct of the military in the continuing killings by Fulani herdsmen, he was bound to get the ears of the public both within and outside our shores.

    The former defence minister was in an offensive against the military accusing them of bias and harbouring an agenda in ethnic cleansing. Hear him “our armed forces are not neutral. They collude with the armed bandits to kill people, kill Nigerians. The armed forces guide their movements. They cover them. If you are depending on the armed forces to stop the killings, you will all die one by one”. He called on all those facing such attacks to defend themselves.

    These are very serious and weighty allegations. Their enormity must have so rattled the military high command that they did not waste time in responding. The Defence Headquarters said it was taking the allegations serious with a promise to investigate and bring to book any personnel found culpable.

    But the ministry of defence in a statement blamed the Taraba State government for allegedly not writing it on the alleged infractions by security personnel. They claimed not to have received any letter from the state government complaining of the alleged wrong doings. Rather, they got reports from Nigerians on misconduct of soldiers in clashes between farmers’ and herdsmen and those involved have been put through ‘disciplinary procedures’. For the ministry, government could not work with general comments or allegations if no specific report was made available to military authorities.

    Taraba State government however, came up with a number of documented instances the federal government and the military were informed about security breach and soldiers’ misconduct but were utterly ignored. The reading of this contention is that even if complaints on the activities of the military are in public domain, the authorities would still not act until they are documented and mailed to them. That would seem rather strange.

    If the military only acts on documented reports, one wonders the role of intelligence in security operations. And if quick responses to security emergencies have to await a formal letter that may well arrive after the harm has been done, of what use is that letter? So the entire argument about letters as the basis for action in situations lives and property are in grave danger cannot sway anyone. That is however, beside the issue.

    Before Danjuma spoke, the nation had been awash with allegations on the partial conduct of the military in some crisis situations. Farmers have serially alleged in Benue, Plateau and Taraba states that even when reports of impending attacks are given to the military posts around them, those attacks eventually take place without the same military coming to their aid. Before the killings at Nimbo, Enugu State, there were copious reports of the impending attack. The governor even held meetings with security chiefs who reassured they were ‘on top of the situation’. They were still on top of their imaginary situation when the herdsmen despoiled the community killing, maiming and destroying every house in sight. No aid came and no arrests were made.

    Operation Cat Race designed to arrest the wanton killings in the north central arrived with a baggage of strident criticisms. Both Benue and Taraba openly alleged that herdsmen who ran away after the killings in some of their communities for fear of reprisals made a triumphant return with their cows when the military exercise began and have since resumed attacks on vulnerable communities. They cite continuing killings in the face of the operation as evidence of failure of the exercise. So it not just right for the military to give the impression they are unaware of public perception of their roles in these clashes. Why Operation Cat Race would return with herdsmen and their cattle instead of maintaining the status quo until peace is guaranteed is at the centre of the allegations on collusion and cover up by Danjuma. And in issues of this nature, public perception is far more important than whatever impressions the military nurses about its conduct.

    Beyond this, it would appear the military is just scratching the surface of the very weighty and fundamental issues raised by Danjuma. Their reaction gives the impression the complaint is about isolated infractions by individual military actors. That is why they talked of disciplinary measures having been applied. That also accounts for the recrimination over letters or no letters.

    Danjuma is not concerned with acts of omission or commission by individual soldiers. He is very clear and unambiguous in his allegations. And all those that have spoken on behalf of the government failed to address the substantive issues to them. And it appears they are not even in a position to address them as they revolve around policy.

    He accused the armed forces of not being neutral; colluding and providing cover for the bandits to kill people and cover them up. This conjures the impression of a policy direction within the military. In effect, he is accusing the military of having firm instructions to back Fulani herdsmen in their attacks on farmers. He is not concerned with individual actions or inactions. The challenge is to locate the source of such policy direction if it really exists.

    The location and characterization of those in position to dish out such policies will aid understanding of the gravity of Danjuma’s case. Ironically, it is not an allegation that can either be wished away or resolved in a very casual manner. It is deep-rooted and will require a thorough inquisition and far-reaching measures to reassure the various constituents that the Nigerian military is truly Nigerian in name and actions.

    It is an uncanny coincidence that the allegations came a day after President Buhari issued stern warning against those he said were politicizing security issues. The president who spoke against the backdrop of suspicions over events leading to the abduction and return of the Dapchi school girls had warned of dire consequences for culprits. The Dapchi altercation pales into insignificance in the face of the accusations by Danjuma.  What Buhari would make of this, remains to be seen. It is not certain what the president meant by politicizing security matters. Irrespective of this, it is feared serious interrogation of unclear security measures may attract adverse consequences. We may as well prepare for the intolerance that characterized the misadventure of the military in the political process. Such threats have no place in a democracy as extant laws are sufficient to take care of any infraction. The president’s threat would seem an act of desperation given the welter of criticisms that have of recent trailed the actions of his government.

    The answer does not lie in threats but openness and deep introspection. The government must pause a while to see if it can read the mood of the nation. Much of the credibility issues the military are contending with hinge on the failure of appointments to reflect the heterogeneous nature of the country. It is no longer news that security hierarchy is populated almost entirely by people from a section of the country. How that will imbue public confidence in that institution is any persons’ guesswork. But their consequences are now manifesting.

    How does current public inquisition on security affairs differ from the acerbic and vitriolic attacks the last regime was subjected to? Yet, it did not issue threats. No less a person than the former governor of Adamawa State, Muritala Nyako had in his outlandish and inflammatory letter to northern governors accused that regime of contriving Boko Haram to depopulate the north. Northern elders equally alleged then most of the crises in the north were invented by those outside the zone who wanted to control it economically and politically. Now, we know better.

  • Dapchi: before we celebrate

    It is heart-refreshing 104 of the abducted Dapchi School girls have been freed by suspected Boko Haram captors. Whatever efforts that led to their freedom after a harrowing 33-day captivity is worth the while.

    The government said it was made possible through back-channel efforts with the help of some friends of the country without any ransom paid. But they were not forthcoming on the fate of six girls yet to be returned by the insurgents even as five of them were reported dead as they were ferried away. One girl identified as Leah Sharibu, a Christian, is still with the terrorists for refusing to denounce her religious faith.

    It is sad five of the innocent girls died due to stampede as the terrorists made away with them. Our hearts go to the parents of the poor girls. But the star of the abduction saga is Leah Sharibu, the Christian girl who in the face of death refused to denounce her religion. One can conjecture her feelings as she watched her school mates leave the detention camp. It was a real display of uncommon faith in her religion even in the face of death. May the almighty God protect her life in the hands of that criminal gang whatever their motive.

    Buhari regime is taking credit for facilitating the release. For them, it was the fruit of the president’s directive to security agencies to deploy everything possible to secure a quick release of the girls. One official was even beating his chest for the prompt release against what he described as the tardiness with which the previous regime handled the Chibok abduction. That could as well be. The government can take all the credit for the release of the girls. It is also at liberty to seek political capital of the processes culminating to their freedom.

