The Nation Newspaper

Category: Monday

  • Jega’s burden

    It would appear the controversy trailing the conduct of the 2015 elections will have no end. And no end seems in sight as its eventual outcome might present more challenges than what we are currently facing.

    Two basic considerations inform this seemingly damning conclusion. The first relates to the history of elections on these shores. Even at the best of times, hardly had there been elections whose outcome was not highly disputed.

    Our politicians find it difficult to accept defeat even when it is clear they had very slim chances. Matters are not helped by glaring cases of malpractices, irregularities and shortcomings that have become a recurring decimal in our electoral process. All these combine to whittle down the confidence of the people in the credibility of elections.

    The cycle of violence which sometimes leads to the destruction of lives and property in some volatile sections of the country is a logical consequence of loss of confidence in the electoral process. That feeling is still much with us.

    The second reason is that this election comes with very peculiar challenges. It is true that election periods by their very nature, are very trying times. But it is also no less correct to posit that the coming elections are potentially very explosive. The stakes are very high and no group will let go. There are genuine fears that its outcome could make or mar the country as the issues involved are at the very heart of our corporate existence.

    That perhaps, accounts for the unending controversy that has dogged the preparations of the Independent National Electoral Commission INEC since the countdown to the elections commenced. The focus has been on the preparedness and credibility of INEC to conduct generally acceptable elections. The shoddy distribution of the Permanent Voter’s Cards (PVC’s) appears to have provided the platform for the plethora of attacks and criticisms that have trailed INEC’s activities in the last couple of months. The commission did not help matters when it claimed it was fully prepared to conduct the election in February as previously scheduled. A Council of State meeting was convened in which its Chairman Attahiru Jega insisted the commission was ready to go ahead with the polls.

    But Jega was later to inform the nation that though he was very ready for the election, he had to postpone it on the advice of Service Chiefs who said they had a major operation in the north-east that will not allow them offer the needed assistance to the body were the elections to proceed as scheduled. Going by the way Jega spoke, he left no one in doubt that he was only succumbing to security pressure by deferring the elections. In effect, he had a mission to exculpate the electoral body from any complicity in the events leading to that postponement.

    Not unexpectedly, the Jonathan administration was heavily lampooned for inadvertently simulating the chain of events that led to that pass. This was evident in the reactions of the international community and civil society groups among others.

    No less a person than former president Olusegun Obasanjo had in reaction, alleged that the postponement was to enable Jonathan buy time so as to win the election by hook and crook. He drew parallels with events in Cote d’voire when Laurent Gbagbo, faced with stiff opposition had to postpone elections until he was sure he was going to win. Such have been the level of suspicion and antagonism that followed the postponement.

    Curiously, events since then have been at variance with the electoral body’s claim that it was really prepared to go on with the election. On the contrary, the challenges of the poor distribution of the PVC’s have since put a lie to Jega’s claim that he was ready for the elections. At the time the Council of State met, the rate of collection was put at less then 40 per cent. Jonathan said that much in his last Media interview.

    If that was not enough evidence, the admission by Jega at the floor of the senate a week after the postponement that over one million PVCs were yet to be printed in far away China, is all one needed to substantiate the position.

    Since then, the date of collection has been shifted thrice and will now end six days to the presidential and national assembly elections.

    Now, if INEC was prepared for the elections as Jega claimed, how do we reconcile these developments? Could the body have gone ahead to conduct a free, fair and flawless election when millions of Nigerians stood to be disenfranchised? And what are the likely consequences of millions of registered voters denied their inalienable right to vote due to no fault of theirs. These are the moot questions. And they are at the center of the increasing suspicion trailing INEC’s activities.

    There is also the issue of card readers- an innovation the commission said is designed to increase the credibility of the election outcome. The device was just tested last week- a clear one month after the postponement of the elections. The question is whether the commission intended to use that device for the postponed elections? If the answer is in the affirmative, then it further complicates the situation. Some of the challenges that have just been dictated could have created problems that would detract substantially from the credibility of that election. These are some of the dangers that faced INEC if that election had proceeded as scheduled. Some of these issues topped the grouse of the PDP Governors’ Forum that met last week in Lagos. They seemed to have struck the right chord when they asked “Nigerians to reconcile the purported readiness of INEC for the February 14, elections with the testing of card readers more than a month after the postponement”

    This observation should not be ignored especially given the bad blood the postponement generated. The electoral body will regain the confidence of Nigerians by coming public on why it is so. It also has a responsibility to explain why it has continued to postpone the collection date for the PVC’s nearly five weeks after the election was rescheduled. This is necessary for Jega to regain the confidence of the electorate. The imperative of confidence building in ensuring the overall success of any election can only be discounted at a grave risk.

    Undoubtedly, Jega faces a big burden in the current elections. The challenges of the PVC’s have been considerably reduced by the postponement. He has tested the card readers with varying degrees of success. The matter is not all about the INEC’s right to deploy the device but how to ensure its efficacy during elections. If the electoral body feels sufficiently satisfied that the device will work and produce the desired result, it could go ahead and deploy them.

