The Nation Newspaper

Category: Monday

  • Buhari, Amaechi and people power

    Of all the possible expressive metaphors, why did Gen. Muhammadu Buhari (retd) go for the gun?  It would appear that the former military ruler and All Progressives Congress (APC) presidential hopeful is still in love with the weapon nearly 30 years after his military government was toppled and after three futile electoral attempts to be president. He blurred the fundamental distinction between the gun and the vote at a rally in Kaduna where Nasir El-Rufai, a former minister of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), formally unveiled his governorship aspiration.

    Interestingly, Buhari reportedly said to the crowd: “Your card is your gun against incompetence in government and deception.” He added: “We have suffered enough. You know what it takes to repair Nigeria, especially as regards infrastructure, security and employment. Let us get the infrastructure working; let’s get security materially, physically and morally.”

    Considering that his party’s symbol is a broom, it may have been more fitting, and by far less jolting, if Buhari had stuck to the familiar image of sweeping as a means of removing the unwanted. It is possible to interpret his language of violence as a reflection of the depth of his political frustration, which is understandable in the context of the observable continuing ruin of the country by the ruling Peoples Democratic Party (PDP). There is no doubt that the picture of the gun, perhaps more than any other euphemistic expression, drives the point home not only about the need for direct action but also the necessity for a destruction of the status quo.

    The suggestion of blood and death, in the framework of social resistance, was similarly communicated by Rivers State Governor Rotimi Amaechi of the APC at another rally in Ilorin, the Kwara State capital, where Governor Abdulfatah Ahmed publicly announced his pursuit of re-election. In an impassioned speech, Amaechi said: “I am very impressed by the number of persons that I have seen here today. What you must do is to stop the PDP from rigging.” He continued: “When you vote, do not go home at all. They will bring soldiers and police, remain there. If they want to kill us, let them kill us. If you go home, you will hear a different result. Stay there and make sure nobody rigs you out.”

    This striking convergence of thoughts, particularly the frightening verbalisation of violence, mirrors the decay and the defiance in the country’s political arena. Against this background, next year’s general elections promise to be, in a manner of speaking, a battle to the death for the country’s soul. It may be considered reassuring that the situation is not without instances of non-violent combativeness. APC leader Asiwaju Bola Ahmed Tinubu said at Ahmed’s event: “The best thing to do is to sweep them away through broom revolution.”  Significantly, his choice of words, even with the apparent lexical ambiguity, plays down blood and guts.

    It is a tribute to the essential concept of political sovereignty that, by clear implication, the APC’s approach is to rouse people power. It is a positive and creditable corporate stance, which has an excellent potential for achieving the desired regime change. However, the party will need to get its act together in order to surmount the objective challenges of organising for power and change, especially given the crippling socio-economic conditions that have blunted political consciousness across the country, resulting in an unbelievable atrophy of the exercise of political sovereignty. In other words, the people seem to have lost their voice, if not their votes.

    To save the sinking ship, words, whether hot or cold, will never be enough. How well the campaigners for change can demonstrate difference and distinction will likely be an indispensable factor in awakening the people. Sadly, it is still possible to argue, as various observers have done, that the opposition is yet to acquire a distinctive and unimpeachable stamp of progressivism.

    It would amount to a gross failure of discernment to trivialise the capacity of the Goodluck Jonathan administration for self-perpetuation. Indeed, Jonathan’s stunning choreographic approach to the 2015 presidential election may qualify as arguably the most systematically planned and methodically controlled pursuit of power in the country’s history of democratic politics, which should not necessarily be seen in constructive terms. Consider his unprecedented exclusive endorsement for re-election by the PDP state governors, Board of Trustees and National Executive Committee, which effectively foreclosed the conventional presidential primary to choose a candidate.  Add to this picture the reinforcing activities of the myriad Jonathan support groups practically begging him to be the PDP presidential candidate in the coming election.

    In a manner that may have been thought impossible based on reason, the desperadoes have not only redefined the noble concept of “transformational government”; they have also gone to the ridiculous extent of labelling the Jonathan administration as an exemplary case in point. It is instructive to note that Jonathan has continued to display a reptilian sneakiness, and perhaps the ultimate joke concerning his open concealment of his re-election ambition must be his show at his party’s September 20 “Southwest sensitisation rally.”  In his speech on the occasion, he referred to the various endorsements and introduced a calculated complication. He said: “I also have the right of refusal and I thank the party for giving me the opportunity.”

    Whoever thought he might exercise this “right of refusal” must be living on another planet. So, news that he had set up a Presidential Declaration Committee to work towards a November date when he would formally declare his presidential ambition was unsurprising. When he eventually pronounces his hunger for power, or finally puts his power-hungry scheming beyond question, the countdown to an unforgettable power struggle would begin in earnest.

    There is no doubt that the country is at a historical juncture of colossal consequence. It is a ripe moment for a full and far-reaching performance by the people, who will need to reclaim their sovereignty by seizing the stage. It remains to be seen whether they would be guided by Buhari’s image of the gun, or Amaechi’s be-ready-for-death presentation, or Tinubu’s picture of a thorough sweep.

  • PDP ward congresses

    It is increasingly getting clearer that democracy on these shores is in very dire straits. As one political event comes and goes, indications are that our politicians have neither learnt any lessons nor are they prepared to learn any in their dispositions and attitudes to the rules of the game. This may seem a damning assertion but it has become a sad reality of the politics of this country.

    Each time such infractions occur, our political actors are quick to rationalize them on the dubious grounds that we are still in the learning process. We may continue this learning process ad infinitum if conscious efforts are not made by both the political parties and politicians to guarantee the participation of the ordinary people in the electoral process.

    Before now, the greatest challenge has been how to guarantee free and fair elections by eliminating those unwholesome practices that mar our electoral process. We had in the past been treated with rigging, falsification and outright writing of election results in hotel rooms and sundry hidden places. The brazen subversion of the electoral process had been such that the electorate had started loosing confidence in it. It took copious assurances from the government and the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) for some modicum of confidence to be restored as elections began to reflect the collective will of the people as expressed in the ballot box.