    Before it celebrates; it must rise to the challenges which the abduction and subsequent freeing of the girls have elevated to public domain. The way these cloudy issues are resolved, will determine whether in all fairness, the government’s image has been enhanced or dented by the Dapchi saga. Its outcome is bound to colour perception and redirect attitude on the continuing war against the Boko Haram insurgency.

    First was the controversy over the withdrawal of troops from Dapchi shortly before the abduction. Initial reports had denied there was any such withdrawal. But the army was later to admit it withdrew troops to beef up its fighting strength at the Niger- Nigerian boarder where they had come under serious attack. The issue is still hanging.

    There was also the initial report by the Yobe State government that the abducted girls had been rescued by the army. That statement was recanted the following day by the same government citing inaccurate information fed it by an unnamed military source. That knot is yet to be untied. There was also the curious doubt by Governor Geidam on the veracity of the abduction even when parents of the girls and those on ground had incontrovertible evidence of what transpired.

    Why the governor who had announced the rescuing of the abducted girls by the military turned round to doubt the possibility of the abduction is still confounding. It raises posers regarding the source of his initial information and that which led him to doubt if there was any abduction at all. There are issues to tidy up here for the discerning public to be in a proper stead to ascribe any measure of credit to the government for its role in the tangle. Geidam requires serious interrogation on what led him to the irreconcilable positions he took when the abduction took place. It is either he is an absentee governor or he knew more than he made the public to believe for some reasons. Whichever the case, he failed to give a good account of his position as number one citizen of a state under serious security emergency.

    Again, just two days before the girls’ release, Amnesty International came out with a damning report alleging military authorities and the police received multiple calls up to four hours before the Boko Haram raid but did practically nothing to avert the abduction. It gave a graphic account of the movement of the terror group, the places they stopped and the time lag that would have enabled the attack to be checkmated but all to no avail.

    But the military denied the allegations; questioning their motive accusing them of spreading falsehood to whip up sentiments, demoralize friendly nations and others collaborating with the security echelon in the fight. It challenged Amnesty International to make public the officials called and the phone numbers used to contact them. When you pair Amnesty International’s allegations with the withdrawal of troop prior to the attack, they inevitably point to a predictable direction.

    As the altercation was still trending in public space, there emerged the sudden news of the girls’ release. That appeared to have pushed the controversy to the back seat. But it struck as a weird coincidence especially given the very casual manner the girls’ release was done. Accounts from government and independent sources had it that the insurgents drove into Dapchi town in a convoy of vehicles and dropped off the girls. Villagers said they had copious interaction with the insurgents, took pictures with them with their handsets in very relaxed mood. The zoomed off after spending not less than an hour with villagers.

    Minister of Information and Culture, Lai Mohammed corroborated this when he disclosed that one condition the terrorists gave was they would drop off the girls where they picked them. That was the only condition to the negotiation and we either take it or leave it. For this, security had to be stood down to allow the release take place without endangering the lives of the girls. That appears a good answer to why the military could not confront them.

    Sadly, the circumstance of the release has thrown up more riddles than it can possibly answer. There are serious issues with the claim that there was no other condition to the negotiation except the patronizing demand by the insurgents to drop off the girls where they picked them. That seems a curious condition. They had to fuel their chain of trucks at their expense, wade through their fortress only to drop off the girls. Such act of charity is uncommon in negotiations involving such a complex, very sensitive and dangerous warfare. It casts the terrorists as negotiating from a point of weakness when they were in very strong position to dictate the terms. It requires further explanation.

    Aside ransom, it will remain largely curious that the insurgents brazenly drove out of their camp in a convoy of trucks into Dapchi with the full knowledge of the military and back without our security forces having inkling of their hiding places. Is it possible for the terrorizing contingent to operate within our shores or outside of it with such impunity without the knowledge of their hiding places by our internal security or the Multi-national Joint Task force?

    Before now, we had been told that Boko Haram no longer occupies any territory in this country. From whence did they take off and anchor at the completion of their mission? And why have their armada of trucks and military arsenal continued to escape the prying eyes of the security forces?

    The unfortunate outing casts serious slur on the war against Boko Haram. More than ever before, it has reinforced accusations that the terror group is a protuberance of political and economic agenda masquerading under religious garb. At the point we are, the war has already atrophied. With the touted friendly and patronizing disposition of the insurgents, an end to it should be a fait accompli. There is no reason for the war again if the Dapchi comedy denotes its current form.

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

  • Whither Lalong’s peace roadmap?

    One key function by President Buhari during his visit to Plateau State in continuation of his tours to troubled states was the launching of a document titled ‘Plateau State Roadmap to Peace’. Ostensibly, the book detailed strategies and efforts by the state government to guarantee lasting peace within its domain.

    For the state information commissioner, Yakubu Dati, the book is a strategic document that will drive and showcase the blueprint to sustainable peace in the state and institutionalize milestones so far achieved in the peace process. In sum, the document is recipe for ending the cycle of violence in Plateau.

    Apparently buoyed by the envisaged success in peace-building as itemized in the book, Governor Simon Lalong played down the essence of Buhari’s visit and proceeded to have the president commission some of his projects.  Neither was any serious effort made to draw the attention of the president to the recurring killings that have defied solution nor was he made to visit the scenes of the conflagration that has left many killed and communities despoiled with villagers rendered refugees in their homeland.  Buhari was later to commend the governor for his development strides and efforts in restoring peace in the state.

    Ironically, as government officials were busy revelling on the questionable success they had achieved during Buhari’s visit, hell was let loose in the Bokkos Local Government Area as herdsmen again attacked communities leaving in their trail death, sorrow and awe. The governor was so put off by the sad development that he had to sack the chairman of that local government caretaker committee.

    As if to prove that the solution to the festering crises had little to do with the sacked council chairman, the herdsmen again attacked many communities in the Bassa Local Government Council killing scores. And as plans were afoot to give them mass burial, they attacked again leaving 26 people dead. So distressing was the situation that a local cleric who conducted the mass burial of the 26 killed in Dundu, Rev. Jerry Datim flayed Lalong for giving false report on the existing peace in the state when the reverse is the case. He accused the governor of making merry with Buhari during his visit when suspected Fulani herdsmen were busy killing their people in the villages.

    Plateau State council of traditional rulers toed the same line when they deprecated the boldness of the killers in striking even on the day the president was still on their soil. For them, it is a matter of regret that “when the president was still here, there were very serious killings in the Bokkos and Bassa Local governments particularly in the Irigwe chiefdom that is very close to where the president was”.

    As if that was not enough, the killings have continued with the death of two soldiers and two mobile policemen among several others in Dung Kasa, Rafiki and Dutse Kura communities of Bassa Local Council. Lalong has been compelled by the enormity of the killings to impose a dusk to dawn curfew in the local council. He accused some imaginary enemies of rupturing the peace in the affected local government councils.