    But it stands the risk of being discredited if there is system failure either on account of network problems or other extraneous variables. These are some of the issues. It is a calculated risk. Jega and his group should be prepared to face the verdict of history for any acts of omission or commission. That appears to be the message the PDP governors are sending across.

    The buck stops at Jega’s table. He will rise and fall together with what he decides to do. But rational calculations instruct that faced with uncertain circumstances, the right option is to minimize ones losses in the event of the worst outcome. It is akin to laying landmines for the elections to introduce innovations whose reliability and efficacy cannot be guaranteed especially when prior suspicion was raised.

  • Fear of machine

    Fear of machine

    Man makes machine. Man fears machine. The creature becomes god to its maker. The fear of automaton makes us cowards of progress.

    That is the irony of the card reader. Some politicians, especially of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) and the other parties that have not even published an ad nor afforded a rally, have rejected the device. They remonstrated before the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) demonstrated it. Even when its test showed that it worked for most part, they would none of it.

    The PDP hierarchy, including the governors that visited Lagos last week, is living a lie. Humans inhabit their own illusions and can deny the evidence before their own eyes. “The mind is its own place,” wrote poet John Milton in Paradise Lost. “It can make heaven of hell and hell of heaven.”

    They complain that some cards were rejected at the tests. Of course, that happened. Reports attributed it to potential voters’ hands that were slimy or oily or muddy, and what that calls for is voter education. Come to the voting booth not only with clean hearts but also with clean hands. Cloned cards were uncovered, evidence of experimenting by some fraudsters. The lag time was a factor, too. Some people felt it took too long for the machine to authenticate some potential voters.

    We expect INEC to improve its work, and that’s the point of the test. For those not happy that it might take a lot longer on the polling day, I ask patience. Better to spend a day and elect the right person than to go quickly into perdition by rigging into office a phony for four years.

    The machine does not rig. People do. It does not know PDP or APC. Why not let the card reader rather than people determine who wins and who loses! Who is afraid of accuracy?

    Some balk at the machine because they think they will lose. When the PDP complained about the percentage of PVCs distributed, they were hypocrites. Ekiti polls PVC distribution was less than 40 per cent, but they never kicked up any dust over it. Now they know the power of card readers, and they are bubbling with fear.

    Is it not the same government that glowed over its technology savvy when it introduced cashless banking, and e-financing on the official level?

    What the PDP is doing has so many instances in the past. Humans who loathe progress resist technology. The name given them is Luddites. These were English men in early 19th century who protested the birth of new machines in the textile industry because they replaced jobs. The PDP men are the Luddites of the 21st century. They fear they will lose their jobs.

    In spite of the Luddites, the textile industry used the machines, and the world saw progress. More jobs leaped out of the new technology, but they were new jobs that required new skills. Such hugely transformative works are called disruptive technologies. We have them in the offing now, and the next 50 years will be different just like the last 50 years. The womb promises such geniuses as fusion, robotics, genomics, etc. Where was Steve Jobs 50 years ago, or cable television, or wireless phone? Did we at independence contemplate companies like MTN, GLO, Etisalat that now outshine the mainstays of the day? Now we even have a National Communication Commission even though it still has to learn how to regulate properly, like enforcing regulations that make carriers pay their dues to other carriers and policing the parasites whose applications prey on the infrastructure of the big operators. But those are challenges of a new Nigeria, a sign of modernity.

    The PDP is afraid but all we urge is a little courage. Do they know that slavery and slave trade ended in the 19th century less out of charity than technology? With the industrial revolution sprang new machines, and they made superfluous the sweat and brawn of black men and women from the continent that novelist Joseph Conrad called the heart of darkness.

    They now wanted Africa for raw materials and not raw men. As my teacher, Professor Tunji Oloruntimehin, memorably put it, “it was an act of enlightened self-interest by the Europeans to give the Africans a new role in the international economic system.” So Wilberforce, William Lloyd Garrison, Frederick Douglass, even the Quakers poked the conscience of the slaver and appealed to the tribunals of sympathy. You can add a writer like Harriet Beecher Stowe with her subversive novel, Uncle Tom’s Cabin. When the author visited Lincoln during the civil war, the president said, “So you are the little woman who wrote the book that started this war.” Yet it was a new greed for the other African resource that singed the beast of war. Eli Whitney, for instance, invented the cotton gin in 1807, the same year that slave trade was abolished. The gin cancelled the work of slaves working the cotton plantations.

    We need a new mindset, a scientific mindset, and if leaders lack that in the 21st century, how can the society ever develop an inventive imagination. Philosopher Karl Popper once said that we cannot predict the future because we cannot predict technology. We are at the mercy of technology. Today the United States leads the world for that reason, unveiling marvel after marvel. The Luddites were British but Britain was the heart of the industrial revolution. That was why it created an empire where, as some of its citizens boasted, the sun never set. The industrial revolution in Europe followed the scientific revolution that helped to rupture the Holy Roman Empire. As my other teacher Professor Femi Omisini echoed, it was “neither holy nor Roman.”

    The PDP governors should bow to the card reader. The Presidency and its party should not try to subvert the future by manipulating the judiciary for a court judgment against it. Even the courts benefit greatly from technology. Where would justice be without biometrics, DNA, etc.? “The best way to predict the future is to invent it,” crooned Alan Kay, the computer icon. The past invented today with all the gizmos and their bells and whistles. To reject the card reader is to reject progress.

