The Nation Newspaper

Category: Emeka Omeihe

  • One kidnapping, too many

    Many were shocked to the marrows when news filtered last Monday that former Secretary to the Federal Government SGF and elder statesman, Chief Olu Falae had been kidnapped by suspected Fulani herdsmen who invaded his farm. The upset is neither because kidnapping is new in this country nor the first time high profile people will fall prey to the devilish machinations of sundry kidnap rings.

    For, hardly does any day pass-by without reports of the malfeasance in one part of the country or the other. In the last three weeks, the crime took a dangerous dimension with the kidnap of two women; a columnist of the Vanguard Newspapers and the wife of the deputy managing director of The Sun newspapers. Both women spent several days in the den of the criminals before they were released. These are just a tip of the iceberg.

    However, there is something striking and unusual in the circumstances surrounding the kidnap of Falae from his farm in Ilado village, Akure North, Ondo state allegedly by Fulani herdsmen. The elder statesman was said to have been beaten up by his assailants and dragged to the ground before being whisked away.

    Before now, Fulani herdsman were said to be having issues with his workers  over the invasion of their farm by grazing cows and the attendant destruction of their crops. Curiously also, the kidnappers contacted the family demanding N100 million ransom before their victim could be released.

    By demanding ransom, new complications were added to the episode. The Ondo State Police Command admitted that much when it claimed that a kidnapping ring may have hijacked the process initiated by the herdsmen. This suggestion is seen as a veiled attempt to exculpate the herdsmen from the ransom demand since it has not been in their character to kidnap let alone demand for ransom. But that argument cannot be taken too far without running into more problems. The same police command that admitted from the onset that the attack was perpetrated by Fulani herdsmen is now floating a questionable theory of professional kidnappers hijacking the process to make money. This theory cannot fly for two basic reasons.

    First, it is a fact that Falae and his workers were attacked by Fulani herdsmen. This is not in doubt. Secondly, the same assailants also took him away when they were fleeing. Therefore, if there is any harm that comes the way of their captive, the responsibility for it squarely rests on the shoulders of his attackers. In this case, the Fulani herdsmen will take responsibility for whatever happens to the old man.

    If we admit the theory of a hijack, the hijackers could not have been doing the bidding of any other group than those who whisked Falae away from his own farm. The police may have been forced into this rationalization given that Fulani herdsmen have not been known for kidnapping and demanding for ransom. But it will be naïve to completely rule out this possibility. It could well be a new dimension to the recurring clashes between farmers and the herdsmen in parts of the country. We needed more time to study the new development. The police was therefore in a hurry to have seemingly exculpated the herdsmen from the consequences of an action they planned and effectively executed.

    It is not surprising that the people of the South-west did not take the matter lightly. The Oodua Peoples’ Congress OPC has threatened reprisals while farmers in Ondo State also threatened to wage a war against Fulani herdsmen that will have national impact, if the federal government failed to heed their ultimatum of effecting Falae’s release within one week. Such was the level of emotions and outrage.

    It is largely seen as an affront on the people of the South-west for Fulani herdsmen to have attacked and abducted such a personage as Falae in his homeland. If this could happen to him, then all small farmers in the state are at the mercy of the herdsmen. That is why the incident should not be treated lightly by the authorities. It may be for the same reason that President Buhari directed the Inspector General of Police and all security agencies to do all within their powers to free the senior citizen. Good thing, Falae has eventually regained freedom after four days in captivity. Whether his release was a consequence of the high interest shown by the president or threats from the South-west, the nation has been saved the trouble of any harm that would have followed his continued incarceration or possible death.

    In verity, this is the first time we are hearing of herdsmen kidnapping people for ransom. Yes, Fulani herdsmen have been notorious for attacking, killing and maiming people over disagreements on grazing lands for their cows and cattle rustling. Such incidents have been a recurring decimal. They came to an all time high in the last couple of years especially since the Boko Haram insurgency. The level of havoc wreaked by the herdsmen in parts of the country especially in Benue State was such that generated heated controversy as to whether they had the capacity and sophistication of the unmitigated calamity they wrought on several villages.

    In one of such invasions, herdsmen attacked Ise Aekenyi in the Guma local government of Benue State destroying 72 villages even as 25 residents lost their lives with over 50,000 displaced. The governor of the state then, Gabriel Suswam who went to the area to assess the level of damage, escaped by whiskers as his convoy equally came under serious gun attack from the herdsmen.

    The destruction was so much so that Senator Barnabas Gemade who then represented the area in the senate, raised alarm on the possible annihilation of the Idoma and Tiv ethnic groups by the herdsmen, warning that the development could destabilize the country if not checked. He also alleged that the attackers were not herdsmen but hirelings from Chad, Niger and Cameroun with the intent of causing internal crisis or war in the Middle-belt.

    The allegation bears some semblance with the suggestion by the police in the case of Falae’s kidnap that those who were demanding N100 million ransom could be professional kidnappers who hijacked the incident for some gain. Whether the hirelings are from neighboring countries or are professional kidnappers make no difference. The key thing is that they were doing the bidding of those who had scores to settle. They are therefore, as culpable as those for whom they were doing their bidding. That is the real issue.

    More fundamentally, the predicament of Falae has brought to the fore two serious security concerns which the current regime has to confront. They are the twin issues of clashes between Fulani herdsmen and farmers over grazing lands and kidnapping. These are extant challenges the attack on Falae has raised for attention.

    These two security concerns are loaded with frightening prospects of destabilizing this country. The increasing resort by sundry rings to kidnapping for scores’ settling portends danger for this country. Our security agencies must rise to this challenge and tame the monster. It is equally important to take a serious view of the threat to national security which clashes between Fulani herdsmen and farmers across the country have become.

    It is obvious from these recurring clashes that nomadic rearing of cows can neither endure nor is the suggestion for the mapping out of grazing areas in the six geo-political zones a viable alternative.  The solution lies in embracing modern trends in animal husbandry.

  • Northern or National Conference?

    Despite pretensions in some quarters, Nigeria is really sick and would require a dose of varying therapies to recover. No matter how we try to paper over the endemic malaise, the foreboding realities are manifest in increasing evidence of disenchantment by the component units with what the federation holds for them.

    There are palpable feelings that the government at the centre has proved innately deficient in delivering equitably. This is not entirely new. Such feelings have been the motivating force for agitations for national conference or its sovereign variant. They also account for the resurgence of ethnic-nationalism and religion-induced strife. Ironically, at each stage a conference was about to be convened, you will find sections still opposing it for one reason or the other. That was the experience of the National Conference organized by the last administration.

    Since the Buhari regime, we have witnessed discordant tones regarding what his government should make of the recommendations of that outing. While some have called for its implementation, others especially from the north want that document thrown into the dustbin. There are some others who would want Buhari to take a dispassionate look at the document with a view to adopting its recommendations with higher prospects of moving the country forward. Such has been the level of dissonance.

