The Nation Newspaper

Category: Femi Macaulay

  • Baby, don’t cry

    Does being the first to be born on New Year’s Day have any post-event value? Should it? Shouldn’t it? The customary publicity that attends the earliest births in a year suggests uniqueness worthy of celebration; but, interestingly, the social euphoria dies first. After historic minutes in the spotlight, the newsmaker becomes history.

    So the public may never again hear of those whose entrance provided titillation as a new year succeeded the old. The New Year’s Day 2014 babies across the country are unlikely to be comprehensively captured in the news, but even for those who enjoyed media focus, it would likely be a fleeting happening.

    It is noteworthy that the scale of significance attached to the arrivals unfailingly draws the high-profile symbols of power and influence, specifically, the wives of top-level political leaders who perform the ceremony of glory perhaps on account of their own maternal status. So in the federal capital, Abuja, First Lady Patience Jonathan represented by the Director- General, National Council for Women Development, Ms Onyeka Onwenu, welcomed the first baby of the year, a boy born to Mr. and Mrs. Zubairu at 12.45 a.m. by Caesarean section, weighing 3.5kg at birth. The buzz at the Gwarimpa General Hospital, Abuja, was understandable as Baby Zubairu was joined by seven other boys and three girls born on January 1. “Babies are special gifts from God. I wish them God’s blessings, peace and tranquility. The children will grow in peace and will be great because children are special gifts from God,” said a philosophical Onwenu.

    It was twofold joy as the wife of Lagos State Governor, Dame Abimbola Fashola, congratulated Mr. and Mrs. Adediji whose twins were the babies of the year in the state. The twin girls arrived by a Caesarean at Lagos Island Maternity Hospital, and their 37-year-old mother, Folashade , expressed gratitude to God for “His wonderful gifts.”

    In Anambra State where 200 babies were reportedly born on January 1 at both private and public hospitals in the three senatorial zones, the wife of the governor, Mrs. Margaret Obi, was said to have visited 15 of them at different public hospitals and gave gifts and cash to the lucky parents.

    In a striking sense, it would appear that these celebrated births redefine William Shakespeare’s famous quote on greatness. The illustrious English playwright wrote in Twelfth Night, “Some are born great, some achieve greatness, and some have greatness thrust upon them.” However, in the case of New Year’s Day babies, the Shakespearean categories evidently collapse, for the infants apparently are born great, achieve greatness and have greatness thrust upon them all at once by virtue of their arrival time, even if transiently.

    This pronounced ephemerality of grandeur is certainly food for thought. Who, for instance, remembers last year’s first babies, or those of yesteryear? Who remembers the millennium’s first babies? Beyond the tokenism of the moment, the reality is that little or nothing follows from the very figures who bask in the reflected glory of the babies’ birth, which leaves a sour taste in the mouth.

    As a public relations idea and exercise, for instance, what about a First Baby Birthday organised by the central and state governments yearly to fete these symbols of history? What is more, how pleasing it would be to have not only state agencies but also corporate entities take on the education or health care issues of this magical circle! It is enlightening that Baby Zubairu’s mother, Fatima, while responding to the government’s representative, said, “I am happy and grateful for this visit and by Allah’s grace, we shall give the child the best education we can afford and may God reward the First Lady for this kind gesture.”

    It goes without saying that for a good number of the parents of these first babies, especially those born in public hospitals, raising them could be made easier by humanitarian intervention. When one considers the mind-boggling figures that are linked with official corruption across the country, it is tragic that the powerful hardly spare a thought for the New Year babies beyond the ritual of hospital visits and superficial donations.

    This is not necessarily an argument for entitlement. Rather, it simply suggests a creative approach to people-oriented governance, which would also benefit the image of the leaders. It cannot be enough to associate with these babies only at birth, if society considers the circumstances of their birth sufficiently special to merit exceptional celebration. Their survival as well as their progress should be of interest to society, beyond the thrill of the day.

    Perhaps it is pertinent to point out that Nigeria is ranked 2nd among the top 10 countries with the most first-day of life deaths, according to a 2013 State of the World’s Mothers Report. At least 89,700 (9 per cent) babies die on their first day of life every year in Nigeria, the report indicated. Entitled “Surviving the First Day”, it is the 14th in a series on the theme “Save the Children”, and compared first-day death rates for 186 countries. It found that in most countries, children are at greatest risk on the day they are born.

    In addition, Nigeria was 169th on the Mothers’ Index out of the 186 countries assessed in critical areas such as mother’s health, education and economic status, as well as key child indicators of health and nutrition. At the presentation of the report in Lagos last year, Country Manager, Save the Children International, Susan Grant, stressed the importance of helping babies survive not only the first day but also the first week and first month of life toward achieving the Millennium Development goal of reducing child mortality by two thirds by 2015. She expressed concern that the report identified Nigeria as one of the countries with the highest numbers of maternal and newborn deaths, stating that each year 40,000 women die during pregnancy and childbirth, and over two million babies die in their first month of life.

    This depressing backdrop corroborates the thought that New Year’s Day babies deserve more than the cursory attention that comes with the glare of publicity. It is a romantic picture, no doubt, but that is the beauty of the human imagination, the possibility of beautifying not only humanity but also the world both materially and spiritually.

    The truth is that there will always be babies born on New Year’s Day, right from the beginning to the end, and they will continue to trigger superlative excitement, especially those who arrive first. There must be more concrete ways of promoting their special status, which would enhance the concept of man as an advanced creature.

  • Jonathan’s inevitable climax

    It was always certain that the definitive moment would arrive. What if, in an instant of rare clarity, President Goodluck Jonathan decided against pursuing a second term in office? Would such a possibly unexpected detour make the ruling Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) less unattractive to the electorate, or it simply would not matter? The challenge of correct candidacy as well as the issue of corporate image will, no doubt, be on the front burner for the already centrifugally transformed party, with the countdown to the country’s all-important general elections reportedly scheduled for January/February 2015 by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC).

    For Jonathan, it is time to transparently let the public into his inner life, after prolonged hedging and evasiveness, as the extant political parties are, by regulation, expected to publicise lists of their candidates for political offices not later than 60 days before Election Day. With formal campaigns for offices in 2015 likely to begin in August/September, he cannot enjoy the comfort of keeping the people guessing or extending his game of calculated suspense for much longer, particularly given the threatening rival presence of the increasingly strengthened and potentially overpowering All Progressives Congress (APC).

    His moment of inevitability has come, and thankfully so for the polity; for there is no denying the fact that his apparent silence about his aspiration was never golden, but rather a source of torture in his party circle and beyond, spawning a chain of group crises that continues to lead downhill. So decisive will be Jonathan’s eventual signal of his political direction that it may either ameliorate or aggravate tension in the political space, particularly in the light of allegations that the subject of his possible continuity in office is at the bottom of the major security challenges facing the country, which have been attributed largely to a pull-him-down conspiracy by those opposed to his emergence in the first place and unenthusiastic about any extension of his glory days.

