The Nation Newspaper

Category: Femi Macaulay

  • ‘We must complete our eight years’

    Days to the country’s potentially reforming presidential election rescheduled for March 28, the language and logic of compulsion coming from the camp of President Goodluck Jonathan deserve contemplation and rejection.  In particular, the implication of coercion expressed by First Lady Patience Jonathan betrays the innermost recesses of her mind, and by possible and understandable extension, the likely evil within the presidential circle.

    Mrs. Jonathan said at a women’s rally in Benin, Edo State: “Everybody is staying there eight years. Now, it’s our turn. We must complete our eight years.”  She continued: “It is in the constitution of this country. Two, two terms. We will complete our two terms and hand over.”   Such dangerously simplistic thinking is even more terrorising because of its source. If the unenlightened belief in automaticity is the operating inspiration for Jonathan’s reelection ambition and campaign, it further exposes the appalling lack of democratic awareness and understanding in his sphere of influence.

    It is disturbing that Mrs. Jonathan, who must have spoken the minds of others of her ilk, reduced the concept of two possible terms in power to a mechanical construction.  In other words, in the wife’s view, her husband’s first-term performance in office shouldn’t be a factor for consideration by the electorate in the expected election. What should matter to voters, the thinking goes, is Jonathan’s constitutional eligibility for a second term in office, separate from any measurement of his first-term accomplishments, if any.

    What kind of democracy gives power to the people, and yet expects them to be powerless to remove a first-term failure and stop him from advancing to a second-term catastrophe?  Interestingly, perhaps because love is said to be blind, Mrs. Jonathan seems blind to her husband’s political minuses, for which a conscious electorate should punish him by voting him out.

    In this context, it is relevant to consider the dubious slogan of the ruling Peoples Democratic Party (PDP): Power to the People.   Against the background of Mrs. Jonathan’s demonstrated not-so-subtle sense of entitlement regarding a second presidential term for her husband,  the power of the people appears to be unrecognised, meaning that a powerless people is central to the achievement of her dream.         Fundamentally, the expected presidential election represents a priceless opportunity for the electorate to demonstrate not only discerning political consciousness but also confident mastery of its ultimate sovereignty. In other words, the election is better appreciated as a People Power Project. It is about the supremacy of the vote or the primacy of the voters. Power to the people is a catch-phrase that must be actualised by the people themselves for meaningful change.

    Probably the main the challenge facing the progressive camp in the countdown to the defining election is people mobilisation, which will likely come with the difficulty of spreading political awareness and enlightenment as well as delivering the crucial message of the need for game-changing political action within a population that is usually fatalistically absorbent. Indeed, how far the people are ready to go to protect the sacredness of their votes will be decisive.

    Importantly, the people need to respond in the clearest of terms to Mrs. Jonathan’s misconception of her husband’s misrule by expressing through their votes the popular perception concerning his unpopularity. It is thought-provoking that at another PDP women’s presidential rally in Ilorin, Kwara State, Mrs. Jonathan said: “Nigerian women, if they (APC) come, tell them that your mother said you should not listen to them. They have nothing to offer. They have nothing to give you, Nigerian women; because the battle has already been conquered, God has opened the way for us. God has brought down the messiah for us. And PDP is the messiah. Goodluck is the messiah.”

    It is unsurprising that the closer the election, the more corrupted the political talk, especially by a party of corrupt and corrupting features. On crooked thinking, it may be impossible to beat the thought that links the purity of the divine with the observable impurity and impunity of the PDP and its governmental hierarchs, particularly President Jonathan. It should be interesting to have an idea of Mrs. Jonathan’s idea of God as well as her definition of a messiah.   Still on clarifications, Mrs. Jonathan may need to be more clarifying about her concept of peace.  She also said in Ilorin: “PDP is not shaken; as far as we are there, there is no need for trouble. You know that Mama Peace, your mother, is peace-loving, so the children must also be peace-loving. Women are peacemakers and no woman that makes trouble is worth to be called a woman.”

    Interestingly, the questions that must follow such innocent self-disqualification are: Does Mrs. Jonathan stand for womanhood? Can she be called a woman? When in December 2013 she re-introduced herself as Mama Peace, Nigerians were anxious to find out whether the publicised change of name would make any difference not only to her public conduct but also to public perception of her personality. The so-called name-change sounded like a publicity stunt prompted by pressure from “social anxiety,” which was graspable in the light of her markedly unflattering public image.

    According to her at the time, “My name is no more Patience but now Mama Peace because I believe that without peace, there will be no more women, no more children and no more health sector. Without peace, the international community will be afraid to come and invest in our country.” She also said: “Peace is from the heart and not from the tongue or lips; not what you say but what is in you.” From the look of things, whatever might have been responsible for Mrs. Jonathan’s new-found song on “peace evangelism,” it appears that she would benefit from further education on the basics of the concept. She still needs to learn from her own words, if they were not uttered hypocritically, but that seems more and more to be the case.

    Apart from the reality that her record of imperiousness has not changed, Mrs. Jonathan’s campaign utterances show that a name-change cannot be the same thing as conscious self-redefinition. This is still the old, familiar lady of battle, and it is difficult to recognise any change.

    What if the people go against Mrs. Jonathan’s ridiculous argument that her husband “must” be reelected irrespective of his track record that makes him unelectable? What if the people rubbish her nonsensical view that her husband and his party have a messianic value?

  • Aso Villa voices and follies

    There are times when the reverse appears more profound than the original. This is the case with the fascinating quote by Walter Lippmann: “It requires wisdom to understand wisdom.”  Perhaps more insightfully, it may be said: “It requires folly to understand folly.”

    Such knowing folly was effectively exhibited by the Chief of Staff to President Goodluck Jonathan, Brig. Gen. Jones Arogbofa (retd), in an interview that betrayed the quality of those who work with the man at the top.  To be fair, Arogbofa said: “In politics, your loyalty is to your party, it’s to your boss, it’s to your leader.” In other words, he is guided in office by the notion that the boss is always right.

    He also said: “Out of nowhere, Jonathan picked me up and made me his Chief of Staff. It is a position of confidence, a position of trust, a position where you expect somebody loyal to sit and be able to watch your back.”  That must be why his response to a question on public criticism of Jonathan was: “In the first place, I don’t even know what they are criticising him for. So if you feed me, maybe I will be able to have a better answer.”

