The Nation Newspaper

Category: Emeka Omeihe

  • Ahiara diocese: Quo vadis

    Perhaps, before this article is published, the final outcome of the crisis rocking the Ahiara diocese of the Catholic Church following the rejection of Bishop Peter Okpaleke consecrated four years ago, would have become clearer.

    By July 9, the deadline by Pope Francis to every priest or ecclesiastic incardinated in that diocese, whether he resides there or works elsewhere, even abroad to write a letter of apology asking for forgiveness would have lapsed. The Catholic pontiff had in the directive warned whoever fails to comply within 30 days will be suspended from divine functions and lose his current office.

    Obviously pained by the sad development, the Pope said whoever is opposed to Bishop Okpaleke taking possession of the diocese “wants to destroy the Church” and the measures became necessary because “the people of God are scandalized”.

    Pope’s intervention followed the crisis that engulfed the diocese soon after the appointment of Bishop Peter Okpaleke. Then, about 400 priests from the Mbaise clan rose to reject the choice of the Bishop who hails from Anambra State. They alleged irregularities in the nomination of the bishop and also made it unequivocally clear they wanted one of their own to be appointed instead.

    Bandying sundry arguments, they claimed the Igbo dialect spoken by Bishop Okpaleke is quite different from the one spoken by people of the diocese and would largely constrain him in the performance of his duties. They further said with over 750 priests from the diocese, they cannot accept a situation where none of theirs is found worthy to be made a bishop.

    They swore never to allow the Bishop take charge of the diocese such that law-enforcement agencies had to intervene to restore law and order. The priests in connivance with the laity have since the past four years, made good their threat, rebuffing all appeals and physically disallowing the bishop from taking charge.

    Pope’s intervention was therefore to redeem the image of the Catholic Church and put the matter to rest. Curiously, as soon as the order was made public, a delegation of the protesting priests sought audience with the Imo State governor. It is not clear what the objective of such a meeting was or the role they expected the governor to play in an issue of this nature. But the state government was later to advise them in a statement to accept the Pope’s decision as the supreme pontiff of the Catholic Church.

    But the desperate outing indicated their discomfort with the Pope’s directive. Some of their leaders have even spoken against the Pope’s decision alleging that those who briefed him did not avail him of all the facts. There are claims that the priests have complied with Pope’s directive. But if events of last week in that diocese are anything to go by, it is obvious the crisis is far from being over.

    Thousands of Catholic faithful, apparently instigated by priests, stormed the Cathedral in protest against the failure of the Vatican to appoint another bishop to replace Okpaleke whom they still vowed not to allow on their soil. Those who spoke seemed to have modified their position when they indicated a willingness to allow any other bishop from the province but definitely not Okpaleke.

    This appears a huge contradiction given that one of the conditions for the letter of apology is that the priests must indicate their willingness to “accept the bishop whom the Pope sends and has appointed”. Could it be that after accepting the conditions enunciated by the Pope, the priests turned around to insist they do not accept the bishop he appointed? What of the army of undertakers masking under garbs alien to the Catholic Church that have been floated to garner support for the dissenting priests?

    There does not seem any remorse. Not only have such groups maintained their allegation of sundry misdeeds against the Catholic Church, they insist on not accepting Okpaleke.  As if to give credence to the fact that the laity and the phoney groups were being goaded by the priests, one of the priests equally reaffirmed their opposition to Okpaleke. Given unfolding events, would it not amount to a repudiation of their undertaking (if they actually had one) to still insist they would not succumb to the authority of the appointed bishop?

    It is getting clearer heads will definitely roll at the expiration of the deadline. There are two sets of priests that are likely to fall victim of the hammer of the supreme pontiff- those who refused to write the letter of apology and those whose letters may not be acceptable to the Pope. There could be a third category of priests who are seen as ringleaders of this huge embarrassment to the Catholic faith.

    This can be gleaned from the letter of reminder by the Apostolic Administrator of Ahiara diocese and Archbishop of Abuja, John Cardinal Onaiyekan. He had reminded priests still doubting the authenticity of the Pope’s order that each letter will be given an individual written response in conformity with the instructions of the Supreme Pontiff.  For him, “there is no more time for playing games or prevaricating. It is obvious this is a very serious matter”.

    It would appear the Pope is going to wield the big stick against priests who flouted his order and others fingered as prime movers in this gross act of disobedience against the authority of the church. The matter is even more disconcerting when it is realized the protesting priests swore to an oath of obedience to the authority of the Church.

    By refusing to accept the decision of the Pope in the past four years, preventing a bishop duly appointed from performing his duties, Ahiara priests repudiated their oaths of office. Even then, some of the reasons they adduced for their action gravitate between the ridiculous and the infantile. For one, there is no law of the Catholic Church that says a bishop must be appointed from the area he will be posted.

    Most of the serving Catholic bishops are in dioceses other than theirs. The facts are self evident to the protesting priests and they should know better. It was also very ridiculous listening to priests argue that Okpaleke speaks a different Igbo dialect and it will constrain his communication with the faithful. It is a shame such hackneyed arguments are being canvassed by priests.

    If we were able to contend with white priests even when the literacy level was abysmally low, it is a big scandal for any person to finger Igbo dialect as a reason for rejecting a consecrated bishop in any part of Igbo land. At any rate, Anambra dialect is understood by every Igbo man and woman. It would seem the lure of office is at the heart of the current crisis. That makes the matter more worrisome for the Catholic institution that depends largely on the goodwill of the faithful for survival.

    Nobody has queried why only a few of those admitted into our seminaries are ordained priests. Is it not a maxim in that vocation that many are called but few are chosen? How the few is chosen may soon become an issue of unionism and placard carrying if we allow the Ahiara priests get away with this unmitigated assault to the Catholic faith.

    Or, could there be a correlation between the current posturing of Ahiara priests and their serial inability to qualify for the bishopric? The Catholic Church is neither a democratic institution nor does it claim to be one. So flaunting a strength of 750 priests on which basis they demand a fair share of the bishopric, completely lost sight of St Augustine’s allegory of the two cities- the city of God and the city of man. The arguments canvassed to sustain the crisis are of the corporeal rather ecclesiastical. They are clannish and self-serving and cannot stand the rigors of the ecclesiastical order.

    The Pope has spoken. Catholics who challenge his authority have no business in the faith. Ahiara diocese is in the news for a very wrong reason. They will have to contend with the backlash of this scandal for a long time to come. Enough of that hot air!

  • For the centre to hold

    We need to tinker with our constitution to accommodate new thoughts that will strengthen our nationality”. This profound contribution from former military president, Ibrahim Babangida is at the heart of the raging debate on how to guarantee a stable and progressive future for this country- a future unencumbered by the searing fission within the polity.

    He shared his thoughts extensively last week following the tension that gripped the country due to intemperate and provocative statements from some groups. Babangida felt the imperative to add his voice to douse the simmering bad blood that could drag this country irretrievably to the brink.

    For him, restructuring has become a “national appeal whose time has come”. He advocated devolution of powers to give more responsibilities to the states while the federal government is vested to oversee foreign policy, defence and the economy. Babangida further called for state police as the current policing framework can no longer match the prevailing level of crime sophistication in our society.

    Before him, other notable Nigerians from across the divide have thrown their weight behind the thinking that re-engineering the Nigerian federal paradigm was a matter of urgent necessity to stave off the increasing recline to primordialism; strengthen its institutions and guarantee a sound future for rapid and unimpeded development.

