The Nation Newspaper

Category: Monday

  • Between the masses and the moneybags

    What’s the fuss about President Goodluck Jonathan’s reelection campaign war chest of at least N21bn, to go by the figures of the December 20 Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) Fund Raising Dinner held at the old Banquet Hall of the Presidential Vila, Abuja? Indeed, the outcome of the money spinner may be considered anticlimactic, given the known capitalistic orientation of the Jonathan administration and its major supporters. It is instructive that the Chief Fund Raiser and Chairman of the Dangote Group, Aliko Dangote, who is listed among the world’s wealthiest persons, was reportedly out of the country; and  his representative, Mr. Joseph Makanju, was said to have assured the organisers of the event that Dangote would live up to their expectations when he returned.

    Jonathan was quoted as saying, “I thank everyone who made donation tonight.” He probably had a good reason to be grateful, considering the dimensions of the donors and the significance of their donations, which included: N5bn from players in the Oil and Gas sector; Real Estate and Building, N4bn; Transport and Aviation, N1bn; Roads and Construction, N560m; Power, N500m; Food and Agriculture, N500m; Automotive Association, N450m; PDP Governors N1.05bn; Jerry Gana and others, N5bn; and Tunde Ayeni and others, N2bn.

    Also, what’s the commotion about the possible legal implications of the grand collection? The Jonathan administration is not particularly known for its adherence to the letter and spirit of the law, and may ultimately exceed the lawful N1bn spending limit for presidential campaigns without compunction.

    It is intriguing that the scale of financial support appeared to contradict any negative perception of the Jonathan presidency. If the intention was to make a statement about the backing Jonathan ostensibly enjoys, the message was strikingly delivered.  Also fascinating is the remarkable donor anonymity, which introduced an impersonal angle; paradoxically, it would suggest that the individuals who gave money wished to be faceless. In this connection, it is food for thought that Balarabe Musa, a former governor of Kaduna State, said: “It is money stolen from the government. The money could not have been donated by someone who earned it legitimately. They are monies stolen from the public fund. Can they say the money is from their pocket?” Beyond the question of whether the humongous resources came from questionable sources, it is thought-provoking that the donors in question went so far in providing a pillar for the administration, which suggests that the opposition has an intimidating power contest ahead in next year’s general elections.

    Against the background of Musa’s far-reaching conclusions, it is interesting to note that former President Olusegun Obasanjo who recently released   his explosively controversial three-volume autobiography, My Watch, wrote of the Jonathan presidency in the most unflattering terms.  Obasanjo said:  ”Under Jonathan we seem to have gone from frying pan to fire. If in the past corruption was in the corridors of power, it would seem now to be in the sitting room, dining room and bedroom of power. If what is called ‘corruption’ is stealing, under the watch of Goodluck Jonathan, then government has become legalised and protected robbery.”

    This vignette is particularly persuasive in the context of the news that Transparency International (TI), the respected watchdog, this month ranked Nigeria 136th on its 2014 Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI) focused on 175 countries. 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 relevant 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.”

    Ironically, the projection of finance-driven strength might well be an indication of weakness in the critical area of people appeal. It is logical to observe that money by itself is unlikely to win the presidential election for Jonathan next year, especially given his provably poor performance in office.

    It is noteworthy that under Jonathan, for instance, the country’s poverty profile is tragically inexcusable for an oil-rich country. Of relevance is the observation by the World Bank President Jim Yong Kim at the April IMF/World Bank Spring Meetings, where he restated that Nigeria was among the top five countries with the largest number of the poor. Scandalously, 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.

    For a picture of poverty, the World Bank’s definition is clarifying. According to the institution, “Poverty is an income level below some minimum level necessary to meet basic needs. This minimum level is usually called the “poverty line”. What is necessary to satisfy basic needs varies across time and societies. Therefore, poverty lines vary in time and place, and each country uses lines which are appropriate to its level of development, societal norms and values. But the content of the needs is more or less the same everywhere.” It further said: “Poverty is hunger. Poverty is lack of shelter. Poverty is being sick and not being able to see a doctor. Poverty is not having access to school and not knowing how to read. Poverty is not having a job, is fear for the future, living one day at a time. Poverty is losing a child to illness brought about by unclean water. Poverty is powerlessness, lack of representation and freedom.”

    There is no doubt that the majority of Nigerians can understand what the World Bank says about poverty, and even what it has not said. The poverty of leadership, which has so devastatingly levelled the country, requires urgent redemption.

    It is eye-opening to contrast the Crowd Funding Project of the All Progressives Congress (APC) presidential candidate, Gen. Muhammadu Buhari, with Jonathan’s moneybags financing scheme. Buhari said: My strength mainly is the ordinary people. N100 is plenty of money for them and I know that they are going to make the sacrifice required for the change we are looking for, especially when I made them a promise to be transparent and personally responsible for the money.” He disclosed that the people had contributed N54.4 million, and declared, “So far so good.” In the end, it will be a battle between the masses and the moneybags.

  • Our brand of democracy

    Events since the conduct of primaries by political parties have once again, brought to the fore the vexatious issue of the manner of democracy we practice in this country. More than anything, they have shown in very clear terms the scant regard of our politicians for the rules of the game.

    Not only are politicians not prepared to comply with extant regulations, they have shown unbridled inclination to go at length to sabotage this vital process for self-serving ends. This ruinous predilection has largely accounted for the rancor that trailed the primaries of the parties leading to defections and bad blood among key leaders.

    At the heart of the disputation is the control of what is now dubbed party structures- euphemism for sidelining and appropriating the peoples’ mandate during party primaries.

    Once appropriated, it enables the beneficiary politician to subvert the collective will of the people by depriving them a role in the choice of those to stand for the election proper. In practice, its execution varies from one party to another. In some parties, though a date was fixed for their primaries and party members were made to come out to elect their delegates, no election took place as some powerful leaders hijacked the process only to turn in purported lists of those elected.

    Ironically, despite these glaring cases of sabotage and brigandage, the party leadership did practically nothing to redress the grievances of short-changed members. In some other parties, sundry governors and leaders had high latitude to determine who they wanted for the various elective offices. Yet, this is one civic duty party members ought to exercise freely if the will of their constituencies is to be reflected at elections.