    With such a Jonathan-can-do no-wrong mentality, it was understandable that Arogbofa went on to say: “I haven’t spent much time here, I have spent barely one year here and I’m learning, I am learning through a very good master, in person of Mr. President. He is such a teacher who allows everything to be perfect. You can’t make a mistake with him not to cross your ‘Ts’ and dot your ‘Is’, he will call your attention to it that you can’t do this, you have to do it right. So it’s been a wonderful period of time for me.”  He continued: “And when you work with a master whose mastery is awesome, you have to be on your toes all the time.”  This romantic delineation of Jonathan prompts an important question: Could he be speaking about the same allegedly “clueless” Jonathan?

    Interestingly, his answer to a question related to the widely condemned mountainous scale of official corruption in the country inadvertently revealed why corruption is king. Arogbofa said: “Even my conduct, my integrity and so on, they border on corruption. If I am sitting before you now and I am lying to you about what is not happening here, then am I not corrupt?  This is so because I am misguiding the people and that’s not supposed to be the situation.”  If Arogbofa consciously believed his hard sell, or expected the people to fall for his performance hook, line, and sinker, it would suggest how well-adjusted he must be among the corrupt and the corrupted or how little he thinks of the collective intelligence.   Arogbofa reinforced his simplistic reasoning by adding: “So I believe that Goodluck Jonathan is fighting corruption; he is doing his best. I cannot go and meet him as a man and say, sir, approve this for me, no way. He will be sure that what you want from him is what you need to get the job done and that is the true position of things.”   If this is all it takes to qualify for an anti-corruption crown, then the anti-corruption war must be far from a crowning glory.

    This voice of folly is in good company at Aso Villa, considering the collaboration with Jonathan’s spokesman and media adviser Reuben Abati who has pushed his obsession with his boss well into the realm of foolishness.  Abati curiously insists that the electorate needs a presidential debate to make a choice between President Jonathan of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) and Gen. Muhammadu Buhari of the All Progressives Congress (APC) in the presidential poll rescheduled for March 28. It is noteworthy that he noted in a statement on Buhari’s alleged avoidance of a debate: “There is no gainsaying the fact that President Jonathan and General Buhari are the main contenders in this election. Every Nigerian would love to see the two of them debate. That would be good for our democracy.”

    Abati further said on Buhari: “His deliberate avoidance of a Presidential debate is akin to an examination malpractice. It is not good enough for a man who wants to be President of our country. He is short-changing the Nigerian electorate by denying them the opportunity of assessing him properly in an open debate.” He added: “While a Presidential debate is not a constitutional requirement, it is an established convention that deepens and enriches the democratic process.” According to Abati, “President Jonathan is ready to meet him in an open debate, any day, any hour, and at any venue of his choice.”

    Now, how would Abati describe the jolting rearrangement of the election dates by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), allegedly influenced by the Jonathan camp? What kind of “malpractice” could this be, and what does it say about a man who is seeking presidential reelection?

    It is a pathetic reflection of Abati’s distance from reality that he regards “an open debate” as an opportunity for the electorate to “properly” assess the candidates. He conveniently downplayed the defining value of electioneering as well as the wisdom of the electorate. Abati must be living in a fool’s paradise to believe that a presidential debate of an hour or so would conclusively convince voters to reelect Jonathan, when his low-grade performance in office and his unconvincing political campaign speak of failure.

    What this means is that Abati’s promotion of a presidential debate is much ado about nothing. It is unlikely that any perceptive voter would need to listen to Jonathan and Buhari debate before taking a voting decision. In case Abati doesn’t understand, and that seems to be the case, the candidates have been engaged in an informal but discernible debate based on their antecedents, their personalities and what they represent; and the people have followed this debate by other means with a keen and concentrated interest.

    For instance, when Buhari is portrayed and recognised as a game-changing player of unstained integrity, and Jonathan is seen as a cunning champion of corruption, the collision has the ingredients of a debate.

    In particular, it is evident from Abati’s fixation with a debate that he must number among the parochial who failed to grasp the import of Buhari’s February appearance and performance at the Royal Institute of International Affairs, Chatham House in London. Buhari’s lecture was fittingly titled “Prospect for Democracy Consolidation in Africa: Nigeria’s transition”; and he glowed impressively during the question-and-answer session that followed.  It was certainly not a picture of a debate-shy man. But Abati is clearly reality-shy, not to call him narrow-minded.

    Arogbofa and Abati are a study in how the mind operates in Aso Villa; they are also a study in how the mind does not work at The Villa.

  • Poverty of prosperity

    Five Nigerians may need to enlighten their compatriots, especially the filthy poor, on what they consider to be the purpose of wealth, or what they think should be the point of prosperity. They are Alhaji Aliko Dangote, Dr. Mike Adenuga, Mrs. Folorunso  Alakija, Mr. Femi Otedola and  Alhaji Abdulsamad Rabiu. These are the country’s representatives in the 2015 magical circle of 1,826 billionaires recognised and celebrated by Forbes, the respected American business magazine that has made a business of ranking the world’s billionaires yearly.

    The Forbes World’s Billionaires list is described as “the definitive list of the world’s wealthiest people, profiling and ranking billionaires.” Published each year in March since 1987, the list highlights the estimated total net worth of each inclusion in US dollars, “based on their assets and accounting for debt.”  Furthermore, “Royalty and dictators whose wealth comes from their positions are excluded from the list.”

    According to the magazine’s latest ranking, Dangote, worth $14.7 billion and Africa’s richest individual, is placed at number 67; Adenuga ($4.2bn) is number 393; Alakija ($1.2bn) is number 949; while Otedola and Rabiu (worth $1bn each) are jointly rated number 1,741.

    Beyond the phenomenal and dazzling affluence of these Nigerians, and the international focus on their billions of dollars, the question must be asked: How has the country which provided the space for their outstanding success benefited concretely from their deep pockets? In other words, what efforts have they made to help their poor compatriots rise materially?

    Perhaps more fundamentally, it is important to reflect on not only the concept of social responsibility, but also the idea of wealth responsibility or the social duty of the wealthy.  It is illuminating that the legendary US billionaire Bill Gates who is worth $79bn and named the world’s richest man by Forbes for the 16th time provided what may be regarded as a useful guiding principle for the super-rich. He said in an interview: “I’ve been very lucky, and therefore I owe it to try and reduce the inequity in the world. And that’s kind of a religious belief. I mean, it’s at least a moral belief.”

