The Nation Newspaper

Category: Emeka Omeihe

  • Season of defections

    We are definitely in a season of defections. Hardly does any day pass by without reports of key political personages defecting from one party to the other. It all started with the registration of the All Progressives Congress APC at a time the ruling Peoples Democratic Party PDP was embroiled in debilitating internal crisis.

    Buoyed by the absence of a strong opposition, the three political parties in the merger had made serious compromises that culminated in the formation of the APC. Having been successfully registered, the next task was to scout for members to boost their numerical strength. And at their disposal were PDP leaders who had issues with the running of their party and sundry grievances. They had stumbled out of their mid-term convention to draw attention to their complaints.

    Among them were seven governors and other notable leaders. But despite their weight and the dust raised by their action, much progress was not made in redressing their grouse apparently because of inherent contradictions in some of the demands.

    Five of the governors were later to defect to the APC together with some other key leaders. This move seemed to have precipitated a gale of defections as 37 members of the House of Representatives joined. At the last count, 11 senators have also indicated their intention to defect even as their letter is held up in the senate chambers. There have also been defection from the state assemblies of the defecting governors and sundry others.

    But as the APC is harvesting from the ranks of the PDP, an interesting scenario is also playing out within its camp. Key members of the APC in some of the states have found it increasingly difficult to co-habit with the defecting PDP governors.

    In Sokoto and Kano states considered very strategic by the parties, two foundation leaders of the APC, Attahiru Bafarawa and Ibrahim Shekarau have defected to the PDP. They all cited unfair treatment by their party as the reason for their action. Bafarawa said he defected because of attempts by governors who defected to the party to take over party structures at the states. Though Shekarau was not as forthcoming as Bafarawa on the matter, it is obvious that he is also resenting his arch rival, Governor Rabiu Kwankwso’s leadership of the party. His plight was clearly underscored by his staunch supporter Yakubu Musa Hausawa when he averred that “no one can nurse a legitimate ambition under Kwankwaso’s leadership”. Then came the much awaited defection of former Vice President, Atiku Abubakar to the APC citing a catalogue of ills meted on him by the PDP. Atiku’s defection did not come to many as a surprise as he was one of the key personages that stumbled out of the PDP convention in protest.

    As things stand, it is difficult to predict the direction of these defections and what future it holds for the country. This is more so given the reasons that have been adduced. From all accounts, the main grouse of the defectors from both sides of the divide is with the way party affairs are being handled. Defecting PDP governors complained bitterly about their party leadership and its arbitrariness. Both Shekarau and Bafarawa made similar complaints against APC leadership in unilaterally handing over to defecting governors the structures of the party. So where is the difference?

    No reference is made to such key issues as ideology and party programmes. Little mention is made about how each of the platforms is better attuned to respond to the nagging challenges of the nation’s development. Shekarau, a known critic of the ruling party, has suddenly come to embrace it. If one may ask, what changes are there in the PDP that Shekarau has now found it a lesser evil than the APC? This poser is germane for us to properly situate the current gale of defections. It will also be of value in determining the nature and character of the two major parties when the dust must have settled.

    Shekarau seemed to have anticipated criticisms on the ideological dissonance in his move when he said it is not the “name of the party we choose that matters but what is important to us is the people we are going to work with in the interest of the common man”. Bafarawa equally touched on this when he argued that the objective of bringing change in society is “achievable in the PDP and that their entry could also transform the party”.

    In effect, they recognize that the party has its own problems but consider it safer to pitch their tent with it than their former one- a verity of one man’s meat being another man’s poison. They are entitled to their decisions.

    It would appear these defections are motivated more by self interest rather than commitment to higher national ideals. It is also a veiled admission that there is really no difference between both parties.

    What the parties eventually make of themselves will depend on the directional changes they come up with in the days ahead. It is possible that the new entrants and the current travails of the PDP could provide the ambience for the transformation of the party as Bafarawa has anticipated. It is also no less possible that things may not change that much.

    But what will be the fate of the likes of Shekarau and Bafarawa if nothing changes in their new party? And what if the defecting PDP governors come to the APC with those orientations and nuances that had been the undoing of their former party? Will the APC not suffer the fate of the PDP? After all, no less a person than Minister of Information, Labaran Maku had categorized them as troublemakers who are responsible for the problems in the PDP.

    These are the likely fallouts of these largely unprincipled and inchoate defections.

    Such dispositions cannot conduce for the emergence of parties that would at once, serve as alternative choices to the electorate. That seems to be the drawback in this largely unstructured and zero ideological promptings in the current defections.

    Those who defected from the PDP did so because they felt shunted out of the scheme of affairs of the party. It was also the logic of self-interest that forced both Bafarawa and Shekarau out of the party they founded. So let no body be deceived.

    Beyond these, what our people crave for is good governance and security of lives and property. Realignment into a strong two party system is good for the country. The message it sends to politicians very clearly is that it is no longer going to be business as usual. Sovereignty of the electorate as expressed at the ballot box must now begin to count as politicians will have to work for and earn their mandate. It is equally interesting that no discernable pattern in terms of ethno-religious divide is palpable in the direction of the defections. If Shekarau who is not known to share moderate religious views can pitch his tent with the PDP, then fears of unfolding competition sliding towards ethnic and religious lines should be considerably reduced.

  • Boko Haram scare

    Of recent, there have been Boko Haram alerts in two states of the southern part of the country. The first came from Imo where the state wing of the Peoples Democratic Party PDP raised alarm over the presence of suspected Boko Haram youths. The party had alleged that the state government brought in members of the Boko Haram sect and was also training snipers at an illegal camp at Egbu road, Owerri in preparation for next year’s election.

    But the state commissioner of police, Mohammed Katsina said the rumor was unfounded as intelligence report showed no trace of terrorist activities. He further stated that, it was discovered that youths from various parts of the country were undergoing training at the centre which serves as Imo State College of Advanced Professional Studies ICAPS.

    A couple of days later, there was another report of bus loads of suspected Boko Haram members intercepted in Rivers State. Police authorities in that state said the suspects entered through the boundary with Imo and investigations were on to determine the motive of the suspects. At the last count, most of the suspects had been discharged save 19. Among the 19, one of them was said to have had in his possession, expended ammunition. Meanwhile the screening of the 19 continues.

    Apparently worried by the Imo report, ICAPS was compelled to send back the youths to their states for fear of being harmed. Director General of the College, Donald Day admitted that the centre cut short the training of the 84 youths from Katsina State and sent them back as the alarm had created fears on their safety.

    According to him, the centre trains youth on skills and leadership programme and had nothing to do with miscreants, criminal elements and members of the Boko Haram sect.

    If this explanation is a true reflection of the goings on at the centre, it remains a puzzle how the party came to the suspicion that the youths were Boko Haram suspects? It is either they are uncertain of the mandate of that institution or could not fathom how 84 youths from Katsina or neighbouring states could be quartered within that premises. Their age, dressing and ways of life are also issues that could have led to suspicion. And given the perilous times we are passing through, the presence of 84 youths from a single state within that premises was bound to raise concerns.