    Representative democracy derives its strength from its capacity to approximate the collective will of the people. Because of the large size of modern states, it is no longer possible for the people to gather in a single location to directly take decisions on matters affecting them. Thus, the concept of representation that allows the people to take decisions through their elected leaders.

    The theory is that having taken part in the election of their representatives, whatever decisions taken by them, will approximate the collective will of the constituents from which they emerged. That is the guiding framework. That is the objective party primaries and elections are meant to serve.

    Sadly, this cardinal principle of democracy has come under serious assault by the manner the various political parties conducted their primaries. It all started with the ward congresses of the parties. At that rudimentary level, party members were expected to elect their delegates who would in turn elect those to fly the flags of the parties at the general election.

    Instead of allowing this rudimentary civic duty a free and fair reign, the exercised was heavily compromised in many areas.

    In the case of the People Democratic Party PDP, those who came out to vote went home disappointed in some states as election materials and officials disappeared into the thin air. Result sheets were later returned with names of people written in hotels or residences of influential politicians who bought or hijacked them for their selfish ends.

    It was not surprising that what came out as duly elected delegates were names of cronies and loyalists of those who hijacked those election materials. In Cross River state for instance, a chieftain of the PDP Chief Donald Etiebet was so disgusted with the outcome of that congress that he dubbed it a mockery of democracy. For him, what took place in his state was anything but a congress.

    And in nearby Imo State, the PDP ward congress was a sham. The All Progressives Congress APC did not fare better in this regard in some states. In many of the states it controls, sitting governors hijacked the party structures shunting out those not considered loyalists from the process. The gale of defections from the APC in Ogun State is a necessary fall-out of this. In Imo State APC, the sitting governor had his way in not only determining who should run but manipulated the process to throw up his son in-law as the governorship candidate of the party. It took the emergence of the party’s presidential candidate a few days later for him to return and reclaim that ticket from his son in-law.

    And we ask, what manner of democracy do we expect from these highly flawed processes? Not unexpectedly, those thrown up by these faulty processes are supposed to have derived their mandate from party members in their constituencies. But that freedom of choice was hugely compromised. In effect, the electorate which represents the ultimate sovereign was denied its role and freedom of choice. Ironically, this role constitutes the irreducible decimal in any democratic calculation.

    This is a country in a hurry to copy governance frameworks ostensibly to quicken its pace of development both economically and politically. Sadly, after adopting these contraptions, we go out of our way to exude dispositions and tendencies that end up sabotaging the very process. And when confronted with the incongruity in the adopted systems’ incapacity to deliver optimal results as obtains in democracies from where they were copied, the ready answer given is that we are in a learning process. We may continue to learn ad infinitum without any positive results. If the truth must be told, we may end up learning nothing if political actors do not change their desperate and do or die attitude to electoral matters.

    At the centre of this malfeasance is the pervasive corruption that has eaten deep into the nation’s fabric. It is the high level of corruption in public places that has become the greatest undoing of our democratic experiment. Politicians do not want the will of the people to determine the outcome of elections for fear they will reject the charlatans and sundry criminals who have now found politics a major source of livelihood. They are afraid that given the choice, they will be totally rejected by their people.

    That accounts for the indecent desperation to secure control of party structures. A lot of money change hands among those delegated to conduct the congresses and key party officials at their headquarters.

    That is not all. The same desperate politicians will now proceed during the primaries to buy same delegates whose names they influenced into the list. Some of them were known to have given each delegate the sum of N500,000 or more after administering an oath on them to secure their votes. The situation is that bad. The scandal saw some peasants who have never seen N50,000 in their lives smiling home to the banks. And we ask, what manner of leaders will such people turn out to be? Having corrupted the system to fraudulently to emerge victorious, will they not sabotage every due process to recoup their ill-gotten money? Your guess is as good as mine.

    Something urgent must be done to reduce the high level of corruption that characterizes electioneering campaigns on these shores. It is for the same reason that the various tendencies in the country are seeking to control the centre. Until we whittle down the huge resources at the disposal of the central authority, we are unlikely to make real progress as a people. Maybe the current fate of oil in the international market will compel us to do the needful.

  • Second term or second chance

    Does President Goodluck Jonathan of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) deserve a second term in office? Should the people give him a second chance?  These questions certainly have different meanings. Whether Jonathan’s governmental performance in his first four-year term, which may well be his only one, is worthy of a pass mark and an extension leaves room for debate. On the other hand, whether he should be given a second chance suggests that he has been a definite disaster, and only a supremely forgiving electorate would give him another chance.

    It is fascinating and thought-provoking that former President Olusegun Obasanjo chose to release his explosively controversial three-volume autobiography, My Watch, at this critical juncture as the country anxiously awaits the important 2015 general elections. His portrait of Jonathan in the tome is a punch with the devastating potency of a Boko Haram bomb blast. It remains to be seen whether Jonathan will survive the hard blow.

    What makes Obasanjo’s picture notable, not to say believable, is that he was fundamentally, and perhaps culpably, the prime puppeteer in the plot that produced Jonathan as president in 2011. While his insight and magisterial pronouncement on Jonathan’s career cannot exculpate him, it would be simply illogical and fallacious to respond to Obasanjo’s viewpoint with an ad hominem attack suggesting that his negativities should make him unbelievable in this respect.

    On Jonathan, Obasanjo wrote: “Jonathan is lacking in broad vision, knowledge, confidence, understanding, concentration, capacity, sense of security, courage, moral and ethical principles, character and passion to move the nation forward on a fast trajectory.” He continued: “Although he might wish to do well, he does not know how nor does he have the capacity to. To compound his problem, he has not surrounded himself with aides sufficiently imbued with the qualities and abilities to help him out. Most of them are greedy hangers-on or hungry lacklustre characters interested only in their mouths and their pockets.”

    Obasanjo further highlighted Jonathan’s alleged “inadequacy, myopia, personal interest and self-aggrandisement, lack of sagacity, wisdom.”  He added: “Under Jonathan we seem to have gone from frying pan to fire. If in the past corruption was in the corridors of power, it would seem now to be in the sitting room, dining room and bedroom of power. If what is called ‘corruption’ is stealing, under the watch of Goodluck Jonathan, then government has become legalised and protected robbery.”