    It is instructive that Gates initiated The Giving Pledge campaign in 2010 with co-US billionaire Warren Buffet who is placed third on Forbes current list. It is officially described as “an effort to invite the wealthiest individuals and families in the world to commit to giving the majority of their wealth to philanthropy.”  It is noteworthy that the pledge is “a moral commitment to give,” and “the donation can happen either during the lifetime or after the death of the donor.”  Reports said: “An estimate of the contribution promised by the first 40 donors, based on their aggregate wealth as at August 2010, was at least $125 billion…As of April 28, 2011, 69 billionaires had joined the campaign and pledged to give 50% or more of their wealth to charity…As of January 2015, 128 billionaire or former billionaire individuals and couples have signed the pledge.”

    What are our Forbes billionaires doing?  Or perhaps more significantly, what are they thinking of doing? It cannot be enough to luxuriate in luxury, without a thought for the wretched of the country. However, it may be observed that the business of redeeming the country’s numerous poor is probably too critical to be left to what the super-rich might be thinking of doing or what they could do based on their thinking. The poverty of the affluent may be that they are not thinking of doing something or anything for the poor, or that they are doing little or nothing for the poor.

    It is enlightening that former US president Bill Clinton who raised taxes on the wealthy in the 1990s said in retrospect: “As long as people in the top one to five percent are making the lion’s share – 90% or more – of the money, we ought to pay a lion’s share of taxes for the same reason that Willie Sutton robbed banks: that’s where the money is.”

    It is relevant to highlight a striking observation by World Bank President Jim Yong Kim at an official forum. He said Nigeria was among the top five countries with the largest number of the poor. It is scandalous that the country ranks third on this list of infamy behind India (with 33 percent of the world’s poor) and China (13 percent). With 7 percent of the “wretched of the earth”, the country is ahead of Bangladesh (6 percent) and the Democratic Republic of Congo (5 percent). Together these countries are home to nearly 760 million impoverished people.

    The portrait of indigence is an inexcusably tragic irony for an oil-rich country, and puts a huge question mark on not only the quality of governance at all political levels in the country, but also the quality of the social responsibility of the rich.  It goes without saying that the country’s poor deserve an urgent solution. Kim said: “It is imperative not just to lift people out of extreme poverty; it is also important to make sure that, in the long run, they do not get stuck just above the extreme poverty line due to a lack of opportunities that might impede progress toward better livelihoods.”  The overriding concern is whether the people in power and the people who have the power of money are sufficiently interested in providing poverty-reducing opportunities, or even whether they care about anything beyond their pockets.

    Also pertinent is Nigeria’s ranking by Transparency International (TI) on its 2014 Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI) focused on 175 countries.  The respected watchdog ranked the country 136th.   The assessment was based on the presumed extent of public sector corruption in the countries. Nigeria scored 27 out of a maximum 100 marks, and was listed as the 39th most corrupt nation in the world.

    Particularly applicable to the country is the TI observation: “A poor score is likely a sign of widespread bribery, lack of punishment for corruption and public institutions that don’t respond to citizens’ needs.” TI Chairman, José Ugaz, said: “The 2014 Corruption Perceptions Index shows that economic growth is undermined and efforts to stop corruption fade when leaders and high level officials abuse power to appropriate public funds for personal gain.”

    In the final analysis, the picture is that the country’s poor languish at a hard place between the prosperity of power and the power of prosperity.

  • Subtraction makes sense

    This is the greatly expected month of political determination in Nigeria and a month of great political expectations. But so was last month, with the general elections originally slated for February 14 and 28. It is unsurprising that the controversial six-week rescheduling of the polls has generated further controversy about the developing story of democratic continuity and the possibility of discontinuity.

    It is a measure of the pregnant atmosphere that President Goodluck Jonathan, for whatever it was worth, made an attempt to clarify his intentions at the February 22 opening mass for the plenary Assembly of the Catholic Bishops Conference of Nigeria at Our Lady Queen of Nigeria Pro-Cathedral, Garki, Abuja. Jonathan declared: “There is no way Goodluck Jonathan, elected by the people with clear mandate, will now go and head an Interim Government. The only interim government anybody can constitute is that of the military government which, of course, will not be accepted.” He added: “ECOWAS, AU, UN won’t accept it. And Nigeria will not be a pariah state. Clearly, the insinuation of interim government to me is treasonable.”

    However, it is illuminating that when he also said, “Elections will be conducted as scheduled by INEC,” referring to the new dates of March 28 and April 11, he went on to paint a picture that suggested that the rearrangement might not be inviolable. He said: “Look at what happened in Gombe on February 14…If the elections had been held, the casualty figure after that attack in Gombe would have been great.”

    In other words, security or insecurity is likely to remain a determining factor regarding even the fresh election timetable. Jonathan highlighted this reality at the February 19 launch of four ships at the Naval Dockyard, Victoria Island, Lagos. He said: “We must conduct elections as scheduled by INEC because within this period, we are convinced that we will return the North to the level where the activities of extremists will not affect our elections. We are working night and day and I have directed that Nigerians be briefed regularly.” Jonathan further said: “We will rout Boko Haram. Our capacity has increased sufficiently and officers and men are doing wonderfully well. The ongoing activities to contain the sect will also provide conducive atmosphere for elections to hold in the region.”

    It is food for thought that Jonathan appears to be led by a one-track mind in this delicate matter. There is a critical and commonsensical question which exposes his cunning: What will happen if the atmosphere in the affected areas remains electorally unconducive?

    To properly grasp the significance of this question, it is useful to reflect on the February 7 statement by the  Chairman, Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), Prof Attahiru Jega, on why the elections were postponed a week to the first vote. According to Jega, “Last Wednesday, which was a day before the Council of State meeting, the office of the National Security Adviser (NSA) wrote a letter to the Commission, drawing attention to recent developments in four Northeast states of Borno, Yobe, Adamawa and Gombe currently experiencing the challenge of insurgency. The letter stated that security could not be guaranteed during the proposed period in February for the general elections.”

    Jega continued: “This advisory was reinforced at the Council of State meeting on Thursday where the NSA and all the Armed Services and Intelligence Chiefs unanimously reiterated that the safety and security of our operations cannot be guaranteed, and that the Security Services needed at least six weeks within which to conclude a major military operation against the insurgency in the Northeast; and that during this operation, the military will be concentrating its attention in the theatre of operations such that they may not be able to provide the traditional support they render to the Police and other agencies during elections.”

    There must be something magical, not to say illogical, about the six-week time frame set for the conquest of insurgents who have carried out terroristic activities since 2009. Optimism won’t win the terror war, no matter how well dressed.  The naked pessimism of the people is unmistakable.