    There was a story of a movement that called for a museum of all inventions. They said humans had reached the limit of imagination and no new invention was possible. One of them was, of all people, Charles H. Duell, the commissioner of the US patent office. Hear him: “Everything that can be invented has been invented.” He said so in 1899. But that was before the Wright brothers gave us the aircraft, Gugliemo Marconi the radio, before man ascended the moon and Steve Jobs radicalised our lifestyles. In 1943, IBM chairman Thomas Watson said, “I think there is a world market for maybe five computers.”

    Did Obama not change election campaigns with social media? Yet the same American president ran into a snag when his website on healthcare collapsed. His society flayed him, but they didn’t want it to fail. Now it is humming. To kill technology is to kill time. “You can’t kill time without injuring eternity,” said D.H. Thoreau.

    When leaders campaign against technology they fail as role models and cast aspersions on the future. They stop the society from dreaming. Once a society stops to dream, it lives in its myths, which are lies that suffocate. Let us remember what Karl Popper said, “Science must begin with myths, and with the criticism of myths.” If we don’t fight our myths, we cannot make progress. We will lag behind even Ghana, Senegal and Sierra Leone that have used the card reader.

  • The renegades

    The renegades

    The President seems to have turned the Southwest into a sort of theatre. Playwrights of comedy cannot outplay him. Soyinka, Clark, Osofisan, Rotimi would bow to the creative sparkle of Goodluck Jonathan. For piety, we saw his role as evangelist. In one church, he prayed. In another he gave an “almost” sermon. Never mind he lied that he was invited. In one of the churches, the head said he invited himself.

    For vanity, he danced shoki with scantily clad girls, showing himself a hip leader in good standing with social gravity. He has a special talent for latest dance moves, like the azonto wiggle that made his legs too heavy to chase after the militants who ferreted away the Chibok girls.

    For officialdom, he commissioned a power project and asked a PDP candidate, Jimi Agbaje, to cut the tape. So serious was the affair that it fell short of its mission: to boost power wattage. For politics sake, he shunned decency and chose a candidate instead of the governor to do it. After all, the seriousness was matched by Agbaje’s recent comment asking Nigerians to identify who was more handsome between Buhari and his master Jonathan. That is the quality of his bold quest for Lagos? Farce as governance.

    President Jonathan’s drama moved to the level of burlesque, which refers to a self-inflicted illusion of making yourself bigger than you are. So he moved around the traditional rulers. He begged and blessed them simultaneously. He begged for support and blessed them with dollars. In any emphatic way, he has not denied, neither have the obas. The accusation came from none other than the governor of example, Lagos State Governor, Babatunde Raji Fashola, SAN. A president bribing obas with dollars when the Naira is cascading ignominiously to about 230 to a dollar!

    The President has not read much of Yoruba history, and if he had, he should have realised that Yoruba monarchs are only a tad more influential than the Igbo warrant rulers of today. By the way, the Igbo political elite and the so-called kings are like the warrant chiefs of the colonial era. Their powers over the people are minimal.

    The Yoruba wars of the 19th century clipped the imperial grandeur of the Yoruba kings and princes. From having only monarchy they developed virtually every system in the modern era. The Ekiti had a confederacy, the Egba, a federalism, the Ibadan a republicanism and the Ijaye a military autocracy. All of that doused the power of the king before the British set in.

    He made the matter worse last weekend when he humbled himself for prayers with some obas. Was he, the evangelist of a lifetime ago, saying a Christian amen to those prayers, most of which must have drooled with incantation? Or did they dilute it with English? What happened to all his bowing before the pastors and mounting the pulpit as the anointed one?

    But that was not all the drama. He played the divider, too. He was quoted as saying that the non-Yoruba in Lagos were not receiving PVCs, implying discrimination. That tells you what? That Jonathan’s heart is not with the Yoruba. He is trying to give back to the Yoruba what some politicians of the Western Region did to their foes in the wetie tumult. They chanted, o rowo mi, o rokan mi, demo ni mowa (You see my hand, but you cannot see my heart. I am only pretending.) Jonathan is posing for votes. If he loved the Yoruba so much, why is he playing the non-indigenes against the Yoruba in their own region while splashing dollars and receiving their prayers?

    But his real acolytes are the pariahs of the Yoruba nation. That is his drama by proxy. His men are the buffoon governor of Ekiti State, Ayo Fayose, the whitlow of the West, the mimic Mimiko, and a raft of renegades like Agbaje, Olaniwun Ajayi, Olu Falae, Ebenezer Babatope, Adesiyan, et al. The new agenda: that they want Jonathan back in the saddle in order to implement the points of the national conference. What self-delusion!

    As Femi Falana has aptly explained, the national conference did not give the Yoruba what they craved. How could it when some Yoruba conferees were either naïve or tendentious enough – or both – to believe that the confab would amount to much. The Yoruba wanted regional autonomy, parliamentary system, state police, special status for Lagos, et al. the confab gave none of these. The conference ended before the political campaigns started. The President promised he would implement the recommendations through the National Assembly. He lied.