    With the turn of events, those who criticize Lalong for down-playing the enormity of the security challenges in the state when Buhari visited are not crying wolf. It remains largely cloudy why the killings and plight of the displaced did not take the centre stage of discussions as Buhari visited. What we got instead was a conspiracy of silence on the security emergency and unbridled obsession to impress the president that the governor was performing. So, the president left with the erroneous impression that issues to the killings were being well handled.

    By focusing on projects instead of the security issues that compelled the president to the state, Lalong lost a good opportunity to identify with the plight of his people. Buhari has been criticized for embarking on such trips belatedly. He was also accused of partisan political motive. Lalong proved all that right. He is apparently focusing on his re-election bid and would not allow anything that could pitch him on collision course with the president. He places higher premium on the allure of playing the good boy at the expense of the lives of his people.

    In saner climes where the sovereignty of the electorate is respected, such posturing could come with adverse repercussions. But not here! So leaders could afford to displace the interests of their constituents with their own self-serving interests. But Lalong has not been forthcoming on solutions to the festering crises between Fulani herdsmen and farmers in Plateau State that has lost immeasurably both in human and material capital to the conflict.

    Lalong it was who remarked at the height of the Benue killings that he had warned Governor Samuel Ortom against the implementation of the anti-open gazing law. He was later to apologize for that insensitive statement at a time many had lost their lives to the senseless killings. Irrespective of that apology, the statement exposed his inner mind in no little way. The reading one had of that episode is that he postured as one who had a better handle to the crisis than his counterpart in Benue.

    Perhaps, that better handle is encapsulated in the roadmap to peace which he got the president to launch with much fanfare. Though one is not privy to the critical details of that document, events have since shown in very quick succession that that paper work holds no solution to the killings. Not with the brazen mayhem and despoliation of communities in the Bokkos and Bassa local government councils. Not with the turn of events that now compelled the same governor to impose a curfew in Bassa just as Buhari left the state. Not with the killing of soldiers, mobile policemen and hapless villagers by the rampaging herdsmen. Whither the much touted roadmap to peace?

    When Lalong recalled his advice to Ortom on the anti-open grazing law, the impression created was that the killings in Benue were because of that law. The Inspector-General of Police Idris Ibrahim cued into the same warped reasoning when he asked governors to prioritize the establishment of cattle ranches before enacting anti-grazing laws to avert conflict between farmers and herdsmen. For him, it is only when ranches are established that herders can be arrested and punished for rearing in the open.

    Toeing the same disjointed format, the Minister of Defence, Mansur Dan-Ali had fingered alleged blockage of grazing routes and the anti-open grazing law for some of the immediate causes of the killings in some states. With this biased mind-set, it is little surprising why the killings have defied solution. It is also not surprising Idris failed to relocate to Benue when directed by the president. How can when he already made up his mind that the killings will only abate when states establish ranches. How can Dan-Ali be expected to do the needful when he shares the same sentiments? These are the issues to contend with and they are at the heart of the inability of the federal government to rein in the killing herdsmen.

    Since Plateau is yet to come up with an anti-open grazing law, where do we now locate the blame for the continued orgy of violence and senseless killings in that state? If that law was the issue, Plateau would not have been thrown into the current mess. What of the killings last week in Ebonyi State that has no grazing routes and the mowing down of 26 people in Kogi State?  Why is it getting increasingly difficult for our security architecture to disarm the gun toting herdsmen, some of whom are said to be foreigners?

    Yet, the same police boss wants all vigilante groups that have been complementing government’s efforts on security matters to be disarmed. Disarming the vigilante in the face of the armada of violent technology, sophistication and near invincibility of the herdsmen would amount to further exposing the vulnerable communities to grave danger. It is bound to be counterproductive.

    The key challenge is for security agencies to disarm the herdsmen of their sophisticated weaponry. If that is achieved, the brazenness of their attacks and casualty level that usually trail them would have been largely curtailed. But this objective will remain largely illusory as long as Idris and Dan-Ali continue to rationalize the killings. Is it surprising that the police boss flouted express order from the president to relocate to Benue at the heat of the crises even as the killings are still escalating by the day? That another mass burial has just been concluded in that state, speaks volumes.

  • Buhari’s curious comparison

    When President Buhari’s schedule of visits to some troubled states was unveiled last week, it attracted immediate criticisms from Governor Ayodele Fayose of Ekiti State. The fiery governor lampooned the president for the delayed visits in the face of wanton killings and despoliation in parts of the country. For him, the proposed visits were an afterthought.

    Fayose who appeared to have appropriated the role of spokesman for the opposition PDP, accused the president of embarking on the belated visit due to stern criticisms and to achieve objectives of partisan political nature. He questioned what they were meant to achieve after much time had been lost. Those conversant with the Ekiti governor’s unrelenting criticisms are wont to dismiss him as a man who never sees anything good in the Buhari administration.

    But events from the president’s first outing in Taraba State appear to have shown that the whimsical governor saw the future. In the course of that visit, Buhari was reported to have said, he had his own way of getting intelligence on happenings across the country and so “should not be expected to always go out to the field to make noise and insult the sensibilities of Nigerians before it would be known that I am taking actions against the killings”.

    It can be discerned from the above that Buhari never believed in visiting these states where hundreds of those he governs are constantly under one form of instigated violence or the other. His view of such visits is that they amounted to playing to the gallery since he could as well handle their fallouts from the comfort of his office. That is the logical interpretation of his position.

    Nobody expects the president, given his schedule, to be in all parts of the country every time. But it is inherently wrong to suggest that visiting the scenes of violence where citizens are regularly mowed down while law enforcement agencies appear helpless has no positive value. That would be strange indeed given the frightening dimension the killings assumed in recent times. There is much to be gained from his visiting, commiserating with victims and undertaking on-the-spot assessment of the situation to find lasting solutions to them. If anything, it will portray him as one who cares for citizens. Such visits can neither be tagged jamborees nor completely ignored by any leader who has the overall welfare of his people at heart.

    If what the presidents said represents his understanding of the objective of such visits, those who criticize him for lack of sympathy for the families of victims are on strong point. And why the belated trip to Taraba and others in his plan if all there is to them is to make noise and insult the sensibilities of Nigerians? Could it now be construed there is no value in his trips to Taraba and Plateau states especially given his failure to visit the scenes of the unmitigated violence that has left the states a verity of the Hobbesian state of nature where life has at once become nasty, brutish and short?

    These posers underscore the contradiction Buhari courted for himself in an attempt to get even with critics over his serial failure to visit states where the killings appear to have defied solution. It is not just visiting for itself but to undertake critical appraisal of all the facts to the unmitigated killings with a view to providing lasting solutions to them. Governments exist to maintain law and order. A government loses relevance and legitimacy when this cardinal objective is observed in the breach. No sacrifice is too much for a government in ensuring the safety of lives and property of its citizens.