    It is good a thing that the college has sent back the suspects to their states so as save them from danger. Yet, they are not the only people from Katsina or other northern states that live in Imo. For all one might want to care, there is a huge population of northerners resident in Imo State going about their daily businesses. Many of them well established, have been living peacefully with the Imo people who go at length to make visitors feel at home. It is therefore not as if the presence of visitors is strange to the people of the state. There must be a reason why the instant case has generated so much heat that the state government had to terminate the training of the youths and send them back home.

    It is possible for the state government to accuse the PDP of raising false alarm. They could also insinuate political motive and the desire to discredit an opponent. These accusations could be raised.

    But there are minimum explanations the Imo State government owes the public before they can be taken along in this claim of ulterior motive on the part of the PDP. It is not enough to parcel the suspects back to their states on the spurious claim that their lives were endangered by the alarm. It is also not sufficient to claim as the state government did, that the suspects were merely youths who were on skills and leadership training.

    They ought to have allowed the police to screen them to determine what kind of leadership training and skills acquisition they came to the centre to benefit from.

    Issues to be determined include the curriculum of the college, qualifications of its teachers and prospective trainees and the kind of synergy that exists between the centre and other state governments.

    Of interest also is the issue of funding. Who picks the bills of the training and what type of competences do the trainees acquire thereafter? We also needed to figure out the mode of selecting the trainees, the benefit of the training and where trainees will be deployed after the completion of their courses.

    These are some of the nagging issues the police should unravel since they said investigations are still ongoing. Answers should also be provided as to the extent the centre has served indigenes of the state who are currently suffocated by debilitating high level of unemployment. By the time we provide answers to these posers, we might discover to our chagrin that the college has no clearly defined mandate. It could have been one of those ideas that emanate from the whimsical and inchoate thoughts of the current leadership in the state. There are more of such ill-defined ideas and programmes.

    That could in part, account for the difficulty of the PDP in understanding the mission of those youths. After all, Imo is no stranger to institutions of higher learning. There must therefore be something unclear about ICAPS and its mandate that has put it in the current pass. That is the folly in floating institutions and ideas whose mandate and value the people find difficult to comprehend.

    Beyond this however, is the danger which the Boko Haram menace constitutes for the peace and unity of this country. Before now, Nigerians especially people from the Boko Haram prone areas had moved around the country with relative ease. But not any more! With the guerrilla warfare style of the insurgents, the inability to differentiate them from ordinary citizens, people from the terrorism prone areas have unfortunately come under serious suspicion such that some innocent ones are now being exposed to untold embarrassment and hardship in their own country.

    It is a sad reminder to the fate of Nigerian travellers during the period some western countries designated us as a key drug courier country. The situation is yet to change despite the efforts of the country in the war against illicit drugs.

    Ironically, that is the point at which some of our citizens currently find themselves as the war against terrorism rages. So it is not necessarily a matter for grandstanding by legislators. Neither was matters helped by the curious posturing of the so-called northern elders when they spoke of their intention to prosecute the former Chief of Army Staff, Lt-Gen Ihejirika for the killings at Bama in Borno State.

    Since they came out with that ill-conceived position, about 200 helpless citizens have been mowed down with several others injured in both Adamawa and Borno states by the heartless and blood-thirsty hoodlums. So who will go to the International Criminal Court on behalf of those who died during those senseless and unprovoked killings? That is the uncanny dilemma brought to the court of public opinion by the compromising positions of some northern leaders in this very sensitive and dangerous war against terrorism. The sooner those in whose territories these killings go unabated rise up to the reality of the situation, the better for us all. Politics must be separated from this battle if we are to make any headway.

  • Northern elders vs. Ihejirika

    RAGING furore over the plan by Northern Elders to prosecute at the International Criminal Court ICC, former Chief of Army Staff, Lt-Gen Azubuike Ihejirika for alleged human rights abuses in Baga, Borno State should not come as a surprise. The idea is not only viewed as insensitive and controversial but equally fraught with contradictions that may force the touted aim of its sponsors pale into insignificance.

    According to the spokesman of the forum Prof. Ango Abdullahi, their decision to go to the ICC is because of the failure of the Nigerian justice system to guarantee justice in glaring cases of human rights abuses. The forum would want Ihejirika to account for the alleged killings in Baga where the military is prosecuting the war against the dreaded Boko Haram terrorists to serve as a deterrent to others.

    Ordinarily, issues of human rights abuse especially where they have been proven beyond reasonable doubt, should be deprecated by all fair-minded people. This is more so in our clime where over time, governments have been pilloried for their scant regard for human rights. The several cases of such abuses we have had to content with as a nation bear this out.

    But in the instant case, it would appear there is more to the interest of northern elders than genuine concerns for human rights abuses.

    Expectedly, there have been vehement reactions from sections of the Nigerian public to the plan. Those who spoke do not by any dint of the imagination endorse human rights abuses either in Baga or elsewhere. But they have issues with the propriety in selective picking of Ihejirika and the Baga incident as a test case for alleged human rights abuse for ICC adjudication. They contend that our political landscape is littered with a plethora of proven and worst cases of such human rights abuses that have been swept under the carpet and wondered why the forum shut its eyes to these instances if it was moved by wholesome ideals. For this category of people, there is more to the new interest of the forum on human rights issues than ordinarily meets the eyes. At best, the concerns are not only sectional but limited in time and scope and therefore circumscribed by these flaws. Yet, this fact does not in any way encumber the forum from challenging human rights abuses if it has woken up from slumber.

    But there are moral contradictions that have been thrown up by the way these later day human rights converts are going about their current crusade.

    They have issue with the basis for handpicking Ihejirika for prosecution when in reality the war against terrorism is a joint military operation under the command of the Chief of Defence Staff. So on what plank was Ihejirika picked for prosecution? That is the question the northern elders must provide urgent answer to. It is also on account of this incongruity that Igbo elders have alleged ethnic bias and they are within their rights to so insinuate.

    Primordial bias as the leitmotif for the northern elders’ action is further reinforced in the face of their glaring silence in proven cases of human rights abuses in the past. Before now, there were the cases of Odi, Zaki Biam and Katsina Ala. Nothing was heard from the forum then. It could well be that the northerners have been so agitated by events since the prosecution of the war on terrorism that they have now woken up from slumber That could be conceded to them.

    But there are other serious issues that have been thrown up by their decision to challenge the military when serious fighting is still raging between the soldiers and the foreign-backed insurgents.

    There is the issue of the impact of the litigation on the current but difficult war of stamping out terrorism within these shores. There is also the issue of the residue of the sympathy of northern elders in the current war. The impression which their current posture is fast conveying is that they care little on what needed to be done to terminate these senseless and ill-conceived acts of terrorism.

    That ought to be the priority of the forum since the war still rages with prospects of more loss of lives and destruction of properties. Their litigation can also dampen the morale of the military and prolong the war to the detriment of peace, stability and progress in this county. These are some of the drawbacks.