    It is puzzling, even disturbing, that there is little or no evidence of the possibility of success regarding the publicised six-week target. On the contrary, there is evidence to suggest that it might be a mission impossible. The magical realism is underscored by ongoing efforts by Nigeria and four neighbouring nations, Benin, Cameroon, Chad and Niger, to tackle the Islamist guerrilla force by creating a regional force. Reports said the contributions to the multi-national force total 8, 700 individuals and its objective is to “foster a safe and secure environment in the impacted regions.”

    Interestingly, Colonel Mahamane Laminu Sani, Director of Documentation and Military Intelligence of Niger’s armed forces was quoted as saying, “There are initiatives by our countries to make sure Boko Haram doesn’t get out of control, but we have a deadline of end-March to put the joint force into practice.”  If the activation of the joint force is expected at the end of March, and Nigeria’s presidential poll is scheduled for March 28, what is the sense in the confidence of the Jonathan administration that Boko Haram would have been crushed before that particular election?  The government wants the people to suspend disbelief and believe that the local troops would have cut the militants down to size before the vote, but is this realistic?

    Not much is ever realistic in the theatre of the absurd, and even the seemingly realistic is often consumed by the unrealistic. This may explain why the political and electoral authorities appear to be fixated on what is perhaps an unreasonable idea, which is, holding the elections in abeyance until things hopefully get better in the troubled areas. How long will the country have to wait for normalcy in these places before elections can hold generally?

    The concept of electoral subtraction is worth consideration, meaning that the elections can be conducted excluding the unsafe areas, if it comes to the crunch. This is no time for the puristic argument that such electoral reasonableness would amount to the disenfranchisement of the circumstantially disenfranchised.

  • Buhari: past or present

    Speaking of an albatross from the past and its perpetually negative potential, Gen Muhammadu Buhari, former military head of state, three-time unsuccessful presidential hopeful and presidential candidate of the All Progressives Congress (APC), must be wondering what it would take for the people to accept him as an evolved leader, which is not to suggest that he has stopped evolving.  It would appear that the evidence of his evolution might not be enough, which could be a complicating factor.

    In an interview he granted CNN, which was significant especially on account of the medium’s global stature and influence, the difficulty of convincingly communicating Buhari’s  personal progression was discernible. CNN International Correspondent Christiane Amanpour asked Buhari: “The headlines around the world are that the Nigerian presidential election is a contest between a failed president and former dictator, and you are the former dictator. Some people say that you expelled 700,000 migrants years back, thinking that it would create jobs; that you banned political meetings and free speech; that you detained thousands of people; set up secret tribunals; executed people for crimes that were not capital offences. Have you changed or are these what the Nigerian people should look forward to if you win the election?”

    Buhari’s answer was disarmingly frank and philosophically potent. He said: “All those things you mentioned with a degree of accuracy were what actually happened, but they were under a military administration. When the military under my leadership came on board, we suspended those aspects of the constitution that we felt would make it difficult for us to operate under the circumstance we found ourselves.” Then he delivered what could prove to be a defining consideration in the presidential election: “But, I think I would be judged harshly as an individual by what happened during that military administration, or to extend what happened under a military administration to a democratic system.”

    Interestingly, this argument highlighting the necessary antagonism between dictatorship and democracy is not new and has come to represent something of a stock response to critics of Buhari’s past in power. Without doubt, it is a rational and logical defence of dynamism. However, it remains to be seen whether sense would subvert sensation, or more specifically, whether common sense would shred common sensation.

    Indeed, it is paradoxical that Buhari’s image as a change agent or game-changing player ahead of the poll is rooted in a positively unchanged aspect of his personality.  Also fascinating is the effect of this changelessly appealing dimension of his character. It is enlightening that Buhari’s rich reputation for integrity has remained fundamentally undamaged since his military leadership from December 1983 to August 1985.

    This is not only the crux of the matter but also the cross of the man. Those who fear the probable anti-corruption implications of a Buhari presidency may not be exactly paranoid, given his antecedents as a former military ruler whose short-term regime sought to cleanse the rot through unusually severe methods. However, perhaps the overriding argument in favour of Buhari, which should recommend him for power at this point in time, is his unassailable antiseptic personality. The truth is that those who have professionalised corruption deserve every possible fear; and a leader known to have zero tolerance for corruption like Buhari may well be the best positioned to reverse the rubbish.

    If former president Olusegun Obasanjo is to be believed, and there are certainly reasons to believe him, the mountainous magnitude of official corruption in the country and the fearfulness of the culpable may be strong factors  hardening the apparent desperation of President Goodluck Jonathan to cling to power despite his unmistakable unpopularity.

    It is illuminating that in reaction to the controversial rescheduling of the country’s general elections by six weeks, Obasanjo said: “I believe the President’s fear is not leaving office per se, because he and I have had occasions to talk about this both seriously and jovially. I believe the President would want an opportunity to disengage peacefully and have a nice, decent and glorious exit. I believe the President’s fear is, particularly, motivated by those who see Gen Buhari as his likely successor.”

    So, why is Buhari, perceived as a bugbear?  Obasanjo again: “I believe those people have been telling him that Buhari is a hard man, he would fight corruption and you may end up in jail if not in the grave. I believe people must have told him all sorts of things and he is not the only one, there are other people who may be afraid of Buhari.”

    It is important to note that this alleged fear of Buhari transcends despotism or democracy, meaning that the apprehension is not actually about Buhari the unreformed military dictator or Buhari the democratic convert, but really about the essential Buhari. In other words, Buhari is a threat as a quintessential anti-corruption figure, whether he is in uniform or out of uniform.

    To reformulate the description of the country’s expected presidential election as “a contest between a failed president and former dictator,” it may be more profound to describe the poll as a battle between a champion of corruption and a crusader against corruption. When the choices are presented and seen from this angle, it might be easier for Buhari to surmount the blame from the past.  Perhaps it is in the interest of the collective memory to suspend remembrance. This is a time for the people to earnestly reimagine the country’s leadership, not dwelling upon Buhari’s past in power but focusing on his present and unchanging opposition to corruption, which is a blight on the land.

    Amanpour asked Buhari: “On corruption, there are complaints by many people in your country over massive corruption. Can you face up against that? Are you committed to rooting out corruption? Buhari replied: “We have to because there are serious citizens who said that “unless Nigeria kills corruption, corruption will kill Nigeria.”  The question must be asked: Who wants Nigeria to die of corruption?

  • ‘Who does God expect to solve these problems?’

    Could the controversial rescheduling of the country’s general elections have taken God by surprise? This question is worth contemplation in the context of the concept of divine intervention in politics. A few days before the rationalised rearrangement of the dates by the electoral authorities under the not-too-subtle influence of the political authorities, the Benin monarch, Oba Erediuwa, drew attention to the all-knowing attribute of the Almighty.