    It was also an irony of sorts that the president found that occasion auspicious to rehash the questionable success his government has made in stabilizing the security of the country and fighting corruption. His audience would be definitely amazed at the touted success on security challenges in the face of the stark dangers they face on account of recurring killings that have defied solution. As the president spoke, the killings were still going and many are still without homes as they languish in the various camps for internally displaced people. The visit had nothing for them as 24 people have since been killed in the neighboring Benue State as the president visited.

    Again, his comparison of the level of killings in the Mambilla plateau with those of Benue and Zamfara is very revealing and scandalous. Hear him, “there were more killings in Mambilla than Benue and Zamfara states. I chose to visit Taraba first, but I will be going to Benue and Zamfara after I return from Ghana to also condole with the people”.

    There are issues with the president’s position even as his unfettered access to information is not in doubt. If the number of killings in the Mambilla plateau is much higher than those of Benue and Zamfara, it all boils down to the fact that information on the killings had all along, been suppressed by the same government. Why he chose the visit to make that information public remains cloudy. It also demonstrates how fragile the security situation in the country has been. But that is beside the issue. The question is what to do with the comparison and why the president deemed it fit?

    My guess is that his choice of Taraba was because the killings in the Mambilla outnumbered those of Benue and Zamfara. Having assigned weight to the level of killings, he chose to start with the state where the impact was much higher. That may as well be. But his comparison is also fraught with some suspicion. Mambilla represents one of the flashpoints of violence in the Taraba crises where many Fulani people were said to have been killed by the Mambilla militia. There is also the crisis in the Lau Local Government Area of the state where 68 people were allegedly killed by Fulani herdsmen in January this year and given mass burial. In the same month, there were some killings at Gidin Dorowa in the Wukari local government by herdsmen. These represent the three centres of violence in the Taraba conundrum.

    Curiously, Buhari singled out the one in the Mambilla as the basis for comparison as if the Mambilla killings are all there is to the Taraba crises. Maybe it was a slip of the tongue. He may have had Taraba in mind as he spoke. Unfortunately what came out from him (twice) was Mambilla conveying the impression that what he knows of the Taraba killings is all about the Mambilla. Nobody has come out to clarify that the president actually meant Taraba and not Mambilla.

    This has again fuelled allegations of clannishness against the president. If all he knows of the killings in Taraba is all about the Mambilla plateau, then it exposes his inner mind. It is an uncanny coincidence that the Mambilla he referenced upon was where the Fulani people had more casualties in the senseless killings. Could it be that the Mambilla drew the attention of the president because most of those killed there were of the Fulani stock?

    It is not for nothing that the president has been accused of bias in his perception of the Taraba crisis. There was no need for such comparison as the loss of one life is sufficient for the president to show concern for the dead. Nations go to war because of the life of one of their citizens. Talking of numbers in the circumstance without even touching base with the bereaved and displaced, damaged the purpose of that visit.

    Besides, it was inherently contradictory to appropriate credit for stabilizing the nation’s security in the face of what we are being made to believe on the quantum of lives that have been lost but which for obvious reasons, have been kept under wraps. It is unhelpful now to dwell on numbers. The lesson they serve will depend on the measures taken to ensure such killings do not repeat.

    More fundamentally, we need to understand that the character and texture of all these crises differ from one place to the other. Whereas Benue and Taraba states are contending with clashes arising from activities of the herdsmen, that of Zamfara is of a different dimension all together. It is called banditry. The leadership of Zamfara State fingers well-armed Fulani herdsmen and fleeing Boko Haram insurgents for the banditry. They fear if the indiscriminate killings for no just cause are not quickly curtailed, insecurity in that state will turn out a child’s play compared to the Boko Haram insurgency. Does that say anything about the country’s overall security status?

     

  • Dapchi dialectics

    Dapchi dialectics

    It all started as speculation. As governments revelled in disbelief, doubt or deliberate suppression of information, narratives from the scene were unequivocal that Boko Haram insurgents attacked Dapchi Girl’s School, Yobe State and carted away female students in trucks as they screamed helplessly.

    Yobe State government was to issue a statement claiming some of the abducted girls had been rescued and under military protection. Governor Ibrahim Geidam shocked the nation the following day when he repudiated the statement on the ground that security information on which it was based was false. He even doubted if there was any abduction at all.

    The federal government team which first visited did not help matters. The Minister of Information and Culture, Lai Mohammed who led the team has doubtful knowledge of security matters and did not interface with parents. It took nearly a week for the federal government to admit that 110 girls were actually missing. That was days after parents had put up about 105 names of missing girls. Perhaps, without the insistence of those parents to the extent of attacking their governors’ convoy, the entire affair would still be shrouded in secrecy.

    The above background is very instructive. For one, it bears an uncanny semblance with the turn of events in the abduction of Chibok girls some four years ago. And for another, it mirrors very vividly why immediate rescue action could not be taken by the military and other security agencies culminating in extant pass.

    And more fundamentally, the development brings to the fore the enigma Boko Haram and its serial abduction of school girls have become. There are other inherent contradictions the turn of events has exposed. These impinge heavily on the texture and character of the politics that is played on these shores. The abduction raises far-reaching posers not only on the claims hitherto bandied on the degradation and decimation of the Boko Haram insurgency, but more importantly, on other issues freely traded when we had the first encounter with the Chibok girls. It is a strange twist of fate that history has fast repeated itself placing some of those issues again on the front burner.

    Then, the regime of Jonathan was lampooned for initially doubting the abduction narrative such that he failed to take quick action. That tardiness and failure to give the insurgents hot pursuit was largely blamed for the inability to secure the release of the girls. We are contending with the same scenario again. That it took the federal government a week before accepting and coming public with the list of 110 missing Dapchi school girls, bears the footprints of the Chibok incident.

    Incidentally, we have passed through this rough path before which should presuppose the lessons of the past should have been of value in handling the present. But that optimism proved futile given the muddle that is the fate of the Dapchi abduction. President Buhari must have been so rattled by the turn of events that he described the incident as a national disaster. The term national disaster conveys the erroneous impression that our security architecture was helpless. That is far from correct. And if one may ask, where are those who were pontificating about what and what Jonathan should have done and what he should not have done in the Chibok case? What have they to say now the same events have repeated themselves? Or are we going to blame the inability to get the Dapchi incident right on the poor example shown by Jonathan in the Chibok case? Maybe!

    Borno State governor, Kashim Shettima is rattled by this contradiction. He had advised during his sympathy visit to Geidam that we should separate the abduction from politics especially given the conspiracy theories that were woven around the Chibok case. He also drew parallels between government responses to the Chibok and the Dapchi incidents with a veiled verdict that the current case is being better managed. Lai Mohammed shares the same opinion. But, that is far from the truth. There is nothing in the current handling of the Dapchi abduction that is an improvement on the Chibok incident. Not with the disbelief, confusion and deliberate attempt to conceal information.  Not with the embarrassing altercations between Geidam, the army and the police. Not with security failure that enabled the insurgents successfully ferry the girls away without detection.