    This vignette is particularly interesting against the backdrop of the news that Transparency International (TI), the respected watchdog, this month ranked Nigeria 136th on its 2014 Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI) focused on 175 countries. 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.

    Considering the lamentably positive excitement that the information generated in Aso Rock, the seat of the country’s presidency, as far as the Jonathan administration is concerned, it’s a big deal and worth celebrating. To appreciate why the Jonathan presidency somersaulted in ecstasy over the latest ranking, it is important to note the background: Nigeria was ranked 144th in 2013, 139th in 2012 and 143rd in 2011. So, with the 2014 position, the 2013 standing has been bettered, if such a positive word may be used, by eight rungs. Does the administration think there is a significant difference between being 136th and being 144th?

    It is possibly a reflection of corruption, or more specifically, corrupted thinking and understanding, that Jonathan’s Senior Special Assistant on Public Affairs, Dr. Doyin Okupe, burst into song.   Perhaps more appropriately, he should have burst into tears. Okupe gleefully said in a statement: “The latest TI rating is a proof that President Jonathan’s effort in the fight against corruption is yielding positive results. There is no doubt that since President Jonathan came on board as president of this country, the fight against corruption has been taken several notches higher.” He further said: “Unlike any previous administration in the country’s history, the present administration has instituted institutional reforms aimed at giving fillip to the anti-corruption war.”

    Okupe’s zeal is understandable, considering that the 2014 grade is Nigeria’s best on the CPI under President Jonathan. It is evidently a merry matter for those who are in power but have failed to exercise their power to arrest corruption in the country in any impressive manner. However, this moment cannot be for crowing, and it is both puzzling and disturbing that Okupe demonstrated unawareness by his effort to take advantage of the news for publicity purposes. Okupe needs to be told, or taught, that the country’s 136th position in a class of 175 is still as shameful and embarrassing as it has been since the inauguration of the Jonathan administration, and certainly does not qualify as a publicity opportunity.

    Particularly relevant 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.”

    It is a point to ponder that there is a striking common ground between Obasanjo’s uncontrolled demolition and Transparency International’s institutional perception.  Indeed, it may well be impossible for the Jonathan administration to significantly minimise public sector corruption, given his peculiar perspective. This is the leader who said on national television: “Over 70 per cent of what are called corruption (cases), even by EFCC (Economic and Financial Crimes Commission) and other anti-corruption agencies, is not corruption, but common stealing.” There is nothing to add, except to wonder at Jonathan’s thought process.

    In this context, the emergence of Gen. Muhammadu Buhari as the presidential candidate of the potentially victorious All Progressives Congress (APC) and Prof. Yemi Osinbajo (SAN) as his running mate can be better appreciated for the promise of immaculate integrity.

  • Donor’s paradise

    Donor’s paradise

    When it ended, the Goodluck Jonathan presidential campaign train hooted into the night with over N21billion. It was an obscene night. Billions topped billions. Sycophant outdueled sycophant. They all wanted to impress the boss, President Jonathan. They were good boys and girls. Loyal. They had kept the faith. They abounded with filthy lucre and they were not selfish. They loved their leader. They cherished their president. So they donated and donated and donated.

    Who were these donors? Not the ordinary folk, but those whom the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) in holier times, would have asked a few questions. But not these guys. It did not matter that these billions were strutting out in the shadow of Christmas. Many Nigerians are wondering, in their beggary, how they could afford the small derika of rice and an arm or breast of chicken. They wonder whether parents and children would say, Merry Christmas, with a burp of joy. Or their empty stomachs would howl in protest by zero hour of Christmas night.

    But don’t ask the friends of Jonathan who set the evening afire with a donation of N3 billion. How did the man from Otuoke, who had no shoes, suddenly have friends, who could donate N3billion? Who made them rich and how? These must be very good friends who did not know money until their friend sat over the pot of gold.

    You must know the socialite Bola Shagaya, the woman who knows how to schmooze every first lady in town. It does not matter whether it was the raspy-tongued Turai or the na only you waka come Dame. She stood for the oil and gas industry that zipped out N5billion. That industry had to be kind to Jonathan. We know how they have become peacocks of subsidy, buying jets and palaces around the world. They are also grateful that life is good even when the oil price has plummeted to about $60 per barrel and the Naira tumbled to 190 to a dollar. After all, if it is good for them, it is good for all. It is the same country where they complain of oil theft in a huge scale. The gas industry does not worry the president even if it flares our billions away in the Niger Delta.

    Transport and aviation gave N1billion, humbler than the oil and gas kings. They were celebrating the great contribution of the President to the sector. Its rickety trains that took The Punch reporter four days to travel North and back; an almost non-existent maritime transport except for canoes that capsize routinely across the country; or the aviation industry that sullied the air with one of his great scandals that cost him one of his jewels as minister. Or is it the SURE-P buses that few see around the country?

    The construction industry donated N310million. This is modest, if you ask me. But what construction have we seen in this country in the past six years of Uncle Jonathan’s reign? Is it houses? No. Is it roads? Of course, no one can vouch for that. His best friends are from the East, and he promised them Second Niger Bridge, and fibbed in public that he had gone far with dredging. He has not even corrected the first bridge. The roads are in bad shape, and he is doing token work on Lagos-Ibadan Expressway after endless cries and condemnations. Well, we can say he reconstructed some airports. But its roof has started to leak. The extension in Lagos looks good. It leaked during the last rainy season. We hope they will be fixed before the next.

    Real estate donation baffles me a little. What real estate are they celebrating in Jonathan’s tenure that they donated N4 billion to his campaign? The poor cannot boast of new homes. In Lagos, the governor of example, Babatunde Raji Fashola, SAN, has constructed several. Maybe he can take a cue. Is it the palaces that his friends have all over the country and the world that they are celebrating? It must be that. Four billion can save many millions from poor shelter if the money is redirected from the Jonathan campaign to the poor. Jonathan can at least remember the poor as he once was without shoes and bag to go to school.