    Call it true federalism, fiscal federalism, power devolution, restructuring or whatever, the underlying idea is that the current arrangement is largely constrained and a great liability in approximating the ideals for which federalism draws attraction as a suitable governance framework in a heterogeneous society. It is argued that the federal model we operate has not only proved inherently incapable of accelerating rapid economic development but has largely stultified efforts at promoting the necessary attitudes and orientations that conduce for co-habitation and nation building.

    Despite this, some people appear to have sworn not to allow any change. They would not allow new paradigms to supplant old and decadent ones even when the latter are no longer capable of addressing contemporary challenges.  And the nagging issues have remained unresolved with the country paying dearly for it. Not only have we been unable to record meaningful progress within the development matrix, there is now the foreboding prospects of dismembering.

    Surprisingly, despite raging consensus that our development deficits; debilitating corruption and ethno-induced competition are intricately linked to the inherent limitations of our federal contraption, you find leaders who at best, foot drag on this key national challenge. You find leaders overtime unable to muster the necessary political will to activate the processes that will not only position the country on the path to steady progress but more importantly, save it from the disillusionment of the constituent units.

    Where such efforts were activated, (as was with the last National Conference), you find leaders disparaging its vital conclusions on some trite and largely tenuous grounds. And you ask, if we agree there are certain decisions we must inevitably take to strengthen and make our federal project less rancorous, why can’t we go ahead and adopt them irrespective of how they were arrived at? Why do we have to throw away the baby with the bathwater each time far-reaching recommendations are made for constitutional change?

    It is against this background that the position of Babangida and others before him have to be situated. It is not a matter of reminding him of some of his unpopular actions of the past as some are wont to do. Neither is it sufficient to disparage his views because of old prejudices no matter the pains.  The very clear and convincing manner he put across his position cannot but endear him to true lovers of the unity and progress of this country. Democracy the world over is a continuing project subject to constant evolution and debate, adapting to and accommodating emerging developments.

    The problem we face is a result of clinging to old ways and stereotypes even when they are no longer relevant to our situation. We loathe change instead of coming to terms with the reality that nothing is as constant as change. A lot of people have expressed optimism in the capacity of this country to overcome the current pass. It can only do that by listening to the voices of reason.

    Before now, there have been damning predictions about Nigeria becoming a failed state by 2015. Even as that deadline has elapsed, current events indicate we are not yet far from it. That is why we stand a great risk if we ignore the turn of events that still, irredeemably point to the same catastrophic end.

    The National Assembly has come to terms with the need to tinker with the structure of the federation. So also are the APC governors’ forum and their PDP counterparts. The remaining angle is the presidency. We need the position of the executive even as we admit the constraints of the acting president. Fortunately, the campaign manifesto with which Buhari sought for and secured the mandate of the people of this country promised true federalism.

    So it would appear the coast is now clear for the necessary action to seriously address those systemic dysfunctions that have stood against the progress of our federal order. There are extant recommendations the National Assembly can work on without our having to waste much time and resources empanelling another national conference. And the overall good of this country will be better served if they incorporated into the constitution of the country.

    The US ambassador to Nigeria, Stuart Symington’s statement that every time his country faced such challenges “we overcame the danger because we had visionary leaders committed to the union and citizens committed to ensuring justice for all” is very instructive. For him, Nigeria is fortunate to have such leaders and citizens. That is where he missed the point.

    The country is in short supply of visionary leaders committed to the union.  Were it not to be so, we should not have been facing the embarrassing challenge where the right options to our collective progress are not in doubt, yet we continue to falter for reasons that boarder on the parochial and the mundane. You cannot reasonably speak of such a leadership as being committed to the union. Neither is the rehash of such precepts as the unity, indivisibility and non- negotiability of the nation’s sovereignty sufficient indication of commitment to upholding such ideals. Commitment to them would entail the implementation of the relevant policies that will provide the needed ambience for the union to flourish.

    If that condition really exists, we would have been saved the embarrassing reality where the central authority is still in constant competition with primordial cleavages with the latter posing serious danger to the authority of the former. Our deficits in visionary leadership have come with such debilitating disorientations that produced citizens who place self and clannish interests over and above collective good. Such leadership is ill-equipped to ensuring justice for all.

    We are in the present pass because of acts of omission and commission by some of our leaders. Though the prevailing agitations for self-determination and restructuring predated the Buhari regime, they were reinforced and given impetus by the actions and utterances of the regime. Those who ask why the pro-Biafra groups were not that vocal during the regime of Jonathan when they claimed the Igbo held key political positions, can now find the answer. They could as well ask why the agitations and sabotage of the Niger Delta militants were tamed during the regime of Yar’Adua.

    Babangida seemed to have captured this contradiction when said “It is not in the place of leadership to fuel and hype conflicts nor should we allow losers and gainers of our governance regimes to make pronouncements and threats that exploit our ethnic, religious and geopolitical constructs”. The point has been made.

  • Beyond the consultations

    The heuristic value of Vice President Yemi Osinbajo’s consultations with leaders of the North and South-east on the threat from some northern youth is clearly not in doubt. Its’ key constraint was the composition of the zones consulted.

    At the last count, he had consulted with political leaders and traditional rulers from those zones as well as all governors. However, there are views that the consultations were not far-reaching to the extent they failed to factor in the south-west and south-south. The contention is that the issues that precipitated the meetings concern all segment of the Nigerian population and would be better addressed by involving all the constituents.

    Not unexpectedly, leaders from the three southern zones have picked holes in the composition of the consultations. In a communiqué signed by Afenifere chieftain, Ayo Adebanjo (South-west), former Chief of General Staff, Ebitu Ukiwe (South-east) and former Director-General National Intelligence Agency, Albert Horsfall (South-south), they “rejected the attempt to reduce the current crisis in Nigeria, flowing from the unresolved nationality question to an Igbo and north affair”. For them, any further discussions on the matter should be between the entire south and north of Nigeria.

    One cannot agree any less. It is true the discussions cropped up on account of the threat by some northern youth against the Igbo. That may have created the impression in the eyes of the government that the two groups have issues to reconcile. Hence, engaging leaders from the two areas in the calculations of the federal government is the best route to douse the tensed atmosphere.

    But this thinking is flawed on several grounds.  First, there is the presumption the agitations of the pro-Biafra groups is targeted against the northern youth and they had to rise to defend themselves. This is not so. Their grouse is against the Nigerian state. One begins to wonder on whose authority those youth took to self-help appropriating a challenge that falls within the realm of the state? There is nothing to link the so-called northern youth to the agitations to the extent of taking liberty to prescribe for the entire Igbo race a status within the Nigerian federation.

    They went beyond their powers even as we are not oblivious of how such phoney groups are contrived. Definitely, there were behind the scene actors who had some selfish motives to achieve. That was not in doubt. Reducing the engagement to an Igbo and north affair would amount to plying into the hands of people masking as northern youths who do not really have the mandate of all zones of the north, as events have shown.

    Besides, such an approach is loaded with the risk of reducing the Igbo race to a scapegoat in the Nigerian political chessboard- an agenda those behind the threat want to achieve. So the federal government has inadvertently played into the hands of northern ethnic jingoists and this could come with dire consequences.

    Again, by limiting the consultations the way it has been structured, are we not giving the erroneous impression that any band of people could assume any name tag and appropriate the powers of remedying a perceived wrong on behalf of the federal government? Shall we not be left with anarchy if the government begins to respond to such threats in the selective manner it handled the case in point? What of the threat by a coalition of Niger Delta people to the north to vacate their soil and positions in the oil industry? Why did we not find it expedient to also factor that in the consultations? Or are we saying that such threats are of no consequence because they are coming from the South-south?