    Significantly, the occasion was a promotional visit by President Goodluck Jonathan to the king’s palace. The Iyase of Benin Kingdom, Chief Sam Igbe, who represented Oba Erediuwa, reportedly said: “God and our ancestors already know your (President Jonathan) aims; whoever God has chosen is our choice.”

    Who knows whom God has chosen? How is God expected to communicate the divine selection to the electorate? How will the voters be certain about the divine source of the endorsement?  How true is the saying, “God does not play dice with the universe,” meaning “The course of all events is predetermined?”  Does the introduction of God into politics amount to a mystification of the fundamentally unmystical?

    It was equally intriguing that former president Olusegun Obasanjo brought God into the picture. The former Board of Trustees chairman of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) was quoted as saying: “I have said I will not speak again regarding the forthcoming election until it is over. After the election, then we will talk. But as for me, I have spoken with my mouth, eyes, nose and other body languages. It is now left for your understanding.” He added: “Whichever one that you do not understand, I will just put it in prayers for you that God Himself may make you understand all that I have said fully.” It is interesting that Obasanjo expects God to do the work of clarification, not necessarily the work of communication. Or perhaps to put it more specifically, God is expected to clarify Obasanjo’s communication.

    Speaking of clarity, the All Progressives Congress (APC) vice-presidential candidate, Prof. Yemi Osinbajo, made a clear-cut presentation showing the country’s pathetic level of development in a lecture he delivered in Lagos to mark the 73rd birthday of the General Overseer, Redeemed Christian Church of God (RCCG), Pastor Enoch Adeboye. In his talk titled “Harmonising virtues to gain heaven and earthly prosperity,” Osinbajo said: “Our challenges are poverty – 112 million extremely poor despite being the largest economy in Africa. We are one of 33 of the poorest countries in the world; infant mortality – 3.9 million children have died between 2009 and 2014; maternal mortality – 55, 000 women die every year; diarrheal diseases – 110,000 yearly deaths; literacy – 10.4 million children out of school; 80 per cent graduates jobless; corruption; missing funds – N2.6 trillion NNPC petroleum subsidy scam; $7 billion kerosene subsidy scam; $1 billion missing excess crude fund; 400,000 barrels of oil stolen everyday…”

    According to Osinbajo, “Our challenges present personal and communal obstacles to prosperity and happiness. Who does God expect to solve these problems? According to Mathew 5: 13-14, we are the light of the world and the salt of the earth…we are the solution to Nigeria’s problems.”

    It is reasonable and important to understand Osinbajo’s definition of the solution in a wider and all-encompassing sense beyond the narrowness of a particular faith or belief system. In other words, it should be clear that the victims and casualities of the social problems highlighted by Osinbajo belong to all religions and to no religion. Indeed, the indiscriminate nature of these problems means that the solution providers must rise above discrimination. Didn’t Mahatma Ghandi say “God has no religion”?

    Certainly, the business of governance belongs to the secular space, which is not to say that it may not be influenced by the spiritual. Indeed, politics may benefit from spiritual enlightenment; given the reality that excessive materialism and materialist excesses exhibited by the political leadership have taken the country nowhere.

    The echo of Osinbajo’s striking and penetrating question just won’t go away: “Who does God expect to solve these problems?” It is also possible to ask: Who do the people expect to solve these problems? It is fascinating that while the people seem to expect God to provide the solution, God most likely expects them to fix the problems themselves, especially since these problems are man-made and man-sustained.

    Power to the people is a catch-phrase that must be actualised by the people themselves for meaningful change. Fundamentally, the country’s historically significant 2015 general elections represent an unquantifiable opportunity for the electorate to demonstrate not only discerning political consciousness but also confident mastery of its ultimate sovereignty. In other words, the elections are better appreciated as a People Power Project.  The people have the power to vote for change. The question, therefore, is whether this would happen, not whether it could, because it is always a democratic possibility based on people capacity

    Against this background, probably the main the challenge facing the progressive camp in the countdown to the defining elections is people mobilisation, which will likely come with the difficulty of spreading political awareness and enlightenment as well as delivering the crucial message of the need for game-changing political action within a population that is usually fatalistically absorbent. Indeed, how far the people are ready to go to protect the sacredness of their votes will be decisive.

    It is always too easy to declare that the voice of the people is the voice of God. It may be more important to find out whether the voice of God is the voice of the people. The logic of divine good and perfection means that, in the final analysis, God’s intervention is always excellent and faultless. Based on this deduction, can the electorate logically enthrone an ungodly model in God’s name?

    When the voice of man is equal to the voice of God, there will be no room for the champions of corruption; there will be no space for the despisers of the dispossessed; there will be no atmosphere for power-drunk oppressors; there will be only the rule of the righteous.

  • ‘Will mother come back today?’

    Soon after the reality of the finality hit me, a poem came to my mind.  The pithy lines of Streamside Exchange by J.P. Clark became more real to me than ever.

    Child: River bird, river bird

    Sitting all day long

    On hook over grass,

    River bird, river bird

    Sing to me a song

    Of all that pass

    And say,

    Will mother come back today?

    Bird:  You cannot know

    And should not bother;

    Tide and market come and go

    And so shall your mother.

    This recollection transported me back to the 1970s when I first experienced the poem in secondary school. In a way, the gripping dialogue prepared me for an event that was to happen about 38 years later. It was a death foretold. But when it eventually occurred, I was still unprepared.

    For over five decades, Eleanor Bodunrin Macaulay (nee Williams) was a constant and consistent parental presence. Even now, the shadow of her presence remains, suggesting a deathless physicality. I was her first-born and bonded with her beyond the restrictive ephemerality of earthly life. Genetically and by socialisation, she will always be with me.

    This is a time for the choreography of memory. What can I remember? What do I remember? What do I want to remember? Her modesty was magical and magnetic, particularly in a world of vain noisiness. Her younger brother, Mr. Bankole Williams, said of her: “She disliked anything flamboyant and believed in modesty.”  One of her favourite sayings, “Little drops of water make a mighty ocean,” provided an insight into her sense of organic development and increase, which was reflected in the way she lived and projected herself.

    Hers was a life of meticulous attention to order and propriety. As a working mother with four children, three boys and a girl, she had to strike a balance between her workplace and her home, which she did with remarkable aplomb. Apart from her incalculable contribution domestically, she was able to hold down a job in a bank for 30 years. During the period, starting from July 1955, she held secretarial positions at the Barclays Bank (DCO), and later at the Union Bank following a business-name change, and retired in 1985. She was awarded certificates for “loyal and faithful service” to mark her 10th, 20th and 30th service years.