    Understandably, this is against the background of the PDP’s contentious review of its zoning formula which eventually resulted in the crowning of Jonathan for a full four-year term, rather than a northern candidate following the death of former president Umaru Yar’Adua two years into his presidency. Interestingly, and with gravely negative implications that continue to haunt not only the party but also the polity, Jonathan who as Vice-President stepped in and completed Yar’Adua’s term subsequently shunned arguments against contesting for the throne for his own first term. Notably, Jonathan has rejected any talk of his alleged prior agreement to a one-term presidency, insisting that he is constitutionally eligible for another term.

    It is interesting that Jonathan is perhaps subject to pressure equilibrium, with loyalists as fiercely combative as his antagonists, and the defining factors may well be his own personal disposition to power, which is suspiciously self-serving, and the depth of his love for the country, which is speculatively suspect.

    Without doubt, Jonathan must be fully conscious of the combat ahead, especially within his party, if he sticks to his guns about his legal right to presidential aspiration in 2015. His language in recent times suggests that he may be ready for battle, in spite of all odds. He has increasingly attributed his rise to divine agency and intervention, saying on one occasion at the Apostolic Faith Church, Jabi, Abuja,” But I assure you in this congregation and all Nigerians’ that by the will of God and your support, I am here today from nowhere. Any child of Nigeria can be where I am. I come from the smallest state in this country; even within the state, one of the smallest communities in Bayelsa State. Even within the community, I am from one of the smallest families. But I am here today (as President) by the grace of God.”

    In another related circumstance at the Catholic Church in Area 3, Abuja, Jonathan declared, “Despite our challenges, all what we continue to request from you is your continuous prayers because we believe…And luckily we are in a Christian congregation, we believe that no matter what an individual thinks he is, if God doesn’t want you to succeed in achieving anything, you will not. You will get so close to it but at the end of the day, you will not get it.”

    It will be a serious misreading if the fatalism expressed in these quotations is taken at face value, for Jonathan is definitely not sitting idly, waiting for the manifestation of the hand of God. Otherwise, he would not have been associated with conduct, by himself and on his behalf, which unapologetically demonstrate his interest in holding on to power.

    Certainly, it is too predictably cheap to speak about the mediation of God in human affairs, while he continually resorts to self-help, usually of the most reprehensible kind. One noteworthy example reflecting the fact that the first family is not necessarily guided by its sermonising is the developing crisis in Rivers State, the First Lady’s place of origin, which is about a clash of egos but, more fundamentally, about a sense of entitlement arising from a position of superior power as demonstrated by the naked abuse of federal might apparently in a bid to keep the state governor, Rotimi Amaechi, on a leash. Mrs. Patience Jonathan has been accused of displaying inordinate ambition by allegedly seeking to be the de facto governor of the state; and her husband cannot feign ignorance of her excesses. The still unfolding episode sufficiently illustrates the possibility that Jonathan and wife are operating with a deluding God-mentality that makes them believe they can have their way in Rivers State.

    Even with the PDP facing a transformational collapse following a marked exodus of its members to APC, Jonathan is unlikely to interpret the disaster in personal terms as a disincentive to running for office a second time. Tragically, he will probably fail to understand that the crumbling party could be a divine message about the mind of God concerning the second-term project. Nevertheless, it is at least reassuring that he appears to have a sense of limits imposed by the divine, even if it is just a modicum.

    This implies that he might be ready to concede defeat if he is floored, whether in his party, which seems improbable, given the influence of incumbency, or at the presidential poll, which could happen despite possible manipulation by the incumbent, given the unprecedented muscle of the opposition.

    As the country waits with bated breath for his climactic moment, specifically, his uncovering of an ambition that was never perfectly veiled, it would be interesting to see how he will go about it, and what reactions he will get, after living in denial for so long in spite of telling signs.

  • My Governor of the Year 2013

    My Governor of the Year 2013

    It took only 30 minutes for Borno State Governor Kashim Shettima to qualify for the accolade, and his eligibility was perfected in highly remarkable circumstances. Shettima on December 15 reportedly departed from Abuja on a 7pm Arik flight to Lagos, where he was scheduled to participate in three meetings. A little over two hours after he left the federal capital, specifically at 9.15pm, the governor was having dinner at Mummy B Food Canteen, located in Onigbongbo, Maryland, Lagos, which he last visited some 20 years ago. He was drawn to the local restaurant with only four tables for 10 customers at a time by his love of amala, which he reportedly “missed so much”.

    So irresistible was his craving for the particular food, prepared in a particular way, that it was Shettima who gave directions to the official convoy, and he reportedly trekked to the eating spot in the company of two commissioners, his special adviser on media, staff of Borno Laison Office in Lagos and security aides. Interestingly, he was recognised as an old customer by the restaurant owner, Iya Moriya; and for his meal, he insisted on being served with the same kind of plates he was used to two decades ago. By the time he left the place at 9.45pm, word had travelled round the neighbourhood that a VIP was around.

    In significant ways, Shettima’s amala activity represents an enlightening metaphor for political leadership in a pluralistic polity. To start with, the 47-year-old leader born in Maiduguri, Borno State, in the country’s northern region, demonstrated that he was ethnically accommodating by his taste for food of a different cultural provenance from his own. Amala is a cultural dish popular among the Yoruba in the country’s Southwest region, and to have a northerner who would readily eat it without discrimination is a plus for Shettima’s pan-Nigerian credentials.

    Furthermore, it is commendable that Shettima remembered. Not only did he have a clear memory of the enjoyable taste of the particular amala, he also could recollect the route to the restaurant, even though he had not been there in years. It is striking that he even remembered the plates of yesteryear. More importantly, perhaps, he remembered that he had not always been a governor and that he had a past. His remembrance of things past mirrored his modesty, despite the context of high political office.

    In a manner of speaking, Shettima’s interaction with the restaurant workers can be likened to a descent from an Olympian height. It was a rare event that held lessons for the powerful. He certainly could have avoided eating in the lowly restaurant, given the fact that he had people at his beck and call that could have gone there to get a take-away meal for their boss. It is pertinent to wonder at the cost of eating in such a cheap restaurant, when he could have opted for a five-star hotel in the megacity, all at government expense.

    What was Iya Moriya’s recipe that made her amala so unforgettable for Shettima? His visit to the eating place must have made her day, not necessarily in financial terms, but on the psychological plane. Shettima returned to her restaurant as a governor, which was something to be proud of; and the happening may well have elevated her profile in the area, apart from giving her understandable bragging rights. By his association with the people, and his electrifying presence, therefore, Shettima scored well.

    For the avoidance of doubt, it is relevant to highlight Shettima’s education and exposure for the benefit of the narrow-minded who might consider his behaviour as perhaps informed by possible lack of sophistication. A Masters degree holder in Agricultural Economics from the University of Ibadan, Oyo State, and a former lecturer in the same subject at the University of Maiduguri, Borno State, and a one-time top-level banker, he served as Commissioner of the Borno State Ministry of Finance and Economic Development and Commissioner in the Ministries of Local Governments and Chieftaincy Affairs, Education, Agriculture and later Health before his election as governor in 2011 on the platform of the then All Nigeria People’s Party (ANPP), which this year merged with others to form the All Progressives Congress (APC).