    But a new dimension was introduced into the matter last week when a group of northern leaders under the name, Northern Re-awakening Group (NRG) came out boldly to call for another national conference to specifically address problems of the north-east zone that has been the epicentre of the Boko Haram insurgency and other parts of the north. Not only do they want another national conference, they would have nothing to do with the one convened by Jonathan on the ground that he had a different agenda for setting it up. Ironically also, many of the prime movers of the NRG were participants in that conference.

    In a communiqué after their summit and retreat with the theme “Rebuilding a safe, secure and economically inclusive Northern Nigeria”, the NRG sought to justify its demand on the alleged marginalization of the north with statistics of the disparities in development levels of the north and the south.

    According to them, while the north has the highest number of people below $2 per day, a 2013 World Bank Report showed that poverty in 16 out of the 19 northern states doubled since 1980. They said that the north has the lowest literacy rate in the country and while Lagos posted 92 per cent, Kano has 49 and Borno trailing with less 15 per cent. In terms of the number of boys and girls that are out of school, they said 65 per cent northern boys and 53 of the girls are not in school as against 20 per cent for the South-east.

    Ostensibly, the bandied disparities in development indices are meant to persuade the public to the desirability of convoking another national conference to specifically address the marginalization of the north. The NRG is within its rights to highlight the problems of the north and seek solutions to them. That was the purpose of the retreat. And it accounted for the dignified attendance it attracted including the presence of Vice President, Yemi Osinbajo and no less than five northern governors among others.

    Their resolve for a national conference is an admission that all is not well with the country and some fundamental changes are imperative to effectively tap into the innate potentials of its disparate peoples. That point cannot be discounted. But the advocacy for another national conference and the reasons adduced for it are flawed on many grounds.

    First, it is not clear whether what the group wants is a northern conference or a national conference. A proper reading of their presentation, suggests they want a conference attended by all sections of the country to solely address challenges from the north. Conceived this way, it is a northern conference that will draw the participation of other Nigerians. That is where the problem lies. The failure to resolve this conceptual lacuna did incurable damage to whatever they intended to achieve by their call. It is patently childish and amateurish to conceive of a national conference that will set out solely to address problems of a section of the country to the exclusion of others. Such a weird advocacy is a recipe for confusion and unmitigated disaster.

    Secondly, there is no problem that is found in one part of the country that has no variant in other parts. One is therefore at a loss to fathom how any person in his right senses would ignore a holistic perspective to national problems in preference to a sectional handle that stands dead even before it takes off.

    Thirdly, the entire idea is again flawed by the same arguments they raised against the last conference whose recommendations are with the current regime. If they do not trust the former because Jonathan put it together, what in their imagination gave them the comfort that a sectional conference sponsored with taxpayers’ money will not draw this country closer to the precipice? Or is it a veiled attempt to appropriate the current leadership of the country to do the bidding of the north?

    Again, the last conference was attended by the north and many of the issues confronting this country were exhaustively addressed. A group that is not propelled by parochial and sectional lure will not be in a hurry to embark on a hazardous and wasteful journey to another conference. One may not even bother about cost if embarking on another conference is all it will take to see this country through. Before then, we needed to tell Nigerians why the recommendations of the previous conference are deficient in tackling identified challenges. That is the real issue to confront rather than resort to theatre tactics.

    It is also not enough to bandy statistics on the development disparities of sections of the country without accounting for the factors that brought them about. The group erred woefully for failing to show why the north lacked behind in those human development indices. We needed to know whether the progress in education and income per capita in the south was due to special attention by the federal government or a product of the survival instincts and initiative of their peoples.

    The presentation of those figures conveyed the unmistakable impression that either the south is responsible for the fate of the north or the federal government aided the development of the south against the north. None of the two propositions holds water. On the contrary, we do know of the existence of such principles as quota system and educationally disadvantaged states that were designed to get some states catch up. The north has been the major beneficiary of both discriminatory policies. It is a matter of regret that the southern states which are being referenced upon have been the ones bearing the brunt of such discriminatory educational policies over the years. Yet, we are still in a hurry to flaunt disparities in human development statistics to further perpetuate the inequities of extant order.

    The challenge before the north is to find out how these states moved fast in the literacy ladder and other human development indicators and tap unto them. It is good a thing they are worried by the abysmal conditions of their people in the face of plenty. They should rise to the challenges of the socio-cultural and institutional hiccups that hold down their people and frontally dismantle them.

    Before then, the exhortations of Osinbajo in his address at the opening ceremony blaming the present crop of northern leaders for the backwardness of the region due to selfishness and personal aggrandizement, should serve a sufficient food for thought.

  • 100 days assessments

    The euphoria that marked 100 days in office of previous administrations especially with the change of leadership at the centre was certainly lacking in the one that has just passed by. This is without prejudice to the various assessments in the media of the first 100 days of the Buhari regime and other highlights by some state governments. It is not clear, the chain of events that brought about the low morale in the celebration of that event.

    But, there is a widely held belief that it was not unconnected with the imprecise stance of the Buhari administration on what that days held for the nation. Before then, controversy had arisen regarding the promises the president was purported to have made in his first 100 days. To this, his Senior Special Assistant on Media and Publicity, Mallam Garba Shehu was quick to add that the president never made such promises when the question was put to him at Chatham House.

    For him, “we prefer to talk about milestones instead of achievements; whether the milestones represent achievements or not is left for the people to judge”. Though a few state governments still went ahead to showcase what they considered their achievements, it was palpable that a new thinking had been given to that event especially given the flurry of activities that marked it in the past.

    It is now obvious that a new perspective has been given to an event which before now, easily passed as a veritable yardstick for measuring the success of new leaders. It was then thought that the tone and direction of a new government can be successfully set within the first 100 days and those who showed high promises within that timeframe are more likely to perform well during the rest of their tenure.

    That had been the reason for the mad rush to execute and commission projects within the first 100 days by our governments especially at the state levels. The same reason accounts for the high level of public interest in such occasions. Whether the assumptions that underline these conclusions are borne out of empirical evidence or mere conjecture is a different ball game altogether. But one thing that stands out clearly, is that it will no longer be business as usual in the way such events were in the past, seen in this clime. There is beginning to evolve a new thinking on the heuristic value of the first 100 days; and whether the copycatting and stereo-typing we had been used to were adding real value. These are the issues now before the public domain.  We shall return to them shortly.

    The history of some world leaders accounting for their stewardship after 100 days in office is traceable to President Franklin D. Roosevelt of the United States of America (US). He was reputed to have introduced the concept in 1933 at the height of the great depression to instil hope in the American people. Conceived this way, the concept would aptly be seen as a child of circumstance. It evolved during a crisis situation and was meant to address the exigencies of the period.

    Americans needed to be given hope; they needed quick-fixes. And Roosevelt had to evolve that concept to keep hope alive. He needed to come out with sundry legislations and policies to reaffirm confidence in the capacity of that country’s survival. It was a child of serious emergency that drew justification from the exigencies of the emergency situation.