    Jonathan was accused of doubting that the abduction occurred thereby hampering response time. We have seen all of that in the instant case. Even now, the government is still reluctant to fully attribute the missing girls to Boko Haram abduction. How can they admit when they claimed the insurgent group had been decimated, driven out of Sambisa forest and degraded with no capacity to cause havoc? How can they when they are about to apprehend Shekau who is on the run? We shall return to this shortly.

    If Jonathan could be tolerated because that was a novel case, it is inexcusable a repeat should be subjected to the same muddle. Perhaps, Buhari can make the difference if he succeeds in freeing all the girls very quickly. But that will trigger off another round of theories.

    Jonathan was dealing with an opposition governor during that heated campaign period. Geidam and Buhari are on the same page. That should have led to quicker understanding and enhanced response time. The allegation by Geidam that withdrawal of troops from Dapchi facilitated the attack and subsequent abduction is instructive. The army explained that the withdrawal was to beef up their fighting strength in war theatres overstretching their capacities and that they handed over the security of the area to the police. But Yobe police authorities denied sole responsibility for a state that is still under security emergency.

    These disclosures are bound to trigger off another round of theories. This is especially so, since we have now been told by the army that troops’ withdrawal was to beef up their fighting strength at the Nigeria-Niger border where they came under serious attack. But we have all along, been fed with how the insurgents no longer possess the capacity to attack military formations except soft targets and all that. Where does that leave us now?

    So the attempt by Shettima and Mohammed to post a success verdict in handling extant case failed woefully. Their predicament can be understood. They were part of the complex web of politicking in the Chibok incident especially as Shettima was the host governor. Events of that abduction contributed in large measure to the downfall of Jonathan. Their position emanates from morbid fear that history is repeating itself in quick succession and may come with a domino effect.

    That is why they want security issues separated from politics and the incident detached from conspiratorial theories. It is difficult to fathom how that can happen given the contradictions already in public space. The interplay of this dialectics will inexorably rob off negatively or positively on our politics. And as fate would have it, both abductions took place when incumbent presidents were facing serious crises of relevance and credibility. They therefore fit into the most similar systems design and eminently qualify as good products for comparative analysis.

    They can be compared in terms of response time; in terms of the state of the war and prevailing political environment. They also qualify for comparison in terms of parameters deployed to appraise the first incident and possible motive. That 110 school girls were abducted despite the series of negotiations between the insurgents and the government leading to freeing over 100 Chibok girls among others and release of some Boko Haram commanders after money changed hands are contradictions that cannot be glossed over. What of the claim that the war had since ended with the defeat of Boko Haram? How come the same insurgent group successfully struck with several vehicles and trucks capturing our children undetected?

    There are issues to the Boko Haram tangle. We need to get really at the root of this thing called Boko Haram. Is it real or a business enterprise of some vested interests? It remains a puzzle that no key Nigerian or foreigner has been directly linked, arrested or convicted for their devious activities. Yet, the insurgents bestride the landscape like a colossus; often entering into spurious negotiations with agents of the government. It is time to unmask the faces behind the Boko Haram venture.

  • Ganduje and El-Rufai

    Ganduje and El-Rufai

    Reservations on the desirability of state police have largely hinged on prospects of its abuse by governors to emasculate opposition. Even with increasing inability of the centrally controlled police to rise to the peculiar security challenges in parts of the country, there are still genuine fears that state governors would abuse that institution for selfish ends.

    But some have countered that the federal police have not even fared better in this respect. They contend it would be counterproductive to wish away the imperative of state police on account of these fears especially as it is the way to go in a federal system of government. They point to the increasing inability of the federal police to protect lives and property in parts of the country as both the necessary and sufficient conditions for state police now.

    There are merits on both sides of the divide. Even then, state police is only an integral part of the structural reforms this country direly needs to be on the right and steady path to progress, peace and even development.

    If events from some of these states are anything to go by, fears of the governors manipulating state police for partisan advantage are real. Heightened intolerance of opposition in Kano, Kaduna and some other states do not give comfort that state police will not be severely abused. It would appear the culture of virile opposition that hallmarks democratic engagement is yet to be internalized by most of our political actors. Our understanding of politics as a quick route to material acquisition for ones benefit and that of his immediate primordial group accentuates do-or-die competition. Within this framework, anything – including the most ignoble is fair as the end would always justify the means. That accounts for the increasing intolerance that is rapidly burgeoning in many of the states.

    In Kano State, there was altercation between former governor of the state Rabiu Kwankwaso and the state police commissioner, Rabiu Yusuf over the former’s proposed visit to his constituents. The police commissioner had advised Kwankwaso to shelve the visit on the ground that it had prospects for ruffling public peace. He had claimed security reports at his disposal indicated there would be breakdown of law and order if the former governor made good his visit.

    But Kwankwaso smelt a rat in the position of the police chief. He saw it as a cover up to abridge his fundamental rights to freedom of movement and expression. Though he later aborted the visit, he saw the action of the police as a carefully scripted plan to deny him access to his supporters and whittle down his political influence. And what is left of a politician who cannot touch base with his constituents?

    However, those conversant with the politics of that state knew the order had some other undertone given the rivalry between the former governor and his successor Abdullahi Ganduje. It is no secret that since both former friends fell apart politically, they had been embroiled in bitter competition for the control of structures of the party-the APC.  Kwankwaso nurses presidential ambition while Ganduje would want a second term. And if Ganduje must succeed in his second term ambition, his structures should be independent of that of Kwankwaso who would perhaps be competing with the incumbent president. So their interests no longer tally.

    Given this scenario, it could be understood why the position of the police on the visit drew stern criticisms. It was seen as a subterfuge to promote the interest of the governor over and above that of his predecessor. The excuse that the visit should be aborted because of possible breakdown of law and order does not add up because all the police needed to do was to provide adequate security for it to hold. And since the police boss is privy to the quarters from which the threat would come; he should have moved to nip it in the bud.

    To rule out the visit entirely is a lazy way to go about such a seemingly sensitive matter. And for how long shall we continue to bar the former governor from visiting his state on such spurious security reports? The reality is that Kwankwaso would have to visit his state as regularly it pleased him. It will amount to consigning him to exile; albeit illegally if he can no longer visit his state. And if the police cannot provide him security when the campaigns are yet to kick off, what safeguards are there that they will live up to their statutory duties at the heat of the campaigns?

    It is evident there is more to the action than ordinarily meets the eyes. This is more so; given that before this incident, a house owned by the same former governor had been sealed by the same police to stop his supporters from conducting a mass wedding there.  And if the federal police can be found in such obviously partisan stance, it is to be imagined what the situation would be when we have state police.