    Bodunrin Macaulay was dependable and consistent, and had long-term money-keeping responsibilities in the Shotan Williams family union as well as her church society. She was also a fascinating stickler for time. By Saturday afternoon, she was already prepared for church service the next day, with her clothes and accessories chosen and ready. Also, when she had to attend a special event, she would start planning for it at least a week or two ahead. She was impressively time-conscious and her punctuality was a timeless lesson.

    It is food for thought that as she lay dying, she was sufficiently conscious of her commitments, and a particular demonstration of her sense of duty was noteworthy. She sent her monetary contribution to the Women Missionary Union (WMU) through a family member, despite her infirmity and the distraction it represented.

    Bodunrin Macaulay was born in Forcados, a riverine area in the present-day Delta State, on January 5, 1935. She was the fifth of the eight children of the late Pa Joseph Latunji Williams (alias J.L.), who was a marine engineer with the Nigerian Marine, now Nigeria Ports Authority. Her mother, Omare Edudun (known as Nene) from Isie, Warri, was of Itsekiri stock. In the mid-forties, her father was transferred back to Lagos and lived with his family at No. 29 Odunlami Street, Lagos Island. Bodunrin had her elementary education at the Salvation Army Central School, Kakawa Street, directly opposite the famous Da Rocha House. After completing her Standard Six education, she worked for Alban Pharmacy and enrolled with Pitmans Secretarial Institute, and studied Typing and Shorthand. On completion of her studies, she passed the Intermediate Level and joined the then Barclays Bank (DCO), now Union Bank, as a Shorthand typist, and rose through the ranks to senior secretarial positions.

    In 1960, she got married to Frank Olusola Macaulay (of blessed memory), a grandnephew of Herbert Macaulay, the famous Nigerian nationalist. Their wedding, which followed a considerably long courtship, took place at Ereko Methodist Church, Lagos. They were married for 53 years and were only separated by the death of her husband in August 2013. It is worth mentioning that in a moment of candid expressiveness in the 1980s, Olusola Macaulay advised his first and second sons, me and my younger brother, who were then undergraduates, to go for women who would be like their mother when they were ready for wedlock.

    It is a reflection of her loyal and dedicated nature that until her death Bodunrin Macaulay maintained a good relationship with members of the Ladies Friendly Society, which was founded in August 1947 by 12 people including her, even after she had followed her husband to the First Baptist Church, Lagos. In a tribute, the group described her as “respected.” The group also said: Without any exaggeration, our late Sister Bodunrin Macaulay has set a unique record that is difficult to challenge or beat, viz. (1) She is a foundation member (2) Her great financial involvement and commitment to our Society and the Church of God.”  It added: “We need to remind ourselves that great deeds never perish and great men and women are always remembered by those they left behind.”

    Bodunrin Macaulay would have been 80 on January 5, 2015, but she didn’t wait for the celebration. Three weeks to the milestone, on December 15, 2014, her mortality intervened. The fictional conversation between the child and the bird in J.P. Clark’s immortal poem came alive in all its profundity.  I ponder on David Carradine’s poetic line: “If you can’t be a poet, be the poem.” Bodunrin Macaulay might not have been a poet, but she was a poem. Her life had a poetic quality, and I am duty-bound to extend the lyricism. Let me ask a rhetorical question: “Will mother come back today?”

  • Ambode’s art

    What’s in a biography? Plenty, if it’s about Lagos State governorship hopeful and frontrunner Akinwunmi Ambode of the All Progressives Congress (APC). The Art of Selfless Service by Marian Osoba, which was published last year and colourfully launched on May 15 at the Civic Centre, Victoria Island, Lagos, stands out as a book for this time in the countdown to the gubernatorial poll next month. It is a must-read for anyone who desires a picture of the man who will succeed outgoing Governor Babatunde Fashola, all things being equal.

    Symbolically, the book’s release announced Ambode’s canonisation. Oba Rilwan Akiolu, the preeminent Lagos monarch who may be considered a reliable source of information on the thinking in the charmed circle of political kingmakers in the state, controversially declared: “The elders of Lagos have said that Ambode will be governor.” He said: “It is true that we are launching a book, but we know why we are here.”  Beyond the surface, the book presentation had the quality of a finely planned public relations stunt to sell Ambode. According to Oba Akiolu on the occasion, “The elders have been meeting…We review things regularly…The elders have said that Ambode should be the next governor of Lagos.”  So far, the king’s confident endorsement is winning as Ambode, having won his party’s governorship primary, is well-positioned to defeat all rivals in the February election.

    What does Ambode’s candidacy represent? In a fundamental sense, beyond his respected financial wizardry and managerial mastery, Ambode’s recognised emphasis on selfless service is a defining plus. In actuality, a leader without a correct sense of service is ultimately negative.  Service to the people, in the purest meaning of the concept, is Ambode’s mantra.  Two quotes from the biography deserve contemplation, especially given the regrettable reality that personal aggrandisement is a familiar guiding principle of political leadership in the country.       According to him, “A true leader sees his work as selfless service towards a higher purpose. A true leader should be judged by what he has not – ego, arrogance and self interest.” He also said: “We must, wherever we find ourselves, create an atmosphere of selfless service.”

    Against this background, it is significant to highlight Ambode’s Local Government Years from 1988 to 1998 and his tenure as the Accountant General of Lagos State from 2006 to 2012 in a 27-year career in the state civil service, which he ended by voluntary retirement. In the biography, he said: “If you work successfully at Local Government level and you are able to make a difference, there is nowhere else you cannot work successfully.”

    Ambode’s remarkable sense of service could be discerned from his critical role in the creation of the State Treasury Office (STO), which should be of special significance in rating him as a governorship material. The STO has been acknowledged as a ground-breaking development which has fundamentally improved how the state’s funds are raised, budgeted, managed and spent. It goes without saying that Ambode’s demonstrated authoritative grasp of treasury issues would most likely be an advantage. ”If we take the concept of resource generation, allocation and distribution into cognisance and apply the principles of good governance, we will achieve economic growth and development,” Ambode said while presenting a paper titled “Public Finance: Probity and Accountability” at a workshop organised in August last year by the Lagos State Government and the Lagos Business School.