    Ihejirika made references to this contradiction when while reacting to the forum’s threat he said they ought to be grateful to the military for rescuing the region from the stranglehold of Boko Haram. This goes without saying. He also painted a sordid picture of the war when he said there is no senatorial zone in the country that has not lost soldiers in the battle against terrorism.

    When this is juxtaposed against thousands of people that have been killed and maimed in their places of worship or while pursuing their daily living, the mortal danger posed by Boko Haram stares us on the face. It is therefore premature and patently insensitive for a forum of elders to be talking of prosecuting Ihejirika or any other person when we are yet to get a final handle to the Boko Haram menace. It is not in the character of elders to create conditions for situations to exacerbate.

    Their plan has inadvertently resonated sectional and religious sentiments that may pose some impediments to the overall fight against terrorism. This is not the first time Ihejirika is being harassed, blackmailed and intimidated since he became the Chief of Army Staff. Sometime last year, he was harangued by moles in the army and elsewhere opposed to the reforms he had initiated. They had bandied questionable statistics from a single recruitment exercise in the army to simulate a plan to ‘Igbonize’ the army. He had also been accused by fifth columnists apparently from the same north of pursuing a plan to avenge the killing of the Igbo during the civil war. That was at the heat of the Boko Haram crisis that saw the bombing of the nation’s highest military training institution at Jaji, Kaduna State. Curiously also, the tirade from northern elders came few days after Ihejirika was retired from the army. So if ethnic bias is read into the inexplicable posturing of northern elders, it stands on very strong foundation and cannot be wished away.

    Beyond this, the war against terrorism is a very difficult one that should call for utmost caution in actions and utterances. By the modus operandi of the terrorists, it is very difficult to say who a Boko Haram member really is. President Jonathan captured this dilemma succinctly when he said sometime ago that there were members of Boko Haram in his cabinet. They live with the people and have severally used this advantage as a decoy to attack both the military and civilians.

    Some of the purported excesses of the military were largely due to inability to differentiate between the insurgents and the ordinary people. That was the genesis of what has come to be known in that part of the country as a civilian Joint Task Force.

    Dissatisfied with the hide and seek strategy of the terrorists and the risks it posed to their lives, civilians had to form vigilante groups to fish out the insurgents in their midst. Such is the delicate nature of the fight. Such a situation calls for caution, maturity and understanding rather than the brash manner the elders have now chosen to respond to the festering monster. But then, whose brief is the forum holding: that of Boko Haram or civilians caught in the cross fire?

  • Beyond Tukur’s exit

    Alhaji Bamanga Tukur’s resignation as national chairman of the People’s Democratic Party PDP has seemingly brought to an end, weeks of intrigues over the headship of the party. President Jonathan, while announcing Tukur’s exit said it was to allow peace reign in the party. He admitted Tukur was bowing out as a result of internal crisis in the party; absolved him of any wrong doing and promised to offer him a more challenging appointment.

    Given the armada of contrived opposition against Tukur in the last couple of weeks, the news of his resignation would gladden the hearts of all those who had traced the crisis in the party to his doorsteps. For this category of people, Tuku’s exit will be the soothing balm for calming the nerves of all those who have been alienated by his style of administration. It could also be a signal for the good things to come in the PDP

    Within this category, fall the dissenting PDP governors who had given the sack of Tukur as one of the conditions for peace and normalcy to return to the party. The other is that Jonathan should shelve his speculated presidential ambition for 2015.

    Now a key demand of those governors has been met, should it be taken that the crisis that engulfed the PDP these past months culminating in the defection of five of its governors and many legislators is about to end? How safe is it also to presume that allegations of lack of internal democracy and high-handedness that had hallmarked PDP activities since inception are about to give way? And to what extent can we really hold Tukur responsible for some of these undemocratic tendencies that even predate his tenure especially when he claims he was being haunted because of his commitment to discipline and internal democracy in the party? These are some of the issues to ponder as we evaluate the case brought against Tukur. He seemed to have also touched on this paradox when he made references to re-inventing the party by promoting national interest, party discipline and deemphasizing selfishness and unbridled quest for power. So who are we to believe in this buck-passing: Tukur or his traducers? The way this poser is resolved will chart future direction for the party in resolving the plethora of problems it has had to face these past years.

    President Jonathan appeared to have recognized this dialectics when while stating that Tukur’s exit was to allow peace reign in the party, he praised his leadership and absolved him of any wrongdoing. The question then is: on what basis was all the organized pressure that forced him to throw in the towel prematurely anchored? Or are we to buy the view of Senator Abdul Ningi that Tukur was a sacrificial lamb? Even then, what guarantee is there that the blood of this lamb will be enough to assuage the anger of the gods on whose behalf the sacrifice was made? Who again will carry the can if the ransom is not enough to appease the anger of the gods?

    Will the party be prepared to look elsewhere for some other things that needed to be done to atone for the anger of some other gods?

    This is the contradiction that may eventually play out in the current crisis of the PDP because the failings for which Tukur is being harassed go far beyond his person. He may have had some personal weaknesses just as any other leader. He may not have responded to some events the way other members considered in tandem with team spirit. It is also possible he may have over-dramatized his purported loyalty to the president to the chagrin of the latter’s competitors. But it will be too naïve to conclude that Tukur was alone in most of the major policy decisions he took while in office. That would be reductionism in its extreme form that may prove futile in resolving the party’s nagging predicaments. It is therefore pertinent to locate the real source of the problem else all the noise will amount to shadow chasing.

    Obasanjo made references to the dilemma encapsulated in this when he said in his controversial open letter to Jonathan that he was holding Tukur liable for those failings until the latter told him most of his actions had the blessing of the president. Jonathan may have also inadvertently admitted this when he cleared Tukur of any wrongdoing with a promise of a more challenging appointment. But, Obasanjo was being less than honest when he feigned ignorance of the relationship that had always existed between the president and the party chairman which he disproportionately benefited from. The infractions that agitate him, will pale into insignificance when compared with the unmitigated abuse that office was subjected to during his eight-year tenure.

    If Tukur is being sacrificed just to appease some people, to what extent can such politically expedient compromise guarantee genuine peace and progress within the party? How does it resolve the deeply embedded cravings for arbitrariness, imposition of candidates and undemocratic conduct within the party? How does it resolve the geo-politics of power competition? Even then, some of those shouting on top of their voices against the style of governance of Tukur are worst purveyors of those anti-democratic tendencies. The way candidates emerged in their states during the last national elections and the local government elections speak volumes.

    Beyond these, are other wider issues thrown up by the warped thinking that all the problems of the party centre around Tukur and his exit will automatically bring about their resolution. This writer cannot share in this misplaced optimism. Not with all the facts on the ground to the contrary. Perhaps, the exit of Tukur should be the fulcrum for the wider surgical operation the party now needs to reposition itself for the daunting challenges ahead. Tukur seemed to have captured this very aptly when he spoke of re-inventing the foundations for internal consensus and “installing new national values that are driven less by personal greed and power and more by national interest”. He also took credit for nurturing and delivering an idea on the need for discipline and internal democratic practices within the party.

