The Nation Newspaper

Category: Monday

  • Abacha loot and other loot

    Something about the size of the loot says something about the size of the looter’s appetite. Take the infamous Abacha loot, for instance. Switzerland Ambassador Eric Mayoraz drew attention to the kleptocrat’s mind-boggling greed at a forum on asset recovery organised by the Swiss Embassy and the African Network for Environment and Economic Justice.

    Mayoraz was quoted as saying at the June 28 event in Abuja:  “All funds hidden in Swiss banks by Abacha were fully repatriated and so we don’t have any of such funds in Switzerland again. $752m was returned in 2005 and we discovered more and more in other banks and that involved the $322.5m that was repatriated earlier this year.” In other words, over $1billion Abacha loot had been returned.

    The diplomat employed diplomatic language when he justified the concern of the Swiss government that the latest $322.5m should be well managed and spent to enrich the poor. Mayoraz said: “Unfortunately, some of the assets that were returned, there was not so much transparency in it. So, we have to introduce the World Bank to get involved in this so that this particular one can be used by the Nigerian government with the monitoring of the World Bank.”

    This arrangement mocks Nigeria. It suggests that Nigeria’s leaders can’t be trusted with the returned Nigerian loot. More tragically, the arrangement is a response to a bad record regarding the management of the initial $752m.

    This time, according to Special Adviser to the President on Social Investment, Mrs. Maryam Uwais, who was represented at the forum, the returned money would be used to fund the government’s Social Investment Programme which would, among other things, give money to the poorest and most vulnerable households. She also said that the Federal Government would begin drawing money from the loot this month, and confirmed that the spending would be monitored by the World Bank.

    The involvement of another monitor, the United Kingdom government, clearly compounds the insult.  At the forum, Head, Department for International Development in Nigeria, Mrs. Debbie Palmer, said the UK government would spend £600,000 (N282m) to monitor the use of recovered assets.  She noted that Nigeria had recently received $322.5m Abacha loot from Switzerland and $73m and advised that the money should be put to good use. Palmer cited reports that said Africa was losing $50bn to political corruption every year.

    The late General Sani Abacha, who ruled the country dictatorially from 1993 to 1998, is believed to have stolen money to the tune of over $2 billion from the treasury. He ran a kleptocratic administration. The unending tale of his mammoth loot stashed away in banks across the globe continues to stretch the imagination 20 years after his death.

    In 2014, the United States (US) Department of Justice had highlighted Abacha’s looting methods, and reportedly froze $458 million in corruption funds linked to him in secret bank accounts around the world. The action was described as “the largest kleptocracy forfeiture ever in the US.” According to then Acting Assistant Attorney General Mythili Raman of the US Justice Department’s Criminal Division, “Gen. Abacha was one of the most notorious kleptocrats in memory, who embezzled billions from the people of Nigeria while millions lived in poverty.”

    This is the character President Muhammadu Buhari recently characterised in positive terms.  “No matter what opinion you have about Abacha, I agreed to work with him and the roads we did from PTF exist from here to Port Harcourt, to Onitsha, to Benin and so on,” Buahri had said while receiving a delegation of Buhari Support Organisation (BSO) at the Presidential Villa in May.  He also credited the Abacha dictatorship with other notable developmental projects in the education and health sectors.

    Buhari had served under Abacha as head of the Petroleum Trust Fund (PTF), set up to utilise the proceeds of a petrol price hike, and this may well have influenced his picture of Abacha.  But the reality is that much more could have been done to develop the country with the billions of dollars Abacha stole.

    It is noteworthy that the US Department of Justice had identified Abacha’s looting style which, interestingly, has not gone out of fashion. According to the report, “The prosecutor believes Abacha and his associates conducted three fraudulent schemes during his time in office.”  Chief among them was “the ‘security votes’ fraud, through which more than $2 billion was embezzled from the Central Bank of Nigeria.”

    This information shows how little has changed in the approach to looting   by political helmsmen.  The “security votes” camouflage is still in vogue and it is perhaps the least problematic path to illegal earnings in government.

    Not surprisingly, the Federal Government’s  announced plan to redistribute the returned loot to about 300,000 households, with each getting about $14 (N5, 000) a month, has drawn  public criticism, particularly because the sharing is unlikely to be inclusive and the beneficiaries are unlikely to be elevated.  Spending the loot to fund the government’s   National Social Safety Net Programme (NAASP) will ultimately prove to be counterproductive.

    Transparency and accountability in the use of the recovered looted funds are better achieved by investing the money in developmental projects. The Nigerian authorities need to pay greater attention to socioeconomic conditions. The country needs to make significant progress on poverty reduction and ensure that the majority of its citizens enjoy improved quality of life.  Sharing the Abacha loot based on a parochial perspective won’t achieve the desired development.

    It is interesting that the Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project (SERAP) observed: “The return of the Abacha loot is a chance for President Buhari to commit to the enforcement of the 2016 judgment by Justice Mohammed Idris, which ordered his government to publish, disclose the spending of recovered loot since 1999 by past and present governments till date, as well as details of projects on which the funds were spent.”

    There is no doubt that the unavailability of such a comprehensive record of how recovered looted funds were utilised, or not utilised, for developmental purposes over the years is a discredit to the Buhari administration’s anti-corruption campaign.

     

  • Mountain out of molehill

    He stands spry on the factory floor, his eyes shining underneath his low-cut hair parted on the side. He looks young but his parted hair harks back to a fashion style of the 1970’s. But with his audacious thoughts, his foppish shirt and trousers, his fascination with twenty-first century technology and gadgetry, he straddles the classic and the classy.

    He calls his philosophy Ayadeism, with a touch of vanity. But he does not apologise. He defines it as a sweet spot between Adam Smith and Keynes, and he domesticates it in Cross River State. He takes his visitor around the factory floor where he is in one breath congratulating his wizardry and, in an another, showcasing that wizardry by taking over  the job of tour guide from the foreigners he employed to establish the rice seeding and seedling plant. The Chinese watch him with admiration as he gesticulates and explains. He explains everything from how the rice is made, what kind of nutrients are in it, how they are retained, and how it is different from whatever we eat across the country. What we eat is mostly chaff. His rice seedling plant is the first of its kind in most of the African continent. Unlike what we eat and import from Asia, this rice will make our bloodstream ruddy, our body strong. He speaks with gusto as he chaperons everyone, including some visitors of the American consulate.

    He even reminds one of the word cotyledon, a word I last heard in my biology class in Government College, Ughelli. Inside the factory are tractors, storage facility, conveyor belts, rice sorting and nutrient machines, et al.

    The rice factory is part of a vast industrial zone in Calabar that Ben Ayade, Governor of Cross River State, is putting in place to stake himself as perhaps the most imaginative governor in the land in making a mountain out of a molehill.

    Half an hour later, he takes us to a garment making factory, where women sit in rows, knitting, designing, sewing. As soon as they see him, an explosion of acclaim. “Digital! Digital!,”they shout with verve.

    “What do they mean by that?” asks one of the consular staff. He feigns indifference while acknowledging the cheers. The staff, mostly widows, work in shifts, about three thousand of them. The industrial zone consists also of a vaccine making factory, the first of its kind in the Niger Delta, and the factory will churn out vaccines for common ailments in our parts, including malaria, typhoid, etc. More of such plants are in the offing, and a super highway and a deep-sea port in the 5,000 hectare industrial zone are vertebral bone of the infrastructure to facilitate business.