    But even as this little progress can be admitted, increasing signals point to the direction that politicians are relapsing to their decadent political practices through their disregard to extant rules and regulations. And if care is not taken, the little gains so far recorded by way of the electorate having their way in electoral matters, may be completely wiped off.

    Or, how else do we explain the embarrassment that was the outcome of the ward congresses of the Peoples Democratic Party PDP conducted last weekend? Reports emanating from a congress that was meant to elect three ad-hoc delegates were a huge embarrassment to all lovers of democracy. From Rivers to Cross River, Imo to Benue states, the outcome was a litany of woes as voting materials were hijacked by politicians and results written without any input from party members who had thronged their various wards to elect their delegates. Ever since, the party has been inundated with complaints as key leaders and stakeholders have been very vocal in passing a damning verdict on the outcome of that congress.

    A member of the Board of Trustees BOT of the party from Akwa Ibom State, Chief Donald Etiebet came out strongly to lampoon the electoral panel sent to the state and the outcome of that congress. Hear him: “I want to tell you that I am not satisfied with the conduct of the ward congress in the state on Saturday. It was a farce and there was no congress conducted in the state”.

    He accused the chairman of the PDP electoral committee of bias.

    The views expressed by Etiebet mirror very vividly the outcome of that congress. It is not surprising that since then, the PDP national secretariat has been inundated with complaints from aggrieved members from across the country. Some of the complainants want the congresses cancelled and a repeat conducted. But the PDP national chairman, Adamu Mu’azu was reported to have said that the complaints were normal in such political activities. According to him, such complaints arise as politicians positioned themselves to take advantage and undo others. He would want to attribute these to rivalry among politicians.

    Mu’azu’s views appear an oversimplification of the matter. He could also be accused of trivializing the very serious infractions that marred those congresses. It is not a matter of politicians positioning themselves to take advantage. It is not just a matter of rivalry among politicians. They go far beyond these and are at the very heart of the real essence of democracy.

    Complainants are saying that there were no congresses in any of those states or where there were, they did not conform to the rules of free and fair conduct. They are angry that no voting took place at all in many of the wards and that election results were written in hidden places and submitted as the verdict of party members. They are piqued that ordinary party members were denied participation at that rung of party organization where politicians should have demonstrated their popularity by allowing the rules of the game to run their full course.

    Politicians who are at home with their people have no business subverting such rudimentary engagements as the ward congresses of their parties. They ought to have submitted themselves to the rules of that game. That is the real issue here.

    Moreover, if ward congresses and party primaries which are internal affairs of political parties are that rancorous, can those thrown up from that fraudulent process be trusted to play by the rules of free and fair elections? That is the poser that has been elevated to the front burner by the outcome of that congress. Ironically also, it is the same PDP government that is being looked upon to superintend over the conduct of free and fair elections. The minimum expectation given the foregoing was for that party to position itself as a shinning example in internal democracy. Sadly, this basic expectation was only observed in its breach during that ward congress. It is sad that we are at this point once again. Given events of our recent past culminating in the implosion in that party, the minimum expectation was that the party should have learnt from some of its mistakes by now. One of the issues which its members who defected to the All Progressives Congress APC had against the party hinged on its scant regard for internal democracy. And with the coming on board of the APC, it had been the hope of all lovers of democracy to see the PDP a reformed party.

    That has failed to happen as the ward congresses have vividly shown. Even before the formation of the APC, most of those who left the party cited the absence of internal democracy as their main grouse. Many of them have even had to go back to the party when their initial grouse had not been addressed. At the heart of all this, is the obnoxious notion that the party is the surest route to political ascendancy.

    The PDP must purge itself of this ruinous notion that it will continue to disregard the sensibilities of its members at the grassroots without dire repercussions. It is no longer business as usual now there is a strong opposition party. But it is a matter of choice for that party.

    The main opposition is there to take advantage of this lapse. But the activities of one of its governors Rochas Okorocha may turn out a negation of this optimism. Okorocha is reputed to be running for the presidency under the APC. Till now, no person has indicated interest to run for his current seat in his party and you dare not. The impression is that he reserves that position for himself should presidential ticket elude him. If and when this happens, we would be left with the same issue.

  • Tambuwal won, GEJ zero

    Tambuwal won, GEJ zero

    Everyone expected the defection. The PDP, working with the wily wisdom of the presidency, had their plans. The Speaker of the House of Representatives, Aminu Tambuwal, had his.

    The PDP wanted to ambush him. What we had was the flip side of the definition of war by the German general and war theorist Carl Von Clausewitz. In his bold and seminal work, On War, he describes war asthe continuation of politics by other means. Last week, Tambuwal turned this phrase on its head. Politics was the continuation of war by other means.

    It was a version of D-Day of politics. When the Allies wanted to invade Normandy, they sent a decoy to northern Europe. The Nazi machine was a monster, and Eisenhower, Churchill and Roosevelt knew that Hitler’s military force was near impregnable. It was like a camel walking through the eye of the needle to defeat the Hitler bear of an army. The Allies sent troops and all forms of deceptive military presences to the north. The decoy worked. Hitler sent many divisions the wrong way. The Allies had their victory, and Hitler his humble pie.

    So when speaker Tambuwal held the session, the PDP brass thought the intelligence was wrong. Tambuwal was not going to defect after all. Until the tail end of deliberations and all guards were down. The man spurted out the words, thanked all members and then the gavel fell.

    It was a sort of politics as hypnosis. The ambusher had become ambushed. Never before had politics been so fascinating in the House of Representatives as when the same man, Aminu Tambuwal, and his deputy,  Emeka Ihedioha, walked into the chambers in another form of ambush.

    The sheer semiotics of their act that day still charms the imagination. Tambuwal dressed not like the Fulani man. Ihedioha abandoned the Igbo cap. His foes did not know who walked in. The foes did not know a coup, and an ambush, had happened. A speaker and his deputy had overthrown them. They had the bigger arsenal, the police, the SSS, the muscles of the law. The two men had cunning. The Yorubas say wisdom is better than strength. In fact, wisdom is strength.