    These posers have been raised to underscore the incongruity in the thinking that a parley with leaders of the north and south-east is all there is to multifarious challenges that have over time, stultified all efforts at genuine progress in this country. The consultations by the way they were skewed could produce the unintended result of pitching the north against the south-east.

    Besides, those canvassing for the state of Biafra and the northern youths are not really representatives of the peoples of these zones. If they were, they should have been part of the consultations. But they were not consulted.

    The crisis should rightly be seen as a manifestation of the unresolved issues of our defective federal order. To that extent, they transcend the borders of the north and south-east. They are matters that have to do with our being as a country which all sections have a stake in.

    Even then, Osinbajo equally endorsed this view when he said at the meeting – “Let me say that we are not deaf to the legitimate concerns and frustrations arising from around the country. Every part of Nigeria has its own grievances”. That is the crux of the matter.

    Those consultations have been rounded off.  But that is not the end to the matter. We have been told there was consensus on the unity and indivisibility of the country. We were also told of the resolution of the governors that the unity of the country “is sacrosanct, non-negotiable and all have agreed to work together.”

    Good enough, the vice president equally admitted that the issues are multi-dimensional and requires lasting and satisfactory solutions. He fingered clashes between herdsmen and farmers as one of the problems they discussed. Curiously, both the purveyors of these agents of death and those who bear the brunt of their deadly escapades, are states in the very north its youth issued an eviction order to the Igbo. If those youth were motivated by patriotic zeal, they should have first, removed the log in their eyes before the spec in the eyes of those they sought to evict for heating up the system though non-violent agitations for self-determination.

    Nobody has issued any quit order to the north either on account of the killings by the Fulani herdsmen nor the four-year old Boko Haram insurgency geared in the main, to institute an Islamic state on the rest of us. We are all privy to the politics that had surrounded that challenge to the unity, indivisibility and secularity of the country.  Just last week and against all the assurances we have been getting, they launched a deadly attack on a convoy of about 200 vehicles escorted by a heavy contingent of the army and police near Maiduguri.

    So the challenges to our nationhood are fundamental and go beyond platitudes and sanctimony. It is not enough to regurgitate such ideas as non-negotiability and indivisibility of the country. Neither is it helpful pretending that all is well with this country. Those who wish it well must come to terms with the imperative of instituting the objective conditions and environment under which such deals will grow and flourish.

    The Afenifere Renewal Group struck the right chord when they posed two salient questions in reaction to Osinbajo’s statement that Nigerians irrespective of ideology, race or religion “have agreed that Nigeria should remain one”. They asked: “Do we want to remain as one country? If the answer is yes, under what conditions?” The two questions sum up the uncanny dilemma we are confronted with. And the way they are answered, will chart the path for the future.

    But implicit in those questions is the fact that there are several aspects of our being as a country that must be negotiated if we are to stave off the increasing competition between the central government and its constituents for the loyalty of the citizens. That has been the attraction of restructuring. Good a thing, the Senate has called for the report of the 2014 National Conference.

    Osibanjo should move further in liaison with the National Assembly to set in motion the necessary processes to adopt salient recommendations of that conference as part of the grundnorm to guide the running of the country. That is the most practical and more enduring solution to the fission that is tending to tear this country apart.

    We do not seem to have much choice on the imperative to restructure the country. Our parroting the unity, indivisibility and non-negotiability of the country without the necessary safety nets could produce direct opposite results.

  • Threats and counter threats

    There are many angles to the threat issued by a coalition of Arewa youths to the Igbo residing in the north to vacate. Interpretation is bound to vary on its overall objective; those behind it and some of the combustible claims. Opinion will also differ on why Arewa youths made the confiscation of Igbo property a priority in their weird agenda.

    It is good a thing however the threat has attracted wide condemnation with calls for the arrest and prosecution of its masterminds. The first of such calls came curiously from Governor Nasir El-Rufai of Kaduna State in whose domain the action was hatched and executed.

    Perhaps, his quick reaction was to stave off possible criticisms especially given that the Arewa House where the press conference held is under the supervision of that state government. So, he could not have feigned ignorance of it. If his quick reaction was to save face, it is doubtful if that objective was achieved.

    Even then, no right thinking person (except Arewa chieftain Ango Abdullahi) could have identified with the false and incendiary claims bandied by those youths. The same youths also had the temerity to address another press conference with some modifications on their earlier stand. Off course, nobody has been arrested neither is it likely any arrest will be effected.

    That is however besides the major thrust of this write-up. The first issue relates to the objective meant to be served by the threat. Were the youths serious with it and do they possess the powers to drive the Igbo out of the north? And are there no consequences of such an attempt on the corporate existence of the country? My reading of the entire scenario is that they had no intention to make good their threat. They neither have the powers (even as their capacity for crisis cannot be underestimated) nor will they stand to benefit from its wider repercussions. Riots and killing of innocent people which could result from such action (as severally witnessed in the past) will eventually be put down by the nation’s security even as their leadership is in the hands of northerners. If this is so, what did they really set out to achieve? Why did they issue a threat they are incapable of enforcing?

    The reason can be captured within the context of balance of terror-an attempt to checkmate agitations for self-determination by the pro-Biafra groups especially given the success of their sit-at-home order. They even alluded to that. The entire idea is to frighten the Igbo with the relocation threat in anticipation that it will cause division among them and possibly throw spanners into the momentum of the Biafra agitation. This conclusion is further given fillip by the threat to take over their properties in the north.

    Given that the Igbo are known to have huge investments in all parts of the country, raising the prospects of property ambush, could divide opinion especially among the propertied and influential segments of that population. This will presumably come with dire consequences for agitations for self-determination. Those were the calculations. It was a careful script written for the so-called youths by their self-serving sponsors.

    There is also the other dimension that such a threat would further heat up the system and elicit some other consequences that could fast-track the vaulting ambition of its sponsors to maintain their stranglehold on power. The dark political cloud hovering over the country is cited in support of this school of thought. After all, some politicians were accused some weeks back of approaching the military for some unconstitutional action.

    But this calculation lost sight of the fact that those in the vanguard of Biafra agitation have little to do with property ownership. Property owners and other parasitic elite from that area could be part of the problems of those canvassing for Biafra. The agitation is not an elite affair. So introducing the prospects of property loss is neither here nor there. Nobody knew about Nnamdi Kanu before he was thrown into prominence by the agitation.

    If the threat was designed to set in motion the dialectics of balance of terror, it turned out counterproductive. If it was just to fly a kite, that kite failed before it could take off. Balance of terror will rather re-awaken the consciousness of the pro-Biafra groups to the stark realities of their grievances. We saw that in the threats and counter threats between the north and people of Niger Delta during the second term presidential ambition of Jonathan. Their net effect further exposed the fault lines of our federal system and hardened positions. That was going to be the outcome in the instant case but for the timely intervention of Vice President Yemi Osinbajo.  At any rate, Niger Delta agitators have also added to the threats.

    This country is not entirely new either to threats of excision of parts from the rest or expulsion orders to segments. The Orkar coup attempted to excise some states of the north while the Boko Haram insurgents issued orders to southerners and Christians to leave the north. So the minister of information, Lai Mohammed was right when he averred that the threat by Arewa youths is not new.