    Yet, it was on the basis of the same principles that he was ostensibly being haunted by his party men. Those disenchanted with the party, accuse Tukur of high-handedness and arbitrariness. Tukur accuses them of being averse to party discipline and not respecting the workings of internal democracy. Such has been the level of buck-passing. So who is really against instilling discipline and internal democratic practices in the PDP? That is the question the PDP should address if it must come out of the current crisis stronger.

    But we know as a matter of fact that the party is the architect of its own problem. Even those governors that have now become apostles of equity and order in the running of party affairs, have before now, disproportionately benefited from the decadent order that thrived on arbitrariness, imposition of candidates and manipulated elections. It was all okay then because it favoured them. Now they have been cornered by their own internal contradictions, they cry foul.

    At issue is the speculated ambition of Jonathan to run in 2015.

    Given the way the party had carried on, it will be nigh impossible for any opponent to win either these ambitious governors or the president in party primaries they are standing. So there is some hypocrisy in the manner some of those pillorying Tukur go about the matter. But the party has the chance to turn its current predicaments to advantage by nurturing the culture of inclusiveness, discipline and orderly conduct. Then, it could blackmail its defected members for being the real cog in the party’s wheel of progress. Then also, it could begin to lay claims to progressivism. Why not?

     

  • Now, the Ijaw dimension

    Edwin Clark’s letter to Obasanjo following the latter’s derisive remarks on the Ijaw in his open letter to President Jonathan, again brings to the fore some of the paradoxical issues of our national existence. Expectedly, opinions have differed on the propriety of Clark’s letter especially at a time the tension generated by the altercation seems to be waning.

    Some people queried the locus of Clark as Obasanjo’s letter was explicitly addressed to Jonathan. In this school belongs a northern politician, Dr. Junaid Mohammed who contended that Clark has no locus standi in the matter. He would rather see Clark’s letter as part of the harm the Ijaw people are doing to the nation by appropriating Jonathan.

    But many others are of the view that Clark is within his rights to have taken up Obasanjo having worked closely with him. They contend that his intervention could avail the nation vital information to aid understanding of the motive behind Obasanjo’s contentious letter.

    To this school, Obasanjo also passed incendiary comments on the Ijaw nation. So any Ijaw man or woman is within his or her rights to respond to the unmitigated insults heaped on their ethnic nationality. In this school, we have such personalities as Chukwuemeka Ezeife, Tanko Yakassai and Olu Falae among others.

    What these eminent Nigerians are saying is that there are sufficient grounds in Obasanjo’s open letter to provoke Clark or any other Nigerian to join issues with him. This writer shares this view. Even then, Clark had in the initial paragraphs of his letter set out very clearly sections of Obasanjo’s letter that he considered offensive to his ethnic nationality. He said he was moved to write to refute some of the issues highlighted in Obasanjo’s letter especially about the Ijaw nation. He made references to what he called Obasanjo’s ‘characteristic hatred and use of sarcastic remarks about the Ijaw’.

    Citing aspects of Obasanjo’s letter which stated “For you to allow yourself to be possessed so to say to the exclusion of the rest of most of other Nigerians as an Ijaw man is a mistake that should never have been allowed to happen’, Clark had established sufficient grounds for his intervention.

    It is therefore very curious why the likes of Mohammed are still querying the propriety of Clark to respond to the insulting allegations against his ethnic group even as he remains the acclaimed national leader of that nationality. Even then, Clark has been on the national stage for quite sometime now and has worked very closely with Obasanjo. He has vital information on Obasanjo which he wanted to avail this nation so that we can better understand the character that Obasanjo is. And that much was evident in his letter. Anybody who fails to decipher the new insights he brought to the matter must be deceiving himself.

    That apart, he was able to fault Obasanjo’s claim that Jonathan has been appropriated by the Ijaw ethnic group. Displaying statistics of key appointees of the government alongside their ethnic origin, he succeeded in putting a lie to Obasanjo’s claims. The officers highlighted in his letter are those who by every consideration are seen as close confidants of the president. Figures shown negate the claim that the Ijaw have taken exclusive possession of the president. There is nothing of that sort. Rather, it was a statistic of the various ethnic groups playing various roles around the president.

    From whence therefore did Obasanjo arrive at his claim that Jonathan is being possessed by the Ijaw to the exclusion of the rest of other Nigerians? This is the question Obasanjo must answer otherwise he must hold himself accountable for fanning embers of ethnic discord unbefitting of the status he arrogates to himself.

    Obasanjo also made another very dangerous remark on the Ijaw which Clark failed to highlight in his letter. He had in the same letter said inter alia, Goodluck Jonathan by his acts of omission or commission may turn out the “first and last Nigerian President ever to come from the Ijaw tribe”. Nothing can be so disdainful of an ethnic group than this statement.

    That the Ijaw nation has not reacted to this overt insult on its people is indeed a very deplorable thing. Not with the obvious innuendoes and insults that are embedded in it. For one, the statement erroneously tends to hold the Ijaw nation responsible for whatever acts of omission or commission associated with the current regime of Jonathan. That is what Obasanjo wants to achieve ostensibly on behalf of Nigerians. But if one may ask, on whose behalf or authority is he making such a bogus claim? Nothing can be as incongruous and asinine as that unguarded conclusion. If stretched to its logical conclusion, it would amount to holding the Yoruba nation down for Obasanjo’s many failings as the president of this country including his self-serving third term gambit in a democratic dispensation. It would also amount to denying the Hausa/Fulani another chance at the presidency because of the years of the locust denoted by their leadership of the commanding heights of this country. Why such a suggestion should be the case for the Ijaw nation exposes some of the inherent contradictions in this unity in diversity.

    Or is it part of the strategy to get the Ijaw people to be enemies among themselves by denying their people their rights within the federation for fear of being accused of favouring them? That is what has been termed in some circles as reversed discrimination or inverted tribalism. And it only crops up when certain sections of the country are holding key national offices as is evident in the instant case.

    Clark made references to this when he contended that during the regimes of Obasanjo and Yar’Adua, the Yoruba and Hausa languages respectively were the lingua franca in the presidency and nobody saw anything wrong with it. He is worried why the Ijaw nation should be marked out for selective blackmail if this country really belongs to all of us. In this, he has a large following.

    And when it is recalled that much of the resources of this country are tapped from the backyard of that nationality, the issue of equity begins to beg for urgent attention.

    Obasanjo did incalculable harm to the psyche of the Ijaw nation through his pejorative references and the Ijaw should not be expected to swallow that line, hook and sinker. By the account of the Committee of Patriots led by Prof. Ben Nwabueze, there are over 380 ethnic nationalities in this country. If the presidency is to rotate along this line, Obasanjo will be playing God to determine for these groups whether to allow the Ijaw nation take another shot at the presidency in the near future. It is a matter that is certainly beyond him.