    I am sure Dr. Adeshina, the agriculture minister, who is swanky with bow tie and vaporous rhetoric, would have swooned in his seat when his industry donated N500 million. The man lies that we have reduced rice import by 60 per cent. The statistical illusionist should gauge the frenzy with which the poor pine for Christmas rice. His well-stocked table must blind him to the arid misery of the poor man’s kitchen.

    One of the most darkly funny donations came from the power industry. The announcer thanked the president for privatising the PHCN. They donated N500 million. These are the DISCOs and GENCOs, who have complained that they did not have money but have fattened on several billion Naira of support from the Federal Government. They were laughing at the consumers who complained that there is no power but their bills keep soaring. They must have laughed at the protests in the streets of Edo and Oyo states recently, and the loud grumblings of discontent everywhere. The privatisation was a typical Nigerian kill-and-divide phenomenon. This column is written on generator. This is the president who told TELL before 2011 that they would “dash” him their generators. Many Nigerians would want Jonathan’s generator right now.

    The auto industry donated N450million, and I ask, for what? What has Jonathan done for the commuter? Cars are more expensive today than ever. He says he is working to bring plants to Nigeria. But the cars are more expensive than the imports if the duties were not hiked to “protect” the locals.

    I won’t comment on the comedy of Jerry Gana and his friends, who donated N5 billion, or the N1.05 billion from Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) governors.

    Two things also should bother everyone. One, were these donations all from the private coffers or disguises over public funds? Is this public wealth or private wealth? In Nigeria, the distinction is foggy. Two, given the poverty in the country, did the Jonathan administration not rue the hard times, that it is obscene to announce such huge sums on network television. Is it not insensitive? They even opened two websites to seek donations. They flaunt money when the economy is choking the average citizen. The people saw this and they are taking note that the man wants their votes. They should beware that the fundraiser with its fancy clothes and glitzy setting does not haunt them like Nobel laureate Harold Pinter’s play, The Birthday Party, where a jolly day eventually becomes a regret. It may be the donor’s paradise but the people’s nightmare.

     

  • Buhari’s evolution

    Buhari’s evolution

    W hen General Muhammadu Buhari emerged as the All Progressives Congress (APC) standard-bearer, my mind did not ponder the future. I did not contemplate President Goodluck Jonathan, his opponent. Neither did I mull over permutations of his running mate, and the fiery battle in the offing.

    I zoomed back into important memories, but not in a sequential order. The first was a story I read about him during those years of long fuel queues in the 1990s. Ironically we are experiencing that now in Lagos again. The Buhari story took place in a Kaduna fuel station. The line, huddled bumper to bumper in a serpentine and interminable sweep, kept the commuters hopeful. Word passed from car to car, commuter to commuter, that a certain dignitary was at the tail end, waiting his turn. This man did not send somebody, like other big men, to sweat it in the oven of the afternoon wait.

    Who was he?  A stir of curiosity followed a consensus of sympathy. It was Buhari, the former head of state. He became a spectacle, subdued, without the frills and pomp associated with personages like him. Some walked back to confirm and to nod in obeisance, and passed the good news to all. He was one of them, in the gruelling grind of irony, the irony of a fuel-soaked land pining for drops of energy.

    Suddenly, by common consent, all cars yielded for the tall, gangly man with the enigmatic, if sometimes cherubic, smile. They paid homage in hand waves and cheers as Buhari drove in and filled his tank.

    The other was when the media asked him, after he became Nigeria’s military leader, what he would do with the media. “The press,” he roared back, his eyes aglow with rage, “I will tamper with that.” He followed with Decree 4 and jailed journalists. In that interview, he also evinced contempt for democracy.

    Another memory: He was a GOC and our border with Chad was collapsing under the firepower of insurgents. Garba Wushishi was his boss in Lagos and dithered over whether Nigeria should flush them out– sounds familiar. Buhari defied his boss and rallied his troops to rumble North and restore Nigeria’s pride and border. When Buhari was announced as head of state, I read an article in a newspaper cutting of the Nigerian Tribune on a notice board at the Obafemi Awolowo University, Ile-Ife written by Ebenezer Babatope, a former role model in that light. Babatope wrote it during the Buhari border soldiery and alerted Nigerians to the messianic spirit of the general. Babatope was quite prescient then, a quality he has lost.

    Buhari is one of the few men in public life who have evolved before our eyes. But neither he nor some Nigerians seem conscious of it. With a calm face and taciturn tongue, he cuts the image of the anti-politician. Yet, if military idiosyncrasy teaches guile, he did not imbibe it. We know the other military virtues: outspokenness, courage, discipline. Yet, no great soldier, from Wellington to Napoleon to Grant to Alexander the Great to our own Adekunle, ever snatched victory without the ultimate war quality: surprise.

    Buhari is perhaps the most predictable politician in Nigerian history. He does not seem to surprise everyone. Yet, he is the most surprising politician in our history. Some say he is the most predictable because, one, he is above board. He is a top politician who owns no business firm, owns only a house, travels light, has little money. Two, that he does not love other tribes. Three, that he is a religious bigot. Four, that he cannot be a democrat because he has no taste for cooperative action.

    Yet, the Fulani Jingoist picked a pastor as his running mate. He has an unadvertised familiarity with some of the major evangelicals in Nigeria. He is called a religious fundamentalist, but he was almost killed by those some said he sponsored. Only a few months ago, his convoy fell to the bombs and bullets of Boko Haram, ending the lives of some of his associates and aides. That paralysed the critics who accused him of being a sponsor.

    A democrat? He disavowed this as head of state, but after soul searching, he decided to give it the loyalty of his emotion. Yet, Buhari is no archetypal democrat.  Without cunning, how does a man like him become a presidential candidate four times? How does a man without money form a political party of influence? He is a counterfoil to a Nigeria where money answers everything. In the last primary, he contested against a money bag, and two governors, each of them capable of razing the bank. He does not schmooze with his fellow politicians. He is not gregarious. A politician orates to compensate for financial insufficiency. He is an unadorned speaker.