    The Kano incident appears a child’s play when weighed against the destruction in Kaduna of the office of a faction of the APC by the state government. The destruction team which was allegedly led by the governor, Mallam Nasir El-Rufai came at night with bulldozers and levelled the one-storey building together with all that was inside. The building houses the office of a faction of the party opposed to El- Rufai. Days before the demolition, the faction had suspended the governor for six months.

    The owner of the building and key member of the faction, Senator Suleiman Hunkuyi has alleged political vendetta as the motive behind the action of the state government. But the state government which owned up to the demolition claimed the building was pulled down for failure to pay ground rent since 2010 and for constituting public nuisance by attracting thugs. By extrapolation, the Kaduna State government wants us to believe that the penalty for failure to pay ground rent is to have such houses destroyed. This is not correct.

    There is nowhere in the relevant laws the state government was given such draconian and sweeping powers. Neither would the allegation that the building attracted thugs be a sufficient ground for the state government to become law unto itself. Moreover, if the same building previously served as campaign office for El-Rufai as alleged by Hunkuyi, why is it now that he suddenly realized that the owner defaulted in the payment of ground rent? And why was the allegation of the building attracting thugs not an issue then? As if this was not enough embarrassment, the same state government has slammed a bill of N30 million on another building owned by Hunkuyi. They want him to pay the bill within 30 days or face severe repercussions. How much is that house worth to attract such a prohibitive bill? Why Hunkuyi again?

    There is every reason to align with Hunkuyi that the action of the state governor was just to get even with his rivals. This is especially so given that the leadership of that faction had before then, suspended him from the party. For daring to challenge the governor in such a humiliating manner, all manner of excuses had to be invented to destroy the structure where that suspension order was issued and obliterate all about the faction. That would send fears to the opposition and serve as a warning to any person that would give his house to that faction as an office.

    It is the height of political intolerance and a throwback to the savage and backward politics of the past that should have no place now. Democracy thrives on virile opposition and flourishes when contending issues are resolved within its ambit. Its course cannot be furthered either by resort to armed tactics, blackmail, outright intimidation and vengeance that are evident in the action of El-Rufai. It is sad the technology El-Rufai acquired while pulling down houses in Abuja during his ministerial tenure found quick application in ‘resolving’ intra-party squabbles. Ironically, that is not the end of the matter.

    El-Rufai has set a very bad example. It is clear he targeted the means of livelihood of Hunkuyi just to get even with the opposition. If we have to muzzle opposition by hook or crook, then our democracy is doomed. El-Rufai must overcome the temptation of sowing wind so as not to reap whirlwind.

  • Rogue snake metaphor

    Rogue snake metaphor

    Bizarre report of a snake swallowing N36 million in the vault of the Benue State office of the Joint Admissions and Matriculation Board (JAMB), made interesting headlines last week.

    A JAMB sales clerk, Philomina Chieshe stunned a high-powered fact-finding team when she told them she could not account for the money realized from sales of scratch cards because a snake crept into the vault and swallowed it. When prodded, she explained that her housemaid connived with another JAMB staff to ‘spiritually’ steal the money through a snake.

    And she would want her audience to believe the story. Why not?  After all, are such fables not commonplace in our national life? If she did not believe it could make sense to some people; if she had not seen people peddling and swallowing such mystic and occult stories hook line and sinker, perhaps she would not have come up with such concoction.

    Alas, she believed it could pull through. Hence the ease and seeming innocence with which she crafted a story that should ordinarily have qualified her for psychiatric attention. She is not alone in this kind of weird belief.

    In our daily social life, many well informed and even highly educated Nigerians promote this kind of thrash to deceive and hoodwink innocent citizens for some self-serving ends. So Philomina’s narrative, as naïve and unbelievable as it would seem, fits into an uncanny metaphor to illustrate the pervasiveness of corruption on these shores.

    It highlights the weird belief system many of our people have come to accept and live with. Promoted by all manner of preachers and mundane cultural practices, such tales have assumed a dominant role in explaining (albeit falsely) most of the challenges thrown up in our daily lives. All manner of places of worship and persons take liberty in accounting for and rationalizing human challenges through spiritual means. Even when there is no basis for these irrational explanations, such tales are invented by the unscrupulous and deceitful to achieve ends of mischievous and pecuniary nature.

    Sickness, misfortune and even deaths have been the worst victims of these supernatural and mystic explanations. And because of the vicissitudes of life in a predominantly illiterate and poverty stricken environment, many have come to accept such fetish and irrational explanations for some of the challenges they face in their daily lives. So Philomina was just exploiting the inherent weaknesses of our belief systems. Do you blame her when such stories are daily promoted in our television stations as real accounts of African life? Those who regularly promote disappearing and mundane relics of African culture in the name of ‘African Magic’ and similar programmes should share in Philomina’s confusion.

    But she goofed because snakes are not known to feed on currencies. Neither can one or a colony of snakes effectively swallow N36 million. She misfired because in this case, she will be required to prove beyond reasonable doubt that snakes could in all actuality swallow that amount of money. For her inability to differentiate between facts and fiction; normative beliefs and credible evidence, the snake rogue should be taken as a metaphor for the official in whose care the money disappeared.

    So it is not enough to peddle stories on the escapades of witches and wizards. Neither is it sufficient to seek escape route from the numerous ills that afflict mankind by attributing them to the unseen hands of some ghosts, the dead and the vampires. There is a limit beyond which such stories will no longer make sense. That is perhaps, the point that has been brought to the fore by the story of the rogue snake.

    Beyond this however, Philomina’s story illustrates the degenerate level into which corruption has irretrievably sunk in our national life. It is an acceptance that public funds can be frittered and all manner of ruse invented to successfully cover them up. That such a colossal sum of money could be left in the hands of a common clerk also speaks volumes on probity and accountability in our public life. And if one may ask, what happened to the bank account of that establishment that a whooping N36 million had to be kept in the safe such that we are now being told the ridiculous and lame story that it has been swallowed by a snake.

    As if this was not enough embarrassment, another state coordinator of the same establishment in Nassarawa State has come up with another strange story to cover up alleged fraud.  The official was said to have claimed his car got bunt together with N23million worth of scratch cards.

    Diligent investigations were however to reveal that the cards which the official claimed to have been burnt together with his car were actually used up by prospective students from Nassarawa State to register for JAMB within the same period. Obvious from the two accounts is the degenerate level into which corruption had sunk in the operations of JAMB. If the accounts of the two incidents are anything to go by then, it could be safely concluded that the establishment had been stinking in dismal corruption and corrupt practices all this while.

    It is also very confounding how colossal sums of public funds are left in the hands of some unscrupulous staff to manage only for them to fritter them away and cook up frivolous stories to cover up their tracks. Perhaps, if the current investigations had not been set up, the suspects would have conveniently covered up their tracks with the nation losing scare resources direly needed for developmental purposes.