    Beyond this, we must get out of this worn out stereotypical classifications that cast some sections of this country as incapable of producing national leaders or their culture and language as inferior to some others. It will be the height of deceit to classify Obasanjo and Yar’Adua for instance, as national leaders but Jonathan or another Igbo man who aspires to be president as an Ijaw or Igbo ethnic chieftain. It is all part of the competitive strategy to hold others down. Sadly, Obasanjo has become its chief purveyor.

  • 2014: Issues miscellaneous

    The year 2014 is right here. It is a year that holds a lot for this country depending on the angle from which one looks at it. January 1, marked 100 years of the amalgamation of the northern and southern protectorates to form the country known today as Nigeria.

    This stands out the year in a very significant way. For a country that has come through very challenging moments, this ought to call for celebration. Expectedly, the leadership of the country has risen to the challenge. A lot of programs to underscore the significance of this historical event have been lined up. Part of the goal is to demonstrate in very clear terms the tortuous road this country has successfully passed through and rekindle hope that at the end of the tunnel, there will be light. This has become more compelling given contemporary events in this country.

    Coming on the heels of sharp divisions in the country, questions are being raised regarding the relevance of the celebration especially against the little efforts recorded in inculcating a common sense of belonging among the disparate peoples that were joined together by this historical union. Matters are not helped by the increasing slide to primordial and sectional predilections. At no other time than now have ethnic, religious and sectional tendencies been on very high ascendancy. This has led to questions as to whether the union will eventually rupture. With increasing slide towards centrifugalism, it is not surprising that doubts have been expressed on the overall value of the centenary celebrations.

    Some schools are of the opinion that the event is not worth celebrating because the ideals behind the unification are still far from being realized. To this school, that amalgamation has become more of a liability than a blessing.

    But there are some others who hold the view that substantial progress has been made but more time and patience are still required for us to reap the huge benefits of that union.

    If the justification for the celebration of the centenary is contentious, contemporary events seem to have marked out the year in another remarkable way.

    A lot of processes were initiated within the political front last year that may come to assume more definite shape within this time frame. And the direction they go will have a defining effect on the way this country progresses in the days ahead. In this regard, one has in mind the competition for power at the centre; the ensuing altercations and realignment of forces it has generated. At the centre of it all, is the crisis in the ruling Peoples Democratic Party PDP over which side of the nation’s geo-political divide should corner the presidency come 2015. The bickering and bad blood have been so much so that both the north and the south-south have threatened fire, lime and brimstone should they not capture that coveted national office. As the fight rages within the ruling party because of the advantages the power of incumbency confers, another bold step to give the electorate an alternative political choice was made with the formation of the All Progressives Congress APC. And with the spread in the membership of the APC given the three political parties that coalesced into one, the new party began to offer a new source of hope. APC took advantage of the crisis within the PDP to woo its aggrieved members to its fold. This has paid off as the standoff in the PDP has led to defections by some of its governors, senators and House of Representatives members. The way things stand, there is palpable fear that there may be leadership change in both chambers of the National Assembly as the APC strives to muster a majority. This could assume more dangerous dimension possibly cascading into leadership changes in both chambers of the National Assembly and the impeachment of the president as has been severally canvassed by the APC. But the PDP has not gone asleep and may come up with its own counter strategy.

    The point being raised here is that this year is politically loaded. Most of the processes that were activated last year are likely to play out within the current year. The same last year, former President Olusegun Obasanjo wrote a stinker on the administration of President Jonathan. Jonathan has since replied challenging Obasanjo to produce evidence of some of the innuendo-laden allegations. It is possible Obasanjo will react to the new challenge since he threatened dire repercussions should Jonathan prefer to go for broke.

    It is also possible that the government may further take Obasanjo to ask on some of the issues he raised in his open letter since the National Human Rights Commission has been directed to investigate the veracity of some of the allegations. All these are bound to play out within the current year. Matters are not helped by recent allegation by the Yoruba socio-cultural organization, the Afenifere that some of the issues raised by Obasanjo could lead to the subversion of democracy and the constitution through the overthrow of the government of the federation. Afenifere cited at least three previous instances where Obasanjo’s similar conduct had led to the overthrow of governments.

    Central to all these is the speculated ambition of Jonathan to go for another term in 2015. It was one of the issues raised by Obasanjo and the real force behind his sharp disagreement with Jonathan. He had accused Jonathan of nursing the ambition to contest the presidential election in 2015 despite his pretences to the contrary.

    In his reaction, Jonathan was evasive preferring to speak on the matter some time this year. The step Jonathan eventually takes will harbinger what to follow. The possibilities are: Jonathan will run or he will decline to run. If opts out of the race, the PDP will quickly settle for a northern candidate who will now slug it out with the APC candidate also from the north. Some of the defected members of the PDP may hurry back to the party because of the awesome powers of the incumbent. All the ills they hitherto accused the ruling party of will disappear overnight.

    But if Jonathan goes ahead to run, those who have ganged up against him will begin to play out their scripts in very quick succession. Jonathan may then apply the big stick. The big battle will commence.

    The ban on political campaigns will be lifted sometime this year. This year is therefore very symbolic in more ways than one. Much of the activities that will shape the direction and contest for political power next year will be determined in 2014. The way they go will mirror the possible outcome of the coming general elections.

    If the bitterness, acrimony and blackmail that characterized 2013 spill over to the current year and possibly get more reinforced, the 2015 elections are likely to be entangled in serious controversy. That could also precipitate the conditions which the Afenifere feared in Obasanjo’s letter. These are the potent dangers and they call on all genuine patriots to ensure that nothing is done to compromise our hard earned democracy through unwholesome means. Those who want regime change have the constitutional road for direction.

  • Now Jonathan has replied

    Now Jonathan has replied

    Writing under the title ‘A season of open letters’ I had in this column last week, examined some issues arising from the open letter written by former President Olusegun Obasanjo to President Jonathan in which he raised several damaging allegations against him. That article was largely based on extant facts even as Jonathan was yet to provide his own side of the story. There was also the suggestion that even before the column is published, we could be treated with more letters.

    That prediction came to pass as Jonathan’s response made the headlines the very Monday the said article was published. Since the previous one was done without the side of the accused, it is only apposite that issues are put in their proper context now we have heard both sides. This is more so given Obasanjo’s reaction to the effect that he was not going to address the new issues raised in Jonathan’s reply.

    Obasanjo’s new position may have been borne out of one or two reasons. It could be to stave off the heating up of the political space and the prospects of the controversy precipitating crisis or he has taken to the caution by some other elder statesmen that issues of that nature are not sorted out the way he set out or both.

    He may also have reasoned that those who live in glass houses do not have to throw stones as the outcome could be the destruction of their mighty glass edifices. This line of thought is further reinforced by some of the incontrovertible insights brought to the fore by Jonathan’s reply.