    A few years later, the PDP were caught napping again. They could not stop the man. He did it without the expected rancour, the chaos of flying chairs and blows and bruised faces and the alawada tragedy of Nigerian politics.

    After it happened, they overcame the hypnotic ambush. The presidency scrambled to hold a meeting, a desperate postmortem of a shellacking. First they removed the security detail of the speaker.

    They said he had defected and that meant he did not have a right to the rites and paraphernalia of the office. The police, under a pliant inspector-general of police, who has an illiterate understanding of the constitution, said they were obeying the constitution. Were they not supposed to act on the court order? When did the police become the interpreter of the law? Obviously, his boss, the sleek Jonathan, ordered the decision, and he unthinkingly obeyed.

    The section of the law (68 of the Nigerian Constitution) did not say once a man defects, he loses his seat. It gives conditions. They include the issues of factions and merger, and these have to be proved in the case of the particular individual, whether he defected based on any considerations of mergers or faction. How did they become mind readers to determine what compelled Tambuwal’s action. He never said he defected based on consideration of mergers or factions. They did not yank off his security detail because he was now an APC man but because he is the speaker. So to annul that position, you need those, the lawmakers, who voted him in to vote him out. That is democracy and not the sort of gangster logic the presidency has just wrought.

    It is not the speaker that defected; it was Tambuwal, a PDP man, that defected. The speaker was elected by other members of the House and only members of the House can remove him, so the speaker as a position  does not carry any party toga.

    The constitution provides for freedom of thought and action for any representative of the people’s mandate. In other words, you can defect if it is ideological or based on a new assessment of the people you represent.

    The constitution did not ask the people to vote robots to power. To that extent, an independent strain of mind can necessitate defection. A people may vote a man to make peace but the circumstances may necessitate war. Like Obama who now has to rethink his profile as a dove.

    This matter calls for respect for the rule of law. President Jonathan is hypocritical in this regard. Others have defected to PDP from APC, but he did not do anything. When the whitlow of the West, Ondo State Governor Segun Mimiko, defected to PDP from the Labour Party barely a month ago, the police did not ask him to vacate his office of governor. Neither were his security detail recalled. After remorseless denials, he came out in his true colours even though this columnist, without prescience, gave the nation advance notice of Mimiko’s PDP destiny and his treacherous profile. Did Jonathan not parley with Ali Modu Sheriff who crossed from the APC?

    Is this clampdown on Tambuwal a case of a president who does not understand the law or who only understands it when it affects his interest dangerously? He clearly does not have much respect for the rule of law. He does not understand that, as president, he should rise above petty insularity, and act as father of all.

    This is probably too much for him. Now, they want to go to court to get a servile judge to oust Tambuwal as speaker. They have accepted that they have lost, and rather than chew the humble pie, they are trying to clutch at straws.

    What is at stake is not Tambuwal but the integrity of the constitution, and the decency of leaders. The president and Speaker Tambuwal have never been on the same page, and now that he has come out as an APC man, I wonder why he is jittery and outside his skin trying to play revenge.

    Politics is the art of the possible. But the possible must operate within the ambit of law and decency. We know that Jonathan’s men enacted the topsy-turvy strategy in Port Harcourt to foment a lawless coup in the Rivers State House of Assembly. They failed disastrously because of the courage and timely intervention of Governor Rotimi Amaechi, who has upset the president’s every plan.

    We cannot have such a gangster recourse in the sanctum of the federal legislature. It will amount to the president overthrowing this democracy. It would be a suicidal abomination, and a foul omen for the presidency. Mr. President, you have lost. Accept it.

  • Two plays in search of a stage

    On October 1, a public holiday to mark the country’s independence anniversary, I set out for Glendora bookshop in Ikeja, Lagos, confident of getting a copy of Egbon of Lagos, a dramatic work by Akin Bello and the winning entry for the $20,000 Wole Soyinka Prize for Literature in Africa established by The Lumina Foundation, which was awarded in July. It was unbelievable that the book was not in stock, which may not be the same thing as saying it was out of stock because it was never available in the first place. It was disappointing that the bookshop attendant, an enthusiastic young man, was clueless about the work and the prize, despite his boast that he read the major newspapers routinely. He suggested that I should go to Jazzhole, a sister bookshop at Falomo, Lagos.

    His idea made sense to me as both shops had a reputation for being up to date in the book business, although, in my estimation,  that standing had been dented by the dramatic disappointment at Glendora. Falomo was at the other side of the megacity; but it was a lazy day without the familiar road traffic challenges. The courteous female attendant at Jazzhole was also unaware of the work and the prize. She suggested Quintessence in Parkview Estate in Ikoyi, Lagos, which sounded sensible, considering that it also had a good rating as a book place.

    I began to wonder about the distribution of Bello’s book, and reflected on the book publishing chain, particularly the flow from the writer to the market. When I finally located the shop that also promoted Africana, I marvelled at the breathtakingly picturesque scenery. Sadly, I experienced another letdown. But, this time, it was encouraging that the young man who attended to me wrote down the writer’s name and the book title, apparently a signal that the shop may consider stocking the work.

    A week earlier, I had read a newspaper story on this year’s Wole Soyinka Prize for Literature, and Bello was quoted as saying: “I hate it when people place so much emphasis on the prize money. I am constantly being asked: ‘how much has $20,000 changed my life?’ The truth is that the money is tucked away in a fixed deposit so it has not changed my life in any way. And that’s the way I want it for some time at least.” Bello, who is 64 years old, also said: “At my age, what new things do I want to go about acquiring frenziedly because I’ve won a prize? I’d want them to forget about the money and look for my play to read if they’re really interested in literature and literary attainment.”  He further said: “I absolutely detest the poverty-induced Nigerian mentality that portrays and delineates everything in the world as money, money, money. I also hate it when people who haven’t even seen the book, let alone read it, want you to start telling them about it.”