    He has also shed light on his understanding of good governance, which is an essential aspect of his vision. He said in a newspaper interview:  ”In essence, the elected government is like a caretaker for the rest of the people, overseeing their resources on their behalf. The citizens remain the landlord while the elected officials are only caretakers.”  He further said: “Arising from this, good government can only thrive where the resources of the people are judiciously distributed to various sectors/needs in the society in a just and equitable manner that makes life easier for every person.”

    Interestingly, the biography provides what may be interpreted as a thought-provoking response to the view in certain quarters that Ambode is a puppet of political kingmakers. “Sometimes I am confronted with the subject of mentoring and I am asked who my mentor is,” he said. “Somehow I cannot place appropriate answers to some of these questions. Why? Because every day, I am also confronted by situations which give one the opportunity to search for true leaders and even though they abound everywhere and a lot of us have the innate capacity to make a positive difference, we are never recorded as mentors, champions or true leaders.”

    He added:  ”At different points in our lives, we have had relationships; a teacher, a boss, an employer, a friend, a parent who has greatly changed the way we looked at life and the world. Someone who inspired us and motivated us, someone who taught us to set goals and instilled the confidence and spirit to achieve them, someone who had high standards and truly stood for something; such a person is the real mentor we all need to find. I have found true leaders through such observations in the course of my career…they help you build your art of selfless service, but it is important too that you carve out for yourself an identity authentically your own, that you don’t monkey another person’s life so slavishly as to lose your own.”  It is noteworthy that Ambode spoke of those who “help you build your art of selfless service.”

    The projection of Ambode’s political vision through an inventive acronym, LAGOS, is notable for the inclusion of service.  At the well-attended ceremony in October last year at the Onikan Stadium, Lagos, where he formally expressed his desire to govern the state, Ambode declared: “Our message is LAGOS. LAGOS is Leadership, LAGOS is Accountability, LAGOS is Good Governance, LAGOS is Opportunities and LAGOS is Service. This is what I stand for.”

    It is a demonstration of impressive originality that he has been able to package his organising principles in a capsule named after the state he seeks to govern. More importantly, his antecedents indicate that he is a man who can walk the talk. His credentials in leadership, accountability and service are reinforced by Governor Fashola who branded him as an individual   ”guided by the philosophy of a true public officer, who must place himself last while rendering service to the public.”

  • Voice of God or man

    When is the voice of man equal to the voice of God?  This must be the central question in the controversy over the priestly intervention by the Enugu-based Catholic Rev Father Camillus Ejike Mbaka. His intrusion was unanticipated because the country had grown accustomed to the silence of those who claim to represent the divine when faced with the influence of political power.

    So, it was food for thought when Mbaka’s New Year message to the congregation targeted President Goodluck Jonathan. Mbaka said: “I’m not saying that Goodluck is a bad man. He is a good man. But he cannot lead Nigeria. As things stand right now, from the oracle of the Holy Spirit, Jonathan should honourably resign quietly and let Nigeria be.” He also said:  ”The way Nigeria is going right now, the office of Goodluck Jonathan let another take…We need change. May the Holy Spirit help me to vocalise what he has shown to me while I was waiting on him to give me a message for my people.”

    Indeed, Mbaka’s appeal to authority, more specifically, to the believed infallibility of divinity, may appear mystifying, but that is understandably the nature and character of priesthood. Priests are expected to be peculiarly connected to the metaphysical realm, but it is difficult to prove when a priest is metaphysically correct. It is the fundamental uncertainty of spiritual integrity that complicates a priest’s claim to oracular capacity.

    However, when a priest, by his pronouncement, is on the same page with the people, it may suggest a definitive divine influence; and this is Mbaka’s appeal. In the sphere of public opinion, there is little doubt about Jonathan’s abysmal governmental performance, and his pursuit of a second term in office has all the ingredients of a defiant and unrealistic venture. The context gives credence to Mbaka’s words and to his claim to being a messenger of God.

    It was striking that in reaction to Mbaka’s remarks, the Catholic Bishop of Abuja Metropolitan See, Cardinal John Onaiyekan, was quoted as saying, “I wouldn’t be surprised if most people are not happy with the statement he made. From my reactions, you should see that I do not agree with him. I don’t believe a priest should be doing that.” He added: “If he was in my archdioceses, I will have sanctioned him long ago for the kind of things and utterances that he makes.” Interestingly, the President of the Catholic Bishops Conference of Nigeria (CBCN), Archbishop Ignatius Kaigama, also said: “There are more than 30 million Catholics in Nigeria; Fr Mbaka is just one Catholic; if he makes a statement, it cannot be the voices of more than 30 million Nigerian Catholics speaking.”

    For the avoidance of doubt, Mbaka never claimed to be speaking for anyone but God. It is noteworthy that he said: “It is so unfortunate that pastors are becoming vultures around the president. Pastors are becoming hawks around him, eating the porridge of Jacob and selling their prophetic rights.” He continued: “Listen, this is the voice on the pulpit: all these men of God, who are telling Jonathan to continue because they are benefiting one thing or the other, you should question your apostolic, prophetic anointing.”

    It may be relevant to highlight the fact that when Jonathan went on a pilgrimage to Israel last year, the second time in his four-year term, he had with him the Chaplain of the Presidential Villa, Ven. Obioma Onwuzurumba; Bishop David Oyedepo of Living Faith Church Worldwide; Primate, Church of Nigeria (Anglican Communion), Most Rev. Nicholas Okoh; and President, Christian Association of Nigeria, Ayo Oritsejafor.  It is not difficult to guess that Jonathan’s repeat pilgrimage was probably inspired by his pursuit of reelection this year.

    Mbaka’s difference speaks eloquently when considered against the background of a “Primatial Award of Excellence in Christian Stewardship” given to Jonathan last year by the Anglican Communion. From the testimony of Most Rev. Nicholas Okoh who led a delegation to the Presidential Villa in Abuja, the Anglican Church is proud of Jonathan. Listen to Okoh’s words in justification of the unprecedented award: “By this award, we affirm that you as the leader and President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, has shared, allocated, distributed the resources of Nigeria fairly, equitably, and judiciously to the East, West, North and South of Nigeria to all, including the traditional religionists, Muslims and Christians alike, to men and women, to the youth and children, including the Almajiri. This is the essence of this award. Congratulations. May God honour you.”

    In a revelatory moment, Jonathan said on the occasion: “I grew up as a member of the Anglican Church…I have been a part of the church from the beginning. I attended the Anglican Primary School as a pupil. So I have to be very grateful to the Anglican Church that brought me up. I am what I am today because of the Anglican Church.” If Jonathan sounded like a proud product of Anglicanism, then the questions should arise as to what he was taught in that framework, if he was taught anything, and whether he is practising what he learnt, if he learnt anything.