    He is said to present only one attribute for presidency: his integrity. He will stop the financial bleeding in this Jonathan world leaky with billions. Yet, he gave an illuminating insight in a recent Channels interview with Seun Akinbaloye. Buhari noted that to tackle Boko Haram, Nigeria should have held a conference with our three border nations Chad, Cameroun and Niger, and signed a treaty over border movements with infrastructure of implementation. Rather, President Jonathan keeps travelling to meet a head of state who is in cahoots with a suspected terrorist who was given a so-called guided tour of a plane loaded with arms headed for the country where the insurgents thrive and preen. A bigot would not think so creatively and so publicly as Buhari did in the Channels interview.

    If we say he is not a politician, he beat that tribe to be a standard- bearer four times. He has no money, he beat money bags several times. He is called a bigot and almost died in their hands and gave us perhaps the best idea yet on how to mow them down. We say he is not a democrat, but he formed two political parties and helped form a third and rose to become its standard-bearer in the most exquisite presidential primary ever held in our history.

    He is described as an ethnic bigot, but in the primary he garnered heavy votes from across the country. Yet Buhari projects a sort of ‘innocence’ in his public persona. In spite of his virtues, he lives with the barbs on his personality. He is not in a hurry to deny charges. He inhabits a disturbing equanimity, and that is perhaps why some Nigerians do not know that the Buhari of 1983, who appeared on television to give his coup broadcast in a beret on a winsome young face, has evolved over the decades.

    He is vilified as a sectional leader, but without money, oratory, cajoling and the bravura of political structure, he is at the head of the greatest political coalition in our history. That makes the challenge for the electioneering campaign compelling. His image, speeches, character, Nigerianness and ideological projection require an animation and brio.

    Buhari has evolved but it is time for his image to keep pace.

  • Kashamu should write his own book

    For a book that is so explosively controversial, the reviewer, Patrick Okigbo, was correct in describing My Watch, the new three-volume autobiography by former President Olusegun Obasanjo, as “thought-provoking and revealing,” although he probably never intended certain meanings.  To start with, it is remarkable that a Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) Southwest pillar, Prince Buruji Kashamu, moved to legally restrain Obasanjo from publishing his book. Also, it is striking that Obasanjo on December 9, despite a restrictive court order, unveiled the book at the Lagos Country Club, Ikeja.

    Interestingly, there was a dramatic continuity as Justice Valentine Ashie of the Abuja High Court, in reaction gave Obasanjo 21 days “to show cause, via affidavit, why he should not be punished for contempt committed by publishing and distributing for sale to the public, the book, My Watch, in plain disregard of the pendency of the substantive suit and the order of this court made on December 5, 2014, restraining him from doing so.”

    Still dramatically, Jusice Ashie ordered the Inspector General of Police (IG), the Director General of the Department of State Services (DG,DSS), and the Comptroller of Customs to recover the published book from all book stands, sales agents, vendors, the sea and airports, and deposit them with the court’s registrar pending the determination of the substantive suit. It is not clear how far this particular order has been carried out, and whether the mentioned officials may also be eventually accused of contempt.

    It is noteworthy that the pending substantive suit in question is a libel case brought by Kashamu, relating to Obasanjo’s public letter to President Goodluck Jonathan in which he alleged that Kashamu is a fugitive wanted in the United States. Also, it is worth mentioning that Kashamu’s action to stop the publication of Obasanjo’s book was based on his fear that it would contain a reproduction of the allegedly libellous letter. So, his anxiety was a product of anticipation.

    The developing drama expanded when the Olusegun Obasanjo Presidential Library (OOPL), in a statement by Mr Vitalis Ortese, said: “Chief Olusegun Obasanjo wishes to state that the media report which conveyed the impression that he intended to “dare or confront a judge or the judiciary” is highly misleading. Far from this, on the contrary, the former president is a law-abiding citizen, who will only pursue his rights within the law and will not “dare” a judge or knowingly flout an order of a court of competent jurisdiction.” The spokesman further said: “The former president wishes to make it clear that in the first instance, no formal order from Justice Ashie was served and received by either himself or by proxy regarding any injunction restraining the publication of the book, “My Watch” which from the records was already in circulation.”

    More importantly, however, Obasanjo himself said at the ceremony to release his book: “The book had already been published and printed three months ago, only for the court to be asked to put a stop to it. Buruji went to a court to stop the book from being published and the hearing was fixed for yesterday (Monday). When that was not enough, he went to another court by 5pm on a Friday and got an injunction, saying the book should not be published. Unfortunately, the book was already completed three months ago. Secondly, I want the judge that gave such an injunction to be penalised.”

    Against the background that Obasanjo has challenged the “contempt of court” charge, and indicated his intention to seek a suspension or stay of execution of the court’s orders, it is clear that the unfolding show is far from a finale. Indeed, there may well be even more fascinating twists and turns before the denouement.

    Of course, the thought-provoking quality of Obasanjo’s book is not limited to these extra-literary gyrations. In content, the book is a veritable trigger of contemplation. To illustrate this point, it will suffice to concentrate on Obasanjo’s pictures of his immediate successor, Umaru Yar’Adua, and the incumbent President Goodluck Jonathan who succeeded him.

    Obasanjo wrote in his book: “I was heavily involved in the transition and exit process that saw me leaving office for my successor, Umaru Yar’Adua, as recounted in Chapter 37, the ninth chapter of the second volume of this book. The unprepared and unplanned transition from Yar’Adua to Jonathan was a more difficult exercise in some respects. One reason was the ‘cloak and dagger’ manner in which Yar’Adua’s illness was handled.” He continued: “The illness of a President cannot be regarded as private. His health has implications for the security and wellbeing of the nation. For the president and those around him to have attempted strenuously to keep the fact of the severity of his illness from public smacks of ignorance of the enormity of what the job entails and the level of provinciality of their understanding, attitude, and approach.”

    On Jonathan, Obasanjo wrote: “Jonathan is lacking in broad vision, knowledge, confidence, understanding, concentration, capacity, sense of security, courage, moral and ethical principles, character and passion to move the nation forward on a fast trajectory.”  He added: “Under Jonathan we seem to have gone from frying pan to fire. If in the past corruption was in the corridors of power, it would seem now to be in the sitting room, dining room and bedroom of power. If what is called ‘corruption’ is stealing, under the watch of Goodluck Jonathan, then government has become legalized and protected robbery.”