    But the concept has since undergone some metamorphosis and is generally used for direction setting, highlighting accomplishments and setting the tone for moving forward. It is now applied as a parameter for a clearer picture of an administration’s policies and programmes. The extent to which this direction setting and showcasing of hurried accomplishments within 100 days can go in determining the eventual success of governments remains largely a moot issue.

    In a recent article in the Wall Street Journal, historian David Greenberg summed his argument on the first 100 days thus: “the first 100 days is really important but in a better world, it wouldn’t be”. For him, it is better world leaders are not judged so much on their early accomplishments. They should be given time to make mistakes and learn, they could focus on long term vision and do not have to worry about tactical manoeuvring.

    Unfortunately Greenberg lamented, new leaders have to live in the world they inherit. And it is in this context that what new leaders do in their early days has a disproportionate impact on all that follows.

    The above brings to the fore the inherent dissonance in the value of the first 100 days in office by leaders. Greenberg did not say explicitly what constitutes a better world. But when that construct is paired with his other idea that new leaders living in the world they inherit must be conscious of what they do in their early days, he can be better understood. He may have had in mind a more developed and more structured country; where there exist more organized ways of statecraft as against one still is in a state of flux.

    This is more so given the coincidence in the evolution of the concept with the great depression in the US. It would therefore seem justifiable why such agenda setting and benchmarking is relevant in a country like Nigeria. Because there are yet to be well established and ordered ways of conducting government affairs leading to monumental corruption, it may not be out of place for leaders to drive a solution in their first 100 days in office. But that is definitely not all there is to it. There is no guarantee that a government that seemingly started well within the first 100 days, may not totally derail thereafter.

    Beyond this however, is the larger danger in the way the event has been applied on these shores. The theory of incremental change derives its strength from the principle that there is really no new policy; as every policy is an addition to an existing one.

    What we have seen overtime in the application of the first 100 days concept has been the jettisoning of some well thought out policies and programmes by new leaders for make-shift and impressionistic ones. The issue of continuity is thrown overboard as all that appear to count is the imperative of the 100 days’ show. Not surprisingly, questionable and ill-conceived projects have been randomly embarked upon to satisfy the spur of the moment. But as soon as the event is over, nobody cares to ask the overall impact and value of such hurried projects in the final performance rating of governments (federal or state). That is the real issue we have to contend with in our peculiar situation. Buhari appeared to have set the right tone (irrespective of extant controversy) on the way we should look at the first 100 days celebrations. The direction of his government on corruption and insurgency in the north-east are not in doubt; though issues of the economy are still largely hazy.

    But it will be inherently foolhardy to nurse the feeling that all it takes to know a good government is what it does within the first 100 days. A government should be allowed time to stumble and possibly recover from it even as success in its early days is equally relevant in enhancing the outcome of its final rating. So, we need to take a new perspective of the type of value we ascribe to the performance of leaders within the first 100 days.

  • Pay cut for public officers

    All things being equal, a new salary and allowances structure for public officers in the country will come into effect in a matter of weeks now. The new regime which will see to the downward review of the current takings of national assembly members and sundry public officers is dictated by the desire to align them to the nation’s subsisting economic and political realities.

    The Chairman of the Revenue, Mobilization, Allocation and Fiscal Commission RMAFC, Mr. Elias Mbam said last week after meeting President Buhari that the new slashed pay structure would be released in September. According to him, “we are presently reviewing the subsisting remuneration package and it is going to reflect the socio-economic realities of today. We expect that before the end of next month it will be ready”

    The disclosure by the RMFAC boss should not come as a surprise. Before now, especially since the coming on stream of the current administration, agitations have been rife for the slashing of the salaries and allowances earned by our law makers. The widely held belief has been that their pay packages were out of tune with subsisting economic realities. And with the slide in the price of oil in the face of the increasing inability of state governments to pay workers’ salaries and allowances, it became obvious that something had to give way.

    There was also this rush to cut salaries by some governors both for themselves and their political appointees. The pressure became such that the commission had little option than to set up a committee for the same purpose which outcome is the reduced salary structure that is expected to be unfolded soon.

    Against this background, there is everything to expect that the new pay structure is a foregone reality. What is still left to conjecture is the percentage of the previous pay that will be affected by the cut. For now, there seems little anybody can do since the commission is constitutionally charged with the fixing of such remunerations. So it is not an issue the national assembly or other public officers have a choice over.

    But beyond the powers of the RMFAC to fix wages, its rationale in arriving at the previous wage structure cannot pass without some scathing remarks. This is because, the very reasons it is offering for the cut have always been there. What had been lacking was a proper understanding of the situation when the previous bloated regime was being approved. Fluctuations in oil price are nothing new as our governments have had to contend with them overtime. Also the changes in patterns of oil production and serious efforts of some advanced countries to find alternatives have never ceased.  So at the time the previous structure was being worked out, such realities should not have escaped a serious regulatory body. After all, in each of our yearly budgets, such changes are usually anticipated and provided for in terms of lower benchmarks. In other words, it is not enough for the commission to raise its hands up with the impression that the fluctuations in oil prices were beyond it when it was fixing the previous regime. If it failed to anticipate such changes, it has itself to blame.

    That such remunerations are being reviewed now is an admission that something was not got right by the commission in its previous undertaking. The current downturn of the economy consequent upon the fall of oil in the international market could be a factor. Persistent outcry from the larger public on what is generally regarded as the outlandish pay of law makers when considered against the living conditions of our people is cited as another reason.

    There is also the body language of the current administration that appears not to admit of financial wastages as another possible reason why the commission had to hasten action in this regard so as not to incur the wrath of the powers that be. All these may have combined in facilitating the new pay regime. The rationale is that the monies that would be saved from the cut would be meaningfully deployed to other sectors of the economy to catalyze development. You cannot fault such an argument, it would seem.

    It is one thing to come out with a reduced pay package for public officers but a different kettle of fish for whatever savings that will accrue from it to make substantial difference in the total funds available to the government. You may well find out that such cuts will have the net effect of further impoverishing the lawmakers and thereby laying them susceptible to dipping their hands into public funds. It is better you are not exposed to good living than after being exposed to good life, the source of sustaining it is suddenly cut off. That may turn out as the unintended outcome of the coming reduction. That is the main issue to watch.

    But then, the salaries and allowances of the lawmakers and other public officers are not the real sources of the wealth some of them are known to be parading about. Much of the illegal monies they make come from unseen sources. And from those unseen sources, a lot of monies do change hands. A lot of smart stealing has been going on in the exercise of oversight functions and may continue unless adequate measures are taken to police such areas. That is in part why you hear of the scramble for juicy committee positions and other strategic assignments. There is nothing juicy about any position except the high prospects they offer for stealing. So we may be arming the legislators to resort to self- help if we come out with a regime of remunerations that they can barely survive on.

    With the wage reduction and plugging of all loopholes for stealing public funds, we may have gone to great lengths to chart a new course for probity and accountability in public offices. But that is not all. We are yet to find answers to the huge security votes at the beckon and call of presidents and governors. Much of the drain in our public coffers is recorded in this area. It is not surprising the high number of former governors that are facing serious charges of financial impropriety. Armed with immunity, they line their insatiable pockets until they are full to the brim. The kind of funds associated with former governors in and out of office has become a serious scandal. Something urgent must be done about the way governors use security votes.