    But such dismissive conclusion neither whittled down the inflammatory nature of the action nor its capacity to set in motion a cycle of events whose outcome nobody could predict. Dismissing the threats offhandedly in the face of the invectives, vile and inflammatory allegations hurled by the so-called youths on an ethnic group of over 50 million people, including those older than their grandparents is to say the least, in very bad taste.

    Arewa youths accused the Igbo of funding Boko Haram by selling arms to them. They accused the Igbo of being behind the killings, raping of women and despoliation of communities usually attributed to Fulani herdsmen in various parts of the country.

    They could as well accuse the Igbo of masterminding the kidnap of the Chibok girls; the various religion-induced riots and killings that have been a recurring decimal in that part of the country, for which the Igbo lost gravely in both human and material capital. Perhaps, Igbo people were also among the Fulani herdsmen that demonstrated around the premises of the Taraba State House of Assembly against the anti open-grazing bill with some of them clutching guns. That is how ridiculous the youths went in pushing their heinous ethnic agenda. And they claim they are leaders of tomorrow. A tomorrow led by youths who thrive in bare-faced deceit, falsehood and vile propaganda just to oil ethnic predilections, leaves no hope at all.

    Arewa youths also displayed lack of clarity of thought when they called for a referendum to determine the Biafra agitation. You cannot be expelling them; taking inventory of their property with a view to confiscating them while at the same time calling for a referendum. The former should have preceded the latter if at all the touted expulsion and property confiscation are permissible.

    One is disappointed at the very brash manner the youth reacted to the vexatious issues of our federal order thrown up by the Biafra agitation. I had expected a more frank, realistic and passionate discussion on the issues that have held this nation down and stagnated its progress. A youth of the future should have come up with workable suggestions to move the nation forward if they really appreciated why this federalism has failed to work 57 years after independence.

    Threats and counter threats will not help matters. Neither will the current structural distortions that confer undue advantage to sections against others subsist for a long time further. Those seriously desirous of progress must support the imperative of urgent discussions on the type of federal order that will best approximate the collective desires of the component units. With that, the root of the schism and fission that has been the greatest challenge to nation building would have been largely stymied.

    It is only then the envisaged constitutional spirit of ensuring that loyalty to the nation overrides sectional loyalty can be realized. But the grand norms for genuinely evolving a nation out of the competing centers of loyalty must be laid down by the government. That has been the missing link- a task Buhari/Osinbajo must now confront.

  • Paying for FRSC’s failings

    James Akor’s (not real names) new drivers’ license recently expired. To get it renewed, he is required to visit a licensing office. On getting to one in Lagos, he was asked to produce a passport photograph and pay the prescribed fees which vary depending on who you meet.

    Having paid the necessary licensing fees, he was issued a laminated temporary drivers’ license with his passport photograph embossed for duration of three months. It was envisaged that at the end of the period or before it, his valid drivers’ license would have been ready for collection.

    So he left full of expectations since he could operate on the roads with the temporary license. A couple of weeks after, he travelled out of Lagos and while he was there, the temporary license expired. He had not completed the assignment that took him there and could therefore not return to Lagos immediately to collect the license which he envisaged, would have been ready then.

    Three days later, he was stopped by an official of the Federal Road Safety Corps (FRSC) for routine check. The following conversation occurred:

    FRSC: Good morning sir

    Akor: Good morning.

    FRSC: Can I see your drivers’ license?

    Akor: Here it is (producing the expired temporary drivers’ license from his breast pocket)

    FRSC: It has expired and I am going to book you.

    Akor: Well, it just expired. I had paid the necessary fees in Lagos and would have to finish my assignment here before going back to collect the permanent one. The lady officer took pity but cautioned that the police and other agencies may have a different view of the matter if and when they stopped him.

    Not far away from that vicinity, a contingent of the police on routine check flagged him down. This time, all explanations to the effect that it is no fault of his as he had paid all the necessary fees and would only be able to collect the permanent one when he goes back to Lagos, fell on deaf ears. Not even the explanation that the temporary license just expired three days ago and he would ordinarily require some days of grace impressed any one. Off course, he had to grease the palms of that officer before he was let go.

    On return to Lagos and as he made his way to the licensing office the next day, he was again stopped by another set of FRSC officials who as usual, demanded for his drivers’ license. On producing the expired temporary license, they held tight to it. All efforts to explain that he has been out of town and on his way to collect his permanent license, which had been paid for since three months fell on deaf ears. He parted with some money before they allowed him to go.

    Ironically, when he got to the FRSC’s office, his permanent license was not yet ready. They had to make a photocopy of the expired temporary license, stamped and extended it for another three months. This time, what he has as his driving permit, is a piece of paper that could tear or deface any moment.  And he is expected to use it for another three months, at the end of which he will have to abandon whatever he is doing just to collect a valid drivers’ license.

    By that time, it would have at least, taken six months for him to collect a drivers’ license that will last for three years. If the license starts counting from the day it was paid for, Akor has just two and a half years to commence the same ritual again. It is therefore to be imagined the amount of valuable time he will spend just to renew his drivers’ license each time it expires.

    Elsewhere, a lady pharmacist who was rushing home at the close of work to attend to her baby was stopped by a FRSC officer in a busy street in Lagos. She had a hell of time protesting to the officials about the inconvenience in abandoning her job to be hanging around the licensing office for a license she had since paid for to no avail. She had asked them to tell her whose fault it is that a license she had paid for, should now be a subject of constant harassment. She said she has a tight job schedule and could only go to the licensing office when she is free. The protest was so intense that it attracted a large crowd in sympathy. It took the intervention of a senior police officer to allow her go.

    These few instances mirror vividly, the experiences of most drivers since the introduction of the new drivers’ license some years back. They bring to the fore the hardship and exploitation many drivers encounter in the hands of sundry enforcers of road traffic regulations. But more importantly, they highlight the contradiction in punishing innocent people for the failings and incompetence of the issuing authorities.

    Ironically, the same authorities that are responsible for late issuance of licenses months after the due fees had been paid would turn round to fleece the public for no fault of theirs. It strikes as a big contradiction that it takes up to six months just to renew a drivers’ license in this country.

    If the long period of delay is worrisome, the penchant by sundry traffic enforcement officers including the very FRSC to exploit the situation to the detriment of drivers is even more confounding. One had expected the FRSC should have shown more understanding given that it is no fault of drivers that their licenses take that long before being issued to them. But that would not be.

    Having paid for the renewal of a license; issued a temporary one, it is taken that the license has been renewed. At the expiration of the period indicated on the temporary one, sufficient time should be allowed to enable the holder make time to visit the licensing office especially given the daily struggles to eke out a living in a very harsh economy. To require people to be thronging the licensing offices everyday conveys the erroneous impression that life is all about drivers’ license.

    That is the contradiction in the entire exercise. Worst still, the same office responsible for the tardiness, would send their men to the streets to harass people for the monster they created. We have heard there is a week or so of grace for such renewals. But enforcing officers usually feign ignorance of it just to continue with their self-serving activities.

    It is vital for the FRSC, the police and other agencies that regularly enforce traffic regulations to come public on what the law says about days of grace. Sensitization of the public on their rights should form a crucial aspect of law enforcement. This is very vital to obviate the penchant by unscrupulous officials to prey on the ignorance of the people.

    Given the foregoing, the recent order by Governor Akinwumi Ambode of Lagos to officials of the FRSC to withdraw from state roads and streets and concentrate their activities on federal roads is a step in the right direction. For some time now, there have been concerns over the constant duplication of functions and harassment of motorists by FRSC officials, the Police and Vehicle Inspection Officers (VIO’s) in inner streets and roads instead of the highways.