    It is significant that Shettima governs the terrorised Borno State, which is currently under emergency rule imposed by the federal government, along with Adamawa and Yobe states, in a controversial anti-terror measure specifically introduced to check the murderously rampaging Islamic religionists known as Boko Haram. It is a reflection of his sensitivity that he lately overlooked his personal security in a visit to Bama local government area of the state, which is officially regarded as exposed to Boko Haram insurgents and the scene of carnage in recent times. At the palace of the Shehu of Bama, Alhaji Kyari Ibrahim El-Kanemi, where he donated N100 million toward the rehabilitation of terror victims in the community, Shettima said momentously, “I took an oath of office as the governor two years ago to work for the people devoid of ethnic, religious and political affiliations. That is why it becomes a duty for us to share in your moments of grief.” It is noteworthy that his gesture tellingly contrasts with the rather detached attitude of the central administration on the contentious issue of compensation for casualties of the mayhem.

    In another defining instance, Shettima demonstrated understanding leadership during an unscheduled visit to Gen. Mohammadu Shuwa Memorial Hospital in Maiduguri, where he donated blood to an expectant mother in need of transfusion. According to the Commissioner for Health, Dr Salma Kolo, “The governor was disturbed by the condition of the woman and wanted to help. He later discovered through the medical attendants that his blood group matched that of the woman, so he decided to help out.”

    Remarkably, in these days of self-described professional politicians who go to extreme lengths to remain politically relevant, it is food for thought that Shettima has a vision of his post-governorship years. “I have a Masters degree, but after the political interregnum I wish to go back and get a PhD so that one can become a true intellectual in the real sense,” he said, while receiving the governing council of the University of Maiduguri (UNIMAID) in his office.

    In the end, there seems to be a fine quality to his personality that should naturally dovetail with good governance. Regrettably, his story is the stuff of fantasy in the real world of the country’s largely unfeeling politicians.

    Dear reader, this column wishes you a New Year of blessings beyond your imagination.

  • Mama Peace Woman of war

    Nigerians must be anxious to find out whether the country’s First Lady Patience Jonathan’s publicised change of name will make any difference not only to her public conduct but also to public perception of her personality. Perhaps under pressure from “social anxiety,” which is unsurprising in the light of her markedly unflattering public image, Mrs. Jonathan announced her new name to a probably bemused audience at the Banquet Hall of the Presidential Villa, Abuja. The occasion was the December 13 launch of the Subsidy Reinvestment and Empowerment Programme Maternal and Child Health (SURE –P MCH) otherwise known as MAMA Project.

    According to her, “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.” It looks like Mrs. Jonathan recently experienced an awakening, or what is this unaccustomed sentimentality all about? This is not the old, familiar lady of battle, and it is difficult to recognise the change.

    Ironically, in public consciousness Mrs. Jonathan’s background is linked with disturbance of the peace. Isn’t this the same lady who in July last year caused more than a stir upon her appointment as permanent secretary by Bayelsa State Governor Seriake Dickson, which was widely unpopular particularly by virtue of the fact that she had been on leave from the civil service for over 13 years while she played the role of a politician’s wife? Isn’t this the same lady who triggered public outrage following her moves to raise a whopping $26m (N1.4bn) for a planned “First Lady’s Mission Building” that would serve as a centre for meetings of African First Ladies?

    If these were mild manifestations of disruptive tendencies, her obviously ongoing clash with Rivers State Governor Rotimi Amaechi should provide a stronger standard for measuring her troublesomeness. Amaeachi, in an interview, defined the basis of the crisis as her overbearing attitude, saying, “She wants to have a say in the government. Just know that she wants to have a say. I don’t want to go beyond that; that will become too explicit. Just know that she wants to control the government of Rivers State, that’s all.”

    It is disturbing that, to go by developments, the people of Rivers State are apparently paying a hard price for her alleged power-lust. In this matter, it is perhaps impossible to ignore the wisdom that the first lady’s enemy is necessarily the president’s foe. This is not to say that her husband is henpecked, although that may well be the case. Such tragically inappropriate personalisation of office is deserving of unreserved condemnation.

    Interestingly, Amaechi painted a worrying picture of the people’s loss on account of the reality that he has his name written in the first family’s black book. In a recent interaction with a group of medical doctors at the Government House, Port Harcourt, the state capital, Amaeachi not only charged President Goodluck Jonathan with victimisation, he also gave distasteful details. Among other instances of Jonathan’s allegedly deliberate ill-treatment of the people arising from their frosty relationship, Amaechi highlighted the incredible case involving the provision of water. According to him, “I will start with water. We got African Development Bank (ADB) and World Bank to give us a loan, for which we will pay 0.4 per cent for 40 years, which is a wonderful loan and we planned to give Port Harcourt people water first. If everybody in Rivers State is drinking (potable) water that will reduce the number of patients that go to Briathwaite Memorial Hospital or any other hospital. World Bank agreed; ADB agreed. They said, ‘go and do due process ‘. We have finished due process. What is remaining is for the Minister of Finance to sign.” Then he dropped a bombshell, saying, “‘oh, you are quarreling with the President, we will not sign’. That is why they have not signed.”

    It is instructive that this unreasonableness antedated Amaechi’s recent defection from the ruling People’s Democratic Party (PDP) to All Progressives Congress (APC), implying that the Jonathan administration rated personal animosity above official responsibility, even when it concerned a member of his party. In a fundamental sense, such conduct amounted to anti-party activity because it sent out an unhelpful signal to the people about the party’s delivery of essential services. A more people-friendly and politically adept leader would have taken advantage of the situation as a vote-winning opportunity. However, this revolting episode is not just about Amaechi, for it is logical to suppose that other governors possibly blacklisted by Jonathan will receive similar uncooperative reaction, probably to the detriment of society.

    Plainly, therefore, whatever might be responsible for Mrs. Jonathan’s new-found song on “peace evangelism,” it appears that she will benefit from further education on the basics of the concept. As long as cases like Amaechi’s are unfairly sustained by official ill-will, she has nothing to teach anyone about peace. Let her learn from her own words, if they were not uttered hypocritically. According to her, “Peace is from the heart and not from the tongue or lips; not what you say but what is in you. We pray for genuine peace because peace is the key to our arriving at our desired destination as a nation. We are approaching the New Year which is a year of peace, progress and so many good things to come. 2014 is going to be a year of no militancy and no Boko Haram because God will shower peace and make us take a U-turn from disaster.”

    It is unclear whether Mrs. Jonathan has formally effected her declared change of name, or whether she also has the inclination of a prophetess, which is how she sounded. While her good wishes are appreciated, they are also undeniably self-serving, betraying her concern about her husband’s political survival.

    In this year-end season, which is traditionally a time for New Year resolutions, Mrs. Jonathan’s name-change suggests that she intends to turn over a new leaf. This is heartwarming because that is the meaning of changeability, after all. If that is the case, God bless her.