    Whatever the reason, it is clear that by not rising to the new disclosures by Jonathan, Obasanjo has wittingly or unwittingly whittled down the import of the acerbic allegations he purported to have made in the overall national interest. If he was acting in the overall national interest, the minimum expectation is that he should further join issues with Jonathan so that the nation can benefit from it. But if he is not prepared to go the whole hog, why embark on a futile journey? Not with the weighty allegations Nigerians are eager to know their final outcome. Why whet the appetite of the people by raising accusing fingers if only to allow issues hanging? And of what value are allegations and counter allegations without efforts to establish their veracity?

    These posers are raised given the avalanche of public demand that Jonathan should respond to the issues raised and the obvious insinuations that had gone with them. Even then, there are still those who feel Jonathan’s response has not been far-reaching enough. They would therefore want him to proceed further to investigate some of the alleged infractions he associated previous regimes with including that of his traducer. There is a valid point here.

    With the volte-face by Obasanjo, it would appear nothing will be gained from this dialectics. And given the debilitating crisis this country is entangled in, the minimum expectation is that the simmering contradiction will come with some heuristic value. It is perhaps, the first time in our recent history that a former president and a sitting one will engage each other in such open accusations on the sundry ills that have buffeted this country over the years. Such a clash ought to activate the social dynamics of history. The envisaged clash between thesis and antithesis should give rise to synthesis. Its outcome ought to benefit the society better. That should be the envisaged outcome of those inquisitions. It would appear it is this historical motion that Obasanjo wants to stall by now opting to remain silent. He must not be allowed to do so at this point.

    He spoke of the Arab spring and the turn of events in Egypt. He spoke of rising corruption, insecurity and the gradual slide to dictatorship in a democracy. Jonathan has responded to the issue of corruption, insecurity and the accusation that he was training snipers to assassinate his political enemies. He has even gone further to show that terrorism did not start during his regime while there has been no record of political killings.

    By way of contrast, there were political killings during Obasanjo’ regime and some of the very well known cases of corruption during the same period included the scandals involving Siemens and Halliburton. Jonathan would want to know the status of these cases and what the sitting President did then. He has also challenged Obasanjo to produce the list of the 1000 people under political watch and the agencies of government detailed to monitor them. He also reasoned the allegation may be a subterfuge to embolden all manner of killers to strike only to turn round and heap the blame at the door steps of the government. This is a very grave issue.

    In sum, he accused Obasanjo of instigating the crisis in the PDP to harass him out of an undeclared ambition in 2015 so as to install one of his acolytes. Even as some of Jonathan’s responses are already in the court of public opinion, Obasanjo owes it a bounden duty to this country to rise to the challenge of his self-assigned role of being the conscience of the nation. He has further been challenged by former Chief Security Officer to late Gen. Sani Abacha Major Hamza Al Mustapha to a public debate on some of the issues he raised.

    The point here is that Obasanjo has set in motion a seemingly system sanitizing process. He says his motivation is to serve the overall good of this country. Given that the ills which he accused Jonathan of are at the root of stultifying this country’s efforts at meaningful development, it is only proper that we get at the root of the matter.

    It would not amount to demanding too much if some of the corruption related scandals and political killings mentioned by Jonathan are now probed. The case of Bola Ige who was assassinated in his bedroom as a minister even with the retinue of security men detailed to protect him is still very fresh. There are some others also.

    In effect, the nation ought to gain something from the altercations that have arisen from Obasanjo’s letter. There are issues some of these leaders know and actions they have taken they may not be willing to tell the people. Now Obasanjo has opened our eyes to the rot that can go on in the name of governance, it is time a high powered inquisition into the activities of all past regimes commenced. Most of those who have ruled the country (military or civilian) are still alive. It might not amount to demanding too much to probe such people now.

    Increasingly, it is dawning on us that some of these people constitute the greatest liability to this country. They have their hands every where and in every thing in the warped thinking that without them Nigeria cannot be. But besides this claim to patriotism, is the hidden urge to gain selfish and sectional advantage. That is why Obasanjo had to insult our collective sensibilities by telling us the number of northerners he helped to power. Now he is seeking another opportunity and it appears elusive, the incumbent must be caught down. He must show all the evidence with which to prove Jonathan wrong or take the responsibility for the outcome of the dangerous issues he canvassed. It is possible to resolve our suffocating national problems from this clash depending on its handle.

  • Season of open letters

    Some how, this Christmas period has turned out a season of open letter writing. But unlike the usual pleasantries and goodwill messages that have become the hallmark of the season, these letters are largely directed at either getting even with key personages in the nation’s leadership or defending sweeping allegations that have been brought to the court of public opinion.

    Former president Olusegun Obasanjo fired the first salvo a forthnight ago when in a well publicised letter he accused President Jonathan of sundry misdeeds. The allegations were so weighty that the presidency directed all government functionaries not to comment on it promising that at the appropriate time, Jonathan will respond personally.

    Ever since, there have been calls from several quarters for the president to respond to the indicting accusations and innuendos contained in Obasanjo’s letter.

    Of all the allegations bandied by Obasanjo against Jonathan, two stood out in terms of their seriousness and overall impact for the peace, order and good conduct of governmental affairs in this country. These are the allegation that Jonathan was keeping 1000 people on political watch list, training snipers and other armed personnel secretly for political purposes like Abacha and in the same place Abacha trained his own killers. The other is the alleged non-remittance of about $7billion from the NNPC to the Central Bank of Nigeria CBN accruing from oil exports which Obasanjo said was further reinforced by the letter written by the CBN governor to the president on the matter.

    The presidency has reacted to the first allegation asking Obasanjo to produce evidence of the training of snipers and killers especially since he claims to know where they are being trained. They are saying that the onus is now on Obasanjo to show evidence of this very dangerous allegation that is laden with vile innuendos.

    For now, Obasanjo is yet to respond to this challenge. He may be hiding under the cover of such terms as “allegation” and “if it is true” which dominated the text of his letter. But that raises serious question on the motivation and intention of Obasanjo in making public weighty and destructive allegations even when he is yet to verify them. What of the suggestions that the training is taking place in the same institutions that a military dictator, Abacha trained his own killers? The purport of the comparison between Jonathan with Abacha given the sad end of that dictator may not be lost on very discerning people. It was therefore very uncharitable for Obasanjo to have gone public with such tendentious comparison if he was only relying on hearsay.

    The other bothering on non-remittance of oil money has been substantially addressed by the same CBN governor when he said at the senate public hearing that the conclusion that $49.8 billion was missing is wrong. According to him, the letter he wrote to the president on the matter was an invitation to probe remittances to the Federation Account. He said that relevant agencies have commenced reconciling their accounts with about $12 billion still outstanding. With this clarification, we are inching closer to deodorizing the foul air generated by Obasanjo’s false and self-serving alarm.

    Obasanjo’s letter has also attracted other letters from some of the personages he maligned. Politician and businessman Buruji Kashamu in his own letter has told whoever cares to hear that the aspersions cast on his person by Obasanjo’s letter cannot fly. He said that he is neither a convict nor a drug baron but a political son of Obasanjo. He recounted how Obasanjo used him to fight former Ogun State Governor Gbenga Daniel and wrested the structures of the PDP from him for he (Obasanjo’s) political advantage. He queried why it is now he is seen to be close to Jonathan that Obasanjo is realizing he is not a good person after introducing him into politics and using him to achieve his selfish ends. Obasanjo still has questions to answer in respect of the claims of Kashamu.