    Once the affair was over, he set up a committee – like his many other impotent ones – that has receded into silence with no evidence of work. Now that he needs the Yoruba vote, he has rallied the traitors of the region to concoct a tissue of lies about Jonathan’s newfound love for the Yoruba. Granted he has the powers to implement the confab report, that report does not contain what the Southwest has hankered after for decades. So what was their post-confab summit about then? About a non-existent desire! They want to con their fellow tribesmen with a poison carrot.

    If he loved the Yoruba why is he waiting six years after he mounted the saddle to show it? Why is he playing the ethnic card against them in their own backyard? Now he just nominated for minister Obanikoro who was implicated in rigging and blackmail scandal.

    Jonathan should read the Yoruba history. If he does, he would realise some facts. One, the Yoruba at heart are the only ideological race in Nigeria. Two, they always did not see themselves as a people, except in language and some shared sensibility.  The Ekiti was Ekiti and the Ijebu was Ijebu. Everyone was under individual ethnic tent. Hence they had the paradox of an empire where one group, the Oyo, lorded it over others. That order collapsed with the Yoruba wars, with fissures that gave birth to a new set of elites, and systems and even cities. At the cessation of hostilities, a war-weary people became Yoruba, but they searched for a common political identity. Meanwhile they excelled at the level of culture, especially education, on the African continent. Chief Obafemi Awolowo, the greatest Yoruba man since Oduduwa, emerged after the reign of Herbert Macaulay. With him was born the ideological Yoruba, away from loyalties to ethnic ramparts.

    Awo formed the Egbe Omo Oduduwa that foreshadowed the Action Group (AG). That was the birth of modern Yoruba political identity. According to historian Sklar and other chroniclers of the time, the majority of AG members adopted Awolowo’s idea of Fabian socialism. There were a few dissenters and stragglers, but they either cohabited with the NCNC or became opportunists within the party. The dangerous ones were not the Adelabus who pitched their tents elsewhere, but men like Akintola. They acted as though they loved, and grew like stalwarts until they unveiled their true hides.

    But Awo’s prestige and stature grew over the years, and he became the reference point of progress not only in the West but all over the country. In our history, no Nigerian equals that Ikenne son in accomplishment, even in nobility. Everyone wants to be like Awo. So they want to associate with the platforms he might have endorsed. The Afenifere group today with shysters is one of them. We have other groups like the SDP, the Accord Party and even the UPN. They act like Awo insiders. Oscar Wilde said the coward shows betrayal with kisses, only the brave with the sword. These men are kissing Awo with slobber full of poison. Awo stood for free enterprise, integrated rural development, a sturdy education system that is free and infrastructure development. These men that hang around Jonathan cannot show proof that Jonathan espouses these ideals in the Southwest after six years. As Premier of the West, it did not take six years before Awo established his genius in the region, a thing that made a British Prime Minister, Harold Macmillan, to say if Awo were a British Prime Minister, he would have been one of the best. The best of the Yoruba breed inhabited his soul: the warrior’s heart of Kurunmi, the republican vision of Oluyole, the cooperative elan of Ogedengbe. The raft of renegades of today’s Southwest only has Judas’ mousy eyes. They are mercantilist opportunists and desperate carpetbaggers who want to play Esau with the pride and patrimony of their people. They are Jonathan’s people. They are the Jonahs on the Yoruba ship of state. So they should be thrown overboard on Election Day.

  • Ray of hope from Chad

    Riddle over the death of acclaimed Boko Haram leader, Abubakar Shekau is about to be untangled. This ray of hope came from Chadian President, Idriss Deby. He had at a press conference in that country’s capital N’djamena called on Shekau to surrender or face immediate death.

    Hear him, “Abubakar Shekau must surrender. We know where he is. If he doesn’t give himself up, he will suffer the same fate as his compatriots. He was in Dikwa two days ago. He managed to get away, but we know where he is. It’s in his interest to surrender.”

    Given the controversy on Shekau’s death and accusations against Nigeria’s African neighbours for not cooperating in the war against Boko Haram, Deby’s intervention is significant in more ways than one.

    First, it signifies the accord brokered by the French government for multi-lateral cooperation in the war against the insurgents is beginning to take full shape. Before now, that accord had not been given full cooperation such that the insurgents have had a free reign levying terror on innocent people with reckless abandon.

    If the countries of Chad, Niger and Cameroon which share very porous and ill-policed boarders with Nigeria had been cooperating in the fight against Boko Haram, perhaps the insurgency would have been crushed long before now. Because of this seeming nonchalance, the insurgents had exploited to the fullest, the porosity of our borders; fleeing into neighbouring countries when hotly pursued by our soldiers.

    In one of such occasions, our soldiers were rescued by Cameroonian soldiers as they strayed into their territory. There were then reports that our soldiers were even disarmed by the Cameroonian soldiers in keeping with international conventions; provided food and military protection before they were eventually escorted back into the country.

    This matter has been deliberately brought in to underscore the difficulty in fighting Boko Haram in the face of the difficult terrain in which our soldiers have had to operate. It is therefore heart-warming that at last, Nigeria’s neighbours now share our concerns to flush out the insurgents without further delay.