    Across the state, other projects are on the way, including a toothpick factory, a pylon factory, a poultry farm in Obubra, instant noodles, a vitaminised rice factory and yellow maize farm.

    Early in his administration, he hit headlines when he employed hundreds of personnel as advisers. He was ribbed as extravagant, turning government into an economy of affection. But how was he going to pay for all these? He gets an allocation of about N2 billion a month, the state lacks oil, its oil well was yanked off by the court and the money is now in the coffers of Akwa Ibom. He also pays debt every month amounting to N1.5 billion. So, how does he manage to carry out such gigantic projects when, as he claims with pride, he owes no banks and his state is not even allowed to borrow.

    In deference to the workers, he paid May salary on May 1, after he had paid April salary. He is one of the states that pay salaries on 25th of every month. He has never defaulted. Last year, he was restrained by his own people from paying December salary too early in the month.

    I ask him, how does he get the finances for this state when states with fatter pockets stumble even to pay salaries. Some are owing as much as five months, in spite of the Paris Fund bailouts. He calls what he is doing “intellectual engineering,” he says Nigerian leaders get it wrong when they think of money first. We dream first and money comes, he implies. “Naira and kobo never solved any problem.”

    Th state is known for another project of ambition, TINAPA. Shying from casting a slur on one of his predecessors, Governor Duke, he would not say it is conceptually deficient, even after I have badgered him with questions over it. Clearly, TINAPA has turned out to be a fantastic nothing, flamboyant in announcement but dead before arrival. Gov. Ayade says it might have succeeded as a concept in Lagos. TINAPA is a good concept in a wrong place. It is driven by an idea of consumption, not production, he implies. It is not Dubai, which is a major transit point in the world, feeding markets all over the world. But even the UAE on its own sustains Dubai. Calabar, mostly rural and peasant, cannot soar to such ambition without crashing.

    So, isn’t that the fate of the his industrial park? He says he did this in his first term, so it could work its way into profitability and concession it to private investors. That way, he does not burden posterity or irk the ego of his successor who might turn his industrial park into another TINAPA, which he is planning to transform into a “first-class university.” Hence he says his is a sweet spot between Smith and Keynes, where demand pull meets regulation and control.

    Ayade is an experiment in imagination in governance, to turn water into wine and mountain out of molehill. He seems on song now, and he is to be watched as a man who does not need oil to make great things. He is a dreamer and practitioner of his dreams. Just like Mohammed Ali of Egypt who was so enamoured of ideas that a historian said, “if you asked him to build a castle in the sky, he would say, let’s try it.” As Einstein himself noted, “imagination is more important than knowledge.”

    His is imagination without oil, without borrowing, without fear.

     

    Ismail Isa, Lai Mohammed and Jones Abiri

    I attended the International Press institute conference in Abuja that ended last Saturday, and a major motif was whether Jones Abiri, who is in detention, is a journalist at the first meeting with the President At the villa, the matter was raised, and Thisday publisher Nduka Obaigbena said it would be resolved, which was a more sober way of looking at it than what Ismaila Isa and Federal Government’s megaphone Lai Mohammed said at the conference the following day. Isa, who is more popularly known as Isa Funtua, ambled into the hall in his white cap and kaftan with an air of a feudal lord in his immaculate majesty. Later he stood up during a session to proclaim that no journalist in Nigeria is in detention. He spoke as though bullying. There was no room to interrogate him at that moment because of the structure of the proceedings. Lai Mohammed later said Abiri is not a journalist because he is not in the Nigerian Union of Journalists and not in any NUJ chapel.

    Yet when Abiri’s case appeared in court, the judge recognised that he belonged to  The News Weekly. To say he is not a journalist is not for the NUJ to determine. Let the matter go to court. Again, the fellow was arrested apparently because of what he published. Jonathan Rozen of the New York-based Committee to Protect Journalists has the court papers and is using them to make his case around the world. Our institution, the court, is mocking our disdain for the rule of law. What Abiri wrote is the province of information and journalism. If he is not, the matter is not resolved by keeping him behind bars. Mohammed implies he is held for terrorism. If that is the case, take him to court. This is not the way of democracy but autocracy.

    Isa is the chairman of the Nigerian Institute of Journalism. How can such a man who has the mindset of an autocrat chair a school for journalists. To imagine that he owned a newspaper once called The Democrat is a misnomer, an ignominy.

     

     

  • Yari’s frustrations

    Inherent incongruity in the role of state governors as chief security officers of their states was again brought to the fore by Governor Abdulaziz Yari of Zamfara State when he told reporters he had relinquished that position. He based the action on inability to exercise control over the security machinery in the state in the face of recurring killings by cattle rustlers and marauders. Yari is piqued by the anomalous situation where as chief security officer of the state, he could not take decisions on strategies for protecting the state and its people.

    Hear him “We have been facing serious security challenges over the years, but in spite of being governor and chief security officer of the state, I cannot direct security officers on what to do nor sanction them when they err. The nomenclature is just a name”. Lamenting that the state government had spent a lot of money on security but to no avail, he urged people of the state to take resort to special prayers as a way out of their predicament.

    Yari is not alone in this dilemma. Many state governors have at various times decried functioning in that capacity when in all actuality, they are not in control of security agencies deployed to their states. Some that found themselves in political parties in opposition to the one at the centre have had bitter experiences to contend with. In some cases, there have been accusations of security agencies working at cross purposes with their host governments. Ironically, Yari belongs to the party in power.

    This underscores the seriousness of the matter. It has more than ever before highlighted the imperative to tinker with extant arrangement in which state governors depend on the whims and caprices of the federal government for effective securing of their respective domains. This misnomer is part of the imperfections of our federal order that are at the centre of strident agitations for restructuring.

    Before now, it had been canvassed with varying degree of persuasion that the current structure of the Nigerian Police can no longer make for adequate protection of citizens especially given the complexity and mounting security challenges this country has had to contend with. Virtually all the nation’s geo-political divide are confronted by a peculiar dimension of security challenge or the other that have severely stretched the capacity of our security agencies.

    From the Boko Haram insurgency to the insurgency of Fulani herdsmen, armed robbery, kidnapping and cultism to armed banditry, our security agencies have been so stretched that they are increasing finding it difficult to secure the nation. There are also emerging complexities in crime dimension that should compel our leaders to evolve new approaches to securing the nation.  Incidentally, the institutionalization of state police offers a veritable option against the rising insecurity. It is also a strong feature of federalism which we claim to be operating. Not long ago, state governors had endorsed a quick implementation of state police to check the rising crime wave in the country.

    Despite the allure of that option, there have been views that the country is not yet ripe for it. Fears have been expressed in some quarters on the prospects of its abuse by state governors to feather their political nests. Ironically, the current structure and organization of the Nigerian Police Force and some other security agencies has not fared better on allegations of manipulation by the federal authorities for predetermined objectives.

    So citing prospects for abuse to stall the larger benefits of state police may not be helpful. Rather, it would appear vested interests that profit from extant centralization of the police structure are behind the opposition. There is also inadequacy of manpower which the government acknowledges but has responded by giving approval for the employment of additional staff. Good as that may be, it still scratches the surface in meeting the ratio needed for effective policing of the vast territory of the country.

    Yari’s decision to relinquish his position as chief security officer of the state (though impracticable) demonstrates the contradiction in holding him responsible for the security of the state when the various security agencies in the state take their order from Abuja. In many of these crisis-prone states, the disposition of the leadership of these agencies in Abuja determines the way their subordinates in the states perceive crisis situations.