    Published in September 2013, Egbon of Lagos reportedly “took about a year from writing to publishing”. It is said to be “about a journalist in Lagos – of Lagos ancestry – who tries to carve a niche for himself in the city.”  It reportedly beat 162 others to the prize.  Bello said: “The metaphor in the play may have caught on with the judges. But I want anyone who wants to really find out what makes it worthy of attention to get a copy and read it.” The problem, Mr. Bello, is where to get the book.

    What’s more, it is interesting, not to say puzzling, that staging the play doesn’t appear to be on the cards, given his emphasis on reading. For drama especially, if people don’t read, they can watch, which may be considered as the beauty of the genre. It is a shameful testimony to the state of the performing arts in the country that a play of such status may never be put on stage. Or is Egbon of Lagos closet drama? In other words, is it probably more suitable for reading than for production?

    It would appear that it is the year of “the drama”, but not the year of “the stage”. To illustrate the fundamental import of this distinction, it is useful to highlight the enlightening citation received by Luigi Pirandello, an Italian dramatist, novelist, poet and short story writer who was awarded the 1934 Nobel Prize in Literature for his “bold and brilliant renovation of the drama and the stage”

    Intriguingly, the focus on the drama to the detriment of the stage was similarly discernible as Sam Ukala, a professor of Theatre Arts, on October 9 clinched the $100,000 Nigeria Prize for Literature sponsored by Nigeria LNG Limited. His dramatic text, Iredi War, was adjudged the best out of 124 plays. This is how Ukala described his play: “Iredi War, being the title of my own work, happened in 1906 in Delta State. It is a true life story of the mess put in place by the colonial overlords to overwhelm the local people. In that mess, some of the local people became collaborators and helped the white people to mess their people up. The motive behind this was to denigrate the people and their culture.”

    It is noteworthy that the judges applauded Ukala for “the masterly handling of vast historical material through the narrative and action method.”  It is not surprising that this commendation hints at the logic of performance. The truth is that although drama may be created and treated as literature outside the context of performance, it is within the setting of theatrical performance that it probably achieves the greatest fidelity to form.

    This is why the celebration of the works of Bello and Ukala as dramatic texts divorced from performance may ultimately represent a subtle subversion of the dramatic genre if they are not eventually elevated to the stage. Considering that the two prizes are awarded for the literary genres of drama, prose and poetry, and the spotlight is in perpetual motion, it may be a good idea for the sponsors to introduce a performance dimension, or more specifically, a stage production, when the focus is on drama.

  • Still on Ebola

    When recently the World Health Organization (WHO) gave Nigeria a clean bill of health on the Ebola pandemic, it left no one in doubt that the clearance was largely provisional. WHO country director in Abuja, Dr. Rui Gama Vaz while full of praises for the country for its efforts in checking the spread, had then warned “we have only won a battle; the war will end when West Africa is also declared free of Ebola”. And if one may add, the war will be completely won when the world has been declared free of Ebola.

    The warning became necessary with the ravaging of the disease in the West African countries of Liberia, Sierra Leone and Guinea. But it has also reared its ugly head in some western countries of the world including the United States of America. Since the world has become a global community, there is still every possibility for someone else to bring the disease into our shores. And the chances are very high. After all, the disease was brought into the country in the first instance, by a Liberian.

    It therefore calls for the stepping up of all those precautionary measures that were put in place as the disease lived with us. The warning became more compelling given the prevailing high level of illiteracy and ignorance in the country. Even as the disease was being battled, there were those opposed to some of the temporary precautionary measures put in place to contain its spread. We saw this opposition in some churches that introduced measures to limit body contact as their contribution to checking the spread. There were even spurious claims of capacity to cure the disease by so-called faith healers even with the efforts of the federal and Lagos State governments to engage them not to admit Ebola patients.

    There were others against the advice to shun certain practices including the consumption of bush meat. Such people may go haywire if it is not sufficiently drummed into their ears that danger still lurks in the air. That was the aim of the advisory from the WHO chief and it goes without saying.

    Expectedly, our governments have stepped up the screening of travelers at the airports and all entry points into the country. Good as these measures are, they may not be adequate given the very porous nature of our borders. This is especially so in the northern parts of the country where the authorities do not even seem to have a correct idea of the number of entry points. And without the necessary records as to the nation’s porous and unmanned borders, the risk of further spread is better imagined. Added to this risk is the inability to differentiate between citizens of neighbouring countries especially in the north-east flank and our citizens because of cultural, religious and language similarities. If therefore there is an outbreak of the virus in those neighbouring countries, chances are that it will spread very fast into this country. Our leaders need to pay special attention to this else we may have to pay very dearly for it.   The current battle against the Boko Haram insurgents has revealed the glaring security loopholes that exist in that part of the country. There is a compelling need to take a more serious view of such illegal entry points from Chad, Niger and Cameroon. We should still count ourselves lucky there has been no reported incident of the virus in those countries especially as they may not possess the necessary capacity to track down the disease the same way Nigeria did.

    That the danger is not yet over was vividly illustrate by the pandemonium at the Murtala Muhammed International Airport last week when a suspected Ebola patient arrived the country. Reports had that the Nigerian who had been cured of the disease arrived in company of a Nigerian diplomat to underscore the point that he has a clean bill of health and should not be stigmatized. But that was not to be. The realization that he had suffered the disease threw those at the airport into panic despite the fact that he was accompanied by a Nigerian diplomat as evidence he was Ebola free.

    Such is the level of fear which the virus has inflicted on the psyche of our people. This should not surprise anyone given its lethality and mortality rate.

    It is thus instructive that there must be concerted efforts from the various levels of government and citizens alike to ensure that neither foreigners nor our citizens are again allowed to come into the country with the disease undetected. In this regard, the federal government has more roles to play given its constitutional responsibilities. That is why the undue politicization of which level of government should take credit for the success that was the outcome of the battle against Ebola was unnecessary.

    The WHO country director and the former minister of health, Prof Onyebuchi Chukwu captured the issues involved very succinctly the very day Nigeria was declared Ebola free after 42 days or double the incubation period of 21 days with no new case.