  • Obasanjo’s belated blast

    Obasanjo’s belated blast

    Although former president Olusegun Obasanjo stated 10 grounds for his publicised 18-page letter to President Goodluck Jonathan, the decisive justification remains highly speculative. What was the final straw that broke the camel’s back? Whatever it was, Obasanjo’s staggering decision to publicly embarrass Jonathan by his extensive communication not only raised serious concern about the apparent deterioration of their rapport; more disturbing, it also delivered a dreadful signal about the country’s dire circumstances.

    Interestingly, Obasanjo’s epistle had elements of political science, history, sociology, psychology, economics, and even theology. It was a revealing roller coaster, exposing Jonathan’s dark underbelly as well as Obasanjo’s self-righteousness. It would appear that the essential objective of Obasanjo’s correspondence was to nail the coffin of Jonathan’s possible desire for a second four-year term in office. After taking self-flattering credit for the actualisation of the Jonathan presidency, Obasanjo accused him of “deceit and deception” concerning his denial of interest in a second term and indicated that there was an understanding that Jonathan, who became president in 2011, would govern for only one term and shun the 2015 presidential election.

    Even if such a deal was sealed, which Jonathan has consistently contradicted, it is perceptible that the conditions are different now and a review is on the cards. As Obasanjo rightly pointed out, “the signs and measures on the ground” do not support Jonathan’s alleged disinterest. However, his recommendation that Jonathan should “pursue a more credible and more honourable path,” suggested that Obasanjo might be living in a fool’s paradise. His counsel was evidently incongruous, given the litany of complaints signifying an irredeemable rot and the possibility that Jonathan is already at the proverbial point of no return.

    Not surprisingly, Obasanjo located the responsibility for the probable implosion of the ruling People’s Democratic Party (PDP) within Jonathan’s realm, a weighty denunciation coming from an overwhelmingly influential voice in the party. However, it is a measure of Obasanjo’s delusions that he expressed the obviously objectionable belief that his party, known for its abject vacuity and lack of vision, is good for the country. His words: “I believe strongly that a united and strong PDP at all costs is in the best interest of Nigeria.” What a misguided sentiment!

    Prominent among the centrifugal forces, according to Obasanjo, are Jonathan’s control tactics, ethnicity-driven insularity and politics of exclusion to the disadvantage of “most of the rest of Nigerians.” In the country’s pluralistic space, there is no doubt that the extreme promotion of Ijaw identity on account of Jonathan’s leadership has exacerbated the national question, quite apart from worsening power relations within PDP.

    It is intriguing and tragic that Obasanjo tried to establish a parallelism between the Jonathan presidency and perhaps the country’s most murderous administration symbolised by the late Gen Sani Abacha who ruled with an iron fist from 1993 to 1998. Obasanjo’s allegation about an existing killer squad designed by Jonathan for “political purposes” and the surveillance of presumed opponents is so brutally unsettling and sadly cements the suspicion that the 2015 elections hold a promise of bloodshed. It is most unlikely that Obasanjo would flippantly make claims of such malevolent magnitude without a shred of evidence because that would be reprehensibly irresponsible.

    It was predictable that Obasanjo would mention the unconscionable heights of official corruption, and he didn’t disappoint, specifically highlighting the sleaze associated with the Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation (NNPC). It is a mighty wonder that this particular organisation, which operates at the heart of the country’s oil-based economy, has been the butt of scandalous publicity over the years; yet successive administrations have failed to carry out any thorough cleaning of the Augean stable, which makes a penetrating statement about the hypocrisy of the powerful.

    Shockingly, Obasanjo displayed double standards in his offensive against Jonathan, seeming to conveniently overlook his own role in originally backing an individual who, in his reviewed estimation, has turned out to be inappropriate for the presidency after all. His misjudgement, if that was indeed the case, is loudly damning, particularly on account of the fact that his support controversially defied an alleged party zoning formula which excluded Jonathan. It is revealing of his sense of personal infallibility that there was no hint of shame in Obasanjo’s blame game. The logical truth is that if Obasanjo enjoys the image of kingmaker, he should also appreciate the idea of vicarious blameworthiness. He crowed in his letter, “Mr. President, you have on a number of occasions acknowledged the role God enabled me to play in your ascension to power. You put me third after God and your parents among those that have impacted most in your life.”

    However, with the benefit of hindsight and the picture of the critical path not taken, it is apt to contemplate the country’s trajectory had PDP in 2011 been faithful to its said informal arrangement in determining who should be its presidential candidate. The negative consequences of that great betrayal of decency are regrettably evident in the party, and by extension, in the polity.

    Two apocalyptic images deserve particular attention in Obasanjo’s missive. His reference to a possible military intervention based on opportunism amounted to a subtle sowing of seeds of subversion, which is highly condemnable. Then he pronounced magisterially and with unbecoming posturing, “May it not be the wish of majority of Nigerians that Goodluck Jonathan, by his acts of omission and commission, would be the first and last Nigerian President ever to come from Ijaw tribe.”

    In reacting to Obasanjo’s blast, it certainly won’t be enough to argue ad hominem, that is, just attacking his character rather than responding strictly to the contentions. Such an unproductive approach would be too easy, for there are clearly multiple charges that Obasanjo is open to, perhaps even weightier than the ones he has tried to pin on Jonathan.

    It is food for thought that Jonathan reportedly directed his spokesmen to keep mute while he prepares to “at the appropriate time, offer a full personal response,” according to his Special Adviser on Media and Publicity, Dr. Reuben Abati, who nevertheless described the letter as “highly provocative.”

    Although the title of Obasanjo’s letter, Before it is too late, carries some optimism, it is ironically a sad reminder that Jonathan has advanced far in the course of unravelling. Indeed, it would appear belated, and only the miraculous can mediate.

  • Reflections on post-Awoism

    In the context of impermanence, it was always logical to contemplate, if not envision, the decline, if not the demise of the socio-political philosophy of the legendary Chief Obafemi Awolowo, on account of which he earned die-hard loyalists as well as unrepentant adversaries. It would appear that the inevitable dawn of new realities is already here, with the uncreative but calculating redefinition of progressivism implied by the cohabitation of varied political impulses under the banner of the recently realised All Progressives Congress (APC).

    The party’s unlikely emergence, following the merger of the Action Congress of Nigeria (ACN), the Congress for Progressive Change (CPC), the All Nigeria Peoples Party (ANPP), and the absorption of a faction of the All Progressives Grand Alliance (APGA), which was complicated enough, has been compounded by the noisy addition of five state governors from the country’s ruling People’s Democratic Party (PDP). There is no doubt that the entry of Rotimi Amaechi (Rivers), Rabiu Kwankwaso (Kano), Murtala Nyako (Adamawa), Abdulfatah Ahmed (Kwara) and Aliyu Wamakko ( Sokoto), particularly because of their political background and the contentious circumstances of their disengagement from the PDP, will most probably further deepen the difficulty of identity for their new party.