    Such was at play in the serial killings by Fulani herdsmen in Benue, Taraba, Plateau and others where the phenomenon has festered. The Inspector General of Police Idris Ibrahim betrayed this biased disposition when he attributed the killings to communal conflict. He later apologized when pressure mounted for him to disclose the communities that were in conflict.

    The Minister of Defence, Mansur Dan-Ali did not fare better when he attributed conflicts between farmers and herdsmen to anti-open grazing laws and blocking of grazing routes. He has gone further to persuade states that enacted the anti-open grazing law to tinker with them In the face of the serial inability of the government stop the killings in those states.

    For state governments that bear the brunt of the clashes, these are far from the reasons for the clashes. If at all they count, they have very remote effect. Territorial expansionism and some agenda of a theocratic hue are fingered as the oxygen that sustains the clashes. Many of those affected, believe the crisis has festered because of government’s reluctance to do the needful. Matters are not remedied by recent allegations from some former leaders of this country and senior citizens that the government is complicit in the continued killings.

    That is however beside the issue. Even where some of the affected states had attempted to deploy the services of their vigilante group to complement the efforts of the security agencies, some of them were arrested under very questionable circumstances and charged with varying degrees of offences. Yet, in some other states especially in the southern parts of the country, these vigilante groups have been largely responsible for the relative peace that prevails. It smacks of contradiction of sorts for a government that heavily deployed civilians under the tag ‘civilian joint task force’ to combat Boko Haram to be displaying curious ambivalence on the value of community policing.

    The point here is that all societies even in primeval ages had their own ways of securing themselves. And it worked for them until they entered into social contract with the ‘sovereign’ denoted by modern governance framework. Having been tired of the atavism of the state of nature, they opted to give up some of their powers to a ‘sovereign’ who would in turn protect them. Conceived this way, the contract or social exchange involves rights, duties and obligations. The citizens have duties and obligations to the government while in turn they have certain rights from it.

    That is the reciprocity which governance represents. This contract is breached each time the government displays incapacity to protect lives and property. But the people are not entirely helpless in such circumstance. That accounts for mounting pressure on government to justify its continued relevance in the face of the seeming relapse to the law of nature. Implicit in that contract is the irrevocable power of the people to call to order any defaulting government. Thus, the euphemism “power belongs to the people”

    Yari must have been compelled by this contradiction to announce relinquishing his position as the chief security officer of the state. It is difficult to conceive how that can happen without anarchy having a field day. It is frightening to fathom the outcome of a governor failing to respond to the avalanche of security challenges that regularly inundate his table even as helpless as he is. That is the contradiction.

    The scenario is akin to sending labourers to the farm without farming tools: a huge contradiction that has proved ineffective in serving our collective aspirations. It is time to decentralize the Nigerian Police Force to give the states and local authorities adjunct responsibilities in securing the country.

  • Lawyers and limits

    It is intriguing that self-confessed big-time kidnapper Chukwudumeme Onwuamadike, alias Evans, has got a new lawyer.  Noel Brown, who announced appearance for Evans at the Lagos State High Court in Ikeja on June 22,   sought an adjournment to allow him prepare for the trial. He was quoted as saying: “The learned counsel who was handling the matter before did not do a proper handing over and we have written to the prosecution to give us a copy of the proof of evidence.”  The sensational trial will continue in September.

    Evans’ former lawyer, Olukoya Ogungbeje, had withdrawn from the case based on “personal reasons.” Did he use the expression “personal reasons” euphemistically?  He had said in a statement:  “For the avoidance of doubt, we wish to state categorically that we have fought a good fight this far despite repeated and sustained threats to my life and my co-defence lawyers; I dare say we have no regrets whatsoever having conducted the criminal charges involving our client this far.”

    From the beginning, someone should have told Ogungbeje: Don’t start what you can’t finish. Perhaps someone did, but he rejected the wisdom. Ogungbeje should have anticipated the reason he gave for withdrawing from the case.

    Ogungbeje exhibited irrationality when he said: “For the sake of history we have been able to enrich the basic principles of our Criminal Jurisprudence, especially the principle premised on an accused person being presumed innocent until the contrary is proved no matter the public opinion and the criticism.”

    Evans, a native of Umudun, Nnewi, Anambra State, was arrested on June 10, 2017, at his classy home at Magodo, Lagos, about three weeks after the announcement of N30m bounty by the Inspector General of Police, Ibrahim Idris, for information that could lead to his arrest. He had been on the wanted list of the police in three states, Edo, Anambra and Lagos, for over four years; and police interest in him was renewed by his alleged involvement in the kidnap of Innocent Duru, the prosperous owner of a big pharmaceutical company in Ilupeju, Lagos.

    When Evans was arrested, he painted a picture of how he started kidnapping, which added colour to the thriller: “I was into auto spare parts importation but lost all my money (over N25m) when Customs seized my goods. From there, I relocated to South Africa, where I started peddling drugs. But along the line, my business partner shot me and passed me off as dead. I recuperated, returned to Nigeria and decided to start kidnapping rich men for ransom.”

    Within 10 years, Evans acquired a reputation as a high-profile kidnapper.   A report that captured his criminal trajectory said: “Chief Raymond Okoye was kidnapped in 2015 and was detained for two months until his relatives raised $1million. A trader, Uche Okoroafor, was whisked away in 2015 and held captive for three months until his family paid $1 million. Another businessman, Elias Ukachukwu, was kidnapped in November 2015. He paid $1 million. But the kidnappers refused to release him after collecting the initial ransom.  They demanded another $1million on grounds that the victim’s relatives were rude to them. Ukachukwu stayed in their den for several months and it is unclear how and when he regained freedom. Francis Umeh, an auto parts dealer, was kidnapped in July 2016 at Raji Rasaki Estate, Ago Palace Way, Okota, Lagos. He spent two months in the kidnappers’ den and paid an undisclosed amount of dollars.”

    Evans expressed remorse after his arrest: “I am feeling bad. People who are still into kidnapping should quit. They should learn from what has happened to me. ”

    This is the character Ogungbeje tried to defend in court. In other words, the lawyer tried to prove the innocence of a self-confessed criminal. Was that reasonable?

    Ogungbeje had grabbed the headlines by declaring that his client was forced to plead guilty. On August 30, 2017, Evans was arraigned for alleged kidnapping of Duru Donatus, a Lagos-based businessman. Evans and five suspected members of his gang, who had been in police custody since June 10, 2017, faced “a two-count charge offence bordering on conspiracy and kidnapping.” The others were “a woman, Ogechi Uchechukwu, the third defendant; Uche Amadi, Okwuchukwu Nwachukwu, Chilaka Ifeanyi and Victor Chukwunonso Aduba, second, fourth, fifth and sixth defendants.”

    A report said: “In count one, the defendants were alleged to have “on February 14, 2017, at about 7.45pm along Obokun Street, Ilupeju, Lagos, conspired to commit felony to wit kidnapping.” In count two, they were alleged to have “between February 14 and April 12, 2017, along Obokun Street, Ilupeju, Lagos,  while armed with guns and other weapons, captured, detained and collected a ransom of 223,000 Euros from one Duru Donatus for release”…. Evans, Amadi and Nwachukwu entered a guilty plea. His other three alleged accomplices, Uchechukwu, Ifeanyi and Aduba, pleaded not guilty to the charges.”

    The case looked straightforward enough until Ogungbeje entered the picture, and issued a statement that said: “After the purported guilty plea of our client and the court rose, our client told us clearly that the police told him to plead guilty failing which the police will kill him…Our client pointedly told us that being informed now, he will change his ‘police motivated guilty plea’ to ‘not guilty’ at the next adjourned date.”