    These are the real issues to worry about. So what difference does any cut in the salaries and allowances of a governor make when he can from under his table spend billions of Naira without a hoot. There may have been some cogent reasons for providing for such votes. But in our own circumstance, such reasons are often exploited for very self-serving ends.

    More importantly, something must be done about the prohibitive cost of running elections in this country. The financial demands on politicians during elections have to be checked. So if we succeed in making the lawmakers live within their means, something must be done to exorcise the idea of demanding money from them by the electorate before exercising their civic obligations. There has to be an overall attitudinal change for the new pay regime to serve its desired purpose.

  • Allegations qua allegations

    Apparently because of the avowal by President Buhari to pursue the war against corruption to its logical end, the nation has been daily awash with all manner of allegations of financial impropriety against the immediate past government. This trend is not entirely new. It featured prominently before the last elections. If the deluge of unsubstantiated accusations could be tolerated during electioneering, the situation is now somewhat different as the government appears set to arraign those fingered in alleged sordid deals.

    With this development, one had thought the peddling of unsubstantiated allegations of corruption would have ceased for the relevant agencies to do their job. But that would not be. The situation is now such that whatever gains the nation seeks in the war against fraud may be annulled by what appears to be an attempt to convict that administration in the court of public opinion even when trials are yet to begin.

    Given the gullibility of the public, there is an increasing tendency to profile everybody associated with that government as a rogue. Everybody is now anxious to catch that rogue. Everybody has, all of a sudden, become a moral crusader. The same people who yesterday were deeply enmeshed in corruption have overnight begun to sing a different song. There is nothing wrong if this category of people have turned over a new leaf. After all, the scriptures preach repentance and it is wished that we now have born again anti-fraud crusades in the real sense.

    Huge amounts of money have been bandied stolen. The impression has been created that all the problems of this country were as a result of the financial recklessness of the last regime. Soon that impression will fester. But nobody has yet been convicted even as the law presumes the accused innocent until otherwise proven. So it is inappropriate for all political persons to relish in this culture of unproven allegations when the government is still compiling facts and figures to bring culprits to book. The right thing to do is to turn in such evidence to the authorities for them to prosecute the culprits. It should neither be a media war nor a matter for people intent on settling personal or political scores.

    So when all manner of people now come out to make sundry allegations of public funds said to be missing, they must be taken with a pinch of the salt. When all and sundry now pretend to be moral crusaders anxious to catch the thief, we must tread cautiously. Those who supposedly show interest in the prosecution of the war do so for many reasons. There are the genuine ones committed to probity and accountability in public offices. In this rank, fit in the common people who have over the years been shortchanged by the marauding elite. Whereas some are moved by patriotic zeal, others are intent at getting even. The latter group is the greatest danger to financial rectitude within our polity.

    In this group fall those who will not want the probe to go beyond the immediate past regime even when some of the facts and figures being gathered by the government are likely to implicate such regimes. Nobody is saying Buhari should embark on a voyage of endless probes. But there are linkages he is bound to encounter in the information being made available to him. If he finds such cross cutting linkages, it will be a great disserve not to take them up at the same time.

    It is in this regard that the recent statement by former Chief Executive of the Nigerian Economic Summit Group, Prof Anya O. Anya, that the regime of Obasanjo was worse than that of Jonathan and those leading the criticism against the last regime were leading figures in the Obasanjo government cues in. It is a weighty statement that hits at the contradiction in foreclosing a broader perspective of the war. Anya equally touched the crux of the matter when he advised that we “must be hesitant and insist on evidence on which to base judgment.” He has captured very succinctly the danger in the plethora of unguarded allegations that are being traded by sundry characters for motives that are less than salutary.

    Not all those dancing to the drum beat of anti-corruption are really committed to it. Many are fair-weather people who gravitate towards the government in power even as they are neither committed to nor believe in anything. They sing the song of anti-corruption even when they epitomise corruption. Today, it is convenient because the time frame for the probe seems to have left them out. But in their real dispositions, they are still ready to steal if they are sure their paths will be neatly covered. Those in this tribe are litany.

    Otherwise how do we account for the rancour that nearly marred the kick off of the current National Assembly on the sharing of positions? What accounted for the desperation of all those who were angling for key positions if not the undue advantage it will give them to control our national wealth? We may say such things are normal in a democratic process. Yes, but in our clime, the motivations are substantially different. That is why some were bent on excluding other sections of the country. That is why you hear of “juicy positions”.

    After all the heat generated by the sharing of National Assembly principal offices, we now hear of the struggles for juicy committees’ membership positions. What can be juicy about committee membership except the undue advantage such positions could be deployed to steal? Juicy positions – either in terms of the principal offices or committees’ membership position – is a euphemism for corruption. That such references are made in respect of such offices in the face of the much trumpeted anti-graft war, indicate very poignantly that all those parroting anti-corruption are not really on the same page.

    The same manifestations are also evident when arguments are raised as to which sections of the nation’s geo-political divide has disproportionately benefited from appointments by the current regime. Buhari has been accused of skewing his key appointments in favour of the North. His aides refute this with the contention that there are many more appointments, including the much-awaited ministerial positions, which are yet to be announced. Nigerians are waiting very anxiously for such appointments to be concluded. And when the list is eventually released, the immediate concern of the people will be who is appointed where and from which ethnic stock.

    It is a fact the Nigerian Constitution made provisions for balance in key appointments. But a preponderance of our people are not as much concerned with this constitutional angle as the advantage which such positions will give their ethnic groups over and above others. Then you will begin to hear of more juicy ministerial positions and how they have been skewed to favor certain sections. It is for the same reasons that those regularly excluded from the commanding heights of the military have never found it funny.

    The scramble for offices is primarily reinforced by the feeling that one of ours has to be there for us to get what is due to us. Such a system is not only unjust but constantly breeds corruption. For the war against corruption to succeed, we must exorcise the ghost of what Richard Joseph aptly identified as prebendalism from our body politic.

  • Catching the thieves

    The tempo of the much orchestrated war against corruption was upped last week when President Buhari gave assurance that those fingered to have looted the funds of this nation would be arraigned at the courts in a matter of weeks. He told the National Peace Committee that his government had been compiling facts and figures pertaining to the nation’s stolen funds and names of those implicated in such odious deals will be known by Nigerians when they are charged to court.

    In the words of the president “those who have stolen the national wealth will be in court in a matter of weeks and Nigerians will know those who have short-changed them”

    For those impatient with the pace of the government especially in the fight against corruption, the president’s statement would strike as a soothing relief. This is so given the plethora of allegations of corruption we have been inundated with since the coming into being of the present administration.