    For Vaz, the credit should go the government of the Federal Republic of Nigeria through President Jonathan, the people of Nigeria and all stakeholders and development partners.

    Chukwu’s list was more inclusive. Apparently responding to claims and counter claims on who should take the credit for the success, he said the feat was recorded because of the distinctive leadership of President Jonathan. He then went on to acknowledge the roles played by the federal ministry of health and its agencies- the Nigeria Centre for Disease Control and the Port Health Service, the ministries of health of Lagos, Enugu and Rivers, WHO, UNICEF, the US Centre for Disease Control and Prevention and other partners who were part of the team. But he left nobody in doubt that he considered it the greatest achievement of his ministry as he was resigning to pursue his governorship ambition in Ebonyi State. How this success will count in his new endeavour will be borne out with time. But there is no doubt Chukwu did very well in the management of the Ebola crisis and left when the ovation was loudest. Whether it was by a stroke of luck or through painstaking efforts, he will live to take the credit for successfully waging a decisive war against Ebola on these shores.

    Beyond the matter of chest-beating, the war is not yet over. Those who want to savour the credit for the Ebola battle still have much to do by the way they prepare to wage a conclusive war against it. Reports from surviving victims of the virus speak of the absence of facilities on the part of governments to take on the scourge. The temporary relief period from the WHO clearance should now enable the various governments put in place sufficient facilities to take on the scourge if and when the need arises.

    More fundamentally, effective screening at our entry points and aggressive enlightenment programmes are all in dire need to keep the virus off our shores.

  • Amaechi: Ode to prudence

    Amaechi: Ode to prudence

    Something happened recently that has not received much media attention. Governor Rotimi Amaechi of Rivers State asked the House of Assembly to allow him withdraw N19 billion from the state’s savings reserve. When he became governor, he harped on the need to save money as counterfoil to leaner times. He did not expect it to happen during his reign. That emphasises his vision and altruism. He seemed to have read the Bible stories of lean and fat years, and had the image of Joseph the dream interpreter close at heart. He knew oil was not forever. Today the price of oil is dipping, and some predict it may fall as low as $70 per barrel. Now, the states are starved of funds and Jonathan’s finance minister says we are not broke. Yet we cannot pay our bill. In the same period when $15 million is carted away recklessly, an aviation minister leaves office because of recklessness and an untouchable oil minister spends billions on private jet, Amaechi’s example is a wise and cautionary tale. He represents financial responsibility in an age of profligacy, in a time when the president says stealing is not corruption.

     

  • Lagos and identity question

    As Lagos State, which is considered a megacity with a population in excess of 10 million people, surely approaches the status of a metacity or hypercity, meaning that it would be home to more than 20 million people, there is a renewed focus on the concept and definition of Lagosian, thanks to a new book. Launched on October 17 at the City Hall in Lagos, Possessed: A History of Law and Justice of the Crown Colony of Lagos, written by Olasupo Sasore, a former Commissioner for Justice in Lagos State, provides a basis for reflection on the identity and identification of the people in the megacity.

    It is no news that Lagos has been tagged “no man’s land” in certain quarters, especially by those who view its richly diverse populace and cultural variety as evidence of its alleged non-ownership by a particular group. In an illuminating interview, Sasore said: “I actually addressed that phrase because it is a phrase you hear a lot. I answered people who use that appellation for Lagos, and I hope that with the reading of history, it will show you that there are people who have indigene rights.”

    He further said: “I’m not an ethno-centrist, but indigenous rights have been recognised by the United Nations. Nigeria is a signatory to the United Nations’ convention right of indigenous people, and the convention clearly states that you have a right to feel indigenous, to dress indigenous and to speak with your indigenous tongue.” What he said next suggested his self-classification as a Lagos indigene. Sasore stressed: “It is my right and you can’t take it away from me. If you read the history of colony, you will understand that some people have that inalienable right.”

    However, it is significant to point out that the issue is whether indigenousness should be tied to exclusivity in specific contexts.  The matter is certainly not restricted to Lagos. It is instructive to note that in July the National Council of State formed a committee to address the alleged discriminatory promotion of indigenousness in states across the country and work towards ending the institutionalisation of indigenity.

    The committee included the governors of Sokoto, Niger, Enugu, Akwa Ibom, Ondo and Gombe states, representing each of the country’s six geo-political zones, and they were expected to identify discriminatory practices in all states of the federation.  Two governors, Godswill Akpabio of Akwa Ibom State and Babangida Aliu of Niger State, gave useful insights into the dimensions of the problem.

    Akpabio said the Council was against the idea of states creating platforms for the registration of indigenes, adding, “Council viewed the report seriously that some citizens were being deported; deportation should be from one country to the other but where you have a Nigerian who is being returned to his state of origin from other states then you know there is a problem. We felt that that was capable of disrupting the unity of the country, making Nigerians to become apprehensive and unsafe.”

    Aliyu highlighted alleged discrimination in the education sector which also came up for discussion, saying that in some states “non-indigenes” paid higher fees in public schools. He said:  “In fact the very concept of indigeneship came to the fore; whether in Nigeria we should be concerned about so called indigeneship or residency.”

    Interestingly, Sasore attempted a clarification that seemed like a complication. According to him, “So, Omo Eko (Lagos indigene) is a right that some people have and you can’t take it away from them, but ‘Lagosian’ is the right that all people who live in it have.” He continued: “It will interest you to know that the word ‘Lagosian’ was in use in the 1870s, I didn’t create it. I used to think that the term ‘Lagosian’ was a latter-day term until I started my research. It was a term that was used in The Weekly Record newspaper that was in circulation in Lagos in the 1890s.”  What Sasore means is that not every Lagosian (Lagos resident)is Omo Eko (Lagos indigene).  The questions are: Are there rights that should be considered exclusive to indigenes? If so, what are those rights?