    There is no doubt that these portraits have revelatory features, but not only concerning the portrayed characters. In a profound sense, they also represent a self-portrayal by the portraitist, who is fixated on the canvass and cannot appreciate that he may need to remove the log in his own eyes, which suggests a hypocritical hypnosis. Obasanjo was fundamentally, and perhaps culpably, the prime puppeteer in the plots that produced Yar’ Adua and Jonathan; and so he may, with believability, make magisterial pronouncements on their political careers. However, he cannot offer these insights in order to achieve self-exculpation.

    It is conceivable that others have their own stories too, which they could tell by writing books. Sadly, an enduring minus of the country’s political class is the poverty of mind that prevents many of its major players from documenting their experiences for whatever it may be worth.

  • Our new arms deal

    Those who have followed contemporary events in this country will not be surprised at the news that Nigeria struck a deal to buy arms and ammunition from Russia. Under the arrangement, Russia is to supply its MI-35s and MI-17s military jets among other armaments to this country to aid the fight against the Boko Haram insurgency.

    The deal followed Nigeria’s cancellation of the US military training programme for our soldiers and is largely viewed as a response to the curious attitude of that country to the raging insurgency. Though various reasons have been adduced to rationalize Nigeria’s decision to cancel the programme, it is widely believed it has every thing to do with US refusal to sell categories of military aircraft and arms to Nigeria to fight the insurgents.

    Two well respected Nigerians, Gen Yakubu Gowon Retd, a former head of state and Nobel laureate, Wole Soyinka had heavily criticized the US for its refusal to supply the country the little arms it needed to defend its citizens and quell the Boko Haram uprising. But the US had hinged its decision on the nebulous excuse of human rights abuses by the military even when the insurgents are equally no respecter of human rights.

    The two personages could not understand what the argument on human rights is meant to serve when our citizens are faced with the danger of annihilation by the better equipped and more sophisticated insurgents. Moreover, US stand on the issue does not tally with its position on terrorism as is evident in Afghanistan, Syria and Iraq where it is currently battling the ISIS onslaught. It was therefore seen as double standards for the US to turn its eyes against Nigeria in its difficult moment especially when the same country went to war in Iraq under the guise of her possession of nuclear weaponry. Many innocent souls lost their lives in that unfortunate encounter. Today, we know that Iraq possessed no nuclear weapons. But the harm has been done. And no body has been brought to book for that fiasco. More over, recent accounts on the activities of some US security operatives have revealed large scale human rights abuses following events leading to the twin tower bombing. So the issue of human rights abuse may not be stretched too far in such difficult and trying situations.

    Apparently frustrated by the US action in the face of the escalation of the Boko Haram insurgency, Nigeria had to seek help elsewhere. Thus, the arms deal with Russia. With the action, Nigeria seems to have defined a new relationship with Russia.

    Not unexpectedly, the deal has become an issue of intense discussion among defense and security analysts in the US. Discussions have centered on the likely effects of the action on Nigeria/US relations, the divergence in opinions and perception of the two countries on the insurgency and what the new arms deal portends for the rivalry between the US and Russia- a rekindling of the super power competition. The discussants also threw new insights into some other considerations that may have been at the center of the US refusal to aid Nigeria militarily, allegations of human rights abuses notwithstanding.

    A Director of African programme at the Washington-based Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), Jennifer Cooke admitted that there is a great deal of tension between the two countries particularly over the security relationship and that each side has a different perception of the matter.

    Ben Moores, a senior analyst at the defense and security analysis organization HIS Janes’s 360 gave new reasons why US would not want to sell its advanced weapons system to Nigeria. He said advanced military jets and attack helicopters could not be sold to Nigeria for fear they could be passed on to a third party. Moreover, there were “leaks or moles inside the Nigerian military who were leaking information to Boko Haram. They were leaking certain bits of information, training information and perhaps information on the team itself” Moores said.

    For him, what Nigeria needed most was not fighter jets and attack helicopters but a better motivated, a more professional force to deal with some of the social and cultural problems.

    Some of the issues raised make more sense than the trite pontification on human rights even though they are not entirely foolproof. There is no doubt that the US does not have a good reading of the situation on the ground and the general feelings of our people. That much had been given credence by the views of Gowon and Soyinka among several other well-meaning Nigerians.

    The nation is facing destruction by the insurgents and must take every legitimate action to protect its citizens. If all it takes is the deployment of advanced military jets and helicopters so be it.

    It smacks of a poor reading of the situation to hold that we do not have a pressing need for the jets and attack helicopters. On the contrary, we have very urgent need for them to decisively end this war. Whereas it can be admitted that we need a more motivated and professional force, it is wrong to ascribe the current Boko Haram insurgency to social and cultural issues. Boko Haram is similar in motivation and ideological leaning to ISIS which the US has been battling with very sophisticated military jets and hardware in Syria and Iraq.

    The issue of moles and leaks in the military is real. With some unscrupulous military persons leaking information to Boko Haram, any foreign partner seeking to help is bound to be frightened as the security of its personnel and equipment is not guaranteed. These weaknesses can be admitted. On several occasions, our soldiers have been waylaid by the insurgents due to information leaks on their movements. In one of such instances, the soldiers went wild firing shots at their commander after they suffered heavy casualty from Boko Haram ambush.

    Such incidences do not imbue confidence in the outside world that we are all committed and united in the fight against insurgency. More than anything, they underscore the point more forcefully that there are sections in the military and political class that lend huge support to the insurgents. This may have contributed in obfuscating US perception of the matter.

    But then, there is a legitimate government in place and there are standard practices on how to deal with a band of anarchists seeking to levy war on such governments. Whatever the motivation- religious, cultural or social Boko Haram has become a mortal threat to the corporate existence and survival of this country. And the government ought to be given the needed help to tame the monster. Inventing sundry reasons and excuses to deny Nigeria the arms and ammunitions to quell the insurgency is a clear invitation to anarchy.

    More seriously, the position Nigeria has found itself is self-inflicted. It is a huge shame that 54 years after independence, we are still cap in hand begging for arms and ammunitions from foreign countries. We fought a civil war here and certain military competences were developed then. We are also not lacking in human and financial capacities. Instead of seizing and activating the ingenuity of the civil war era to catalyze technological transformation, we allowed that opportunity to slip. The same forces and contradictions that gave rise to the civil war are at play again in the Boko Haram project.