    As things stand, everybody is waiting very anxiously to catch a glimpse of those alleged to be thieving the wealth of this country. It is not clear whether the scores of former governors and sundry public functionaries who have been standing trial for sundry financial infractions would fit into this list. But indications are that a new set of the alleged thieves will be unmasked when the trials start. One is led to this conclusion by two reasons. The first is that Buhari had told the nation times without number that he had secured the commitment of some powerful countries to help him track Nigeria’s looted funds hidden away in vaults abroad. There is the possibility given the way the president spoke that some success might have been recorded in this area.

    Secondly, the president seemed to have even said that much when he told his audience that his government has been compiling facts and figures on the funds stolen and those connected with them. There is everything to expect that new insights must have been thrown into the issue for the president to speak with the air of finality that marked his interaction with the peace committee.

    Whatever the case, it is good a thing some progress is being made in identifying avenues for the looting of the nation’s resources by rampaging and gluttonous elite. It is equally no less heart-warming that in identifying these avenues, those connected with them are going to be unmasked. Nigerians will be waiting anxiously to see this set of alleged thieves brought to book. But more importantly, we are interested in knowing the time frame and which administrations were covered. This interest is elicited by the fact that corruption has been with this nation for quite some time now. It cuts across governments. And the ground rules for this ignoble act must have been laid by successive governments both civilian and military.

    Given this fact, it is to be expected that in compiling facts and figures from both local and foreign sources, revelations are most likely to cut across regimes. Before now, so much had been recovered from the Abacha regime. But Abacha is not alone in it. There is nothing on earth to indicate that those before or after him are saints. The fight will get more meaningful if we are able to catch all those who had in the past through the same drain pipe looted our treasury. This nation is anxious to know the source of the stupendous wealth being paraded by former leaders both military and civilian.

    Former president Goodluck Jonathan gave a hint of this in the dying days of his regime when he said he is open to probe but added a caveat that it should go further to unravel how oil wells and marginal oil fields were awarded in the past. He would want such inquisition to focus on whether due process was followed. It will be rewarding if Buhari is able to unravel how the culture of theft in public life was implanted. The course of the war on corruption will also be better served if we are able to show that the tracks for looting which today’s leaders are following were actually laid by yesteryear leaders. That should be a more serious and rewarding approach to the matter. That is why the argument that the probe be limited to the immediate past regime is self-defeating. That plank of the argument does not make sense because it seems to be motivated by fear that some other interests are bound to suffer should the probe proceed further. It is nothing but an attempt to cover up the shoddy tracks of some people. Why should it be so if we are seriously committed to the war? What such positions imply in real terms is that if Buhari’s facts and figures regarding those implicated in the looting of the nation’s wealth indict other former leaders, he should shut his eyes to them and only arraign those connected with the immediate past regime. How justifiable it is remains to be imagined. How it will serve the course of the war against corruption would remain largely curious.

    There is a school of thought that subscribes to a more radical and holistic approach to the war. For this school, the war must get deeper down and must be more fundamental for it to make the desired impact. They believe that some of those who have benefited disproportionately from this theft must be made to forfeit them to the Nigerian state. And they are many.

    If information at Buhari’s disposal exposes such people, he would have made a mockery of the war if he turns a blind eye on them. These are some of the contradictions that arise in the attempt to put a time frame for curing a debilitating malaise. The right thing is to bring to book all those implicated by the information and facts available to the government.  If the Buhari administration is honest with the war on corruption, there is no way it will not stumble on huge facts that cut across regimes. If it decides to ignore these only to arraign those associated with the last regime, it would have laid itself bare to the accusation by Jonathan before he left office that he and his ministers were going to be persecuted because of the hard decisions they took while in office. It is not surprising that speculations to that effect have arisen. That may account for the advice of the committee to Buhari to follow due process in the prosecution of the war and that we are no longer in a military regime.

    If Jonathan and some of his ministers are implicated for financial impropriety, they should face the music. By the same logic, if Obasanjo, Yar’Adua or any former military leader and their ministers are involved in such deals, nobody should spare them. We must proceed beyond the immediate past as the case of Abacha has proven that military regimes were not insulated against corruption. The war is something the nation direly needs and confidence in it, is emboldened by the personality of Buhari more than any other thing else. He must proceed cautiously avoiding anything that will convey the remotest impression that he is on a voyage of witch-hunt.

    From the interactions with the peace committee, it would seem some mistakes are already being made in the way those suspected to have stolen funds are being handled. That is my interpretation of the committees’ advice to President Buhari that we are no longer in a military regime and a suspect is innocent until proven guilty. It was more of an indictment for the committee to have told the president that we are no longer in a military regime. Buhari is a civilian president and he knows that. To have reminded him of that reality meant there must have been dispositions and actions that suggest to the contrary. Such dispositions may be impatient with the delays in the disposition of cases by our regular courts. That is another issue that can make or mar the overall success of the campaign.

    All the same, the peace committee must be commended for the good work they have been doing. One is not certain how that committee of eminent and patriotic Nigerians was floated. But the success the nation is celebrating on the outcome of the last elections would not have been possible without the tiring efforts of the committee in preaching and ensuring peace before, during and after the elections. They should not relent.

  • Corruption and restructuring

    The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) has been in the public domain since the advent of the President Buhari’s regime. Hardly does a day roll by without reports of the arrest and grilling of sundry personages especially those who have held one public office or the other. In this category, fall former governors and sundry public office holders including those still in service.

    Of late also, the commission has extended its searchlight to women; inviting and quizzing some of them for alleged offences. Issues for which they are being probed are offences allegedly committed years back. Not unexpectedly, tongues have been wagging as to the probable reasons the commission has woken up from the slumber into which it had irretrievably sunk. Those who toe this line are amazed that the crimes agency which almost rendered itself irrelevant during the last regime could so soon after, begin to show seeming seriousness in its statutory mandate.

    Because of the dissonance between its previous perception and the new toga it now seeks to wear, motives have been imputed into the current upbeat in its activities. The first theory links the rise in its activities to the resolve by the Buhari administration to battle corruption to the ground. In order to remain relevant to that electoral promise, the agency is said to be left with no option than to align itself with the new direction.

    The other which is linked to the first is the conjecture that the new regime is about to appoint a new helmsman for that anti-graft body. For this, its current operatives had to wake up from inactivity, apparently to prove a point that they are equal to the task. But the moot question is why before now they had been unable to creditably discharge their mandate despite the pervasiveness of corruption within the polity. Or was there anything in the policies of the last regime that posed encumbrances to its efficiency? We have not been so told and nobody will be impressed if such reasons are now being invented.

    Not long ago, the commission published a list of former governors it has dragged to court including monies and properties recovered from them. Ostensibly, the aim was to sway the public that it was living up to its billing. That could as well be. But without prejudice to the litany of cases the commission has instituted against many former governors and other political office holders, the general feeling is that its posturing has rather been very cosmetic. It would appear the way and manner it is prosecuting its mandate are patently incapable of taming the monster. For, corruption is so much entrenched in our system that only a very radical and proactive approach to its fight can prove a successful therapy. Many are deeply worried that none of the governors the body has been parading on trial has been sent to jail. Even then, some of them have been parading the political space as if nothing will happen. The agency may want to hide under the tortuous processes and delays in our justice system. That notwithstanding, it has not approached its duties with the kind of zeal and commitment that are required to decisively tackle such a debilitating problem. Allegations that the agency has overtime turned into a tool in the hands of the government for hounding the opposition has not helped its image and credibility.