    Apart from compounding the traffic situation in the state, their desire to meet questionable revenue targets has brought undue suffering to the public making it difficult for some businesses to operate for fear of indiscriminate fines. They can go ahead with their spurious revenue targets. But the activities of the FRSC should be along the federal roads.

    One FRSC commander in a neighbouring state vowed a fortnight ago not to leave state roads because accidents occur there also. That could be true. But it cannot compare with the fatality of accidents that occur on federal roads. There are little or no accidents on some of the streets we see the FRSC officials on a daily basis. They have no business there as the police can always fill any gap that may arise. We commend Ambode’s response to other state governors.

  • Echoes of Biafra

    Echoes of Biafra

    Two events of last week reawakened discussions on the Biafra question. First was “Biafra, 50 years after” organized by the Yar’Adua Centre in Abuja. It had in attendance, acting President Yemi Osinbajo, former President Olusegun Obasanjo, president of Ohaneze Ndigbo, John Nwodo jr and a host of other distinguished personalities.

    It was closely followed by a sit-at-home order by pro-Biafra groups to mark 50 years of the declaration of Biafra and in honour of those who lost their lives during the three-year civil war.

    The first event must have come to many as a surprise. It was perhaps, the first time in recent memory that an official of government at that level would be participating in commemorating the Biafra war. It is not clear how that event came to be put together or the objective it was meant to achieve. There was no communiqué at the end and it appeared to be a mere talk shop.

    But discussions seemed more realistic and a sharp departure from the stereotypes we had hitherto been treated to. They tended to a better understanding of the variegated issues that confront this nation for which she has known no peace 50 years after it fought a civil war.

    Osinbajo came closer to the crux of the matter when he opined that there was nothing wrong in discussing the corporate existence of the country even as he appealed for moderation. Obasanjo captured his views in two allegories- that of the husband and wife, as well as in his notion of the sharing of the cake.

    Hear him “it’s like a husband and wife. If when you have issues, your wife would always say she is fed up and wants to go. And every day, that is what you get; one day, you would become fed up and say, ok you can go. But if there is any misunderstanding and you come together and solve it then you would almost live forever”.

    He went further: “And I would say that we should even appeal, if anybody says he wants to go; not that we will say okay you can go if you want to go. Do not go. There is enough cake for each of us. And if what you are asking for is more of the cake, then try to ask in a way that is pleasant not in a way that could make others feel that you are not entitled to what you are asking for”.

    By extrapolation, Obasanjo is saying in the first allegory that we should come together as husband and wife to resolve our misunderstanding for us to co-exist harmoniously. That is a trite statement. But the question he may perhaps answer is why 50 years after the civil war, the same manifestations that heralded that unfortunate episode rather than abate are further being reinforced with greater ferocity?  Why has it been difficult to develop that kind of love that enables husbands and wives to settle their disagreements amicably in a way to make us live harmoniously in this unity in diversity? Why have we been insincere in providing solutions to nagging problems when the path to progress revolves around them?

    Obasanjo offered no clues to these nagging posers. And to that extent, his suggestions have all the trappings of the usual pontificating and insincerity that have dogged the national question. This is especially so given the opposition coming from usual quarters (those who profit from the inequities of the system) against the imperative of restructuring the polity.

    Yes, we should appeal to those dissatisfied with the running of the country not to go. But that is not all there is to it as such appeals must be backed by concrete and concerted actions to eliminate all sources of friction, frustrations and inequity in the Nigerian state.

    But then, there is something anomalous and demeaning in the allegories presented by Obasanjo. While the former is suggestive of superiority and inferiority relationship (one group in position to call the shots), the latter is guilty of reductionism as it narrowed down the systemic defects that activate separatist feelings to a mere dissatisfaction with cake sharing formula. That is an oversimplification of the matter. Issues of equity, balance and true federalism go far beyond agitation for more cake. They go beyond giving people fish to eat to providing the needed environment for them to fish, if and when they want to do so. They have more to do with self-actualization, self-esteem and citizenship rights. Matters of this nature have little to do with the logic of the stomach.

    If the system was to be fair to all, demanding for more cake in a pleasant manner and not in a way to make people believe you are not entitled to it would not arise. Government, as a social contract, has a bounden responsibility to provide public goods and services very equitably to the constituents. That is the way to engender loyalty and patriotism. You do not look at faces to run a good government. You do not have to wait for agitations before public goods and services are distributed equitably.

    It is a mirror of the level of injustice that pervades the entire landscape that we should be talking of constituents demanding for more cake in a pleasant manner. There is everything wrong with governments that have overtime consistently been found wanting in building the needed consensus that would engender national unity and cohesion. That inability has been serially reflected in the constant separatist agitations that have stretched the government beyond its capacity.

    So we should not be talking of agitations for cake sharing in a decent manner. A responsible government; a government that is not goaded by ethnic, primordial and religious predilections would have no difficulty identifying sources of friction and taking the desired steps to redress them. That has been the missing link.

    All the same, we have come closer to admitting some of the challenges standing on the way to our nationhood. Before now, key officials of the government or those who reap from the imperfections of the convoluted federal order have been largely hostile to these issues.

    When Biafra agitations were reinforced with the arrest of Nnamdi Kanu, the reaction of former head of state Yakubu Gowon was that ‘with Biafra it is finished’. He made references to the reconciliation, rehabilitation and reconstruction mantra of the post civil war era suggesting they had perfectly addressed all injustice arising from that war. The Arewa Consultative Forum (ACF) in its own reaction said Biafra was settled in 1970. There were also those who held the view that Biafra is dead and buried.

    This column had then argued that even if Biafra was dead and buried as claimed, it was buried in a hurry and in a very shallow grave. And because the undertakers failed to accord its full rights of passage, its ghost still hovers around and may begin to haunt us someday.

    With unfolding events, it is evident that neither is the issue finished as suggested by Gowon nor was it settled in 1970 as the ACF would erroneously make us to believe.  The spirit of Biafra is still very much alive and curiously among those who knew nothing about events of that war. That should be a serious cause to worry about. If people not born during that episode now rise to press for its actualization in the manner we have seen, it is suggestive of one or two things.

    It is either a vote of confidence for the reasons that led to the declaration of Biafra in the first instance; a vote of no confidence to claims that events that heralded that war have been resolved in a manner to imbue confidence in the capacity of the government to provide a level playing ground for all to exert their potentials to the fullest or both.

    The agitators are not asking for extra favour; they are not necessarily routing for more cake. They are asking for full and unfettered rights consequent of their citizenship. And to borrow from Nwodo, they want a federal republic of Nigeria collectively owed by Nigerians as opposed to one that would be perceived as “the private property of one group or groups of ethnic groups depending on who was in office”.

  • Onnoghen and judicial corruption

    It would amount to a fundamental contradiction in the current war against corruption to ignore the weighty issues just raised by Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), Walter Onnoghen on why corruption festers within the judiciary.

    He said the independence of the judiciary and its ability to dispense justice unhindered are threatened by federal governments’ agents and politicians. The CJN, who regretted the rising castigation and accusation of judicial officers for corrupt practices by agents of the federal government and politicians without giving them an opportunity to be heard, said the nation would get it right when the leadership abides by the constitution and rule of law.