    It is food for thought that an interest group called Lagoon State Movement is campaigning for the creation of Lagoon State out of Lagos State. The group re-energised this advocacy at its 7th town hall meeting this year at the Awolowo Institute for Government and Public Policy and Museum, Lekki, Lagos. According to reports, its leader, Chief Babatunde Olusola Benson (SAN), claimed that the consequences of preserving the status quo include overpopulation, inadequate representation of the state’s indigenes at the federal level, imposition of heavy taxation on residents of the state and indigene welfare problems. On the other hand, he argued, the creation of Lagoon State would result in substantial job openings, greater representation of the indigenous people in the Senate and House of Representatives, and increased federal government funding which would facilitate grassroots development. It is confusing that members of this group seem to assume that they would retain their Lagos indigenity should their campaign for Lagoon State succeed. The proposed state is expected to include the following local government areas:  Ikorodu, Epe, Ibeju-Lekki, Apapa, Eti-Osa, Somolu and Kosofe.

    The definitional challenge, which Sasore may not have overcome, was also evident at the 6th Herbert Macaulay Memorial Lecture and Merit Award held in March at the Nigerian Institute of International Affairs (NIIA), Lagos. The event was organised by the Association of Lagos State Indigenes (ALSI).   Prof. John Obafunwa, the guest speaker and Vice-Chancellor, Lagos State University (LASU), who spoke on the theme, “The place of Lagos State Indigenes – Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow”, acknowledged the difficulty of categorisation, after a conceptual exploration that significantly accommodated “native and original inhabitants” of Lagos and those whose progenitors had settled in Lagos at least “60 years” before Nigeria’s independence from British colonial rule in 1960.

    Obafunwa took advantage of the forum to elaborate on what he called the “challenge of indigenisation” at LASU. According to him, the dream of the university’s founding fathers was that it should have a 70 per cent indigene composition, and since his appointment as the institution’s head in 2011 he had achieved 60 per cent indigene makeup.  It is enlightening to note that as part of the 2013/2014 screening of candidates for admission, the Lagos State University Independent Indigeneship Verification Committee issued a revealing identification guide, which indicated “acceptable evidence of Lagos State indigeneship.”

    According to the guide, “freshmen who claim Lagos State as their state of origin” are expected to back such identity with   “Photocopy of birth certificate of the applicant; Photocopy of birth certificate of the applicant’s father; Evidence of title to landed property (Long standing title usually over 50 years); Written testimony from relevant Oba to certify claim to Lagos State; Written testimony from Secretary to Local Government.”  Can there be a more thought-provoking expression of the seriousness of the identity question?

  • APGA: Obi and Bianca

    Bianca Ojukwu, widow of late Biafran leader, Dim Chukwuemeka  Odumegwu-Ojukwu, is grieving. She had cause last week to bare her current state of mind. Though the issue has little to do with the demise of her husband but it is not entirely unrelated.

    She is grieving because the most trusted confidant of her late husband and former governor of Anambra State; a man trusted to uphold the ideals of the late Ikemba, Peter Obi dumped the All Progressives Grand Alliance (APGA) for the ruling Peoples Democratic Party (PDP). Obi rode on the shoulders of APGA to become the governor of Anambra State twice and was seen as the political son of the late Ojukwu. The minimum expectation from such a person is to keep the flag of APGA, a party dear to the heart of Ojukwu flying. But all that hope has now been dashed.

    Not just that. Obi decamped without the courtesy of confiding in Bianca. She granted an interview last week expressing deep shock and disappointment at the development.

    According to her, up to the last moment, Obi continued to reassure her that “this will never happen; that it would be over his dead body; that the day he leaves APGA would be the day he quits politics; and most importantly, that he would keep the promise he made to Ojukwu”.

    Bianca feels greatly pained and deeply betrayed because Obi swore in his honour before her late husband that he would never leave APGA; that he would do everything within his powers to sustain and advance APGA, that he would ‘sink and swim’ with the party.

    All these promises appear to have come to naught with his recent defection to the PDP. Bianca fears that his action could rob off negatively on the fortunes and ideals for which APGA has continued to attract large following in the south-east geo-political zone.

    Given the weight of issues raised by Bianca, Obi could not but join issues with her. He said ‘loyalty to a cause does not change with a change of platform’ and there has not been any change of principles on his own part. Admitting that Bianca gave accurate account of his exchanges with the late Ikemba, Obi said he is “still loyal to our great leader (Ojukwu) in terms of what serves the interests of our people and the Federal Republic of Nigeria”.

    He was quick to add however, that APGA today is no longer what it used to be and his assurance to Ojukwu did not imply he will remain loyal to a platform some people have turned into an empty shell without an inner core of shared values.

    In his words “time would reveal whether the APGA of today is still propagating the late leader’s core principles”. He said he had seen enough violation of what APGA stood for and therefore cannot continue to stay in a place which has departed from the original course and where clearly he was not wanted.

    The issues raised by both personages are as touchy as they are weighty. This is very evident from the manifest caution on the part of both parties in handling the subject matter. Bianca had very pleasant words for Obi both in terms of his sterling performances in office, his principles, loyalty and commitment to the APGA cause. Her expectation is that Obi ought to remain the lynchpin on which the APGA spirit revolves.

    Unfortunately, that hope has been betrayed such that a big vacuum that may adversely affect the party’s fortunes has now been created. Matters are not remedied by what amounts to her loss of confidence in Chief Victor Umeh, APGA national chairman.

    For Umeh, Bianca had this to say: “the bitter truth and sad reality is that every vice, offence and transgression his predecessor, Chekwas Okorie was accused of, which prompted his removal as national chairman of APGA has been committed a hundred times over with impunity by Umeh”.

    With these, one can then appreciate why Bianca is scared about the fortunes of the party. We can understand why Obi’s defection jolted her in such a devastating manner. This is more so when the dwindling fortunes of the party in neighbouring Imo State is brought into focus. The governor there, Rochas Okorocha also rode on the platform of APGA but has had to dump it for the All Progressives Congress (APC).

    If Bianca takes a total picture of the party in the two states that are considered its stronghold, she will indeed have great cause to worry. Her feelings should be understood.