    This scenario was such during the Obasanjo regime that it saw the commission deployed to carry out such constitutional duties as the impeachment of state governors. The end may have justified the means. But the damage done to the corporate image of that body still persists. Thus, in the renewed task of dealing a death blow to corruption, the EFCC would require radical restructuring such that will not only enable it discharge on its mandate but also regain public confidence as an impartial watchdog.

    But that is one side of the matter. Corruption is so endemic in our national life than what the current mandate of the EFCC can sufficiently tackle. This is because the mandate of the agency only focuses on incidences of corruption. The agency comes in only when there are financial infractions. It is helpless when it comes to stemming the causative factors that propel, reinforce and sustain the malfeasance. In other words, it only tackles corruption only when it has occurred. By this fact alone, the success that can be made in the corruption reduction index through such a strategy is highly circumscribed. While it is proper to deprecate the manner the agency is carrying out its functions, it has to be said unequivocally that the battle is beyond what it can solely wage. There are more serious systemic dysfunctions that must be tackled for the scourge to be reduced to the barest minimum. These issues are not new. What has been lacking has been the sincerity of mind to admit and find realistic solutions to them. They have to do with certain issues of our federal order that have overtime constrained the building of national consensus and common sense of belonging amongst the disparate peoples that inhabit this country. They relate in the main, to the defective federal structure we currently operate and its tendency to reinforce competition for loyalty between the primordial entities and civic structures. They have to do with the amoral relationship between the government and the ethnic groups. This influences and determines the relationship that should exist between both authorities. That is the real issue.

    Despite all the pretences, the way the federation is currently structured can only aid and abet corruption. The various interests’ relationship with the centre is determined by what they expect to get from it. It is not a reciprocal relationship but a one sided bargain. The concentration of too much power at that level has not helped matters. That is why there is bitter competition for its control and leadership. People conceive that level of governance from the prism of the unjustifiable advantage it will give their primordial units to the exclusion of others. Our society does not yet frown at the impoverishment of that level for the gains of other mundane considerations. We need to work on that. Today, people are still debating whether the recommendations of the last national conference should see the light of the day. Some even want it thrown into the dustbin just because it was promoted by an administration they hate. But there are others who contend that there are salient aspects of those recommendations the nation cannot really do without. This writer subscribes to that position.

    So, it is neither a matter of who husbanded the conference nor to whom its credit should go. The irreducible decimal is the future some of the recommendations hold for the success and stability of the nation. If such credible positions on how to stabilize the polity have been clearly articulated, the credit for its successful implementation will definitely go to the regime that had the political will to see them through. It is therefore not an ego trip but a serious business to retrieve the nation from the precipice it is inevitably heading. Since that is what the Buhari regime has set out to achieve, it is left with no option than to radically restructure the country to guarantee its survival and quick development.

    It has become increasingly imperative to devolve more powers to the component units for them to develop at their own pace. This will quicken the pace of development and also reduce the reckless stealing that goes on at the federal level. It will also stem the rivalry for the control of the souls of the citizens between the central authority and the primordial entities. Happily today, such key players in the new regime as Asiwaju Bola Tinubu are well known advocates of restructuring through a national conference. The opportunity for that engagement is now with us.

  • Postscript of Buhari’s US visit

    President Buhari’s visit to the United States of America (US) has come and gone. And its outcome has meant different things to different people depending on the angle from which it is viewed.

    Broadly speaking however, there is no doubt the nation stands to gain from such engagements given the globalization of the world economy and the prime role of the US in its affairs. It was also significant in the sense that it represented a demonstration of confidence by that government in the capacity of our democracy to endure.

    Of course, his hosts gave assurances of assistance in the war against the Boko Haram insurgency; the repatriation of looted funds stashed in the vaults of other countries by marauding leaders and such other measures that will aid the nation’s economic development.

    But there were two issues in the course of the visit that should not and cannot be glossed over. This is because they seemed to have cast some slur on the overall success of that visit. The two saw the presidency issuing statements ostensibly to contextualize what was said in the course of the event. The first was the statement credited to the President while answering questions from journalists. He had said “going by the election results, constituencies that gave me 95 per cent cannot in all honesty be treated on the same issues with constituencies that gave me five per cent. I think these are political realities. While certainly there will be justice for everybody but the people who voted and made their votes count, they must feel the government has appreciated the efforts they put in putting the government in place”.

    The second came from his prepared speech at the United States Institute of Peace (USIP). It read, “unwittingly and I dare say, unintentionally the application of the Leahy Law amendment by the US government has aided and abated the Boko Haram terrorist group in the prosecution of its extremist ideology and hate, the indiscriminate killings and maiming of civilians, raping of women and girls, and in other heinous crimes. I believe this is not the spirit of the Leahy Law”.

    On both scores, the Special Adviser to the president on Media and Publicity, Femi Adesina was quick to issue statements either clarifying what the president actually meant or canvassing positions urging the public to be wary of misconstruing what was actually said. Curiously, in all these interventions, he did not say the president was misquoted but only sought to place the statements within the context he would want them to be understood.

    But in doing these, he inadvertently created two sets of problems. The first is the presumption that the larger public is incapable of properly contextualizing both statements and therefore needed to be helped out.  How he came about that conclusion remains largely curious. Second, the clarifications also created the impression that either the presidency was very uncomfortable with its position on the two issues after they went public or it was under pressure from some unseen quarters to defend them. There is also the third suggestion that the president only realized the full purport of the statements after they had gone public. The extent to which those seeming clarifications achieved the desired objective remains largely illusory.

    Before we go into the context of those statements, it will be helpful to bring into focus Adesina’s clarifications on them. The objective is to fathom if there are any differences between them and what the president actually said.

    On how the president will treat those who voted for him, Adesina admitted that what was attributed to the president actually came from him. But then, he contended that the president also said the constitution has guaranteed the rights of every part of the country. According to him, “what this means is that those who voted five per cent will get their due and will not get things commensurate with five per cent votes”. He accused unnamed persons of not balancing the entire statement. The first flaw here is with the concept of what is due to those who voted five per cent. It cannot definitely be the same with what is due to those who voted 95 per cent. There is problem because of the introduction of ratio or proportion. Having brought in this exogenous variable, the clear interpretation is that it will be the prime yardstick for the distributions of the spoils of office. There is absolutely no ambiguity in this. Buhari even went further to admit this consideration as political reality. There are thousand and one angles from which the president could have approached journalists’ question on the matter without bringing in the matter of ratios.

    The argument that the constitution guarantees the rights of every part of the country or that there will be fairness for everybody on that account, cannot mitigate the harm in that position. It could even be further developed to imply that but for such constitutional guarantees, the percentage of votes cast in the last elections would be the only determinant of the president’s relations with parts of the country.