    It is indisputable that a major constituent of the party, the defunct ACN, whether consciously or subliminally, operated with a sense of awe-inspiring canonisation of Awolowo, a tendency that the others did not necessarily embrace. Interestingly, therefore, while the leadership of the Southwest states controlled by this component of the party religiously invokes the spirit of Awolowo, who died in1987 aged 78, like some mantra that projects a specific desirable governmental orientation, the others do not essentially share such mindset. Indeed, the concept of Awoism, which more or less defines good governance in the ex-ACN circle, is not interpreted in the same terms by the others.

    It is an intriguing measure of the Awolowo mystique and influence that in certain quarters the belief in Awoism, or the branding as an Awoist, is regarded as a prerequisite for political leadership in the Southwest. It is precisely this fallacy that informed the paradoxically corroborative defence of Osun State Governor, Rauf Aregbesola, in an article entitled “Aregbesola, Awoist and Awoism”, written by Prof Moses Akinola Makinde, the DG/CEO, Awolowo Centre for Philosophy, Ideology and Good Governance, Osogbo, which was established by his administration. Makinde, perhaps unwittingly, advanced the same misleading notion, saying, “Surely, if there is any politician who may be seen as an Awo incarnate in his Philosophy, Ideology and art of Good Governance, it is Aregbesola.”

    The question is: Must Aregbesola of necessity be an Awoist, or practise Awoism, to actualise exemplary governance? If the answer is negative, then it amounts to rather unproductive labour to make arguments to prove that the governor is indeed of such persuasion. Without discounting the reported achievements of his three-year-old administration and the wide social approval he allegedly enjoys, does the fact that Aregbesola unapologetically hero-worships Awolowo make him ipso facto better equipped for positive leadership? To believe in and even promote such a tenuous link not only amounts to mystification of administration; it also unfairly discredits the possible personal brilliance of the governor, removed from any influence of Awolowo.

    The obsessional focus on Awoism, which Makinde describes as “the totality of the doctrines of Chief Obafemi Awolowo in thought, words and deeds,” apparently belongs to a past era, and may be inapt within the framework of changed actuality. It is, for instance, difficult to imagine the grand Awolowo in a road show designed to more or less beg rebellious governors in a rival party to join his group, which was the approach adopted by the APC leadership. Also, it is improbable that the fastidious Awolowo would have been impressed that in the perception of Amaechi, for instance, former president Olusegun Obasanjo and ex-military ruler Ibrahim Babangida are political heroes, contrary to their low ranking in public estimation. In an interview which touched on his idols, Amaechi said of Obasanjo, “He has a God complex. What I mean by God complex is the Messianic complex. He thinks he wants to save the country.” Then on Babangida: “very suave, very intelligent, a true politician that ordinarily he shouldn’t be a military head of state.” These descriptions are revealing of the shades of political consciousness harboured by the APC, and signal a corruption of its Awoist content.

    It is significant that Makinde, in an elaboration of Awolowo’s values, emphasised that “The philosophical foundation of Awoism is the doctrine of mental magnitude.” Awolowo truly demonstrated uncommon concentration on the improvement of the mind as an invaluable training for leadership, particularly by his deep writings on his socio-political thoughts intended as illuminating guides on the subject of good governance in a pluralistic society. He was popularly and rightly regarded as a “philosopher king” and “sage”, which underscored his towering intellect employed in the context of political administration. Tragically, the important connection between cerebral acuity and forward-looking people-oriented governmental policies, particularly in the areas of education, health and infrastructure, which he reflected, is today generally less appreciated among the political players, especially with the reign of “negative emotions” that inspire basic personal aggrandisement.

    Another central point of departure has to do with Awolowo’s stature as the soul of the political parties he originated, namely, the Action Group (AG) and the Unity Party of Nigeria (UPN), in which he commanded overwhelming authority. Current realities, specifically in connection with the APC, but also in general, suggest that the kind of vice-like grip he had on party affairs belongs to a bygone age.

    Additionally, in character and lifestyle, his sometimes impolitic directness, informed by well- meaning sincerity, as well as his Spartan existence, despite his means, placed him in an inimitable class. The doublespeak associated with characters in politics did not have an accommodation with him, and the people knew where he stood on issues, even when this worked against him. Fascinatingly, he lived above fleshly indulgence, and was not a materialistic exhibitionist, contrary to the ways of many who govern today.

    Perhaps the greatest charge against him, even among his followers, was his principled inflexibility and customary conviction about his correctness, which his political foes often interpreted as haughtiness. Ironically, his supreme moment came at his death with the outpouring of flattering tributes from friendly and hostile quarters, especially the one which eloquently described him as “the best president Nigeria never had.”

    In the final analysis, it remains to be seen just how effectively the two institutions established to promote his ideals, incidentally by state governments, the Obafemi Awolowo Institute of Government and Public Policy, Lagos, and the Awolowo Centre for Philosophy, Ideology and Good Governance, Osogbo, will perform in safeguarding Awoism.

  • Bombing Babangida

    Twenty seven years after Dele Giwa was bombed at breakfast, it is fascinating that a new book seeks to reinforce the weight of public suspicion that Gen (retd) Ibrahim Babangida, the former military ruler who was in power at the time, probably had a hand in the macabre murder of the colourful journalist. Perhaps the devastating beauty of the 360-page volume, entitled Honour for Sale, derives from the fact that it is signposted as “An Insider Account of the Murder of Dele Giwa,” making it the first version of events written from close quarters unambiguously pointing an accusing finger at the Babangida administration.

    The author, Major (retd) Debo Basorun, has a faultless qualification for the documentation, having served in the Babangida regime under the title of Press and Public Affairs Officer (Military Press Secretary) to the Military President of Nigeria between 1985 and 1988. His effort, therefore, can be considered as a testimony by a member of a charmed circle, who should know what he is talking about. Indeed, Basorun drops a bomb in the prologue to his autobiographical book, saying, “It is a laborious attempt at documenting over twenty-one years of a kaleidoscopic but exciting career – a gaudy reminder of the sweet days at the pinnacle of power and how a miscalculation on the part of the powers-that-be led me to uncover the truth that, in concert with his Intelligence Chief, Colonel Haliru Akilu, Babangida has not come clean with the Nigerian people – nay the world – concerning the duo’s roles in the mindless assassination of a foremost Nigerian journalist of his time, Dele Giwa.”

    In addition, Basorun states in explicit terms, “I am hopefully looking forward to the day when General Ibrahim Babangida, Colonel Haliru Akilu and myself would be brought before the people’s court to answer all we know pertaining to the cruel murder of a most illustrious Nigerian, Dele Giwa.” Clearly, this is the statement of a willing prosecution witness. The question is: With the release of this explosive book and its accusatory contents, wouldn’t it be appropriate to reopen the Giwa murder case?