  • Today’s bomb

    I am going down the street to pick a piece of bread

    The crowded street will only stall my steps

    and hunger, my morning companion, has a few minutes to say goodbye.

    Boom, boom, I heard amidst cries

    Was that a bomb?

    Yes, screamed a scurrying back

    I am in no mood for the body count

    Some people scampered about in fear

    I stood still and saw in the distance a bloodied face

    and another man lifting a child limp of limbs in

    hurried alarm for a car to take the dying to the hospital

    If, that is, the car does not bear a hooded omen

    Of unexplored men and shrapnel

    I looked at myself, crown to toe, I am

    as new as the morning dew

    I have nothing to worry about, and I move on

    To pick my piece of bread and wish the morning companion goodbye

    Today has had its bomb.

  • Mama Goodluck Nigeria

    When it comes to celebrating the country’s First Family, every angle deserves to be explored, to go by the creative sycophancy of the Ethical Leadership Academy, which has dreamt up an award for Mrs. Ayi Eunice Afeni Jonathan, mother of President Goodluck Jonathan.  This is no laughing matter, considering that the award for excellent motherhood is reportedly designed to “promote transparent family values that inspire honesty, truth, justice, discipline, unity, better understanding, reconciliation, equal opportunities and respect for others.”

    If words have meanings, and indeed they do, it may be difficult, if not impossible, for objective observers to associate the string of positives with President Jonathan, meaning that in the eyes of the dispassionate public he reasonably cannot be said to stand for honesty, truth, discipline, unity, better understanding, reconciliation, equal opportunities and respect for others.

    But it would appear that the Ethical Leadership Academy is driven by a peculiar understanding of ethics, which may paradoxically prove enlightening for its lack of insight. According to a statement by the academy’s Executive Director/CEO, Dr. Chijioke Nwandikom, the maiden award will be given to Jonathan’s mother to “celebrate the joys of motherhood and give God glory that you are alive to witness the transformation of the child you delivered like a Hebrew woman, rise to become the president of Nigeria.”

    In case anyone missed the significance of the president’s birth for the country, the academy, with a tinge of regret, noted that little “is known of MAMA who has bestowed on Nigeria a gift of a great leader who has within a phenomenally short period transformed the political and socioeconomic landscape of Nigeria, a virtuous woman who has become an inspiration to generations and worthy of being celebrated.”  It is against this backdrop, Dr. Nwandikom said, that “Mrs. Ayi Eunice Afeni Jonathan will be conferred with the title of MAMA GOODLUCK NIGERIA for giving Nigeria the gift of GOODLUCK as our amiable and transformational president and national leader.” Mama Goodluck Nigeria is expected to take this grandiose title on December 20 when the academy will also launch the Mama Eunice Afeni Foundation for Excellent Motherhood.

    All things being equal, it should be expected that Mama would grace the occasion with her presence, most likely calculated to boost the apparent publicity stunt for her son. In addition, it may not be unrealistic to expect President Jonathan and First Lady Patience Jonathan to attend the event as well, considering that it has the quality of an image-building exercise, or perhaps more specifically, an image-redeeming project, with both of them as the indirect focus. Certainly, it does not require any special gift of discernment to recognise that the award is a not-so-subtle effort to sell President Jonathan in connection with next year’s general elections and to promote his re-election ambition.

    It may well be that the organisers of this unique event would miss Pa  Lawrence Ebele Jonathan,  President Jonathan’s  father  who died  in  Aso Clinic, Abuja , in 2007 at the age of 81, while his son was still Vice President. If he were alive, it is possible that he also might have been factored into the ceremony by the academy. However, those he left behind would probably spare a thought for him on the important day.

    Interestingly, according to the awardee’s profile: “Madam Eunice Ayi Jonathan swept the Anglican Church in Otuoke every day for 30 years from when she became a Christian in 1976. She recounts that when she saw young people singing hymns from the hymnal she would say, ‘All I wanted was for them (my children) not to be illiterate like me, for them to be able to sing Christian songs from the hymn books as well as read the Bible for me.’  ‘God in his infinite mercy saw my sincere desire and decided to bless our family the way He has done. I know we do not deserve it, but when God says yes, who can say no? We give Him all the glory.”

    Mama’s words are not only thought-provoking; they have a disturbing ring. By appealing to divine intervention, she suggests that her son’s ascendancy is beyond human intervention, which may have the implication that she probably believes President Jonathan’s re-election cannot and will not be humanly decided. While she may be entitled to her faith and her understanding of divine operation, her perspective is not to be encouraged in a democratic context. Indeed, it ought to be emphasised that people power should determine the people in power, and not divine benevolence as suggested by Mama Jonathan. It may be a good sign that she said her family did not merit the unbelievable height; and, hopefully, she should appreciate the reverse saying – when God says no, who can say yes?

    The dubious idea that Mama Jonathan represents model motherhood, and the shaky projection that President Jonathan has been a success in office, and stands for exemplary leadership, are perhaps predictable as the 2015 elections approach and desperation reigns supreme; however, the baseless communication cannot translate into acceptance.

    It is relevant to recall that Mama Jonathan made news in August last year when she donated two multi-million naira buildings of 20 flats to Federal University Otuoke (FUO) in President Jonathan’s hometown in Bayelsa State. Of course, President Jonathan was present at the event. Of course, no questions were asked, and no answers were provided, concerning Mama’s resources. There was no need for questions because the answers were clear enough. It was, without question, another unconscionable instance of dishonesty and untruthfulness, which are euphemistic in this case, and opposites of two of the qualities Mama Jonathan’s award seeks to promote.

    As President Jonathan’s mother becomes Mama Goodluck Nigeria, it is reminiscent of the dramatic move by First Lady Patience Jonathan who last year renamed herself Mama Peace.  Mrs. Jonathan announced her new name to a probably bemused audience at the Banquet Hall of the Presidential Villa, Abuja.  The occasion was the December 13 launch of the Subsidy Reinvestment and Empowerment Programme Maternal and Child Health (SURE –P MCH) known as MAMA Project.