    If you ask me whether the president should have gone into such comparisons, my answer will be capital No! He could have referred his audience to his much acclaimed inaugural statement that he belongs to nobody and belongs to everybody. That could have sufficed. It was therefore a huge contradiction and monumental error to be talking of percentages in the presence of that international audience. By extrapolation, the president succeeded in saying that he belongs to those who massively voted for him in that election. He has to live with that foreboding reality, attempts to clarify it notwithstanding.

    His aide also said in respect of the Leahy Law, the president’s statement was misconstrued. According to him, it should be seen as a passionate appeal to the US government to soften on the law to enable Nigeria intensify action and win the war against Boko Haram. The aspect of the written statement that is said to have been misconstrued and those who misconstrued it is hazy. What that portion of the written speech said is very clear.  Being a written speech, the president must have taken time to go through it and possibly agreed with its content before going public. It is a different ball game if the disputed section was not laced in diplomatic niceties; conveyed unintended meaning and thus inappropriate for that audience. The problem with the statement is in its sweeping assertion that the Leahy Law amendment by the US aids and abets the Boko Haram terrorists group.  The Leahy Law does not aid and abet the Boko Haram terrorists.  Boko Haram is propelled, reinforced and sustained by weird fundamentalist Islamist ideology and the army of their unseen sympathizers. The law only imposes some constraints in the prosecution of the insurgency war. That is the proper perspective. The blame for this vague presentation is still that of the presidency. It was at liberty to have expunged that section if it was sufficiently satisfied it would create doubts for the administration.

    Be that as it may, the discomfort of the government with that portion could possibly have arisen from fears from two quarters-one from the host government and the other from the home country. The US was bound to show discomfort with the statement given the wrong impression it created. On the other hand, the presidency is bound to be scarred by its likely interpretation at home. The second plank is more so given the politicization of the issue of human rights abuses in the war against Boko Haram. Before now, much of the reservations of the US government on that war had hinged on this singular issue. It is for the same reason it refused to sell categories of arms and ammunitions to the last regime. Discomfort could have been aided by the fear that the new regime was about to fall into the same trap.

    There is also the issue of local propaganda. Those who opposed the previous regime had made issues out of its purported human rights abuses. Amnesty International has also been notorious for levying copious allegations along this line without regard for the grave human rights abuses by the fundamentalist group. It would appear this dialectic is at the heart of the current discomfort.

  • Buhari and terrorism war

    It is not certain why suicide bomb attacks have resurged with a high degree of lethality since the coming on stream of the Buhari administration. From Plateau to Yobe; Adamawa to Borno, it has been a catalogue of deaths as the sect through the instrumentality of suicide bombs have killed and maimed thousands of innocent people at their worship places in the mosques, churches and other public places.

    One theory which will draw appeal from military apologists is that which seeks to posit a positive correlation between the phenomenon and the successes recorded at the battle field in the days preceding the last elections. One person that will quickly identify with this proposition is the former Chief of Army Staff, Lt Gen Kenneth Minimah. He had while handing over to his successor, Major Gen. Tukur Buratai said during his tenure, they were able to reclaim all territories earlier lost to the terrorists, sufficiently degrade their potency and reduce them to a band of criminals and petty thieves. In view of these successes, he was confident that Boko Haram terrorists’ insurgency was “at a certain defeat”

    By logical inference, Minimah may have been saying that the easy resort of the terrorists to suicide bomb attacks is a consequence of the degradation and decimation of their fighting power. Having been dislodged from the swathes of territories under their control, their remnants then infiltrated the larger society and have to take resort to suicide escapades to keep their weird campaign on. There is some plausibility in this theory even as that appeal is still within the realm of conjecture.

    The other plank of the explaining variable is that which seeks to link the escalation to the order by President Buhari for the military to be withdrawn from the checkpoints in the country. Those who subscribe this view cite the escalation of violence immediately after the order was issued. That order has since been rescinded with the soldiers returning to the checkpoints. But the suicide bomb attacks have refused to abate.

    It has remained a matter of educated guess why suicide bomb attacks which formed the initial strategy of the terrorists at their budding stages have resurged with such a high degree of lethality that have left at their wake a harvest of deaths, shock and awe.

    This notwithstanding, Buhari has initiated actions in several fronts to underscore the point most poignantly that he will go the whole hug to make good his electoral promise to wrestle Boko Haram insurgency to the ground. He has amassed an international coalition against the scourge with firm promises of assistance. His just concluded tour of the US was also part of the strategy to get further commitment of that country’s leadership in the crusade against the festering Islamic fundamentalist war.

    But as the president is committed to these efforts, some of his actions and utterances have not gone down well with the larger public. One of such was the hasty order for the withdrawing of soldiers from the checkpoints. By rescinding that order almost immediately after it was issued, the impression was given that the president did not fully appreciate the complexities of the matter before he assumed office. Or was it meant to ride on a populist crest since complaints had been rife of the inconveniences suffered by commuters on account of the strictness of the soldiers?

    There are also mixed feelings regarding President Buhari’s statements while hosting the National Executive Council of the Arewa Consultative Forum (ACF). He had told the group it was most worrisome that the Nigerian military had to rely on South African mercenaries before it could gain recent successes in the war against Boko Haram and described the situation as “shameful and worrisome”. The venue of the disclosure was inappropriate. So also was the subject matter. This is more so given the undue politicization of the Boko Haram insurgency in the period leading to the elections.

    The matter was such that the contending political parties sought through all manner of subterfuge to rope in the other as sponsors of the insurgency. The observed ambivalence of a section of the northern elite to come clearly against the scourge did not help matters. It is therefore only proper that utmost care is taken in the renewed commitment to battle Boko Haram.  A few examples of the very dangerous level the blame game had degenerated before now would suffice. The Northern Elders Forum had late last year in a statement by Dr. Hakeem Baba Ahmed and Solomon Dalung alleged that most of the “conflicts in the north are being engineered to weaken the north both economically and politically by interests who intend to exploit such weaknesses for electoral advantage”.

    Former governor of Adamawa State, Muritala Nyako in his caustic and controversial letter to northern states governors’ forum titled “on-going full scale genocide in northern Nigeria” accused the federal government of killing the citizens and attributing the killings to the “ so-called Boko Haram”. He further alleged that kidnappers must have the backing of the federal administration for them to move freely with “abducted children”. The kernel of his submission was that Boko Haram was being sponsored to decimate the north.

    The authors of these statements are still alive. So also are the peddlers of sundry allegations that added complications to the prosecution of that war. President Buhari has rightly identified the fact that Boko Haram has international dimensions and only within that context can the war be successfully be fought. That is the right way to go. It will therefore be very interesting to hear the views of all those who had before now sought to poison the minds of the public on the nature and character of that war.