    It is interesting that Evans and two others pleaded guilty to the crime while the three other suspects pleaded not guilty. If Evans was forced to plead guilty as Ogungbeje claimed, were the other two who pleaded guilty also forced to do so? Did the three who pleaded not guilty do so because they were not forced to plead guilty, or because they refused to plead guilty?

    It is noteworthy that Evans had confessed to the crime right from the time he was arrested, and before he was charged to court. By pleading guilty in court, Evans only restated his guilt.

    So, why did Evans’ former lawyer try to complicate an uncomplicated case?  It remains to be seen how his new lawyer will prove the innocence of a self-confessed criminal. Shouldn’t lawyers know their limits?

     

  • Only human

    We have often said that President Muhammadu Buhari was an unlikely figure to bestow the GCFR on M.K.O. Abiola as well as restore the integrity of the June 12 story. What is often forgotten in this mushy conversation is that Abiola was an unlikely person to earn it.

    It is the quirk of history that change springs from persons who seem remote from heroic virtue. They overthrow its classic straitjacket of special birth, superhuman physical and mental endowment and supernatural prodding. The turmoil of capitalism, rickety sway of the feudal idea and middle-class subversions have challenged such opinions. Some people thought America’s Washington had such qualities.

    So, no one thought the little general called Napoleon would stand like a statuesque figure after the crucible of the French Revolution. Churchill drink too much, railed too much and was sure to flail as leader of Britain even in peace time. He became the best British citizen of the 20th century. Ghandhi just wanted to be a South African lawyer in starchy suits. For many, Abiola was too rich, too chummy with the army, too earthy, too enmeshed with women, or even epicurean to fight a war for justice.

    Before the presidential election of 1993, not many predicted that Abiola would be a transformational president. They merely saw him as the better of two candidates. He was a rich man with international reaches. His opponent, Tofa the obscure, could not twirl a touch to the man with benevolent owl eyes, a grand stutter and a capacity for bonhomie.

    When IBB annulled the polls, few knew Abiola would stand up for his rights. They thought he would fold and fall.  Many in the civil rights community and even in the political class were waiting for the day that Abiola would renounce his mandate in the interest of peace. In fact, a few months after the annulment, an eerie silence threw up many a conjecture. The civil rights group began to slay him, and they thought he was already accommodating the brute at Aso Villa. After all, they were friends. Femi Falana was miffed at his proverbs, and said they were words of a coward. “You cannot clap with one hand,” “you cannot shave one’s head in his absence,” etc. When the ING was formed with Shonekan at the head, he said it was “an elephant giving birth to a mouse.”

    This was particularly irksome when Abacha flung Shonekan out the window and men like Olu Onagoruwa, Lateef Jakande, Babagana Kingibe, Ebenezer Babatope, et al, joined the cabinet of the bespectacled despot. It was seen as the genuflection of MKO, and it was no longer “on June 12 we stand.” It turned out it was a naïve strategy based on a trust of General Oladipo Diya, who had played a fox and conned them. His bait? Once Abacha settled down, they would restore the mandate. The shenanigan became clear and Abiola understood he trusted too much. He resumed his cry for his mandate.

    When he was locked up, some thought he would also falter. He didn’t and that is the remarkable story of MKO Abiola. Many misjudged him and sentenced him to a moral jail for a sin he did not commit. Once Abiola was no longer seen to fold and falter but stuck to his mandate, the conversation even among his critics changed. They were still afraid he might recant. The rhetoric changed recalibrating the struggle by saying the mandate was more than Abiola. Even if he turned coat, the battle would go on in spite of him. But Abiola was never going to renounce his mandate.

    He was a hero but he himself did not know it. He just wanted what he thought was right. He did not want to surrender. He had too much pride for that. Not after he was taken to a dingy cell in a police station on the outskirts of Abuja with pit latrine, as Olu Akerele, his confidante, witnessed in those heady days. Not even when he battled with heart problem and blood pressure and a back pain from the awful bed he slept night after night.

    Working with him and observing him, I often saw him as a sort of class suicide in the making. In spite of his lofty estate, he had too much of the common touch. He wore his patrician coat with cold comfort. Was he not the one who regaled anyone who cared to listen about his humble beginning? He used to dance to earn balls of eba for his family as a child. He drew on those reflexes of survival during the giddy June 12 crisis. The same Abiola, who stopped by roadsides to buy roast plantain or bole. He manoeuvred his way through Lagos traffic by hopping on an okada to attend an event because he was late. I recall writing a story once about a Lebanese family in Apapa who had suffered displacement unjustly. Not long after, one of the family members called to thank me for telling Abiola about it. I never spoke with Abiola about it. He responded after reading the piece in the African Concord magazine. He had rehabilitated the family. He never wanted people to suffer because he knew what it was to be destitute. As a publisher, he never was faraway from his journalists or staff, many of whom he knew by first names. One of the staff, Goke Odeyinka, the ebullient reporter, often disarmed Abiola once he showed up in the newsroom and they exchanged hi-fives. He never saw tribe. At one time, the major editors in Concord press were Igbo and he ignored some of the Yoruba staff who wanted him removed them, charging them with clannishness. He did not reshuffle the deck until it was time, and when he did, his main editor was Nsikak Essien from Akwa Ibom. His close aides were still Igbo like Chike Akabogu and Nnamdi Obasi. When he began his reparation campaign he rewarded Frank Igwebueze with the position of his special assistant. Abiola also attended the end-of-year party of the newspaper. It was on one of such parties in which I was emcee that he interrupted me to announce that he was interested in getting a television licence.

    At that time, he was already planning to build an estate for concord workers. When one of the competing newspapers ran into financial crisis, he asked Concord to print for them free of charge. Welfare of his workers were paramount, and he was the first to introduce competitive salaries to journalists. Dele Giwa, Yakubu Mohammed and Ray Ekpu had Mercedes Benz. Dan Agbese was to call them benzy journalists.

    I recall visiting him for an interview with Dele Momodu and Bayo Onanuga, and he told the story of his role in the tempest in Sokoto when Dasuki was dethroned by the military. He said he visited the various homes of the aggrieved actors at night and pleaded with them. “I would go to a family, and say, I know your father, he was a peaceful man. Don’t fight please.” And he would drop substantial sums of money. He did so from house to house to prevent any further firestorms on the streets.

    At an earlier meeting as a Newswatch staff, I had visited with Dare Babarinsa, and he showcased his mathematical acumen. He brandished with pride a letter he received from a professor of Mathematics from Glasgow acknowledging an error in his book that Abiola had pointed out. It was in that meeting that his late wife Simbi walked in. Abiola spontaneously abandoned us temporarily and broke into a soulful Yoruba song serenading Simbi. He danced for her and trailed her robust backside.

    It is this same Abiola, who flew only on private jets, chummed with presidents, had more money than he knew how to spend, swam in top taste and luxury. The same man endured pit latrines and isolation. Why did he not chafe? It is because the Abiola, who danced for balls of eba never left him. He never soared away from who he was. One of his favorite phrases was “make a friend a day.”

    He turned out to be a traitor to his class because he really never belonged. We know of Lafayette, the wealthy French man who helped finance the American Revolution, or John Hancock, Engels, who propped up Marx. No revolution is pure. To be pure is to negate revolutionary spirits. Hence Brecht wrote on Galileo: “no one’s virtue is complete/the great Galileo loved to eat.” He was not perfect man, but his heroics is without blemish.