    But that is this country for you. All these happened as the current administration was waging the war against corruption with fanfare. And if you ask them of their score card in the last three years or so, they will quickly brandish the war against corruption as one of their major achievements. The war could as well have recorded some measure of success in retrieving some monies looted by past political office holders. We have also seen a measure of progress in the recovery of some properties from both former political appointees and civil servants even as the target has mainly been those opposed to the government of the day.

    Events have however, shown we are yet to get at the bottom of the factors that propel and reinforce corruption in our national life. A former governor was reported to have said recently that corruption is the real problem of this country and not restructuring. He is partly right. But the proper way to put the matter is that corruption feeds from our inability to restructure. Corruption thrives because of our inability or refusal to restructure. Corruption is encouraged because of the awesome powers of the central government and its perception as an avenue from which the constituents should grab at will. That is why the two JAMB officials had no qualms inventing all manner of subterfuge to cover up the missing monies in their possession.

    That is the situation you get with such unwieldy national establishments performing functions that are better managed by smaller and more efficient organizations. If the universities were allowed to conduct their own examinations and set their admission benchmarks, an omnibus and ineffective institution like JAMB would have found no place. What is true of JAMB is no less correct of other national establishments. Decentralization or devolution of powers will promote more efficient and effective governance and reduce corruption.

    The much touted war against corruption will continue to remain a mirage as long as it has not touched the fabric of our society. The rogue snake denotes the lady under whose care the N36 million disappeared while in the raging fire can be found the man in whose care the N23 million was left. That is the metaphor of the unmitigated corruption that strides the entire gamut of our national life. That is how bad the situation has remained and a measure of success of the war against corruption.

  • Between Obasanjo and Babangida

    Between Obasanjo and Babangida

    Before the open letters by Nigeria’s former leaders, Olusegun Obasanjo and Ibrahim Babangida, it had become public knowledge that the Nigerian project was malfunctioning. Perhaps, the interest their letters generated is on account of the weight they added to raging feelings of distrust, despair and frustration.

    That was not the first time the two spoke out in times of great national apprehension and distress. In the hey days of the Boko Haram insurgency when that terror group bombed churches resulting in the killing of thousands of innocent worshippers, they had issued a joint statement in which they deprecated the situation and called attention to the slide in our national affairs and the urgency to halt it.

    They had said even those they regarded as patriots were fast losing faith in the basis for the unity and continued existence of the country. As it turned out, Boko Haram was soon to change tactics. It began to attack mosques and Muslim places of worship. Soon, their activities were degraded with its murderous onslaughts confined to the northeast.

    It became easy for some to argue that since the terror group kills both Christians and Muslims, it cannot be accused of harbouring a religious agenda against Christians even when the group has never hidden is theocratic mission. The successful outcome of the 2015 elections appeared to have restored some hope that the worst had been averted especially given the threats, tension and bitter altercation it generated.

    But, it was a matter of time for the same malfeasance to rear its ugly head again. This time, we are confronted by the same pass through acts of omission and commission by the incumbent president. Not only has the economy refused to improve, the country is more divided and fragmented along ethnic, religious and other primordial lines than ever before in its history. The life of the Nigerian is worth nothing any more as we have virtually been reduced to a killing field. And in the face of these killings, government’s response has at best remained suspect.

    When the two former leaders came up with their observations as to the direction of the ship of this country, they were only confirming, adding further weight and impetus to prevailing views in the country. Though there was initial controversy over the authenticity of the first letter released by Babangida’s Media Adviser Kassim Afegbua, events have since shown that the views expressed in that letter were actually authorized by his boss.

    Curiously however, the police authorities in their indecent haste were quick to accept the rebuttal by those who apparently felt uncomfortable with the contents of the first one. And in that haste to fault the first letter, they wasted no time in declaring Afegbua a wanted man even without a prior invitation. Ironically, the same police made no effort to get clarifications from Babangida but quickly presumed the rebuttal was the right one to accept. Whatever led them to that position remains largely cloudy.

    As events turned out, they were wrong in their presumptions as Babangida in an interview with a national daily, stood by all the contents of the release by Afegbua. The conduct of the police was not entirely surprising. It portrayed it jittery of the contents of the letter especially coming soon after the damning assessment by Obasanjo. For that, everything had to be done to discredit the one that is critical of the government.

    But that only exposed the bias of the police on the matter. It showed how overprotective of the government that institution is. There is virtually nothing in that letter that is not in the vortex of public opinion. There is not much in it that is a sharp departure from the views earlier expressed by Obasanjo. If there were gaps in their letters, the Catholic Bishops filled them in their presentations to Buhari during their visit also last week. The only point the police had was the purported rebuttal which it made no effort to establish the authenticity. In matters of such nature, the police ought to have got to the root of the matter before taking position.

    There was no emergency thrown up by the letter to warrant them reacting the way they did. But that is not the only instance in recent times the police reacted to issues of public interest in a manner that does not depict it as an unbiased institution. The running battle between it and the Benue State government is another ponderous case. Even after the Inspector General of Police IG, Ibrahim Idris had apologized to the people of Benue for his careless remark tagging the killings a result of communal clashes, the state governor, Samuel Ortom has again accused him of bias in handling the continued killings in that state.

    Ortom raised an issue the police must address. He alleged that the police usually arrest livestock guards employed by his government to monitor the implementation of the anti-open grazing law, display sophisticated guns purportedly recovered from them and label them armed ‘Benue militia’ in order to sabotage that law. He then contends, if the so-called Benue militia were that armed, how come Fulani herdsmen serially overpowered them slaughtering their people in their homes without resistance?

    That is the big question and until the police offer cogent response to this, it is difficult not to share in the position of the governor. Again, why is it so easy to arrest the so-called Benue militia with sophisticated guns and not the murderous Fulani herdsmen that regularly slaughter children, women and the aged with an air of invincibility? The most sensible thing expected of the police is to arrest those behind the killings in Benue. Parading the so-called Benue militia is no solution to the killings unless we are being made to believe they are responsible for murdering their own people.

    When Ortom therefore accused the police of seeking to change the narrative of the Benue killings, he is on serious point. It was not surprising that this bias has manifested in the indecorous language deployed by force spokesman in labelling the governor a drowning man.  He was right in a way irrespective of the strong exceptions taken by the House of Representatives on his ranting. After all, is Ortom not drowning in the pool of the blood of innocent and helpless people of his state regularly butchered by herdsmen without any help from the same police authorities?

    Beyond these and the dismal rating of Buhari, the two letters struck a common chord on the imperative for generational shift in leadership. They want leadership to be in the hands of a new set of knowledgeable, well-educated and visionary people in tune with the wider dynamics of the 21st century. Obasanjo wants that through his Coalition for Nigerian Movement. Babangida still has confidence in the two-party system. They want new approaches; new paradigms. You cannot toe the same old path and expect anything different. They are right.