    Unfortunately, such a possibility would appear complicated, particularly in the light of certain precedents. It is instructive that quite early in the tragedy, efforts to obtain justice by Chief Gani Fawehinmi, Giwa’s enthusiastic lawyer, were dampened by the mysterious stance of the journalist’s colleagues and co-founders of Newswatch magazine who disowned the legal activist in a November 5, 1986 edition; this was under one month of Giwa’s killing on October 19. Similarly enlightening is the fact that in 2001, Babangida rigidly refused to appear before the Human Rights Violations Commission, popularly known as the Oputa Panel, concerning the Giwa murder. Remarkably, Babangida betrayed desperation for silence by going to court. With Col (retd) Akilu of the Directorate of Military Intelligence (DMI) in his regime and Lt. Col. (retd) A.K Togun who was the Deputy Director of the State Security Service (SSS), he obtained an order barring the commission from summoning them to appear before it. It is apt to contemplate why they were so unwilling to face the public on the controversial matter, considering that the forum provided a golden opportunity for their exculpation. An astounding travesty of justice followed with the reported comment by the commission’s chairman to the effect that while it had powers to issue arrest warrants for the trio, it decided against such a move “in the over-all interest of national reconciliation.”

    Against this background of serial difficulties in the path of justice, it will surely require reimagination on the part of the justice system to resurrect the Giwa case. However, it would be a huge discredit to the country’s treatment of crime and punishment if Basorun’s momentous insights are trivialised by those officially positioned to act on such “revelations.” There is no doubt that Basorun’s bold account brings fresh dimensions to the unpleasant incident, and deserves to be investigated. If the book’s contents are ultimately swept under the carpet for convenience, it would amount to an official endorsement of impunity and send a dangerous signal that murder might not necessarily be a punishable transgression. It is the kind of dismisiveness that continues to encourage killers. In this connection, it is disturbing that so far no suspect has been formally charged with Giwa’s murder, a situation that Prof Itse Sagay (SAN), one of the high-profile symbols of social conscience who witnessed the book presentation, described as “the institutional failure of the state.”

    It is intriguing that Basorun, for all his emphatically implicating allegations against Babangida on the Giwa murder issue, fails rather disappointingly to provide an answer to the crucial question as to why the journalist was killed. This central subject of the motive for his peculiar murder by mail bomb has unsurprisingly spawned a rich collection of conspiracy theories, which Basorun’s book does little to clarify. Evidently, the knot is at the heart of the puzzle, and untying it would yield useful clues on the identity of the killers.

    Perhaps the enduring mystery bears testimony to the uninspiring state of investigative journalism in the country, which is ironic because Giwa had a reputation for that aspect of reporting. It amounts to a grave dishonour to his remembrance that there has been no serious journalistic attempt to unravel the circumstances of his cruel death at age 39. No whodunnit yet, regrettably.

    In the final analysis, Basorun has written a social service book not only because it is in a general sense focused on the underbelly of society, but also because it particularly illuminates to a significant degree the intricate expressions of “intrigue and treachery, clannishness and base humanity” characteristic of some of the military characters who abused power in the country.

    However, it would appear unfair to be judgemental based on Basorun’s book, despite its persuasive confidence. It is precisely this necessary margin of doubt that the accused should exploit in order to redeem their soiled image. As Babangida particularly, who is 72, advances in age, he should take advantage of the window to wash his hands clean, specifically in connection with Giwa’s blood. Giwa’s killing was a crime against humanity. Let no guilty party be under the illusion that strategic quiet will calm the storm.

    One curious dimension to this tale is the place of conscience in human affairs. It is inevitable to reflect on the possibility that Giwa’s murderers might be troubled in their souls, but that is not enough. On the other hand, supposing the killers here are monsters with repressed conscience? Possibly the high point of the book launch on November 22 at Freedom Park, (Old Prison Yard), Broad Street, Lagos, was the moment Basorun made his remarks with emotional sobs. His most poignant line was expression of regret on account of his association with what he termed “a government known for evil.” He ends the book on a revealing and deeply frightful note, saying, “I will count on all well meaning citizens of the country not to be deterred if Babangida eventually succeeds in snuffing the life out of me.”

  • Joyless jollification

    President Goodluck Jonathan probably has too much on his plate. This could have been a factor in his unexpected and unexplained illness in London, which caused him to miss the opening ceremony of a two-day meeting of Nigeria’s Honorary International Investors’ Council (HIIC) that coincided with his 56th birthday on November 20. In particular, a major challenge must be the imminence of the country’s 2015 general elections, which continues to generate emotionally charged arguments for and against his possible pursuit of reelection. His elusiveness on the issue has, predictably, compounded an already combustible context. If there is one subject that threatens to cause a political convulsion, it is Jonathan’s suspected but unconfirmed second-term ambition. If he is relying on perfect timing to share his presidential dream with the public, as his words imply and body language suggests, his dilatory tactics are simply postponing the day of reckoning.

    Notably, the background to his mind games is similarly labyrinthine. First, the controversy that attended his defiant decision to run for the office in the face of credible claims by high-profile members of his party, the People’s Democratic Party (PDP), that an extant zoning arrangement precluded his aspiration. Having stepped in, as vice-president, to complete the four-year term of the late President Umaru Yar’ Adua, his antagonists calculated that he would subsequently step down for a candidate from Yar’ Adua’s northern political base to finish an anticipated second term. It is revealing of his character and the party’s unpredictability that he rejected the alleged formula and capitalised on his incumbency with the backing of the party’s leadership.

    This original “sin” degenerated with his declaration that he never swore to spending only one-term in office after his 2011 election, contrary to the insistence of his adversaries that an alleged gentlemen’s agreement underlined the specification. By inference, therefore, he is free to run for a second term in 2015, if he so wishes, which is highly probable. These central scenes from the thought-provoking political drama were unavoidable as Jonathan advanced in his fifties.

    Interestingly, while Jonathan arrived in London for the HIIC meeting, which did not necessarily indicate that he was too preoccupied with the country’s affairs to celebrate his birthday, the Federal Executive Council (FEC) marked the anniversary briefly with a cake-cutting show before its weekly meeting presided over by Vice-President Namadi Sambo, who described his boss flatteringly as “a gift to the nation.” Sambo’s effusive remarks betrayed a self-serving mentality that was as unbelievable as it was enlightening. His words: “We are privileged Nigerians sharing from the grace of God upon his life. There is no doubt that the great destiny of this man has helped our individual destiny. We will continue to pray that Mr. President succeeds in transforming the country.” The striking reference to “individual destiny” suggested a collective self-centredness at the FEC, elevated above the greater good of the people.

    It is significant that Jonathan’s administration prides itself on being transformation-driven, a projection that was in 2011 symbolically defined by his launch of the Transformation Agenda summarising the government’s strategic priorities as well as the ways and means by which it would accomplish its major programmes and projects for the period until 2015 coordinated by the National Planning Commission (NPC). It is instructive that in September, in reaction to bitter intra-party divisions, Jonathan sacrificed nine cabinet ministers, including Shamsudeen Usman, then Minister of National Planning and coordinator of the Transformation Agenda, who was credited with its design. It is unclear to what extent the removal might work against the plan.