  • Buhari’s friend

    To know President Muhammadu Buhari’s friends, just observe their words and actions. The things former Secretary to the Federal Government Babachir Lawal reportedly said during a Channels Television programme on June 15 deserve attention.

    Lawal was removed as SGF in October 2017, following a probe by a committee headed by Vice President Yemi Osinbajo. The Senate had alleged that Babachir favoured a company associated with him with a grass-cutting contract to the tune of N223m. Lawal’s removal suggested that the committee found him guilty.

    It is interesting that about eight months after Lawal’s sack, he is saying that investigation by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) will prove his innocence. He was quoted as saying: “I like it (EFCC probe) because the EFCC has the capacity both in equipment and personnel to get to the truth and they are expected to be impartial. They are not politicians so they will get to the truth. “Lawal continued: “The EFCC will find out whether my letters of resignation to the Corporate Affairs Commission through my lawyers is true. They will find out whether I was still a signatory to the accounts. Not like Shehu Sani who will say I was signing cheques when there was no truth in that.”

    For good measure, Lawal declared:  “For those who say I am corrupt, I see them as nincompoops, people who have no conscience when they hurt an innocent man. It is not for me to judge them. I smile and leave them because as a Christian, I leave it to God.” In December 2016, the Senate had called for the resignation and prosecution of Lawal, alleging that he was involved in the diversion of North-east humanitarian funds.  This followed an interim report presented by the Adhoc Committee on Mounting Humanitarian Crisis in the North-East. Senator Shehu Sani chaired the committee.  The committee alleged that Lawal had contravened the provisions of the Public Procurement Act and the Federal Government Financial Rules and Regulations pertaining to award of contracts.

    Sani had said that some of the contracts were awarded to companies belonging to cronies and family members of top government officials. For instance, he stated that the committee found out that a company, Rholavision Engineering Limited, with Lawal as Director, was awarded a consultancy contract. The company was supposed to have carried out the removal of invasive plant species in Yobe in March 2016.

    Sani said: “Although, Lawal resigned the directorship of the said company in September 2016, it is on record that he is a signatory to the accounts of the company.”  He added that the Presidential Initiative on North-East (PINE), which was responsible for procurement, contravened the rules. According to him, fraudulent individuals exploited the provision of emergency situation contract award in the Procurement Act to inflate figures. He also said many of the contracts had no impact on the Internally Displaced Persons who were living in wretched conditions.

    Furthermore, the Chairman, Senate Committee on Federal Capital Territory (FCT), Senator Dino Melaye, had said: “When this committee started looking at the books, SGF ran to the Corporate Affairs Commission and quickly withdrew his directorship of the company after the execution of the contract…he is still a signatory to the account of the company.”

    To get to the bottom of the allegations against Lawal, the Presidency had set up a committee headed by Vice President Osinbajo. The findings of the Osinbajo committee led to Lawal’s removal from office.

    Lawal’s recent remarks discredit the Vice President’s committee and its work. The Presidency needs to respond to Lawal’s latest comments on the matter.

    A report said: “The former SGF said despite his ordeal, he was still close to the President.” Lawal was quoted as saying: “I still see the President, I have access to him. If there is anything to discuss, we do so. He is a politician, we are politicians. I joined politics to contribute to making Buhari the President… and this will not be an issue between us.”  The report continued: “When asked whether he felt he had brought shame on the President, he added, “No, because I believe it is a lie so why should I feel I let him down.” Only an individual sure of his friendship with the President would say the things Lawal said.  Was he serious? Should the public take his words seriously?

    It is noteworthy that the EFCC said in a recent statement:  “The conviction of two prominent members of the ruling All Progressives Congress, APC, Jolly Nyame and Joshua Dariye in quick succession by a Federal Capital Territory High Court has put a lie to the often repeated charge by critics and cynics that the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, is lukewarm in prosecuting chieftains of the ruling party for corruption. Nyame and Dariye, both former two-term governors of Taraba and Plateau State respectively, were convicted and sentenced to 14 years in prison on corruption charges… Both trials had been ongoing for 11 years and towards the end of the proceedings, the two convicts changed their political camps, moving from the opposition Peoples Democratic Party to the ruling APC.”  To support the argument that the EFCC is unbiased and nonselective, the antigraft agency also cited the case of a former accountant general of Kebbi State and APC member who was convicted of corruption and sentenced to 70 years in prison.

    In September last year, EFCC chief Ibrahim Magu had said there were no fewer than 125 high-profile corruption cases still “hanging in court.” It is not clear how many of these cases are still unresolved. A war without casualties cannot be a war properly so called.   The public expects convincing action by the authorities to show that the war against corruption is a war properly so called.

    Lawal’s former position in the Buhari administration makes his case a high-profile corruption-related case. The EFCC needs to clarify the matter.  This case must not be left hanging in the air, particularly because it involves a self-described friend of the President.

  • Season of contradictions

    It would appear Nigeria is mired in a web of social contradictions. The scenario seems a verity of the Marxian dialectics. In the last couple of weeks, President Buhari’s regime has initiated actions in some fronts that appear to have opened the gateway to seemingly irreconcilable contradictions. Even when these actions are presented in their most altruistic form, they have had to come into conflict with exogenous forces with prospects for unintended outcomes.

    Nobody can predict the direction of unfolding contradictions. But if they continue in the manner they present themselves, chances are they may expose all that has been wrong with us as a country. They could also alter perceptions in the way this country has hitherto been run and the deceit that had characterized statecraft.

    But with hindsight of the social dynamics of history, they could also hasten positive outcomes that will alter stereotypes in the way our society is run. So these change elements, as scary as some of them appear, could turn out with unintended but beneficiary outcomes for the country.

    Thus, when the police accuse Senate President, Bukola Saraki of complicity in the serial bank robberies in Offa, Kwara State or Obasanjo alleges the regime plans to jail him on trumped up charges, the dynamics of these contradictions may have been activated. The conferment of GCFR on late Chief Moshood Abiola by Buhari and his apology to the family; declaration of June 120 as Democracy Day and the award of GCON to Abiola’s running mate, Babagana Kingibe may well fit into this dynamic process. They could have been designed by their authors to achieve set objectives. But they may throw up issues with more far-reaching consequences than originally anticipated.

    And as shall be seen shortly, each of these actions has thrown up contradictions of their own- contradictions that not only interrogate the substantive action but has prospects for outcomes of benefit to society. So when people dissipate energy on the motive behind Saraki’s travails (as relevant as it is) or defend the police for insisting on interrogating him, they inadvertently set the grounds for the positive things that could devolve from that conflict. Whether Saraki is being framed because of issues the Senate has with the Inspector General of Police, Idris Ibrahim or the police is trying to get even with him, is not the major concern of this column. Neither are we concerned with the scandal in associating the number three citizen with alleged culpability in armed robbery.

    If there was no frosty relationship between the executive and the legislature, the matter would hardly have come public. The fact that the police now asked Saraki to make his report in writing instead of reporting to their headquarters says it all. And it exposes the cover-ups and conspiracies that hallmark governance framework. Where does that leave us now?

    There are issues in the revelation of one of the principal accused that some of them have for years been political thugs to Saraki and the Kwara State government and they got their arms from their gang leader, Michael Adikwu, a dismissed policeman. Why the police failed to publicly parade Adikwu to take questions from journalists on how he got the arms and planned the attack remains curious even when he had earlier said he killed to avenge his sack from the police force.