    Just imagine how colourful and reinforcing it would be for Jonathan to be given awards by the representatives of the categories defined by Primate Okoh: “the East, West, North and South of Nigeria…including the traditional religionists, Muslims and Christians alike…men and women…the youth and children, including the Almajiri.” It would be a carnival of highly favourable publicity and praise, which Jonathan would, no doubt, enjoy.

    Seriously, isn’t it confusing? Who is speaking on God’s behalf?  It may be clarifying to quote Jesus on the Mount of Olives. In Mathew 25, he spoke to his disciples about the judgement of the sheep and the goats. Jesus said: “Then he will say to those at this left hand, ‘Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels; for I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink, I was a stranger you did not welcome me, naked and you did not clothe me, sick and in prison and you did not visit me…Truly, I say to you, as you did it not to one of the least of these, you did it not to me.”

    If Jonathan’s record in governance should be judged by the words of Jesus, he would probably be qualified to be where Jesus referred to as “at this left hand”. In other words, his performance in office, which has observably deepened the country’s harrowing socio-economic conditions, places him among “the goats.”

    This must be the point of Mbaka’s sermon. It was an impressive and commendable instance of speaking truth to power, and deserves to be emulated by genuine priests in the interest of the country.

  • People Power Project

    Apart from its sheer symbolism, the publicised move by northern yam farmers to boost the campaign funds of the All Progressives Congress (APC) presidential candidate, Gen. Muhammadu Buhari, with a donation of N5bn speaks volumes about the mass appeal of his remarkable Crowd Funding Project. Reports said Rev. Jacob Musa, Public Relations Officer of a group named Buhari-Osinbajo Presidential Appeal Campaign Fund (BOPCAF), declared in a statement that the money would be raised by its members in Taraba, Nasarawa, Plateau, Adamawa, Benue, Kogi, Kwara, Niger and Kaduna states as well as the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja.

    More dramatically and spectacularly, according to the information, an unusual fundraiser based on yam selling was scheduled for Jan 4 at the Mararaban Demshin village yam market in Qua’an Pan Local Government Area of Plateau State.  Musa said: “We have contributed five million tubers of yam to be donated in support of the funding of Buhari’s presidential campaign. The five million tubers of yam will be retailed at a special price of N1, 000 each towards raising the sum of N5 billion in support of the APC candidate.”

    Symbolically, tubers of yam hint at the natural cycle of sowing and reaping, possibly suggesting that the time has come for the Goodluck Jonathan presidency to get its comeuppance after a long night of irredeemably poor governance.  Musa, who painted a picture of the Jonathan era, was quoted as saying that the group’s political involvement was a “campaign against poverty, crime, killings, kidnappings, armed robbery, castle rustling, rape, cultism, election rigging, looting of public funds, smuggling, terrorism and other social vices now prevalent in the society.”

    The clear difference between Buhari’s focus on the people for funding and Jonathan’s reliance on moneybags for resources, even if not definitively ideological, is at least promising in terms of individual orientation and direction. Buhari said: My strength mainly is the ordinary people. N100 is plenty of money for them and I know that they are going to make the sacrifice required for the change we are looking for, especially when I made them a promise to be transparent and personally responsible for the money.” It is a reflection of Buhari’s widely acknowledged immaculateness that the bank account details of the Buhari Support Organisation are officially in the public space: Acct No. 2026724405; First Bank Plc. He disclosed that the people had contributed N54.4 million so far.

    However, it’s a long walk to “Change”, that enchanting word which is the APC slogan ahead of next month’s presidential election. Although money by itself is unlikely to give Jonathan electoral victory, especially given his provable low-rung performance in office and associated weakness in the critical area of people appeal, there is no doubt that his reelection campaign war chest of at least N21bn raised at the December 20 Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) fundraiser in Abuja is truly intimidating.

    While the contest might be portrayed as a battle between the masses and the moneybags, the electoral clincher would hopefully be beyond Jonathan’s cash stockpile and the expected grassroots financial contributions to Buhari’s pursuit of presidential power.

    Fundamentally, the country’s historically significant 2015 presidential election represents an unquantifiable opportunity for the electorate to demonstrate not only discerning political consciousness but also confident mastery of its ultimate sovereignty. In other words, the election is better appreciated as a People Power Project.

    It is interesting to note that Jonathan, perhaps in an indirect and self-serving manner, appears to have come to an impressive realisation of the supremacy of the vote or the primacy of the voters. He reportedly said to a visiting delegation of traditional rulers and leaders from Bayelsa State: “If Nigerians didn’t want me to be here, when I contested elections in 2011, I wouldn’t be here. But they voted for us and we are here.”  Without exploring the purity of his alleged win in 2011, it is sufficient to highlight the solid implication of his reasoning, which is that the people have the power to vote against him and deflate his dream of a second term. The question, therefore, is whether this would happen, not whether it could, because it is always a democratic possibility based on people capacity.

    Jonathan further said: “I don’t expect praises now, until I leave office…People don’t often give credit when the man is still there. They often do it when he has left and another man is in charge. When they make comparison, they will begin to see the great things the former man did.”  At least, to go by his words, it is a positive sign that he can accommodate the idea of official impermanence. Of course, he is entitled to his own self-rating, however exaggerated, or more precisely, however revealing of “hallucinatory realism”. What matters, in the end, is whether the people see Jonathan’s first-term performance from his own conceited perspective. So, he could leave office sooner than he is clearly anticipating, if the people say so by their votes.

    Power to the people is a catch-phrase that must be actualised by the people themselves for meaningful change. It is noteworthy that Buhari said: “Currently, 82 support groups have been registered under the Buhari Support Organisation (BSO) with over 475, 796 coordinators and total membership in the region of 8,492,226 across the length and breadth of this country.” Probably the main the challenge facing the progressive camp in the countdown to the defining election is people mobilisation, which will likely come with the difficulty of spreading political awareness and enlightenment as well as delivering the crucial message of the need for game-changing political action within a population that is usually fatalistically absorbent. Indeed, how far the people are ready to go to protect the sacredness of their votes will be decisive.

    It is thought-provoking that Jonathan said in his New Year message: “After the 2011 general elections, some unpatriotic elements embarked on an orgy of violence, resulting in the destruction of lives and property. That will not be allowed to happen this time around. This government will act decisively against anyone who disrupts the public peace, before, during or after the 2015 general elections.”  The question is: What if the people are triggered to defend their votes?