    For another, it also illustrates very vividly the enormous successes the Nigerian military have been making in the fight against the insurgents in the last couple of weeks. These successes are no longer in doubt. Many villages in the war ravaged North-east especially Borno State that is worst hit have been liberated with heavy casualties inflicted on the insurgents.

    It is not surprising that following the heavy artillery power of the ground forces backed by aerial bombardments, the insurgents scamper to the borders seeking escape routes. And there, they are confronted by our foreign neighbours. With consistent push from the Nigerian troops and the cooperation of our neighbours, there is no doubt the days of Boko Haram are numbered.

    We are encouraged by the revelations of Deby. And when a president of a country speaks on such a very sensitive matter in public, we have every reason to take him very seriously. There is no reason not to believe Deby knows where Shekau currently is. He has ordered him to surrender or face dire consequences.

    But if the psychology of such terrorists is anything to go by, it is very unlikely Shekau will surrender himself alive. He would rather die than give up himself to be humiliated and disgraced. So why wait for him to surrender when from all accounts, such an expectation is a very remote possibility? For a group that wires young girls with explosives for suicide missions, self annihilation will not amount to much for its leader. This is more so when we reckon with the weird religious ideology that propels this extremists terror group.

    Going by the weight and certainty with which Deby spoke, the issue of Shekau may even be resolved before this article is published. When we pair this certainty with the fact that Shekau is unlikely to surrender alive, the likely option is that of violent confrontation.

    Either way, Shekau’s time has come unless Deby is not sure of his statements. There is no reason not to believe him. It is therefore the expectation that in the next few days, the world will get to know more about Shekau and the Boko Haram insurgency.

    We will then be entangled in a controversy of another sort. We will hear such tales as the dead man is not Skekau but a semblance of him. We will be confronted with a crisis of identity given several reports before now that Shekau had long been killed in battle field. All manner of theories will be floated especially by those who would not let the present administration take credit for the feat. The authorities will be hard put to convince the people that this is the original Shekau; not the characters that have been mimicking him. May be the saving grace will be the Chadian authorities. Coming from Deby, all shadows of doubt that are likely to be raised over the identity of the sect leader may not be pushed too far.

    This point has to be underscored given that the issue of insecurity in the country has become a serious election issue. The opposition has made it one of its cardinal campaign issues with a promise to ensure the security and territorial integrity of the country. The government in power has reinvigorated the war against terrorism to prove that it has the capacity to tame the monster and take away from the opposition whatever political advantage it seeks to get by exploiting weaknesses in the war against terrorism.

    These are the issues the nation will have to contend with in the way the current escapades against terrorism are likely to be perceived. This is more so when it is realized that one of the major reasons for shifting the elections was to enable the military conclude its military operations in that part of the country. Then, many had queried what feat the government would achieve in barely six weeks in a war that has seemingly defied it these years. Many did not see the possibility of that happening.

    But the signal coming from Deby and the reported recapturing of many villages from the insurgents now give a glimmer of hope that Boko Haram is now living on borrowed time. That would be a major political feat for the government of the day especially with the elections around the corner. It would have proved beyond reasonable doubt that the military had genuine reasons for asking to have the elections shifted for them to conclude their military operations. The government would then exploit that success for electoral advantage.

    But the question will still arise as to why the government had to wait till the last minute before decisively confronting the insurgents. Is it because of the arrival of new equipment or a deliberate strategy to score political points for electoral advantage? These are the issues that will be thrown up if the real Shekau is captured or killed and the insurgency tamed very considerably in the next few days. Whatever the case, it is in the interest of this country that the war is brought to a conclusive end.

  • Poverty of prosperity

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Subtraction makes sense

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Ebele’s animal farm

    Ebele’s animal farm

    There is no better way for a rich man to flatter the poor than to call himself a farmer.  Except for symbolism and passing curiosity, the rich farmer does not smell the earth, skin a goat, and scoop the crop. He loathes the ritual drudgery of seed time and harvest. The poor sow in tears; the rich reap in joy. He is the boss, owns the large hectare of land, prefers the Mercedes coupe to the tractor, would rather roll in cash than in grass.

    There are exceptions to these executive farmers, though. Take the exponent of Ujamaa and the late Tanzanian President Julius Nyerere who turned his country into a vast idyll of farmers. He died as a humble tiller of the earth. So is Jose “Pepe” Mujica, the 78-year-old president of backwoods Uruguay. He is the acclaimed poorest president in the world, who lives on his farm and shuns the glitz and glam of office.

    As an earthy man, the Owu chief, according to urban legend, exults in the ambience and toil of farming. But he does not work his farms into bountiful harvest. His hirelings do.

    Writer Eugene Ware does not like to call most of these big men farmers. Hear him: “The farmer works the soil, the agriculturist works the farmer.” So where do we place Ebele Integrated Farms Ltd? Is President Goodluck Ebele Jonathan of shoeless origin a farmer or agriculturist? He has not come out to say a word about his 94 hectares of land originally meant for aviation purposes.