    My reading of their positions is not that they want young people just because of their age alone. They want energetic young people of knowledge, experience and skills.  They are rooting for very exceptional and knowledgeable people and not the recycled leadership that has failed to serve our collective needs. They are looking for what Plato aptly tagged ‘philosopher kings’.

    But they failed to lead us into how such leadership will emerge given the very complicated power equation in this country. They ought to have gone further to factor the role of ethnicity and primordial proclivities in the emergence of such leaders. These are the irreducible decimals that shape and direct the pattern of political recruitment. Babangida came close to it when he talked of systemic and structural re-engineering. State police and ranching for herdsmen as canvassed by Osinbajo are only an infinitesimal symptom of the larger systemic dissonance. The resolution of all these dysfunctions should presage generational shift in leadership for it to endure.

  • Obasanjo’s third force

    Obasanjo’s third force

    Much of the focus on recent open letter by former President Olusegun Obasanjo to President Buhari has for obvious reasons, centred on aspects dealing with reasons why the latter should not seek a second term. And in a political terrain where high premium is placed on the person who occupies that elated seat, the part of the country he comes from and other inchoate considerations, this should not surprise anyone.

    If discussions are largely tainted by these and others that hinge on the mundane and the most parochial, Nigerians are reacting true to type. It is not surprising that those who have joined the conversation have found themselves unwittingly influenced by some of these considerations.

    Obasanjo’s letter reminiscent of the one he did on the ambition of former President Goodluck Jonathan on the heels of the last presidential election has thrown spanners into the wheel of the three year old regime of Buhari. Given that his letter to Jonathan contributed to the turn of events that truncated that regime, there is the feeling that some domino effect may follow his current damning verdict on the performance of the incumbent government. Though the language of his latest letter was mild in comparison with the acerbic, tendentious and dangerous allegations peddled in the one to Jonathan, Obasanjo took time to adduce reasons why he thinks Buhari should shelve his touted ambition to run for another term.

    Recalling his earlier observations on Buhari’s poor understanding of issues relating to the economy and his weakness playing in the foreign affairs sector, Obasanjo regretted that Buhari failed to make use of the abundant pool of technical know-how in the requisite areas to excel. He accused him of nepotism and deployments bordering on clannishness, poor understanding of the dynamics of internal politics that has left the country more divided than ever before and buck-passing by serially refusing to take responsibility.

    These are very serious and damning observations that cannot be dismissed with a wave of the hand. The issues are very clear and there have been wide spectrum of opinion on them before now. Perhaps, what Obasanjo did is to throw his with on them such that nobody can easily ignore again. So it is difficult to accuse him of any hidden agenda or bad faith in bringing these issues to the front burner. And even if he has some other hidden motive, the pervasiveness of the observed weaknesses provides sufficient cover for him.

    But perhaps, the most engaging and potentially explosive contribution Obasanjo made in the letter is his assessment of the two political parties – APC and PDP and their place in Nigeria’s political matrix. He disagreed that the PDP has weaned itself of its sordid past to be the harbinger for political re-engineering even as his assessment of the current performance of the APC also disqualifies it for that emerging national assignment.

    For him, the country is in a serious pass requiring some radical action to steer the ship of the nation aright. He bemoans the dearth of patriotic leadership, high inclination towards parochialism and tendencies that obfuscate nation-building and the attainment of greatness in the nearest future. For him, extant order denoted in the political leadership thrown up by the two big parties have become anachronistic and therefore incapable of serving the future interests of this country. That decadent and stale order must be dismantled to allow a new seed of leadership to geminate and flourish.

    His solution to this systemic decay lies in the emergence of a body of new leadership that is not tainted and corrupted by old persuasions denoted by the two leading parties which in his view, have outlived their usefulness. A third force – a group of patriotic and selfless Nigerians committed to the overall growth and development of the country will do the magic of re-inventing the country. His anchormen quickly launched the coalition last week in Abuja and explained the objective is to see a new Nigeria, give leadership of the country to knowledgeable and vibrant young men and women since the APC and PDP have not been able to meet the aspirations of Nigerians.

    Within this context, the promoters are rooting for the old order to give way in the fashion of the Kuhnian Revolution. They envision a new theory, new order or paradigm emerging to supplant existing theories.

    Following that tradition, Obasanjo wants us believe that the theoretical basis or foundation for the continued existence of the two leading parties has been flawed. But he failed to let us into the processes leading to such conclusions except relying heavily on his observations of their failings which at best, can only be consigned to the realm of educated guess. Educated guess is of very questionable empirical value. Moreover, he failed to establish how his concept of an amorphous coalition provides that suitable alternative.

    Yes, Obasanjo identified some of the problems buffeting the country including, poor leadership and primordial tendencies competing with the central authority for the loyalty of the citizens thus rendering nation-building a pipe dream. Their causative factors are both systemic and behavioural and cannot be remedied overnight through the aggregation of people of diverse persuasions into a make-shift coalition.

    A hurried arrangement in the fashion proposed is of very limited value in addressing the very fundamental institutional and attitudinal issues that have continued to be the country’s albatross. Ironically, Obasanjo is not comfortable referring to his coalition as a third force. He seems afraid of the radicalism implied in that terminology.

    But in shying away from that, he complicates the philosophical basis on the desideratum of an alternative change agent. That confusion runs through his letter and the explanation offered by his loyalists while launching the coalition.

    There is no clarity in stating that nothing stops the movement from satisfying the conditions for fielding candidates for elections and his vow to quit if the coalition morphs into a political party. How do you give leadership of the country to the knowledgeable and vibrant young men outside the platforms offered by existing political parties? How do you achieve that ambition and vision of a new Nigeria-a sharp departure from our decadent past through a motley assemblage of disorganized, disoriented and seemingly disgruntled crowd? And the people promoting the idea, how free are they from those systemic ills for which a new paradigm has to emerge?

    It is obvious there is some confusion on the original philosophical vision of the coalition and what we are now being made to believe. That vision collapsed immediately they repudiated the idea of a third force. It collapsed the moment they prevaricated on whether the group will morph into a political party and field candidates. It is also obvious in the discordant tunes by Obasanjo and his henchmen.

    The problem Obasanjo ran into can be understood. He left the PDP on his own choice and helped in the emergence of the APC. Then, he had hurriedly announced his disinterest in partisan politics. From his observatory, he found out that there is no difference between the two leading parties. Some form of intervention is therefore required to steer the ship of the country alright. It goes without saying. The current parasitic and oligarchic class of leadership that emerges on the basis of political exigency rather than competence and merit must to give way for the type of vision Obasanjo nurses to flourish.

    But the processes to it have to be more far-reaching and radical than gathering and aggregating people under a coalition with no clearly defined objectives on how they intend to take over power. A third force should offer more attraction than the current equivocation the coalition represents. The third force or coalition should champion the restructuring of the country.  Restructuring will substantially address the issues Obasanjo raised.