The Nation Newspaper

Category: Femi Macaulay

  • Ubah’s obscenities

    In the build-up to the Anambra State governorship election on November 16, the crown for the ultimate grandstander must go to Labour Party (LP) candidate and controversial businessman, Ifeanyi Ubah. He has outclassed his rivals in loudmouthedness , which unfortunately is a quality many politicians in the land crave, in the mistaken conviction that it works on the electorate.

    However, it is comforting that Ubah, contrary to his fantasy, does not have the exalted position in his pocket just yet. It will be an intense contest, with the magnetic Senator Chris Ngige of the All Progressives Congress (APC) and the incumbent-backed Chief Willie Obiano of the All Progressives Grand Alliance (APGA) promising a tough battle.

    Interestingly, Ubah himself unwittingly betrayed the unappealing nature of his candidacy in a recent newspaper interview. His words: “I am a money maker, a magician trained by God. In fact, let me tell you something, if I can gather all my resources, what God has blessed me with; I can do 50 percent of Anambra without anybody’s money. If I gather my worldwide resources and I am given a free hand to change Anambra, I promise that I will do 50 percent of what is in my manifesto without touching one kobo of Anambra State government.”

    In concrete terms, Ubah’s suggestion, which might be no more than an “epic boast”, was that he could on his own provide over N50 billion to run the state. This implication, based on the state’s 2013 budget of N110.9 billion, is a point to ponder. If it was a conscious statement, uttered with veracity, then the people of Anambra need look no farther than Ubah. On the other hand, if he merely served entertainment, the people ought to give him a wide berth, like others of that ilk who speak superlatively about their personal wealth with little evidence of employing it to transform society.

    In the first place, it is apt to wonder just how much Ubah is worth, given his grandiosity. Then, of course, the question of his sources would be inevitable. Furthermore, it would be interesting to know how faithful he has been in performing his civic duties, especially obeying the law and paying tax that is due. Such contemplation would be appropriate against the background of Ubah’s complicated expansion. His 40th birthday two years ago was a study in lavishness, and a statement that stamped him on the collective consciousness. Shortly after, his name featured prominently in the oil subsidy payment storm, and then he got entangled with Cosmas Maduka of Coscharis Motors Limited over a gargantuan financial deal that went sour. Lately, he was forced to relinquish the management of his company, Capital Oil and Gas Limited, to the Assets Management Company of Nigeria (AMCON) for two years on account of debt issues. And he is in court with the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), which maintains that he has a case to answer in respect of a fraud allegation concerning a parcel of land at Apapa-Oshodi Expressway, Lagos.

    Beyond his troubles, which would likely be assuaged by electoral victory, it is instructive to reflect on his social responsibility in connection with his town, Nnewi, and in the context of his self-publicised prosperity. He reportedly established Ifeanyi Ubah Foundation which is said to have awarded university scholarships, sunk boreholes, installed electricity transformers, repaired and graded community roads and provided free fuel to commercial motorcyclists and bus drivers weekly. However, the truth is that these might be no more than tokenist gestures, considering the stupendous riches he claims.

    Regrettably, the entrepreneurial model that makes obscene noise about personal possessions but unenthusiastic about sharing a reasonable portion with society is very familiar. Across the country, there are so-called people-oriented Foundations set up by the wealthy and powerful, which function simply in a cosmetic fashion, lacking not only consistency, but also the commitment to long-term service. In addition, they are fundamentally ego-driven and constituted merely to aid vain posturing.

    Perhaps Ubah could benefit from reading the book, What Money Can’t Buy, by Harvard University scholar Michael Sandel, which is a critique of the “market society”. For, there is a subtle market mentality involved in the method he chose to sell his candidacy, relying on the seduction of money and what it can buy, in this case, his private wealth flaunted as a cushion that the people can count on beyond state funds. His selling point should not be encouraged, particularly because it glosses over the deeper moral implications.

    Quite strangely, but revealing of the fact that his candidacy is basically deficient in integrity, Ubah in the interview said of himself, “I am one of the Villa boys. I am not in an opposition party.” The puzzling self- description was his answer to a question about his relationship with the seat of federal power, which is occupied by the People’s Democratic Party (PDP). If Ubah’s suggestion is that LP and PDP are not rivals in Anambra, should this be interpreted to mean that the parties are one and the same, or perhaps partners? Whose interest, therefore, would Ubah represent, should he win?

    Again, there are moral angles. The people deserve full disclosure concerning Ubah’s actual leaning, rather than misleading double-speak. The lesson: Ubah inadvertently highlighted the sorry reality that the country’s political parties are separated by little or no differences in ideology. That is why he could so easily attempt to blur the dividing line. It is especially tragic that it involved LP, which is conventionally perceived as egalitarian and progressive, in contradistinction to the conservative elitism represented by PDP.

    Although the Anambra electorate is expected to have the final say, it is important to stress that political governance is too weighty to be left to moneybags, particularly the showy type who defines money in terms of a magic bullet, and demonstrates little respect for the moral core that should guide money-making and the purpose of wealth. It is equally crucial that the leader should be ruled by ideological clarity, the lack of which would create undesirable illusions for the people.