    But the major contradiction brought to the fore by the development, is the phenomenon of thuggery in our politics. Politicians, all politicians make use of thugs. Thugs are capable of anything; everything. So to what extent can we possibly hold those who engage their services liable for their criminal conducts outside political gatherings? And what should be the right attitude to thuggery now we have been told it is the oxygen on which criminality thrives?

    These are the issues to ponder. Let the suspects face the raw teeth of the law. But if we do not substantially address the contradiction posed by thuggery in the nation’s politics, then the essence of the revelations would have been lost. That is the key issue the Buhari government must address since politicians in government and those in opposition benefit from their nuisance value. Given that thugs are emboldened by their association with politicians to embark on criminality, our governments are vicariously liable for the wave of criminality around the country. Even as our laws should take their normal course, the society stands to benefit if the turn of events culminates in dismantling the institution of thuggery in the nation’s politics. That should be the unintended benefit of the Offa incident.

    There are also contradictions arising from the award of the nation’s highest honour to late Abiola (as popular as it was), the recognition of June 12, as Democracy Day as well and the award given to Abiola’s running mate in that election, Babagana Kingibe even when he had repudiated the mandate by working with those who incarcerated Abiola to the point of death.

    For good reasons, the Southwest was agog for the honour done to Abiola and the recognition of June 12 as Democracy Day. It was evident from the showers of praise on Buhari for doing what regimes before him failed to do. Buhari appeared to have prepared the ground for the encomiums when he said the gesture “is only a symbolic token of redress and recompense for the grievous injury done to the peace and unity of this country.  It is not meant to be and it is not an attempt to open old wounds but to put right, a national wrong”.

    These are very key statements that will serve as the fulcrum for the appraisal of future actions by Buhari. But even as he received praises from those bruised most by events of that annulment, they were not in doubt that they least expected him to be the one to bestow honours on Abiola on account of the June 12 event. They doubted his democratic credentials.  Abiola’s daughter Hafsat said that much and gave clear indication that the relationship between Abiola and Buhari was not cordial as she tendered family apology. That is part of the contradiction. What could have motivated Buhari to do the unexpected? He said it is to heal the wounds of the injury inflicted on the peace and unity of this country. But many believe political expediency was the prime motivation.

    The role Buhari played in the Abacha regime and his past dispositions to such issues are behind insinuations that the turn of events is motivated by the lure of political gains. Both Wole Soyinka and Femi Falana in their contributions harped on the web of contradictions arising from this singular award and recognition. Soyinka spoke of the confusion in the minds of the public created by honouring Abiola with one hand and with the other eulogizing his tormentor. Falana called attention to other national wrongs needed to be redressed. All these interrogate the president’s touted reasons for the action. What of the award to Kingibe, a man that repudiated the election he and his principal were said to have won?

    It is gratifying Buhari has pledged to right national wrongs. We will hold him to that as there are so many of such wrongs crying for urgent attention. The nation is more divided on its fault lines more than ever before. If the awards and recognitions bring about a change of attitude in Buhari’s responses and dispositions to national challenges, then something positive to society has been achieved. But if events point to the contrary, critics would have been proven right.

    It is good a thing Buhari has armed us with a new mirror from which his actions will be viewed. We will be looking out for credible evidence of a true democrat committed to an all inclusive government with an abiding zeal to give all a sense of belonging. He will be assessed against the capacity of his future actions to conform to the sentiments that propelled him to recognize the sanctity of the June 12 elections. If he keeps to these especially in the conduct of free, fair and credible elections, Abiola and June 12 would have indeed been immortalized. Anything to the contrary amounts to lip service.

    A common thread runs through Saraki’s travails, Buhari’s curious recognition of the sanctity of June 12 elections, and Obasanjo’s alarm of plans to jail him even when he had preferred jail than vote for Jonathan to ruin the country-contradiction. For now, it is unclear the direction of these contradictions. But they instruct utmost introspection and caution on the part of those entrusted with the leadership of this country.

     

  • The Abiola Question

    It is not enough that the President Muhammadu Buhari administration has changed Democracy Day from May 29 to June 12, arguing that “June 12th, 1993, was far more symbolic of Democracy in the Nigerian context than May 29th or even October 1st.” Buhari stated: “June 12th, 1993 was the day when Nigerians in millions expressed their democratic will in what was undisputedly the freest, fairest and most peaceful elections since our Independence.”

    It is not enough that Buhari also declared: “Therefore, government has decided to award posthumously the highest honour of the land, GCFR, to late Chief MKO Abiola, the presumed winner of the June 12, 1993 cancelled elections.”

    With the 2019 general election approaching, and Buhari having expressed his intention to seek reelection, it is curious that he waited till now to address the Abiola Question.  Even then, he has not done enough.

    For how long will the historic date come and go before clarity is finally achieved?  June 12, 1993, was the election date that saw the emergence of Chief Moshood Kashimawo Olawale Abiola, popularly known as MKO, as the country’s apparent President before the poll was controversially annulled by military strongman General Ibrahim Badamasi Babangida (IBB). It was a critical juncture in the country’s political history.

    The sudden death of General Sani Abacha, who extended the injustice, on June 8, 1998, followed five years of ruthless oppression of the pro-democracy opposition including presidential claimant Abiola.  Abiola’s similarly abrupt passing one month later on July 7, 1998, was supremely suspicious, particularly in the context of an intense campaign for his release from detention and restoration of his ruptured electoral mandate.

    How Abiola died 20 years ago remains a riddle. On the June 12 anniversary two years ago, Abiola’s personal physician, Dr Ore Falomo, repeated what he has been saying since Abiola died in detention: “There is no argument about Abiola’s death. He died on July 7, 1998 at about 3pm at Aguda House when he was being visited by an American delegation. He died shortly after being offered a cup of tea by the leader of the delegation. On that day, Abiola was very alert. He recognised Susan Rice whom he saw last in 1982. The Americans came with a flask containing tea. The flask had three layers. Why should they come with their own tea, special tea? Is it normal for visitors to come with tea and offer a prisoner? It was abnormal…It was a conspiracy.”

    Falomo continued: “It is now left to all of us to find the cause of Abiola’s death. He died 15 minutes after the tea. My conclusion is that the tea is probably fundamental to his collapse and sudden death. Until detailed investigation is carried out, the death of Abiola will continue to generate controversy, supposition, reasonable and unjustified conclusion for a very long time to come. Abiola died in government custody. It is the duty of government to unravel the cause of Abiola’s death, after drinking a cup of tea.”

    The question is:  Who should be held responsible for Abiola’s death? Falomo’s answer: “The Federal Government under General Abdulsalami Abubakar should be held responsible.” It is crucial to pursue the truth in this case.  Until the issue is satisfactorily clarified, the government of the day at the time Abiola died stands accused of evil.

    The people remember how IBB killed their dreams by dictatorially annulling the historic June 12, 1993, presidential election won by Abiola.  Abiola didn’t survive the brutality he suffered in the course of asserting his popular mandate; his controversial death in 1998, under a different military administration that nevertheless owed its perpetuation to IBB’s original sin, still haunts the polity to this day. It will always be a question to ponder whether the country, indeed, lost a positive turning-point opportunity by IBB’s inscrutable indiscretion, considering that Abiola’s “Hope 93” campaign was full of motivational energy and the majority eagerly bought his promise of constructive change.

    Not surprisingly, the ghost of June 12 continues to haunt the land. It is a measure of the depth of the damage done by Babangida and his ilk that MKO’s convincing win remains a front-burner issue even today. It is a tribute to the late charismatic and ebullient politician that his spirit is an inspiration to pro-democracy forces battling for the soul of the country. Of course, there are opposite forces still at work, contrary spirits that must be defeated to achieve the desired flowering of democratic beauty.