    In refined democracies, presidents defend themselves in their own words and voices. His spokespersons say he has done nothing wrong owning a farm acquired while in office. Farming is allowed for all public officers. On that score, the president has done no wrong. He is contributing to food security. But there are Orwellian questions to ask.

    How come the president is giving himself 94 hectares of land? Experts say a hectare approximates a football field. So 94 hectares will amount to 94 football fields. So, President Jonathan does not only hail from a village, he has made one. He is both village chief and president. He is not only the president of a vast Nigeria, but the owner of a village farm. You may call it Ebele village.

    How come a president acquires a company when he is in office? He has collided a right with a wrong. The right is that the law allows him to own a farm while in office, according to subsection 2 (b) of part 1 to the fifth Schedule of the Constitution. The wrong is that it is unlawful to do business while in office. Those two wrongs cannot make a civic right. It means no one is expected to do the business of farming while in office. The law therefore espouses the humble farmer. It means you cannot allow the task of farming to detract from your civic responsibility.

    If you cater to the welfare of over 100 million people, the law forbids you to run a business. The president knows that the farm is not just a farm but a huge investment for profit. We know that 94 hectares is not to feed his family or sell a few bananas.  So those who defend the president should understand the law. The president has violated the law in spirit, even if he can defend himself that he is technically allowed to farm. We must note that most public officers do this under fronts, which is roundly condemnable. It is remarkable, though; that the president pursues his farm dreams with sinful audacity.

    The more crucial point is that the president acquired the land through his appointee, the Abuja minister, Bala Mohammed. The man allotted 94 hectares to the president. He then allotted over 40 hectares to himself. How could the president complain when he too is on the take? That is what is called conflict of interest. Was that not the reason he fired his best minister yet, Barth Nnaji? Now should the president not fire himself – and of course the FCT minister?

    That is why we have an Orwellian matter on our hands. In Animal Farm, George Orwell’s animals that make the laws say, “all animals are created equal.” Later when law meets experience, the reigning pig acquires more powers and privileges. It then turns the matter around: some animals are more equal than others.

    The farm laws are different for the president. He can appoint the man who gives him the plot of land, and he can be the entrepreneur, president, lawgiver, profiteer, etc.

    That is different from the average farmer in Otukpo, who tills out oranges, yams, tomatoes from his humble earth. Is he a farmer like Jonathan? He does not occupy a public office. Even those who do know they cannot own businesses, no less farm businesses. It is like the story we read in younger days: Jonathan’s farm is bigger than theirs. His is a presidential farm. All agricultural laws are not made equal. Jonathan’s is more equal than others.

    If the president had acquired the land without attaching it to a company, could we have defended him? Not easily. We should have asked, when will he have the time to juggle his work as commander-in-chief chasing Shekau and saving the Naira from its monumental crash? That is the spirit of the law. Once you have it as business, you have negated the principle of integrity in office.

    In the case of the Owu chief, he is not innocent. Did he not acquire some of the farms across the country when in office? The reference by the Jonathan defenders to Obasanjo Farms Limited does not justify the president’s action. Two wrongs, as the cliché goes, cannot make a president right and another wrong.

    I don’t think it is only a matter of law, but of decency. We recall the obscenity of the probe of the former FCT minister, Nasir El-Rufai, and how some of those defending the president now took a swipe at the FCT minister then over conflict of interest.

    Nothing wrong with a president retiring as a farmer, even as an agriculturist. It glorifies the earth and enhances food security. It laughs at H.L. Mencken’s assertion that “no one hates his job so heartily as a farmer.” Not so for United States presidents who were farmers. But they did not allocate lands to themselves. Lincoln, Jackson, Jefferson and even Washington were farmers to varying degrees. In modern times, Jimmy Carter is the most famous, and to lesser degree, Lyndon Johnson. They could not contemplate allocating such swaths of land to themselves.

    The difference between that society and ours is the rule of law. They obey, we defy. Unlike the animals of George Orwell’s novel, no one is a law to himself.

  • A citizen of example

    Lagos State House of Assembly last week, resolved to invite Ms Josephine Agwu, a cleaner at the Murtala Mohammed International Airport, Lagos to celebrate her for a rare display of honesty and integrity.

    Reports had it that Ms Agwu had in the course of her duties, found N12 million in various currencies and returned it to the owner. That was the third time she was returning lost monies for the collection of their owners.

    Apparently moved by this uncommon show of honesty and patriotism, the Deputy Whip, Rotimi Abiru, under matters of urgent public importance, called the attention of his colleagues to the fact that being the third time the lady was returning lost monies, the matter should not be allowed to pass just like that.

    He recalled that the lady who earns a paltry N7, 800 monthly was given $50 the second time she found and returned lost money. Other contributors noted though the incident did not take place within an establishment of the Lagos State government, yet it was not out of place to appreciate her as a sign of moral motivation. Speaker Adeyemi Ikuforiji therefore directed the clerk of the House to invite Ms Agwu for members to appreciate her.

    Though Ms Agwu is yet to appear before the state assembly and the nature of the goodwill of the house yet to be determined, there is still every reason to commend the assembly for its kind and visionary gesture. It is not only heart-warming but very patriotic for members to have realized such a rare display of integrity should be encouraged especially in a country held down over the years by monumental corruption. This is more so given the strategic importance of our airports.