  • Bamidele’s grandiose delusions

    Why is Opeyemi Bamidele in such a desperate and unconscionable hurry to be Ekiti State governor in 2014? Evidently, the answer to this penetrating poser does not lie on the surface. For clarification, it would perhaps be necessary to explore the depths of his psyche, an exercise likely to yield insights that are, paradoxically, baffling as well as enlightening.

    Only the Pollyannaish would have been taken aback by his publicised resignation as Ekiti Caucus Leader in the House of Representatives where he speaks for Ado-Ekiti/Irepodun-Ifelodun Federal Constituency, a position he attained on the platform of the Action Congress of Nigeria (ACN), which has morphed into All Progressives Congress (APC), courtesy of a merger. Evidences of disgruntlement were unmistakable not only in his utterances, but also in his body language, in the build-up to the formal declaration of his ambition.

    In words that were dramatically impressionistic, he sounded like a politician on a soapbox. He said in an ironic letter to Ekiti State Governor Kayode Fayemi, the very target and hurdle in his path, “I can no longer tarry in responding to the yearnings and aspirations of the violated children, the deserted youth, the disillusioned women, the unfulfilled civil and public servants, the neglected artisans, the jobless and unemployed men as well as the heart-broken elder statesmen and frustrated founding fathers.” Besides the demands of official courtesy necessitating the notification of the APC National Leader Asiwaju Bola Ahmed Tinubu, House of Representatives Speaker Aminu Tambuwal, and Minority Leader Femi Gbajabiamila, it was symbolically also to stress the avoidance of doubt, particularly for Tinubu, former Lagos State governor who was regarded as his political mentor.

    Interestingly, in July it took Tinubu’s calming intervention to reverse Bamidele’s suspension by the Ekiti Caucus over his then alleged eyeing of the governorship of Ekiti in 2014, despite his party’s apparent backing of the sitting governor for a second four-year term. At the time, Tinubu said, “I do not believe he should be sanctioned at this point where the most he has done is to make unofficial statements about contesting. While we have no problem in him pursuing his democratic ambition without intimidation and persecution, we will continue our efforts at persuading him not to rock the boat and play into the hands of our opponents, particularly the PDP.” Three months later, Bamidele not only remarkably vindicated his colleagues; he also disappointingly betrayed Tinubu’s confidence. It would be interesting to know what the champion of progressivism thinks now, and how he feels.

    Indeed, while Bamidele’s decision to swim against the tide suggests conviction, which would be puzzling in the circumstances, it seems more like reckless hardihood. In hyperbolic language, he described his move as “cogent and compelling”, arguing that the choice was “in response to the call by well-meaning Ekiti sons and daughters at home and in the Diaspora, who believe that our dear state needs a critical intervention at this time, so as not to become a failed state.” However, the creative embellishment employed to convey a sorry picture of Ekiti is itself a failed technique, for it relies on emotive words lacking in substance. This approach is especially suspicious because of its extreme erroneousness. From all indications, it certainly cannot be the truth that Ekiti is on a downward trajectory.

    Such skewed presentation could only be a consequence of psychotic belief, which makes it even more worrying. If there was any doubt about the state of mind that invented the fable of failure, the uncertainty was resolved by Bamidele’s elaboration of his mission. In long-winded words, his dream is: “to herald in a new and united Ekiti State, where our past glory will be brought back from sabbatical; where integrity and strength of character, which are the hallmarks of Ekiti personality, will be celebrated again; and where job creation, food security, law and order, as well as infrastructure and human capital development with high premium on health and education will be the utmost priority as the minimum agenda for good governance in compliance with global best practices.” Phew! Wasn’t that a bit overloaded? Bamidele is entitled to his grandstanding. But who is impressed?

    It is important to highlight the reality of the inadequacy of words, particularly when the issue is good governance. Indeed, what counts in that realm is action. In this regard, Governor Fayemi’s track record in office speaks for itself as an eloquent testimony to “integrity, hard work and performance,” to quote Chief Joel Babatola, a First Republic minister, who led members of the non-partisan Ekiti Council of Elders on a visit to the governor’s office at the mid-term of his first four-year mandate. It is noteworthy that, at the time, Fayemi also got the endorsement of leaders of the then ACN for re-election; the state chairman, Chief Jide Awe, declared that “the Fayemi administration has made a difference in the state.”

    Of course, Bamidele is not bound to respect these specific instances of praise for Fayemi’s 8-Point Agenda, but he is expected to be sufficiently modest in order to rise above denial. However, such elevation can only be achieved in the absence of optical illusion, which unfortunately is a possibility in this case. For Fayemi undeniably continues to grab the headlines with his “Legacy Projects”, touching an impressive range of people-oriented issues. Although, logically, it is possible that Bamidele could do even better, it is equally conceivable that he could do much worse. It would appear that Bamidele’s ambition belongs to his head rather than his heart. One central credit of democracy, likely to work against him, is that the people can distinguish between sugar-coated sentiments and measurable performance.

    Having crossed the red line by his demonstration of flagrant faithlessness in the party concerning his aspiration, it is fascinating to contemplate his next move, and the party’s official response. It is unimaginable that he would subsequently feel at home in the party, just as it is unthinkable that the party would pursue an accommodation with him. Furthermore, should he carry his imagination to a rival party, which is probable, would that minimise his grandiose delusions?