    Perhaps the most fitting way to immortalise MKO is the assertion of voter sovereignty. It is an inescapable challenge waiting for the people to rise to the occasion. Remember MKO’s immortal wisdom, “Democracy is the question. Democracy is the answer.”

    Now that Abiola has been honoured with the country’s highest national award, Grand Commander of the Order of the Federal Republic (GCFR), it is a symbolic recognition of his presidential status despite having been denied the office of President.

    What will Babangida think now? It must still hurt Babangida that he left the stage broken and humiliated by the popular resistance to his display of raw power, leading to his rushed and unceremonious exit, even though he installed a puppet civilian administration in a futile face-saving terminal move. Not surprisingly, seeking the elusive perfect ending, he indicated interest in the presidency some years ago, only to learn, to his extreme chagrin, that he was generally considered a defective product that could not benefit from even the most creative promotional stunts. In a manner of speaking, he could not be made to smell like a rose.

    Ultimately, the latest development means that if Abiola was indeed killed in detention, then it amounted to assassination of a president. Who assassinated Abiola?

    It is not enough to honour Abiola without getting to the bottom of the matter by clarifying his mysterious death. Buhari must move beyond what he has done and launch a comprehensive investigation towards achieving a final closure. There is no closure yet, and there won’t be until the question of Abiola’s death is resolved.

  • Media aides: the crisis of loyalty

    Ethical and loyalty concerns for the army of media aides have of recent, been in the public space. By media aides, reference is made to special advisers on media; senior special assistants, press secretaries, publicity secretaries to political parties and others in similar roles irrespective of their training and nomenclature.

    The moral bearing of media aides was brought to the fore by recent altercations between Senior Special Assistant to President Buhari on Media, Garba Shehu and former media aide to former President Jonathan, Reno Omokri. There was also the adjunct arising from the defection of former publicity secretary of the Peoples Democratic Party PDP, Adedayo Adeyeye to the All Progressives Congress APC.

    These conversations raised profound issues that should not be allowed to peter out. In his reaction to a claim by Shehu in one of his write-ups, Omokri had accused him of lacking in strong moral values given that he (Shehu) was a special assistant in Obasanjo’s regime, during which period he issued anti-Buhari statements.

    He could not fathom how the same Shehu who authored critical statements against Buhari when he served the PDP, turned round to attack the party and its functionaries now. Omokri queried: “What moral standing does Garba Shehu have for today writing and releasing statements against the same PDP administration and officials he once served?” For him, Shehu was made by the PDP and if he accuses the party of any misdeed, he must share in that blame.

    Omokri could not come to terms with the apparent contradiction in serving a particular government as its media aide only for the same person to assume the same role in another government to attack and criticize the government he hitherto promoted. He sees that as evidence of dearth of strong moral principles.

    Shehu, while acknowledging his former assignment as a long time aide to former Vice President Atiku Abubakar admitted he worked in the media office of a PDP administration for six months. He explained that when his former boss Abubakar and other contestants in the APC primaries lost to Buhari, they agreed to surrender their media assets to the winner who asked him to lead the team.

    “When we won, he (the President-elect Buhari) invited me to serve as one of his two spokespersons and I pledged 100 per cent loyalty to him and that’s where I am. This cannot be classified as just serving Any Government in Power AGIP”, he explained.

    Though both combatants raised other issues, this article is only concerned with the moral and loyalty concerns of the engagement. Omokri is not out of place to have tasked Shehu on the moral concerns arising from his role as a former aide to the PDP government in which position he must have been critical of the opposition, any opposition and his current role.

    In that previous position irrespective of its duration, he would have taken up issues against Buhari as a key opposition leader while performing his role as one of the attack dogs of the PDP regime. That is within his call of duty.

    But are there no issues in serving the PDP or any other government as one of its image makers at one time and at another finding oneself in the APC or another party in an inverse task of taking the former to the cleaners? That is the moral issue Omokri raised and it will be uncharitable to dismiss it with a wave of the hand. The matter is fundamental and goes beyond the diatribe between the two combatants. It centres round the job journalists do and the precarious situation they often find themselves when they serve ‘two masters’.

    There is the thinking that once you have been identified with a particular government or political appointee, you are expected to remain with them and whatever they represent. You are also to rise and fall together with their political fortunes. But whereas politicians are largely comfortable in and out of office, media aides are not that lucky as they still have to engage in meaningful work to meet their daily needs. Requiring them to be permanently attached to their former bosses or refuse appointments from political opponents (though morally plausible) would rather be a tall order. Political situations are in constant state of flux in this clime even as politicians are very unpredictable and may not care about the fate of their former aides.

    Shehu seemed to have captured this dilemma when he recounted how he served Abubakar for many years; the collapsing of his (Abubakar’s) media assets into that of Buhari after the APC primaries and his emergence as one of his spokespersons. He sees his current position as circumstantial and not a deliberate decision to pitch tent with any government in power.

    No doubt, Shehu owes his position to Abubakar- a key player in the PDP who later decamped to the APC before his final defection back to the same PDP. That turn of events was bound to create problems for him especially having been ceded to Buhari. So the accusation of pandering to the lure of the stomach or lacking in strong ethical bearing may not properly fit in here. There are also moral issues in abandoning Buhari just because his mentor Abubakar jetted back to the PDP.

    But he was not entirely helpless. He had the option to stay or exit when his boss Abubakar defected. But his conscience (for whatever promptings) instructed he should continue and pledge total loyalty to Buhari. That is where he is now and he is entitled to that. The issue is not just that he works for the Buhari government. It is with the nature of job he does for him. If he were a minister in one of the ministries except perhaps information, the moral issues being traded may never have arisen. That raises a paradox of classification of media aides either as appendages to their former bosses or professionals.

    Perhaps, the case of Adeyeye will further drive this contradiction home. Here was a former publicity secretary of the PDP during its recent turbulent times. He not only believed in the PDP but was its mirror to the outside world. He ran for the PDP governorship primaries in Ekiti State and came second. Less than two weeks after, he decamped to the APC citing irreconcilable differences between the state governor and himself.

    Rationalizing the volte-face, he said he was forced to take a decision between loyalty to his political party and loyalty to his community, and he chose the latter. According to him, “I cannot change my state or hometown but I can always change my party if I feel it can no longer serve as a vehicle for our collective good as a people”.

    It is unclear what ‘forced’ Adeyeye to put the two loyalties on scale. That he was so compelled, underscores the moral and ethical burden he contended with especially in his capacity as former spokesman of the PDP. If he was not the image maker of that party, his defection would have made little difference as it is in keeping with the character of our politicians. He even said that much by opting to ditch his party. So we can see the interface between the dilemma Adeyeye was confronted with and the issues canvassed by Omokri.

    But the difference is that Adeyeye is a politician and very unlikely to be entrusted with the role of managing media affairs of his new party. Soon, he will get away with that contradiction. Journalists are likely to carry that baggage for a long time to come. For some, it will mark an end to their career. That is the cross those of them that took up such appointments bear.

    A contrasting case was the attack on fiery lawyer, Mike Ozekhome at the 14th Gani Fawehinmi Annual Lectures by a gang of hired protesters. Their grouse: he defended Ekiti State governor, Ayo Fayose, former First Lady Patience Jonathan and Senate President, Bukola Saraki.  The general feeling after the attack, was that he had a professional job to do and could advocate for anybody irrespective of their political leaning or alleged offence. That is for the legal profession. But not journalism! Ironically scant attention is paid to the predicament of journalists in such political engagements even as they only get crumbs from their masters’ tables.