    There is no attempt here to reopen old wounds. But given events of the war since Buhari took over, it is apposite to reflect on some of these sweeping allegations so as to create a safe ground for the commitment of all and sundry to its eventual conclusion. No doubt, there is renewed public interest in the war against Boko Haram both from the side of the government and the larger public. We are interested in a quick conclusion of the war against the senseless killings and decimation of our people. But even at this, we are no less interested in the processes and activities that will bring about that much desired end.

    It is no longer a matter of promises or the trading of blames as people are yearning for a quick end to the insurgency. Our people have died enough. Any legitimate action to end the conflict will be generally acceptable to all. So if takes the services of mercenaries either from South Africa or elsewhere for the insurgency to be defeated so be it. Whatever losses the nation may suffer in terms of image or such very intangible things as prestige will be doubly compensated by the lives we stand to save from its quick conclusion. After all what difference will it make when we now go cap in hand seeking foreign assistance?  Only then shall we be able to understand the nature and character of that insurgency. Then also, shall we be in a good position to know the leitmotif of the Boko Haram insurgency

    We are waiting!

  • Obasanjo’s choice of successor

    Former president, Olusegun Obasanjo last week, threw some insight into the rationale for his choice of successor at the twilight of his regime. In an interview with a local television station, he said he chose the late Umaru Yar’Adua because he was the only one among those eying the job that was not corrupt.

    According to him, while one of those who wanted the job was heavily corrupt, another contender came to him and said – Sir, I like your job. But I cannot do it the way you are doing it. His reading of the latter was that the contender had plainly told him he did not have the kind of stamina (he) Obasanjo applied to the job. For that reason, he does not see any appeal to help him get the job.   Justifying his decision further, he said “with all the people that are available for successor, what we came out with was about the best we could think of at that time,”

    What can be deduced from the above is that the desire to enthrone people of impeccable character into that elated office as a prelude to battling corruption weighed very heavily in Obasanjo’s calculations of who to succeed him. Thus, in considering those he needed to help get to the exalted office he took into account their records in the public offices they then held. Based on this critical index, he said his choice of Yar’Adua was the best at that time.

    Obasanjo is entitled to his opinion. His claimed commitment to very credible and non corrupt leadership at that level may have been the critical factor for his choice of successor. Thus, the appeal of Yar’Adua who according to him, stood shoulders high above his peers within that matrix. There was no doubt that Yar’Adua was a modest, selfless and honest person. Not many will fault him on that ground. The issue that was copiously raised against his candidature bordered on his fragile health which many feared could not withstand the rigors of that office. Unfortunately, the same fears came to pass through his unfortunate demise barely two years in office.

    His death may have denied the nation the benefits of those high-minded virtues that endeared him to Obasanjo for which he thought he would have been a shining example in probity and accountability- leadership qualities the nation is in very dire need of. With his passing on, it is difficult to fathom the impact he would have brought to bear within this critical index. By the same twist of fate, there are no sufficient grounds to fault Obasanjo over that choice even as the stamina of an obviously unhealthy person was also in doubt. So we are left with no option than to believe that Yar’Adua, given this rating, was the most suitable among those who showed interest for that office within the ruling PDP.

    By extrapolation, the choice of his Vice, Goodluck Jonathan followed the same consideration. Obasanjo paved the way for his national ascendancy when in a very crude manner he procured the services of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission EFCC to impeach his boss, Diepreye Alamieyeseigha in the most controversial manner. He was also to pick him to run with Yar’Adua. Obasanjo acknowledged this role in his controversial letter to Jonathan titled “before it is too late” He had in that desperate letter designed to dissuade Jonathan from running the last elections, captured Jonathan’s impression of his role in his life thus, “You put me third after God and your parents among those that have impacted most in your life”.

    In that letter, he also levied all manner of allegations against Jonathan. These included incompetence, running aground the economy, training snipers and corrupt practices. Today, the impression is high that the Jonathan administration encouraged corruption. The allegation has been bandied and bought into by sundry personages including those who personify all that is bad about corruption in our national life. If this impression is taken as the correct representation of extant realities, would Obasanjo not take vicarious liability for its outcome?

    Beyond this however, there are issues that have been thrown up by the revelations from Obasanjo. And they have wider repercussions for the type of democracy we operate in this country. There is the inevitable impression given the way he spoke that the choice of his successor was solely his. And his perceptions rightly or wrongly determined what was best for the country. The other fallout is that freedom of choice- a cardinal feature of representative democracy had to succumb to the dictatorship of a behemoth. There are serious problems with such a reality because the views of one man or an oligarch in such critical issue as who leads a country can be highly circumscribed. And as can be gleaned from his choice of Yar’Adua and his deputy Jonathan, Obasanjo shares vicarious responsibility for the current mess the nation found itself. The convoluted impression by a few people that they would ever remain the conscience of the country because of the positions accidents of history entrusted on them is at the root of the nation’s retardation. Had Obasanjo and his henchmen allowed that freedom of choice which is the lynchpin on which democracy revolves, those thrown up through popular will may have turned out better. Perhaps also, the country could have been saved all the distractions these past years that nearly dismembered it. Obasanjo fell short of regretting those choices when he admitted that ‘if you take your son as your successor, you are not sure of what he will do when he gets there’.

    The other evidence of faulty interpretation is shown by his reading of the statements of one of the contenders who had told him he liked the job but could not do it the way Obasanjo was doing it. Curiously, the former president interpreted this to mean the man does not have the stamina to do the job. That is a simplistic perspective of the obviously loaded statement. Obasanjo should have asked himself what is that way he did the job the contender said he could not? Answers to this will vary. He may even discover to his dismay, that some of his ways may have fallen short of known best practices. He may have even found out that his way may not be another persons’ way and that approaches to statecraft vary a great deal. There is even the added possibility that his style may have even been an unmitigated liability to the flourishing of the pristine tenets of the democratic culture. The boundaries of such inquisition and possible exposures are limitless. But then, why must Obasanjo want his successor to go about things the way he did it. When has his style become the standard practice or moral guide for action?

    Take the issue of corruption which he said was the major consideration. Were those he described as rottenly corrupt not products of the system he superintended over? How did that system allow them to amass such humongous wealth with him in control?

    These posers come handy because of the obvious excesses and overbearing influence that characterized his days in power. That was the time the EFCC was straddling the landscape like a colossus. That was the time the same Obasanjo procured the services of the body to impeach duly elected governors. He may argue that impeaching some governors the way it happened during his regime represented his own response to battling corruption. That could as well be. But that strategy did incurable damage to the image and credibility of that commission such that even today, it is being seen as a partisan tool in the hands of the ruling government. That time saw the EFCC being variously and viciously deployed to haunt and tackle political foes or those who refused to toe the line of the president. There was therefore a lot wrong with Obasanjo’s style of administration to expect that his ways amounted to the right ways forward.

    Perhaps, it is safer to assume Obasanjo was compelled to those choices having been boxed to the corner by the premature death of his third term gambit. Someone engrossed with such a weird ambition would be left with little time for a workable succession plan. What we are facing today may be the prize for stopping Obasanjo from his self perpetuating plan. Even within the index he assessed those to hand over to, it is still a moot issue if he represented a good example.