    But as if this was not enough, a letter purportedly written by Obasanjo’s first daughter Iyabo in which she described her father in unprintable words calling him a manipulator and two-faced hypocrite determined to foist on President Jonathan what no one would contemplate with him as president came into public domain. She among others accused her father of having an egoistic craving for power and living a life where only men of low esteem and intellect thrive.

    Though Obasanjo is yet to comment on the existence of the letter, former Ogun State governor Segun Osoba confirmed that Iyabo had complained to him along the lines of the issues raised in the letter and he made Obasanjo aware of it then.

    Before this article is published, we may be treated with some other open letters. But more fundamentally, most of the issues raised in these open letters have thrown doubts on the credibility and propriety of Obasanjo to author the damning letter on the Jonathan administration. The letter from his daughter says it all. Even as Jonathan is yet to respond to the moral issues and moral authority of Obasanjo to lampoon his regime in the way he did, most of the reactions have been unanimous in the verdict that Obasanjo lacks the moral bearing to accuse Jonathan of the alleged misdeeds since his regime had a surfeit of them. Those with patronizing views would want the nation to take the message and throw away the messenger. But for a greater majority, both the message and the messenger should be consigned to the nearest trash can.

    It smacks of crass dishonesty for Obasanjo to pretend he is not aware the party’s national chairman acts at the behest of the president when during his regime he forced out at least two national chairmen and replaced them at will. Obasanjo cannot claim ignorance of the fact that he determined who should contest what position at all levels of election in all the states. If there are reverses which the party currently suffers, their foundation were laid by Obasanjo and if that party and democracy collapse he should assume full responsibility.

    Obasanjo said he wants nothing from Jonathan as God has been very kind to him. He positions himself as a patriot whose motivations should be seen from their altruistic value. But this claim cannot fly in the face of the overwhelming evidence to the contrary. A patriot will hesitate to bandy speculative allegations that can destroy his country if he is not moved by reasons that are less than noble. A patriot will not play God by talking down on the Ijaw ethnic group even when the nation’s resources are tapped from their backyard. It is not true that he wants nothing from Jonathan. He wants power. He is propelled by vaulting ambition to be the greatest Nigerian that has ever lived even when his ascendancy to power was largely accidental and opportunistic. And that is why he wants to control everything, anything. Now he is being consigned to the political dustbin for overrating his political relevance, the centre will no longer hold. That cannot qualify as an attribute of a patriot.

     

  • Obasanjo, Jonathan and PDP crisis

    Obasanjo, Jonathan and PDP crisis

    Those who nurse the feeling that recent defection of five governors of the Peoples Democratic Party PDP to the All Progressives Congress APC is a fait accompli may have to tarry a while. Emerging signals from the political turf do not seem to give comfort that all is well with the much dramatized movement.

    The way things stand, it does appear we are yet to hear the last on which side of the political divide some of the defecting governors really stand. The impression one increasingly gets is that of a people waiting for some concessions from their erstwhile party before dashing back to base.

    President Jonathan gave an indication of this seeming confusion and ambivalence on the part of some of the governors in an interview in Paris, France. He had stated very emphatically that he is sure of two of the defectors whose hearts and souls are irredeemably in the APC while the other three are yet undecided.

    He further said even in the case of those who have made up their minds, some of the deputy governors do not share their ideas and are unlikely to move along with them.

    But these are the views of Jonathan whose party is entangled in the current pass. There is the temptation to regard these claims as some of those usual antics of politicians to shore up confidence when confronted with daunting challenges. There is therefore the lure to dismiss the claims as a desperate attempt by the PDP to save its face given the unmitigated embarrassment the defections have become.

    As this was not enough cause for worry, the letter written by former President Olusegun Obasanjo to President Jonathan in which he accused him of sundry misdeeds also gave clear indications that the PDP is not comfortable with the defections and many of its key promoters are bent on doing all within their powers not only to return its defecting members to the fold, but also maintain the leading role of the party in the country. Though Obasanjo touched on a number of allegations some of them very sweeping and intemperate, the main thesis of his presentation is on the current crisis in the PDP leading to disaffection and defection of five governors among others. Obasanjo is miffed by this development which he sees as not only capable of destroying the party but the entire country. He equates the PDP to Nigeria arguing that an inability to manage the crisis in the party would spell doom for the entire country. Obasanjo’s diatribe and smear campaign is rooted in the speculated ambition of Jonathan to run for the presidency in 2015 and its touted prospects of destroying the PDP. For him, that ambition has placed the country on the precipice and unless Jonathan retraces his steps, the country is heading for the rocks.

    These views do not seem to ascribe any value to the opposition APC since without PDP the country is finished. And to drive this point home, Obasanjo still believes that these disagreements could still be ‘turned to an opportunity for unity, mutual understanding and respect with the party emerging with enhanced strength and victory’. He then appealed to ‘defected, dissatisfied disgruntled and displeased PDP governors, legislators, party officials and party members to respond positively if the President seriously takes the initiative to find mutually agreeable solutions to the c u r r e n t problems’.

    What these underscore is the indubitable fact that the true intentions of the defecting governors and their party members are yet to be clear. At best, they are still sitting on the fence waiting for whatever concessions that could come from the president. This is more so with the reported attendance of the PDP governors’ meeting summoned by Jonathan at the villa by the duo of Rabiu Kwankwanso and Wammako of Kano and Sokoto states respectively.

    Before this article is published, Jonathan might have acceded to the demands of the governors to relieve Tukur of his position to make way for eventual reconciliation. This is a clear possibility. If this happens, he would have met a very key demand of the defectors as it would have taken care of mounting complaints of lack of internal democracy and high-handedness on the part of Tukur. The other demand of reigning in officials of the anti-graft agencies from harassing them and restoring party structures would have cued in appropriately. They will only be left with Jonathan’s second term ambition which Obasanjo has now confirmed there was no written agreement between Jonathan and anybody that he (Jonathan) will not run in 2015 but a statement of intent. Obasanjo claimed Jonathan confirmed to him in 2011 that if he adds the two years he inherited from Yar’Adua to another four years, he would have been done. He would therefore want him to keep to this promise to avoid the burden of moral overhang. But can we say in all sincerity that Jonathan has been allowed to concentrate on governance given the current distractions by the likes of Obasanjo and the challenge of Boko Haram insurgency which we have been told has its roots in opposition to his presidency? These are the issues to ponder when we consider the moral propriety of Jonathan going for another constitutional term. But then, what is all this hue and cry about Jonathan’s ambition destroying the country? Why must the inability of a section of the country to corner the presidency in 2015 culminate in its destruction? There is an indecent haste in the way and manner Jonathan is being intimidated to chicken out of the presidential race. There is also everything wrong with the impression Obasanjo sought to convey that unless power reverts to the north in 2015, hell will let loose. That has been the position coming from a section of the north. Many other states in the north are firmly behind Jonathan. Curiously Obasanjo has bought into that position and it is really very unfortunate. Given this, it is inherently ridiculous and insincere of him to accuse Jonathan of dividing the country along ethnic and religious lines. Nothing can be farther from the truth than this. Is it Jonathan that created Boko Haram that has not only expelled southerners from the north but also threatened to annihilate Christians in the north as if there are no northern Christians? What of the years of festering religious riots in that part of the country?