  • A glorious bribe

    When people say that the June 12 crisis invested the country with fear, they are right. When they say, it immiserated Nigerians with hunger, they are also on the money. I am a personal testimony.

    On hunger, I had it. I lost my job like many others when the soldiers shut the gates of the Concord newspaper, Abiola’s publishing firm. Almost destitute, I headed to the market in Egbeda, Lagos State, to buy some meat for a pot of soup.

    At the meat section, I approached a seller, and I offered the little money left in my pocket for any slice of meat. I had not received a salary in close to a year.

    “Oga, this amount no fit buy any meat,” he said, irritated.

    I dipped my hands in the pocket and emptied it.

    “I no get any other money for my pocket or anywhere. Yesterday, I no eat meat. I no want die of kwashiorkor,” I pleaded with facetious exaggeration.

    But I looked at him, a little shamefacedly. I had struck him with my desperation. His contempt softened to affection. He flicked out his knife, and cut a huge chunk of beef on his slab, wrapped it in a green leaf. He looked up at me and handed me the piece of protein, bloodless and fatless.

    He rejected my money with magnanimous disdain and asked me to go and have a good meal. That moment and that day, the butcher was my June 12 hero. That was one of several such stories I recall of my suffering. I could not forget I had to trek several miles to draw a debt because I could not afford molue. I had to walk back, weary-legged and starving, because my debtor was not in the office. Several other stories. Many Nigerians lost their lives and livelihoods because the impunity and inanity of one man’s ambition had banished food from their tables.

    I also quaked with fear. I didn’t until one afternoon, in the early months of the June 12 crisis, Beko Ransome kuti and Femi Falana (SAN) had appeared at an Abuja court. After the session, I drove behind them curious where they were gaoled. A car zipped past me, someone inside wagging an ominous finger at me and warning me and asking me to return. A few days later, Abiola’s confidant, Olu Akerele, alerted me to two SSS cars that took turns trailing me about town. I was Concord’s managing editor in Abuja. I knew I had to leave town.

    When Buhari finally immortalised Abiola, I lamented the frailty of life. The last time I saw him, his whole being kindled like coal fire, his smile, his stride, his brio. He was in his political element challenging IBB. I had walked into the then Nicon Noga Hilton Hotel to see a news source. But when the elevator door creaked open, who was I to see but MKO himself, beneath his cap with its signature “puncture.” A security man behind him. I stepped back in deference.

    “Sam Sam,” he intoned in his guttural register. He asked me to accompany him. I was with him for hours until I retired home. He was still consulting with politicians, many of whom looked the other way later, including Abubakar Rimi. I recall him introducing me to them as “Concord’s new landlord in Abuja.” He had promised he was going to make my new assignment worth the while. That was the last time I heard or saw him.

    When Buhari declared June 12 the new democracy day, it was a bulwark against the fear and trembling of those days. It was an acknowledgement of the misery of that dark hour. Most Nigerian homes were houses of hunger. Yet, when democracy came, Olusegun Obasanjo decided to push the country into wilful forgetting, a plague of amnesia.

    He wanted us to forget the thousands who died on the streets when IBB’s and Abacha’s bullets flew in demoniac and fatal waves, the journalists who toiled in hiding to keep Nigerians abreast of the daily carnage of a dream. The News/Tempo heroes. The Tell heroes, the Bagauda kalthos who dropped forever into oblivion, the Niran Malaolus who lost liberty, the Kunle Ajibades who were out of sight, the Olisa Agbakobas deposited in gulag, the Kokoris whose acts growled like tiger, Wole Soyinka who was declared wanted. Kudirat Abiola, the intrepid Amazon, who earned the name of a radio station manned with such men as Kayode Fayemi. The station snarled fear into Abacha, IBB, and their men. He wanted us to forget the heroics of NADECO, their financier Alfred Rewane shot in a shrill night in his home. Or the late Ubani of the Centre for Democracy, known as “governor of Lagos” for his sit-at-home orders. Gani Fawehinmi now duly honoured. Bola Tinubu who escaped after episodes behind bars and became a nemesis of the state in London and the United States.

    Obj was exhibiting what psychologists call the fear of gratitude. He did not want to thank Abiola on whose sacrifice he had become the president.  As the Roman historian Tacitus wrote, “it is always easier to repay an injury than a benefit; gratitude is a burden, but revenge is a pleasure.” Obj was wrestling with Abiola, a glorious dead, with a monomaniacal zeal. Literary critic Harold Bloom, the author of the anxiety of influence, describes it as a “triumphant wrestling with the greatest of the dead.” Except that OBJ has now seen his own defeat in his lifetime. The dead woke up and gave him a pin fall. He would not let a dead Abiola be. He decided to rebury him. Now, rather than congratulate Buhari, the Owu chief accuses him of endangering his life. He needs to come out with concrete evidence. A former head of state is not expected to be flippant in such matters. Whether or not it is true, the burden of proof lies with him. Or else, he will be an agbaya who is sulking because his manufactured foe came out of his grave to laugh and party.

    Obj wanted us to forget those who abandoned the mandate, including Babagana Kingibe, a shameless and moral failure, a fifth columnist ignominy and quisling of the struggle, who has the effrontery to even accept what he did not deserve. He abandoned the mandate and even poohpoohed and mocked it openly. The award to him of GCON is, in the popular cliché, like giving diamond to pigs. It’s a dishonour to those who stood firm and believed. Or those who went to bed with Abacha like Ebenezer Babatope, Lateef Jakande, Olu Onagoruwa, et al. It was a time when courage failed many a mighty man. From “On June 12 we stand,” the phrase changed to unprintables.

    The evil genius IBB now officially joins Abiola in the back of beyond, even if his gap tooth still flashes the hilltop night of his Minna mansion. He and his annulment now belong to the dunghill of history. I thank Buhari for doing what Jonathan did not have the liver for. The Otuoke chieftain had shied from giving us the holiday, because he feared the northern vote. Yet, ironically, it is the northerner who now gives it. The north was afraid of June 12. With Buhari’s decision, they have banished the fear. They had seen June 12 as the Rhinoceros in Eugene Ionesco’s play of that name, when people feared a rhino had come to town even though they saw only dust whirls. Yet they took for granted the cuddly cat in their arms.

    Jonathan gave a tepid Unilag offer, against due process and to the uproarious rejection of both students and faculty. The northern vote he did not get and the same southwest voted him out of power. He forgot that Abiola’s victory was Nigeria’s signal moment in unity, when even a Fulani man voted out their son for a Yoruba, and Christians saw a man, not a contest between Christ and Mohammed.

    Justice Belgore wanted to be a legal killjoy, but Falana and others have silenced his lordship. Let me also teach him a law lesson. Abiola won the election, so he was in the Nigerian heart a president. The GCFR is actually a restoration of what he earned but was stolen from him while alive. So, for me, this is no post-humous award but a title he was denied of when he won the election of June 12. That is why I agree with the senate that the full result should be released. After all, Humphrey Nwosu, the umpire, had stated it categorically in his memoirs.

    Some have said Buhari’s gesture was a bribe for southwest votes. This is one of those sublime gratifications for which even the taker congratulates himself. It’s a holy act disguised as sin. Just like Achebe wrote, “You may cause more trouble by refusing a bribe than by accepting it.”