    For now, Obi’s contention that loyalty to a cause does not change with a change of platform is puerile. The reverse should really be the case if party politics is conceived in its pure form. Each platform (political party) comes with its shared values, expectations and loyalty patterns. That is why parties are registered as distinct entities. They ought to offer alternative choices to the electorate through their different ideologies and programmes. You cannot serve two masters loyally at the same time. It is an exercise in wishful thinking for Obi to nurse the feeling that he can still serve the overall interest of APGA from his current platform. He cannot.

    But more importantly, Obi raised further contradictions in his reasons for leaving the party. He had sought to justify his position on the grounds that APGA has deviated from the spirits of its founding fathers. If APGA is no longer propagating the leader’s core principles, Obi should share in the blame.

    In his positions as the former governor elected on its platform and lately the chairman of its Board of Trustees (BOT), Obi had critical and pivotal roles to play to redirect the party to its original ideals rather than present himself as someone helpless in the circumstance. The impression we get is that there is a behemoth in the party that determines everything. And who could that have been except Umeh who has survived many battles to shove him aside. May be Umeh has become the greatest obstacle to the survival of the party. Or could it have been governor Obiano who is just learning the ropes?

    So when Obi made the allusion that he is no longer wanted in the party, one begins to wonder who those frustrating him are.

    Bianca corroborated the point that Obi should have done more to reinvigorate the party when she said many of the members victimized by Umeh for demanding internal democracy were disappointed that he could not help them.

    Beyond these, it did not come as a surprise that Obi defected to the PDP. All along his body and soul have been there. Bianca should also be consoled by her current ambassadorial appointment courtesy of the PDP government. APGA has not really behaved as an opposition party and this is bound to affect its fortunes. The current fate of the party is partly self-inflicted and partly a response to the dynamics of party politics in this country. With the formation of the APC, the political landscape has substantially altered. Parties without national spread are bound to suffer reverses. It is trite that APGA has become a franchise exploited by desperate politicians to climb to power in Imo and Anambra states only to dump it as soon as their interests have been served. Is anybody listening?

  • Dusk to dusk

    Dusk to dusk

    The beginning of the day is hard to decipher. In his beehive routine, the start or end of day can only be arbitrarily determined. You cannot decide by when he sleeps if he slips into his night clothes at 3am. Or when he starts by the start of his executive council meeting at 8am. Sleep can come in snatches. Hours dovetail in hours. Days are like night and vice versa. Time is a blur.

    You can start as I do at about dusk when he trots to his tennis court. This evening, with a cloud looking down without grace, his feet move deftly to the modern-looking arena. About half a dozen persons are with him. His attire is unmistakable. The Nike register distinguishes the short, shoes and top. When he enters the court, his racket is freed out of a bag. His face, embossed by earnestness, shows that he wants to make a quarry of his opponents.

    Governor Emmanuel Eweta Uduaghan did not look like one on the verge of his sixth decade on earth when he defeated his opponent that evening. He did not look like a neophyte. His strokes were firm, his calculations cunning and his delivery definitive. This is quite unlike what my colleague and columnist Steve Osuji witnessed a few years back when the governor was bested. Could it be that the man had improved over the years? Playing with the liberty of equals, his opponents did not apply their strokes with respect. Hierarchy crumbled. It was their platform for psychological revenge, to square off against the most powerful man in Delta State.

    It was not the opponents alone that played equal. The element also did as a baleful cloud unleashed its content. With the rain unstoppable, the game ended with the score in Uduaghan’s favour. The game was a routine of Governor Uduaghan to keep fit. But more potent was the collegial air about him that encouraged the opponents to compete without let or intimidation, something I witnessed the morning after at the executive council meeting that began promptly at 8am. It was a meeting of irony, humour, deliberations, statistical queries, repartees, polemical intensity and flashes of vanity. A full dish. Two things stood out. A bill to criminalise cults proposed by the attorney-general, Charles Ajuya. Some members of exco cowered at the topic. In irony, Governor Uduaghan reeled out names of members once associated with cults, when they were in university, the pirates that Soyinka started in Ibadan. Some deadpan humour it was. But the cults on the table that day were ferocious gangs laying waste state infrastructure, engaged in armed robbery and kidnappings. They were everywhere and they had to be criminalised. Some said why not identify the individuals, others said they hid under cults. Destroy the cults and the criminals stand exposed. The bill was accepted by majority.

    Some of the contract figures came up for corrections, and the governor said they were missing figures because they did not belong to the sciences. On a contract sum, Uduaghan quipped about the commissioner who was a lawyer, noting that if it was legal fees, he probably would miss the sum.

    A member did not do an assignment because he did not know his 2014 budget. He still spoke of 2013. The governor, usually calm and reticent, rebuked him and threatened to fire him if he did not complete the job before the next exco.

    “Your documents speak for you. It is clear you don’t know that you have a budget for 2014.”

    The petrified man eventually collapsed to his chair. Roads, the rehabilitation and compensation of Sapele market after a fire disaster, the completion of school projects, hospitals and a number of roads were treated with urgency. The governor says he wants to commission before he leaves. The meeting ends on a traveler’s note. The United Nations would, in its Annual General Assembly in New York, unveil a report on assessment of Delta State activities under the governor. He would visit with a few members of the exco. A sense of congratulations greeted the announcement. The governor said he allowed the assessment in order to see if he met international best practices. He was happy he did. He is the first governor to have subjected himself to that scrutiny.

    After the exco, he hops into an SUV with Information Commissioner, Chike Ogeah, beside him. Uduaghan is driving. He says he loves driving. He moves in a rainy day to a meeting with pensioners. He enters the hall, and the pensioners, all gloomy and scowling, gather in a section of the hall.

    “Wetin una want?” the governor asks with humour to tease the pensioners out of their melancholy.

    “Una want rice, eba, fufu?”