    With leaders who enjoy the self-flattery of the tag “giant of Africa”, without in any way thinking gigantically, it is disgraceful that the country was ranked 41st on a 52-country list called the 2013 Ibrahim Index of African Governance (IIAG), a project of the Mo Ibrahim Foundation. The country not only scored lower than the continental average (51.6), it also ridiculously scored lower than the regional average (52.5) for West Africa. Assessment was based on four key areas: Safety and Rule of Law, Participation and Human Rights, Sustainable Economic Opportunity and Human Development.

    A bigger and particularly poignant irony is the fact that although Jonathan is the first doctorate holder to govern the country, he is apparently also the leader most disparaged for alleged incompetence, cluelessness and lack of vision in the country’s political history. With a PhD degree in Zoology and experience as a lecturer, it is one of the tragic expressions of his administration that Jonathan has failed to demonstrate the depth of intellectual resourcefulness that would normally be associated with an individual with such background.

    It is as well paradoxical that he has not only acquired seemingly implacable political foes right within his party, he is indeed also presiding over a dangerously dismembered party with a dubious future. Perhaps this juncture was predictable, given his antecedents. However, it exposes brinkmanship of the most thoughtless kind and unenlightened self-interest. If the PDP suffers an implosion under Jonathan’s leadership, which seems likely, that would be a fitting monument to narrow-mindedness of the most limiting type.

    It is the sort of crudely restrictive thinking that has transformed Jonathan into a local champ among his Ijaw group whose spokesmen routinely perform the ethnic drama without restraint while dreaming of Jonathan’s reelection. Fixated on sentiment rather than social validation based on good governance, such support is certainly far removed from the ideal. Added to these supporters who wear the ethnic badge is the group of power sycophants from the outside who are simply fair-weather friends.

    It is noteworthy that the Jonathan presidency, more than any other peacetime administration in the country’s history, has been burdened with the menace of ostensibly revolutionary opposition in the form of the Islamist terror organisation, Boko Haram. The extension of Jonathan’s climactic initial six-month imposition of emergency rule in Borno, Yobe and Adamawa states reflects the scale of the security challenge. It is disturbing that there are insightful insinuations concerning the longevity of the insurgency, linking its rigid resistance to the manner of Jonathan’s ascendancy.

    In addition, there is no denying the fact that official corruption is an encumbrance for the Jonathan administration, which seems to be sinking deeper and deeper into the mire as its tenure progresses. It is difficult to point to any major case of corruption that the government has tackled with the desired intensity of seriousness, despite its hypocritical loudness about a so-called anti-corruption crusade; and this tolerance, unsurprisingly, continues to embolden the army of morally deficient public office holders.

    However, perhaps the ultimate albatross around Jonathan’s neck is his other half, First Lady Dame Patience, who is credited with an unrivaled grip on her husband and has earned him an uncomplimentary image. With such a plateful of problems, it is not so difficult to guess what Jonathan must be going through.

  • Gowon’s Godism

    It is intriguing that General (retd) Yakubu Gowon, Nigeria’s military head of state from August 1966 to July 1975 and currently shepherd of Nigeria Prays, a Christian prayer group, is apparently consumed by his “awakening” and has surrendered his power of material analysis. It is too easy to spiritualize concrete events by appealing to so-called divine intervention, an approach Gowon adopted in his focus on a critical juncture in the country’s political history.

    Perhaps he was innocently ignorant of the underlying implications of his comments in a newspaper interview where he attributed the deaths of the dreadful dictator, General Sani Abacha, and the popular symbol of democratic resistance, Chief Moshood Abiola, to the hand of God guided by human supplication. His ahistoricity was not just simplistic; it was profoundly misleading. Such shallowness certainly should not be encouraged because it falsifies reality and promotes unawareness.

    Gowon’s incredible words: “But what the good Lord did was that, at that time, one of the serious political problems we had was Abacha/Abiola, the June 12 crisis. What happened then was that the good Lord took Abacha and paved the way for a return to civil rule and that was to give opportunity for the release of Abiola. Then Abiola, who was also at the other end of the crisis also passed on and therefore left the path for a reasonable, genuine restoration and return to a civil rule. That was achieved through some of the prayers that we did but we did not ask the good Lord for anyone’s demise.”

    There is no doubt that this was an effort at revisionism, which must fail because the essentials are incontrovertible. Against the background of a morally flawed grip on power, Abacha’s unexpected death on June 8, 1998, smacked of machination, following five years of ruthless oppression of the pro-democracy opposition including presidential claimant Abiola, and an elaborate but unpopular preparation for self-succession. Although he reportedly suffered from cirrhosis, events of his final moments suggested that he succumbed to poison. Similarly, Abiola’s abrupt passing one month later on July 7, 1998, was supremely suspicious, particularly in the context of a consistently intense campaign for his release from detention and restoration of his ruptured electoral mandate.

    It is significant to dwell on the hazy circumstances of Abiola’s death, which happened on the day he was reportedly due to be freed. According to a BBC interview at the time with US special envoy Thomas R. Pickering, an American delegation, which included Susan Rice visited the caged Abiola who suddenly fell ill, and subsequently died presumably from a heart attack. It is revealing that although the official autopsy stated that Abiola died of natural causes, Abacha’s Chief Security Officer, al-Mustapha later alleged that he was tortured to death, claiming to have video and audiotapes to back his accusation. It is instructive that 15 years after, the final report of an autopsy carried out by a team of international coroners is still treated as a secret document. Also, there is irrefutable evidence that Abiola was denied proper medical attention for his existing health conditions while he was detained for four years.

    So, to go by Gowon’s mystical logic, where does God come into the picture? Evidently, as even Gowon noted, Abacha’s death offered an opportunity for Abiola’s release, which was not effected immediately, contrary to the dictates of fairness. Abacha’s martial successor, Abdulsalami Abubakar, failed to seize the historic moment and there is little doubt that this dilatoriness possibly cost Abiola his life.

    It is noteworthy that Gowon’s flat reference to Abiola as being “at the other end of the crisis” glossed over a fundamental detail, specifically, that the wealthy businessman and politician was the victim of a crude and inexcusable power show by Abacha’s military predecessor, Ibrahim Babangida, who annulled the country’s momentous presidential election of June 12, 1993, which endorsed Abiola. Non-acknowledgement of this pivot, which amounted to a trivialisation of cause and overemphasis on consequence, is worrying, especially on account of its source who, at 79, is regarded as an elder statesman.

    Furthermore, Gowon’s argument that Abiola’s death perfected the removal of supposed barriers, and opened “the path for a reasonable, genuine restoration and return to a civil rule”, carried a ring of negative bias. Contemplating the path not taken, the question of the possible value of Abiola’s presidency, had he been allowed to rule, will continue to haunt the polity. Abiola’s “Hope 93” campaign was full of motivational vitality and the majority eagerly bought his alluring promise of constructive change. Perhaps it was a turning-point opportunity that will be difficult to regain. In addition, would Gowon seriously consider the country’s civil-rule experience since Abiola’s aborted appeal worthy of his adjectives, “reasonable and genuine”? To try a reduction to absurdity, it is apt to wonder whether Gowon regards his inglorious overthrow in a military coup d’état as an instance of divine intervention, a clearing of the path in favour of a superior arrangement.