    Being the gateway to the country, our airports have before now come under serious bashing from the outside world for sundry ills that go on there including corruption. At the heat of the Ebola virus scare sometime last year, a group of American security officials in transit had alleged that one of them was pursued and injected a substance suspected to contain the Ebola virus in an insecure area of that airport. The report which was meant to paint black the airport security was aptly denied by airport authorities for lacking in any shred of truth. They had faulted the claim because no such case was reported to any of its security outfits. Nothing was again heard from the US officials who bandied the claim. And nothing came out of the report of the test they claimed the victim who was admitted at a US hospital on arrival, was said to have undergone. This matter has been deliberately brought in here to underscore the kind of negative image our airports have before now, been subjected to for reasons best known to their sponsors. There have also been other instances in the past the nation has been treated with video clips of the corruption that go on in the airports involving our security men. All these have tended to give the image of our airports as an insecure, corrupt and unsafe place for business.

    It is this negative rating that has been put a lie to by the uncommon display of honesty by the conduct of the airport cleaner. This is especially the case given that this marks the third time she would return monies forgotten by their owners. A country that is interested in good moral standing, cannot afford not to appreciate and celebrate such a patriot. That is the duty the Lagos State House of Assembly has taken up and it should be appreciated by all and sundry.

    The state assembly deserves commendation for not allowing the contributions of the cleaner to pass unsung. Not with the high level of dishonesty that bestrides the nation’s entire landscape. Not with the concomitant corruption in high and low places that has held this nation prostrate and stultified all efforts at genuine economic development.

    The contributions of the assembly are better appreciated when it is realized that the incident occurred in a federal establishment which ordinarily, should be outside its area of authority. But it refused to be constrained by this temporary line of divide since the heuristic value of celebrating the cleaner will rob off positively on the moral bearing of the entire society. That is the way it should be and the assembly deserves to be commended. It has by this rare display of patriotism lived up to the motto of the state as the centre of excellence.

    Beyond the gesture, there are other potent issues thrown up by the incident. The first has to do with the conduct of Ms Agwu’s employers. There is nothing on record to show they appreciated this cleaner of example. For her to have returned lost monies for three consecutive times, meant there is something very special about her. She is a rare person; an uncommon Nigerian. She ought to be celebrated and hugely rewarded in order to send the message very unambiguously that honesty pays. She is poorly paid but not poor in spirit. That is why even with her meager salary, she was not moved at the sight of N12 million.

    In a country where armed robbers would have cleared any obstacle at sight to carte away such a huge money; in a country where employees disappear into the thin air with smaller amounts entrusted to their care, it is only proper the cleaner should be hugely rewarded not only by her employers but the federal government. These are the kind of people that deserve the yearly national awards and not the sundry characters that should ordinarily have had nothing to do with them. It is therefore only proper that the federal authorities seize the momentum set by the Lagos state assembly and demonstrate very unambiguously that honesty and integrity pay. She works at our airport and it is immaterial whether a private company employed her for that purpose. The good example she has consecutively displayed is for the overall good of the country.

    It is also important that other Nigerians of exemplary quality; no matter how lowly placed, are identified, celebrated and rewarded as a mark of encouragement to others who have been sold to the idea that life is all about hook and crook. And they are many.

    But there is also a contradiction which the loss of such a hefty sum has brought to the fore. In a country where the majority find it nigh impossible to feed, is it not scandalous that people could easily forget such a huge sum of money? In a clime where even a third of that amount would make a big difference between life and death for a majority, does it not speak of the wide gulf between the rich and the poor that such an amount can be easily forgotten?

    These are some of the issues that have been brought to the fore by the incident. You can imagine the big temptation it was for someone who earns less than N8, 000 a month to have returned N12 million she found on a platter of gold. Many would have seen that as a golden opportunity to make it. For such people, Ms Agwu may have lost an opportunity to conquer poverty. But they are wrong. For her, honesty and integrity pay better and life is not all about money. Such a moral bearer ought to be appreciated by all.

  • Buhari: past or present

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Before we perish

    All signs of a self-fulfilling prophesy are now here: fears of unimaginable proportion, mutual accusations and blames among groups and individuals against themselves and institutions of governance. We are also host to schism within the political class and increasing doubt on the capacity of the centre to hold any more.

    Critical institutions of government are under attack for real or trumped up charges. And general confidence in these institutions has come under very serious doubt such that forebodes danger for our collective wellbeing. Ironically, these foreboding signals fit into the prediction of a group of Americans who had before now, foretold that this country would beak up this year. Call it prophesy that is about to play out and one will not be completely wrong.

    Though the authorities had dismissed this doomsday prediction, events have moved in such a sequence to suggest that it can no longer be considered the handiwork of some lazy forecasters or an exercise in wishful thinking. Curiously, those who were quick to dismiss the forecast then, have found themselves irretrievably at the centre of events that may bring about this pass.

    Every body is talking tough; passion very high. There are hard line positions and every body seems to have lost control over statements that can hold this country together and the ones that will further compound our problems of common existence. It has become increasingly difficult to make a difference between statesmen and the ordinary man on the streets who is often propelled by emotions.