    Though he spoke vaguely on how agents of the federal government hinder the ability of the judiciary to perform its statutory duties, he nonetheless illustrated the undue influence of politicians in judicial matters with the case of the Anambra Central Senatorial election where Senator Uche Ekwunife reportedly accused the judiciary of robbing her of her mandate without evidence.

    With the seeming focus on the malfeasance within the judiciary; especially following the sting operation by the DSS in which they stormed the residences of some judges, arrested and detained them, the issues raised by the CJN must be taken very seriously if we aim at a lasting solution to the corruption in that arm. The import of the CJN’s statement is that both the independence of the judiciary and its ability to dispense justice without fear or favour are corrupted and compromised by the obstructive proclivities of both agents of the federal government and politicians.

    Though Onnoghen did not come out with supporting data (for reasons that are obvious) on how this happens especially in respect of agents of the government, it is not difficult to fathom the ramifications of the undue influence a government in power could exercise on judicial decisions especially where their interest is involved. It is for this reason that modern constitutions provide for the independence of the judiciary and checks and balances between the three arms of the government.

    Despite this constitutional guarantee for judicial independence, what you find on ground is that of undue interference in judicial matters by the government of the day. It comes in varying dimensions. The sting operation by the DSS is one of such interferences. Though touted as part of the anti-corruption war of the current regime, that strategy detracted substantially from extant procedure for disciplining erring judicial officers. The constitution vests that power on the National Judicial Council NJC.  But that is just one dimension of it.

    As at now, one of the judges accused has been discharged and acquitted by the court. Yet, he is unable to resume duties. Another who suffered the raid and arrest has had no charge brought against him. Yet, he cannot resume duties. One of the justices even openly accused the Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF) of trying to settle scores with him for issues they had years before his (AGF’s) appointment.

    Apart from overt interference by agents of the government, incidences of covert influences are not in doubt. Perhaps, this point will find ample justification when we look at election cases that come before the judiciary. It has more or less become an axiom on these shores that a government in power cannot lose election petitions.

    That is why you easily hear – “declare the result and let them go to court”. Embodied in this statement is the notion that even glaring cases of electoral malpractices that come before the tribunals can still go either way depending on who is involved and the weight of his influence or purse. In this, both the judicial officers who lend themselves to corruption and the politicians or agents of government who deploy devious strategies to pervert the course of justice are culpable.

    Not only do governments in power (federal and state) put undue pressure (monetary and otherwise) on the judiciary to pervert the course of justice, they also entice them with some other mouth-watering promises. So the issues are real. Just a fortnight back, the same CJN alerted the nation that politicians made serious overtures to influence the outcome of the Abia State governorship election before the apex court.

    That is nothing new to the ordinary Nigerian. It is also not new on these shores that some judges come to the court with two judgments in their pockets and the one that eventually carries the day would depend on who among the parties is the highest bidder. That is how bad the situation has become. That is also why the public wanted the judges to be dealt with even outside the law when their privacy was invaded by the DSS.

    Perhaps as justified as the anger of the public was, it did not take into account the fact that the same government and politicians who want the heads of the erring judges for the unabashed corruption within that arm of government are neck deep in providing and facilitating both the necessary and sufficient conditions for the embarrassing corruption that thrives within our judicial system.

    That is the unmistakable point that has been brought to the fore by the CJN. And we can ignore it at a great peril to the current fight against corruption. Even the procedure for the appointment of judges in this country is not such that sufficiently makes for the independence and impartiality of judicial officers. Recurring agitations for judicial reforms illustrate this point most vividly.

    In effect, for us to win the war against corruption either in the judiciary or the larger society in which the judiciary operates, we must take a comprehensive and holistic perspective of the matter. It is not an issue ad hoc intervention by the DSS can reasonably remedy. Even then, as an agency of the executive arm of the government, there is no guarantee that such interventions are not part of a script by agents of the government to get even with judges that refuse to do their bidding.

    We should be more concerned with building strong institutions rather than relying on the vicissitudes of ad hoc measures. And as the CJN succinctly captured, the nation can win the war against corruption if the leadership abides by the constitution and rule of law.

    Where the laws are deemed highly limited in fighting corruption, the solution does not lie in going outside them no matter the constraints. This is because, in the task of fighting corruption within the judiciary, the government could also compromise the independence and integrity of that arm- factors that stand it out as the last hope of the common man. The solution lies in respect for the constitution and the rule of law.

    And where the need arises, processes for constitutional and judicial reforms could be activated. These are more lasting perspectives than the resort to self-help as was the case with the DSS intervention. For, both the government and politicians could as well be the greatest obstacles to the impartiality and independence of the judiciary.

    A similar scenario was equally evident in the recent alarm by the Chief of Army Staff, Lt. Gen Tukur Buratai that some individuals have been approaching some officers and soldiers for undisclosed political reasons. Those undisclosed political reasons have been interpreted as invitation to overthrow the civilian government.

    The parallel here is that just as the government and politicians are part of the corruption chain in the judiciary, both the military and civilians are two sides of the same coin in any attempt to terminate prematurely a democratic government. So we need to take all these factors along in evolving holistic and more enduring therapies against the scourge corruption and military coups.

  • 82 girls and prisoners’ swap

    After three years in Boko Haram captivity, the release of 82 of the Chibok girls a fortnight ago, no doubt, gladdened the hearts of many. The ecstasy generated by that incident was understandable given the trauma both the girls and their parents have passed through these three years.

    Because the lives of the young girls were in jeopardy, there was the general feeling that anything could be sacrificed to ensure their safety. When therefore the government announced that the release was made possible through the swapping of some Boko Haram commanders in their custody, it seemed the end had justified the means.

    So it was that those who sought to raise reservations on the propriety of the prisoners’ swap were so disparaged that they could no longer find their voice. The furore that trailed attempts by the opposition to raise questions on the swap must have silenced them such that not much was heard of any criticism on the issue. They were made to appear insensitive to the feelings of the girls and their parents in the hands of the cruel and ruthless lot.

    Parallels were swiftly drawn with the United States of America US and some other advanced countries which at the time or the other, applied that option to free their citizens taken captive in other countries. If such advanced countries could swap prisoners, what is wrong in Nigeria applying the same measure to secure the release of the Chibok girls from a deadly monster that gives scant attention to rules of engagement? – they queried.

    With high level sentiments like this, the voice of the opposition was drowned to the extent that nobody again cared to ask why there was no measure of ceasefire while the negotiations leading to the swap lasted. Nobody again cared to ask, where and to whom the freed commanders were released?  Nobody cared to ask what other commitments if any, were extracted from the group before the commanders were freed. These questions at best, remained mute or were discussed in muffled voices until the freed commanders appeared in a video armed with high calibre rifles threatening to attack Abuja and some critical institutions again.

    And as people were still guessing on the authenticity of the video, the military authorities came out to confirm that those in the video were part of the commanders released under the prisoners’ swap. The military went further to urge the public to disregard their threat describing them as people who are seeking relevance having lost touch with the realities of the war. They also spoke of the measures they have taken to guarantee public safety. The advice and assurances can as well be.

    But the episode has exposed the innate weaknesses in the arrangements leading to the swap. Besides, it has again brought to the fore the inappropriateness in shutting of the views of those who offered contrary opinions on the prisoners’ swap. If the freed commanders could so soon after, arm themselves with sophisticated weaponry, threatening the nation’s security, then the swap still leaves a sour taste in our mouths. It immediately conjures the impression that we have created monsters that will turn around to haunt us.