    However, even if unwittingly, Gowon succeeded in being helpful; his remarks, by inference, again highlighted the reality that Abiola’s death particularly is far from closure. It is precisely because of the possibility of misinformation by individuals of Gowon’s ilk that Abiola’s death deserves to be further probed and its cause conclusively determined. More important, the result of such definitive investigation should be open to the public.

    In this respect, the controversial death of Palestine leader Yasser Arafat in 2004 has parallel angles. While official medical records state that he died of a stroke resulting from a blood disorder, strong speculations that he might have been murdered were apparently validated following the exhumation of his remains in November 2012. After conducting tests on samples taken from his remains, experts at the Vaudois University Hospital Centre (CHUV) in Lausanne, Switzerland, produced a report that said, “Taking into account the analytical limitations aforementioned, mostly time lapse since death and the nature and quality of the specimens, the results moderately support the proposition that the death was the consequence of poisoning with polonium-210.” A highly radioactive substance, Polonium-210 is found in low doses in food and created naturally in the body, but can be fatal if ingested in high doses.

    In Abiola’s case, it is equally crucial to pursue the truth, even if only to shame the theories of premeditated murder. Unfortunately, until the issue is satisfactorily resolved, individuals of Gowon’s mentality will soften the complexity by blaming God.

  • Slippery Seven

    Weighing the pros and cons of the intriguing road show by a high-profile circle of the All Progressives Congress (APC) is likely to be controversial. However, in the final analysis, it is the measurement of results that counts. Therefore, it would be interesting to see what mileage the party would eventually get out of the tour.

    It is apt to identify the fact that the adventure was informed by opportunistic calculation, which is not necessarily pejorative in the political context. Evidently, the exercise was inspired by the fractious reality of the ruling People’s Democratic Party (PDP), and would not have been a serious option in the absence of the schism. Even then, it was strategically simplistic, perhaps denying the fundamental truth that the PDP’s in-fighting is not sufficiently radical to allow penetration by external invaders.

    Basically, the party’s troubles are indicative of an internal power struggle, which in no way translates into an abandonment of the bond. To interpret the division in terms of ideological disenchantment is to tragically miss the point. They are all birds of a feather and, at the end of the day, would always flock together.

    There can be no doubt about the visceral association, a fact that was adequately projected to the would-be persuaders at every stop. Whether it was in Kano, Jigawa, Adamawa, Rivers, Kwara or Niger, there was a striking stock response to the seduction; specifically, that the seven antagonistic PDP governors, tagged G-7, were still interested in remaining in the party and optimistic about fence-mending. If there was any question about where their hearts belonged, Rivers State governor Rotimi Amaechi provided fascinating clarification when he told the visitors, rather audaciously, “I will consult the president. I will. He is from our zone. I will consult all the consultables.”

    A perfect example of cheekiness and reductio ad absurdum, Amaechi’s remarks carried enormous significance on account of his status as chairman of the Nigeria Governors’ Forum (NGF), and against the backdrop of the crisis that characterised his re-election to that position, during which he enjoyed the principled support of progressive elements outside his party. If he would indeed need the advice of President Goodluck Jonathan, who is a major PDP leader and his supposed political adversary, among others, to make up his mind to join APC, it suggests that such departure is improbable. Also, it is a reflection of the superficiality of the division within the PDP.

    At least two other comments by G-7 members are noteworthy for their negative implications for the APC’s romance with the group. While Kwara State governor AbdulFatah Ahmed, in a manner that suggested a put-down, described the visit as “a marketing activity,” Jigawa State governor Sule Lamido declared emphatically, “It is our desire to ensure that we remain in the winning party.”

    It is relevant to ponder why the PDP has such a grip on the imagination of its members, with the effect that they refuse to think outside the party. Two notable examples of this reality will suffice. First, former vice president Atiku Abubakar left the party to join the then Action Congress (AC), only for him to unceremoniously return to the PDP to seek its presidential ticket, which he was denied. Second, former Abia State governor Orji Uzor Kalu disowned the party to start the Progressive People’s Alliance (PPA) which under his inspiration won governorship elections in two states. Then, abruptly, he dumped the party and returned to the PDP. In both cases, it is important to stress, the two returnees had to endure indignities just to achieve reabsorption.

    Perhaps inadvertently, the APC has raised the profile of these governors, who belong to the faction also called the “New PDP”, namely, Lamido, Musa Kwankwaso (Kano), Aliyu Wamakko (Sokoto), Ahmed , Amaechi, Murtala Nyako (Adamawa) and Babangida Aliyu (Niger). It is difficult to understand why the APC is courting them, suggesting that they are indispensable power brokers. Furthermore, moves to attract them significantly blurred the vital ideological distinction between their original platform known for conservative elitism and the APC’s acclaimed progressivism. Or is APC saying there is no difference?

    It is disturbing that in the sugar-coated language of a suitor, the APC’s leadership spoke superlatively of the performance of these governors. More worrying, by this undiscriminating show, the APC unwittingly undermined its own structures in the affected states. Should its overtures fail, how will the party explain to the electorate that it is a better choice for governance, rather than the characters it has praised immoderately, or those associated with them?

    It is understandable that the party is anxious to redirect Nigeria, but it certainly shouldn’t be at the expense of ideological purity. The party’s essence deserves protection always, and mingling with actors of dubious credentials cannot profit it in the long run. With the all-important 2015 general elections in sight, it is no surprise that the party is exploring possible winning formulas. However, it must avoid giving the impression of desperation.

    Rather than the direct “door to door” marketing approach adopted in this campaign, the APC brand would most likely benefit from a more subtle but effective PR style. In other words, the party, which is a creation of the merger of the Action Congress of Nigeria (ACN), the Congress for Progressive Change (CPC), the All Nigeria Peoples Party (ANPP) and a faction of the All Progressives Grand Alliance (APGA), would need to define its orientation more concretely and establish a reputation through measurable positive performance of its members in political offices.

    Going into the coming elections as a first-timer, the party, no doubt, would be interested in putting up a strong showing, which would count in its favour in the long term. In this connection, it is hoped that the party will be driven by long-term vision, rather than narrow immediacies. Central to the beauty of a stable democracy is the possibility of change based on the informed preference of the electorate. Despite the rumpus over the country’s structure, Nigeria might yet survive.

    Gradualism has its advantages, especially when the opposite comes with the implication of sacrificing the party’s distinguishing values. Whatever the downsides of the tour, there were indeed redeeming features. In particular, the APC achieved a publicity intensity that has helped to widen its identification. In addition, its consistent message of constructive change boldly projected on the road provided reassuring evidence of its commitment to a better Nigeria. Above all, the ambassadors communicated an aura of integrity and exemplary passion, perhaps the very attributes missing in those at the helm.