    Those fanning embers of discord are the people who promised to make the country ungovernable for Jonathan and have since made good their threat through all manner of contrived subterfuge.

    Obasanjo is guilty of falsifying extant realities and to that extent his recent letter is meant to get even having lost grip of power in the PDP. Is there anything the north kept in Aso Rock that if they do not enter there in 2015 that part of the country will no longer survive? Or put differently, are they seeking power for the north or the entire country? And if they seek power for the good of the entire country, six years thereon may not make much difference in the history of this nation to warrant the unnecessary heating up of the polity.

    Even then, the possibility cannot be ruled out that Jonathan may eventually not run. But if the gang up is to intimidate him to chicken out, instead of going through due process, it may boomerang. Its outcome may end up swelling public sympathy in his favor. If eventually he opts out of the race, there is everything to suggest that the defected governors and party members may hurry back to the PDP in droves. Then, everything would have been perfect with the party. What a huge contradiction!

    This will only go to reinforce the view that these defections are neither based on parity in ideological leaning nor shared values on how best to conduct the affairs of governance.

    It is therefore, a political risk for the APC to trust the defectors given their current posturing. They could be moles in the new arrangement.

  • ASUU’s deadlocked strike

    When President Jonathan engaged the Academic Staff Union of Universities (ASUU) on their five months old strike, there was general optimism that the end to the dispute was in sight. After about 13 hours of negotiations between the executives of ASUU, leaders from the Nigerian Labor Congress NLC and Trade Union Congress TUC, key decisions were said to have been evolved to end the strike.

    As part of the understanding, ASUU undertook to present the resolutions to its National Executive Committee NEC and report back to the federal government. The union subsequently came up with some conditions which it wanted the government to endorse for the resolutions to be binding and the strike called off.

    These included the depositing of the N200billion revitalization fund for public universities in the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) and subsequent disbursement to the benefiting universities within two weeks; inclusion of the non-victimization clause in the agreement and insistence that the resolutions be signed by the government.

    But the federal government saw these as entirely new demands and evidence that ASUU was up to sabotage all efforts at sorting issues. It therefore called for broke directing all Vice Chancellors of federal universities to re-open them immediately and threatened to sack all lecturers who defy this order by failing to report and sign the attendance register by last Wednesday.

    ASUU is adamant insisting that the strike will continue in view of the turn of events. It has argued that the letter it wrote to the president through the supervising minister of education did not amount to new demands. According to the union, the N200 billion revitalization fund as contained in the government white is meant for 2013 and as such its demand that it should be disbursed within this time frame is nothing new. Similarly, it argued that the non victimization clause is a universal practice while the insistence that the resolutions be signed by both parties is a requirement of all agreements.

    As things stand, the end to the strike is not in sight. There is every indication that the toughened positions of both parties might worsen matters. Thus the education system which has been lying prostrate these five months will continue to suffer further devastation as the strike lingers. The federal government and ASUU are in mutual recrimination as to who takes the blame for the current impasse. And the court of public is expected to give a verdict on the matter. Whether the verdict of the public will suffice to end the strike is a different kettle of fish altogether.

    The key issue here is whether the three items contained in ASUU’s letter to the president constitute new conditions and whether ASUU was right to have made those demands. On the other hand, even if they were new demands, was it also proper for the government to have reacted in the way and manner it did? ASUU does not see them as new demands on the grounds of the reasons stated above. But that is exactly where it did not get the matter right. It does not consider asking the president to remit the N200 billion revitalization funds to the CBN and disburse same to benefiting universities within two weeks as a new condition. This is at best laughable. If it is not a new condition why did the union come up with it at the last minute? And why was it not raised during their meeting with the president? And if the non victimization clause is a universal practice as ASUU has argued, it should have been taken for granted. It wants all the decisions reached to be signed. What is not clear is whether it is the president with whom they sat in negotiation they want to sign that document. If it is so, they must have gotten the matter wrong. Discussions with the number one citizen of any country are not something to be trivialized. The impression one gets from all these is that the union does not trust the president. That is very unfortunate indeed. By giving the impression that the president cannot be trusted and then requiring him to sign the document, the ASUU leadership conducted themselves as if they have no respect for that office irrespective of whoever occupies it. The very fact that the president undertook personally to negotiate with them was enough for them to have given him the benefit of doubt. They should have deferred to him and watch out for the eventual outcome. But to now begin to insist that the president must deposit the money in the CBN and disburse same within two weeks is enough to ruffle shoulders. Things do not necessarily work out that way.

    The impression one gets from the position of ASUU is that it want to win all. Zero sum game option in decision theory goes with fatal consequences. And as can be gleaned from the impasse, it has turned out a monumental calamity at a time hopes were high that the strike was about to end.

    It is however, a different thing altogether whether the response of the government was the most appropriate in the circumstance. The government went to the extreme in its reaction to the new demands of the union. There are other ways the matter could have been handled without bringing about the current pass. The net effect of the action is the continuation of strike thus defeating the whole idea of getting our universities back to the classroom. It will not serve the cause of our universities better.

    But central to the constant strikes in our universities is the issue of funding. It is not enough for the government to make commitments to fund the universities adequately. Neither will disbursing the agreed sum be the end to the poor funding of the universities. The truth of the matter is governments both federal and state are increasingly finding it difficult to fund the universities in the current form they are run. University education is very expensive. The government knows this. ASUU and the general public are not unaware of this also.

    But for some inexplicable reasons bothering on political expediency, the federal government is yet to muster the necessary courage to be decisive on the introduction of school fees in the universities. That is the crux of the matter. It is not that the government is not willing to introduce such fees. It is afraid of the backlash of the policy given public perception of the waste and unabated corruption in public places. Our people see free university education as the only way to benefit from the enormous resources nature bestowed on this country bountifully.

    That has been the problem. But for how long shall we continue with the rot in our universities on account of government’s inability to fund them adequately? The time has come for the government to rise to the challenge that it can no longer fund the universities solely. It is better we charge some fees and provide quality university education than allow the current drain in our foreign exchange on account of the high number of our citizens that study outside this country. Already some state universities have risen to this challenge by charging school fees like the private ones. Ironically, some of these fee paying state universities are also in the strike for very hazy reasons. And if one may ask, what is their business in this strike? Why should they deny children who have paid for their education access to it? Or are they also hoping to get part of the revitalization fund meant for federal universities? Such state governments must order the teachers back to classes now.