    Beyond that however, it raises issues about the Sambisa forest which we were told has been overrun by our military. It tends to suggest at once that the forest still remains a very stronghold of the insurgents. Or, how else do we account for the ease with which the commanders integrated themselves to their old ways with easy access to weaponry with which they now issued threats in a video recording? It gives the impression of a well fortified and organized group that is not about to capitulate.

    That is the unmistakable signals arising from the video show by the freed commanders. It speaks of minuses in the negotiations leading to their being swapped for the Chibok girls. We have been told arrangements are also afoot to get the remaining girls freed. It is hoped that this time around, the entire negotiations will centre round a comprehensive end to the insurgency since the war is said to be at its dying stages with the insurgents’ capacity for evil largely degraded.

    Continuing suicide bombs attacks since the release of the girls and swap of the commanders do not give cause for comfort. The University of Maiduguri was last week attacked with some casualties. Elsewhere, the military has foiled suicide bomb attempts. There were also video images of some of the Chibok girls that refused to leave Boko Haram den wielding dangerous weapons. All these are sources of grave concern as they do not leave even the most optimistic in the comfort of mind that the war will peter out very soon.

    Beyond these however, there are nagging questions that needed to be answered for the discerning public to get a proper perspective of the whole circumstances of the abduction, incarceration and release of the girls. This is necessary given complaints from the Chibok community on the secrecy surrounding the release and subsequent handling of those that have been freed. Chairman of the Chibok community in Abuja, Hosea Tsambido complained of the restrictions placed on the 21 girls released last year.

    Apart from their not being allowed to interact freely and answer questions freely, he said the only thing the first group is being taught is how to bake cake, sing and clap. He has therefore demanded a probe into the 2014 abduction saga. Tsambido’s frustrations are not out of place. Before now, it was widely believed that part of the difficulties in securing a quick release of the girls was due to doubts by the Jonathan regime on the veracity of the abduction.

    That doubt is yet to be reasonably cleared. Even though people have been reluctant to come public with it, references to the good health of the 82 released girls especially in the social media point to raging scepticisms on the abduction saga. With the pictures we have seen of the freed girls, it would seem the insurgents treated and fed them very well. It is not a tale of haggard-looking, emaciated and abused girls. Neither did it depict a spectacle of those who lived in a dreaded forest for good three years.

    Some of them are looking better than those of us living in the comfort of our homes. Little wonder some of the girls were reported to have refused to accept the offer of freedom but instead preferred to remain with their abductors. There is no evidence of the girls having been married off, sold into slavery or killed by their captors. With promises that the remaining girls would soon be freed, previous stories of their being used in suicide bomb attacks have turned out as speculations lacking in any iota of substance. As things have turned out, it would appear that Boko Haram has demonstrated a good record in respecting the fundamental human rights of its prisoners; an offence our military have before now, been accused of.

    When we juxtapose the seeming good health of the girls with the renewed threat by the swapped commanders, the impression we get is that of a confused situation. Such confusion can only be resolved through more information on the saga. People (especially journalists) should seriously be interested in knowing whether the girls we have seen were in the dreaded Sambisa forest all these years? They should be interested in their experiences while they were held captive. What occupied their time during the period and how they related with the insurgents are of public interest.

    But we cannot have any of these now. The alibi is that allowing them to disclose such information would jeopardize the release of the remaining girls. We are told that they are serious security information that the public does not need now. Plausible as this seems, there is the other dimension that the excuse could be a convenient subterfuge to cover up the real story behind the abduction saga. That is the uncanny dilemma we have to contend with for now. Someday, the real story will emerge.

  • Not a slip of the pen

    It is as well very refreshing that the Senate resolved the controversy surrounding the letter transmitted to the National Assembly by President Muhammadu Buhari before proceeding on his latest medical check-up.

    In that letter, Buhari, citing section 145 of the 1999 constitution as amended informed the national legislature of his intention to proceed on medical follow-up with his doctors in London. The letter went further to state inter alia “while I am away, the vice president will coordinate the activities of the government”.

    Issues have been raised regarding the appropriateness of the word ‘coordinate’. The argument is that the letter should have stated very explicitly that the vice president will act as the president. Apparently taking into account the reference to section 145 of the constitution, the Senate President ruled the senator who raised the issue out of order.

    Section 145 states as follows “whenever the President transmits to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives, a written declaration that he is proceeding on vacation or that he is otherwise unable to discharge the functions of his office, until he transmits to them a written declaration to the contrary, such functions shall be discharged by the vice president as acting president”.

    Even with the ruling, a number of well-meaning Nigerians have given varying interpretations to the wording of the president’s letter. While legal opinions are agreed that there is nothing like coordinating president in the constitution, some see the word as having been deliberately inserted to incapacitate the vice president from taking total control while Buhari is away. There are also those who have sought to dismiss the matter as a slip of the pen. Yet, some others see the use of the word as irrelevant as long as the President has transmitted a letter to the National Assembly.

    For this school, the word does not in any way limit the powers of the Vice President as far as the constitution is concerned.

    However, the government through the minister of information regards the semantic argument as a needless distraction. He shares this view with some other Nigerians. He says the key thing is that the letter opened up with references to section 145 of the 1999 constitution which states clearly the position of the Vice President once such letters are transmitted to the National Assembly.

    With these assurances and the ruling of the Senate, it would seem the Vice President is home and dry in exercising the constitutional responsibilities bestowed on him once the President transmits a letter to the National Assembly on the matter.

    But that could be a very simplistic perspective of the matter. This is especially so given the hindsight of our very recent past. This is about the fourth time the President is transferring power to the Vice President. And in the three previous instances, there were no ambiguities in the framing of the letters. Why the latest letter is shrouded in ambiguity should be serious source of concern to all. It is neither a matter that should be swept away with a wave, nor another opportunity to smell mischief on the part of those who speak against the wording of the letter.

    This column does not share the view that it is either a mistake of the pen or that of the head. It indeed reflects the mindset of the authors of that letter. It is symptomatic of the reluctance of its framers in coming to terms with the change that will come with an acting President in the saddle due to their obsession with maintaining the status quo. This conclusion draws ample credence from the high wired politics that had surrounded the President’s health of recent.

    A few days before the President made public his intention to embark on the latest travel for medical attention, there was strident outcry from the public for full disclosure on the President’s health. Views ranged from those who wanted the President to take some time off and stabilize his health given his very frail look to others who wanted him to allow the Vice President handle the affairs of the country given his inability to attend the Federal Executive Council (FEC) meetings four consecutive times.

    There were also some pressure groups that threatened to embark on protests if the cabal at the corridors of power continues with the hide and seek game on the President’s health. These represent ample evidence that the handling of the President’s health had polarized the polity with debilitating prospects for peace, progress, unity and overall development of a country buffeted by myriads of economic and political challenges.

    If these reactions were not enough to underscore the gravity of the schism and mistrust in the polity, the statement by pioneer national chairman of the All Progressives Congress, Chief Bisi Akande in which he accused a cabal in the presidency of feasting from the President’s health challenges further exposed the duplicity in the entire process. He had identified the President’s health and its handling as the key red flag that is about to throw the nation into unmitigated calamity.

    He also spoke of attempts by certain leaders using corrupt money to influence the security agencies by intimidating and suppressing certain ethnic groups or playing one ethnic group against the other.

    Within that week, President Buhari made two public appearances- he received the Attorney-General of the Federation with the managing director of the NNPC and appeared for the Jumat prayer. Apparently designed by his handlers to diffuse speculations given his serial inability to attend the FEC meetings and appear in public functions, those two outings ended up raising more questions than they intended to answer.