    Those who ought to be seen as such have been drawn into the fray and there seems to be nobody to call the other to order. Never in the history of electioneering campaigns in this country have Nigerians been so divided and torn apart by its likely outcome. Critical institutions of the government are not spared in this bashing: the military, the Independent National Electoral Commission INEC and the government of the day.

    The impartiality of the INEC, the military, the Police and even the Judiciary has been put into serious doubt. And all these are taking place in very quick succession at the eve of a general election. The idea of an interim government has been bandied while the prospect of a military coup has also been touted for the same uncertain circumstances. Out there, the Boko Haram insurgency is wreaking havoc with unimaginable toll in human and material resources.

    Caution appears to have been thrown to the dogs and all those supposed to be the conscience of the nation have taken sides. These are definitely very trying times and if care is not taken, this country may be heading for the worse.

    At the centre of the impending danger is the issue of power shift or power sharing among the disparate groups. Before now, there have been threats and counter threats as to the consequences that await the nation should any of the contending interests fail to have one of theirs clinch the nation’s highest political office. And in a zero sum game of this nature, only one person will ultimately win. Elections have been postponed for six weeks for two basic reasons. The first is the inability of the electoral body to get the Permanent Voters’ Cards PVC’s to a majority of voters across the country. There was also the security dimension. In this wise, references were made to the prospects of outbreak of violence due to the likely disenfranchisement of a large chunk of registered voters. There was also the issue of concluding some military operations in the north-east which the military high command said they were about to embark upon. Such an engagement in their calculations, would largely constrain them from the usual logistic support they offer the INEC during elections.

    But that has not been all. Accusations have been bandied and motives imputed for the shift. And given that the elections were barely a week away when they were postponed, the frustrations of those simulating hidden motives for the shift can be understood.

    But as the nation was about to come to terms with this reality, a spanner was hurled unto the wheels when former President Olusegun Obasanjo re-opened the matter levelling sundry allegations against President Jonathan and the military. He alleged that Jonathan was not only planning to win the election by “hook and crook” but to use the service chiefs to prolong his regime.

    He cast serious slur on the role of the military arguing that they were manipulated by the Jonathan regime to postpone the election and questioned the claim that the period would be used to quell the Boko Haram insurgency that has defied the military these past years.

    The defence headquarters felt so piqued by these allegations that they had to join issues with Obasanjo contending that much of his recent utterances are either motivated by the desire to play to the gallery or for self-serving ends.

    What is important here is not as much with the utterances of Obasanjo; the schism within the political class or the mutual recrimination that has become the order of the day. The thing that should concern all is the logical outcome of this whirlwind we are about to unleash unto this country. Do we have the capacity to control its devastation when once it has been activated? And are we really prepared for whatever may turn out to be its logical outcome? In effect, it is not enough to bandy damaging allegations; it is not enough to threaten fire, lime and brimstone should this or that happen. It is also not enough to simulate the worst case scenario or prop up dangerous propositions if certain events go in certain directions.

    The thing to examine is the larger prospects of unguarded utterances, allegations and all that; the net effects of discrediting critical institutions of governance and what they portend for the peace and stability of this country. We need to consider what would be the effect of the attempt to have the citizenry lose confidence in the military, the INEC, the police and the judiciary especially in an election year.

    There is the overriding need to give thought to a situation where the electoral body’s credibility to organize free and fair elections has been seriously questioned if not damaged. How acceptable will the elections which it is about to organize be? And what are the likely consequences of a highly disputed and rancorous election?

    There is the imperative to examine the larger consequences of casting the military institution as a compromised body that now does the bidding of the government in power. Suggestions about military take over or the idea of an interim government that has surprisingly surfaced also need to be seriously studied.

    We may also need to pause and consider whether we are not unleashing a chain of events whose outcome may eventually overwhelm this country. These are the issues to ponder in the current circumstance the nation has irretrievably been entangled.

    It is important to examine whether the social dynamics of history has not been so activated that it must run its full course. Are those activating these processes prepared for the larger repercussions of the dialectics that is currently at play? Are they aware that the forces of historical materialism can drive them into oblivion? And have they considered the likely direction of spontaneous change or revolt arising from disenchantment with the establishment.

    There are accusations and counter accusations of corruption among the contending political parties. The fight against the scourge has become an election issue. This would seem alluring given the pervasiveness of the phenomenon. How we wish corruption can be fought in all its ramifications and all those who stole our money made to account for their ill-gotten wealth at the expense of the toiling masses. That would mark a new beginning for this country.

    But this presupposes the coming elections are largely free and fair and their outcome generally acceptable. That is where the real problem hinges. The way things stand there is every reason to believe there will be protests and possible violence irrespective of who wins the presidential election. The outcome of the election has already been badly encumbered such that which ever way it goes, we are definitely heading for the worst case scenario. That is the real danger in the unguarded accusations and counter accusations against critical institutions of governance. It would appear to me that this country needs some form of intervention to redirect us from the perilous path we are heading to. What that intervention is and the form it will take is best known to the Almighty God. But the danger ahead is very certain and some form of intervention is inevitable to reverse the slide to the precipice.