    She said: “My name is no more Patience but now Mama Peace because I believe that without peace, there will be no more women, no more children and no more health sector. Without peace, the international community will be afraid to come and invest in our country.”  It is one year since this theatrical name-change, but where is peace?  Similarly, concerning Mama Goodluck Nigeria, the question is: Will this title be less senseless one year from now?

  • Gowon, Soyinka and US

    The role of the United States of America (US) in the war against Boko Haram insurgency came under serious scrutiny last week. At least, two well respected Nigerians came out publicly to deprecate the attitude of that country to the raging insurgency that has left thousands killed and maimed while property of inestimable value destroyed.

    First to take on the US was Gen. Yakubu Gowon Rtd, a former head of state and one of the few of such leaders whose views are taken very seriously by many. Gowon had criticized the US for refusing to sell arms to Nigeria to fight the insurgents. For him, if the US was a truly diplomatic friend of Nigeria, it should do everything to keep its corporate existence by aiding it fight any aggression from any quarters.

    He recalled the US did the same thing during the Nigerian civil war by refusing to sell fighter jets to the country even as they were shipping fighter jets and loads of ammunition to Zaire. “What sort of friends are they”, he queried.

    Nobel Laureate, Wole Soyinka added weight to Gowon’s position when he called on the same government to stop giving baseless and flimsy excuses for its refusal to sell ammunition to Nigeria to prosecute the war. He asked the US to stop ridiculing and laughing at this country through its current posturing on the war against the insurgents.

    Gowon and Soyinka’s intervention has raised the stakes on the inexplicable role of the US since the war on terrorism commenced in this country. Besides, it has elevated to the vortex of public opinion the inherent contradictions in some of the reasons that have before now, been adduced to justify the vague behavior of that country to Nigeria’s current predicament.

    Hiding under the spurious allegation of human rights abuses by soldiers, the US had sought to justify its refusal and obstruction of Nigeria’s attempt to acquire Cobra helicopters and ammunition to successfully prosecute the escalating war.

    Not unexpectedly, the schism within the political class on the motive and direction of the insurgency has allowed some of these curious excuses to fester. Those who want to take advantage of the war to further their political ambition have taken turns to hype the perceived excesses of the military on human rights. Curiously, a willing US government quickly bought into that idea and had since posed an obstacle to Nigeria’s attempt to acquire weapons to tame the monster. It is good a thing respected citizens are now coming to terms with the inherent contradictions in the US reasoning. Not long ago, the US ambassador to Nigeria James Entwistle amplified his country’s position on the issue when he said they would only sell or give out arms when they are sure of the purpose for which it would be used.

    “Before we share equipment with any country, we look at a couple of things. Does it make sense in term of the country’s needs? The second thing we look at is the country’s human rights situation. As you all know, there have been instances, I’m not saying across the board of human rights abuses by the Nigerian military in the north-east” the ambassador said.

    It can be deduced from the above that US does not see any need for Nigeria to acquire these weapons despite the admission of Entwistle in the same interview that Boko Haram has gone beyond being a small insurgent group with a couple of guns to a very effective collection of conventional force. Yet, the same government is of the view that Nigeria has no need for the ammunition it seeks to buy. Nothing can be more contradictory than this.

    Soyinka captured this contradiction very succinctly when he argued that what the country asked for are little weapons to destroy the enemy; weapons for self defense since we have found ourselves in a situation of destroy the enemy or have ourselves destroyed. He could not fathom how such weapons of self defense can be denied in the face of a heartless and murderous marauding enemy.

    There is much to indicate the US is not coming clean on this issue. Neither is their argument plausible. They recognize the war has assumed a dangerous dimension in the face of the sophistication of the insurgents in weaponry resulting in heavy casualties on the part of our soldiers. They are also not unaware of the murderous escapades of the insurgents: a litany of abductions, the sacking and burning down of communities and their celebrated scant regard for the sanctity of human life. Why the US chose to look the other way in the face of these human right abuses by the insurgents has remained largely cloudy. Not long ago, the world was rattled by the abduction of over 200 school girls in Chibok in very inexplicable circumstances. Since then, we have been inundated with varying chilling accounts of the mindless abuses the girls have been subjected to in captivity by the insurgents. In the same very suspicious manner, the concerns of the international community have been more on the inability of the government to rescue the girls. Not much attention is being paid to the criminals that have been holding and abusing the poor girls. Despite the offer of assistance by the international community including the US for the quick release of the girls, nothing has so far come out of that engagement. Such has been the insincerity and deceit that had surrounded the war against the sect that one begins to wonder if some people are not set to achieve set goals through it. It did not come as a surprise when Nigeria cancelled the scheduled training of its soldiers by the US on account of that country’s refusal to share their equipment for the exercise. What these series of events in respect of the US activities in this war underscore is that Nigerians are getting more suspicious of her real intentions in this fight against the insurgents. This suspicion is further amplified by earlier predictions from the same country that Nigeria is likely to self- destruct by 2015. As that year fast approaches, no body is sure events are not being activated from so many corners to bring about the doomsday. Though issues of human rights cannot be discounted, we find US position in the instant case tenuous because the insurgents have worst records of human rights abuses.

    Even if we succeed freeing the Chibok girls without terminating the war, chances are that the insurgents will abduct more sets of girls given the very way the previous one was hyped. Events have since proved this right. So it is a huge contradiction to disallow Nigeria the acquisition of the needed armament to tame the insurgency and at the same time, expect the war will be over. It will rather escalate and degenerate. Our people stand the risk of being consumed. No leader worth his onions will stand by and watch that happen. The nation must do all within its powers to defend itself in the face of the onslaught of the Boko Haram insurgents? Why the US is applying double standards in its perception and treatment of the evils of religious extremism as propagated by the sect is best known to them?

    It is puzzling that the same US that spent years and huge resources in Afghanistan fighting the Taliban; the same US that is currently fighting unsolicited wars in Syria and Iraq against ISIS is singing a different tune in the fight against Boko Haram. This ambivalence cannot be for nothing given that Boko Haram and ISIS are two sides of the same coin.