    Those who saw the President especially as he walked to the Jumat prayer, painted a picture of a very frail man who really needed to take some time off to attend to his failing health. It was therefore not surprising that soon after those seemingly arranged appearances, he travelled out of the country for the same purpose.

    Given this backdrop, there is everything to suggest that the contentious letter must have been deliberately crafted by the same cabal profiting from the President’s health to enable them continue with their old habits when the President is away. The idea is to insert clauses that are intended to impair the effective performance of the duties of the Vice President to enable them retain the awesome powers they wield behind the scene. That is the frame of mind unambiguously reflected in the letter.

    And in the ailing position the President unfortunately found himself, he may not have bothered scrutinizing the letter, trusting as usual his staff will do the needful. But that trust has been betrayed by those who presented the letter for his signature. That is my reading of the matter. This is more so, given that in the issue of the President’s health, he has been more honest and open than his handlers.

    For a President that told the nation on return from his medical trip that he has never been that sick in his life and would soon embark on medical check-up; even as his handlers were telling us that he was not sick, what proof of honesty do we again require of him in this matter? The point here is that it is an unlikely possibility that Buhari would intentionally allow a clause that would turn out and embarrass his government.

    It is the handiwork of the same cabal that prodded him to stay put at the risk of his health to enable them satisfy selfish and sectional predilections. The blame should be squarely placed on the shoulders of this group for the unnecessary distraction and furore generated by the wrongly worded letter. It is a case of the government accusing itself of unnecessarily distracting the public through acts of omission or commission.

  • Again, at the crossroads

    We have passed through this path before. We are again on it. Curiously, all indicators point to the direction that no gainful lessons have been learnt from our encounter with that tortuous terrain.

    That perhaps, explains why events seem to be following the same predictable but ruinous pattern. If we have a country of leaders with direction; a country of selfless and patriotic leaders; a country where the overall good and interests of the constituents form the basis for collective action, we will not find ourselves repeating the same mistakes that nearly brought this nation down so soon after- a mistake whose deleterious fallouts are yet to wane.

    And since we trod this path very recently, it is curious how easily we forget the past. It is surprising we are unable to take advantage of past experiences to address emergent national political issues that are repeating themselves in a manner to demonstrate very unambiguously that we are learning from history.

    That is ones reading of the uncanny fate surrounding the controversy over the health of President Muhammadu Buhari and the attempt by some people at the corridors of power to repeat mistakes of the recent past. The same display of ethnic card and sectional supremacy that dominated the political scene when last Nigeria passed through that path are gain at play this time, with higher prospects of tearing the fabric of this wobbling nation apart.

    We can do with less of cabalistic manipulations especially given that our easy resort to ethnic shortchanging in serious national and constitutional issues, has been the nation’s greatest undoing, accounting in the main, for our failures to make meaningful progress despite the enormous resources mother nature endowed us very bountifully.

    We were treated to this theatrical during the regime of President Umaru Yar’Adua and it dragged the nation to the precipice. For about 55 days, there was a vacuum at the highest administrative echelon of the country due to the absence of Yar’Adua who was in Saudi Arabia for treatment for some illness. He left the country on November 23, 2009 without transmitting a letter to the National Assembly to then Vice President Goodluck Jonathan to act in keeping with constitutional stipulations.

    A vacuum then arose as some influential persons close to the ailing president capitalized on the situation to hang on to power, issuing directives in the name of the president. They feared that if power was handed over to Jonathan, it may see them out of office. They preferred Yar’Adua to hang on for them to be now calling the shots as the powers behind the throne.

    Such was the situation and so chaotic was it that the nation drifted towards the abyss. The then Senate was to save the situation citing the doctrine of necessity thereby empowering Jonathan to act. So debilitating and insidious was the power game until the sad news of the demise of Yar’Adua.

    The way Jonathan was treated during that period by the cabal at the corridors of power may have accounted for his conduct thereafter especially his determination to run for another four years despite the understanding said to have been agreed upon for him not to run.

    With all we passed through, it is indeed sad that history is about to repeat itself soon after with frightening prospects for the unity and stability of this unity in diversity. The inherent danger was brought to the fore by a statement last week by the founding national chairman of the All Progressives Congress APC, Chief Bisi Akande. In that highly loaded statement, Akande identified what he called two great red flag dangers capable of plunging the country into unprecedented chaos, with the health of the president as the most critical and the disorder and lack of cohesion between the president and the National Assembly as the other.

    But the greatest danger he said is for “political interests at the corridors of power attempting to feast on the health of the president in a dangerous manner that may aggravate the problems between the executive and the National Assembly and drag the country into avoidable doom”.

    He also accused certain Nigerian leaders, blinded by corruption of assuming “the possibility of using money in manipulating the national security agencies to intimidate, suppress and hold down certain ethnic nationalities or playing one ethnic nationality against the other with a view to undermining the constitution and perversely upturning the rule of law”.

    These are very loaded statements especially coming from a key stakeholder in the current regime; somebody who played a crucial role in all the events that shaped and saw the current regime cruise to power two years ago. If he is now crying out in the manner he has done, we can appreciate the level of his frustrations.

    As a key player, he wears the shoes and knows where it pinches most. Though he spoke in a veiled form, it is not difficult to read his lips.  And we have every reason to take him very seriously. Akande is such a serious mind and well respected statesman that the events that propelled him to speak the way he has done must be that critical.

    Before now, well-meaning individuals and groups have expressed dissatisfaction with the management of the president’s health by those close to him. This was especially the case in the weeks he was away to London for medical treatment. The impression we were given was that the president was not ill and was only undergoing laboratory tests from Nigeria House in London.

    It took the return and honesty of the President himself for Nigerians to get to know that he was really sick. When on return, he told the nation he has never been that sick in his life, it dawned on all that his handlers were all along, being economical with the truth. The President was also honest enough in hinting of the possibility of further medical checkup.

    The way he handled the matter and the fact that he transmitted a letter to the National Assembly for his vice to act before departure, endeared him to Nigerians and they fervently prayed for his quick recovery. During his absence, the Vice President did not allow any vacuum as he attended to state matters as if the President was on seat.

    In the last three weeks, the President has not been able to fully attend to state matters given his continuous absence from the Federal Executive Council meetings. Speculations have been rife as to his state of health with his media managers explaining that he is resting following advice from his doctors. That could be understood.

    But there are views that the President’s health is having a toll in the running of the affairs of the county especially given the enormous challenges confronting the nation. While some have called for full disclosure on the President’s health, others advised he should take some time to address his health challenges as his life is more important than the office he holds.

    If he adheres to the last option, it will again see him transferring power to his vice to act until he fully recovers. But there are vested interests within the corridors of power afraid of such scenario playing out again. And like the situation during Yar’Adua, they fear loss of influence and power should power be transferred to the vice to act. They want the President to be around for them to be wielding awesome powers from behind. They are propelled by the satisfaction of their selfish predilections irrespective of where that leads the country.

    That has been the greatest undoing of this country. That is why the contest for the presidency will remain largely bitter and rancorous until there is a fundamental restructuring of the polity. We cannot build national institutions with our current disposition to ethnic domination and primordial ascendancy.

    If the President’s health cannot permit him to fully attend to state matters, he should do the needful so that the wheel of the administration does not grind to a halt. We should learn from the mistakes of the Yar’Adua episode in the current handling of the President’s health.