    The pensioners, especially a woman who was gorgeously dressed, had no time for humour. They said they were not getting their pensions. They presented their cases, and the issue took up to an hour, and it was learned that the pensions were coming to them but it was not stated in their slips. And it became clear that the government was paying about 10 per cent contribution, higher than the statutory seven and half per cent. The meeting ended with the governor walking to the pensioners and pumping hands with them, some of them cheered up, some others with the grimace of discontent. Some of them were frustrated that the system as it stood was as prescribed by one of them. Irony.

    Governor Uduaghan hopped back into the vehicle and drove back to the government house. He was to meet with the new executive of the Nigerian Bar Association. Their new president, Augustine Alegeh, was there but his team was not ready. In another part of the government house, the chief executive of Agip Oil and his team awaited him. It was a meeting of irony. The governor was happy that AGIP came on a routine courtesy visit. In the past they often came to complain about theft and vandalisation. After AGIP head’s glorious talk about their work with IPP and gas pipeline under construction, he ended with complaints about criminals damaging their installations. Talk about irony.

    He met the NBA chiefs later. After the rituals and niceties of protocol, the governor lamented that lawyers encourage politicians out of governance, pointing out that while politicians are preparing for elections, lawyers are preparing for tribunals even before the first ballot is cast. Lunch followed. But a brief lunch it was as the governor had to meet with the top brass of both the National Sports Commission and the Nigerian Football Association. Amaju Pinnick, the ebullient new President of the NFF, was the chairman of the Delta State Sports Commission. Unmistakable in the contingent were Paul Bassey, ace commentator, and Nigeria’s international Victor Ikpeba. It was part serious fare about Uduaghan’s sports feats, part traditional fealty with the breaking of colanut, and humour.

    It was the softest part of the day. If, that is, the day started at 8am. My day ended there with him because many people were waiting to see him. He met with some individually and others in private groups. In my arbitrary definition, it began with sport and ended with sport, one indoor and the other outdoor. The full day was dusk to dusk. He had not fazed. It was not a day like when he held meetings of nocturnal frenzy that pinned down the Kokori militant or irritant as messiah, or when he was a heartbeat from death when he paddled in the creeks near militants with cocked guns, or when he operated in the theatre, or when he worked the phone on social media responding to enquiries and comments on his stewardship…

    It was a full day. Not like a movie titled One Fine Day, starring George Clooney and Michelle Pfeiffer. That was a romantic comedy. There surely was no romance, unless if you observed that first lady Roli Uduaghan often sat on the sidelines when her husband played tennis. Or the classic novel, One Fine Day, by Molly Panter-Downes on England after the ravages of the Second World War. No ravages this day, but building. Or the plot of One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich, a novel by Alexander Solzhenitsyn. That was too gloomy even though it gave the author the Nobel Prize. It was a peep into the heady day of a man who, last week, turned 60 in the saddle of Delta State.

  • How the girls haunted Jonathan

    How the girls haunted Jonathan

    This columnist cried to the rafters after the Chibok girls were whisked away by the bandits in the name of God. I titled the piece, Swap the Girls Now, on May 19, 2014, and not a few thought it a heresy.

    The presidency forswore dining with the enemy, which was what the whole idea was interpreted to be. Now, they want to exult that they have actually dined with the damnable foes and are on the verge of releasing the girls after six months in captivity. But is this an act of heroism or desperation by the Jonathan administration?

    When the tragedy first occurred, the Jonathan administration did not accept it. They asked questions rather than provide answers. Some of them asked, how was it possible that hundreds of girls could be abducted in a convoy and no one stopped them? So they said it could not be true. The enemies of Jonathan were at work again. They did not wish him well. Even the president went live on national television asking the parents of the abducted to provide the names of the students. His wife categorically said the girls were not missing. That was the first scene of the drama. It was the stage of denial.

    Later the same administration knew that it had happened. It started to tell the country that it knew what was going on. It was the work of the opposition party, the APC. When Oby Ezekwesili rallied the young and the old behind her #Bring Back the Girls movement, they accused her of working with the opposition party. They wanted to rally Nigerians behind Jonathan’s innocence. He is an innocent man. He provided the soldiers. He declared emergency. What else could he have done? The APC should leave Jonathan alone. They put the point as nakedly as they could. This became worse when CNN flew into the country, and reported day by day the updates of the events. Doyin Okupe said to the nation on CNN about the Nigerian military being on the trail of the militants with aircraft and tanks, etc. We never saw any result. It was the stage of propaganda.

    When propaganda did not work, they saw that the whole of the world focused on us. John McCain, senator and former presidential candidate in the United States, lambasted our bumbling military and leaders. Ditto Hilary Clinton. We heard nothing but silence from the vaults of the presidency. They wanted to divert attention from what was going on in the country. They wanted to see if it was possible to scale the acceptability of the president against the narrative of the missing girls. So, they orchestrated a new campaign called Bring Back Jonathan. It back fired. It was the desecration of the innocence of an idea. Like crude oil spilling on pristine waters, it was a dangerous gamble. They also made surreptitious moves on the media to play it down. But three newspapers, inspired by The Nation, began a permanent column on the front page, urging the federal government to bring back the girls. They had no answer. They sulked. They demurred. They cowered. It was the depression stage.

    Not long after, Malala, the now winner of the Nobel Prize for Peace, came calling. They had no choice but to allow the relations of the missing girls to visit Aso Rock. It was a grudging concession. The humiliation was colossal. It took a teenager to wake them out of their supercilious torpor. The president had called off, in official cowardice, a trip to the village to show solidarity. Now, in a torpedo of the African tradition of visiting the bereaved, it was the bereaved that visited the condoler, and what condoler! This was the end of denial. They no longer could say, even to themselves, that it was a politically motivated kidnap.

    Again, the matter had begun to sour. The matter became intractable. More and more people died from the bullets of the godless bandits. Territories fell, Boko Haram flags flew defiantly, video clips proclaimed the rhetoric bluster of their leader, pictures from the northeast bled with gore and streamed with tears, soldiers mutinied, their wives blighted the streets with protests. What the Jonathan administration thought would go away became a monstrous albatross.

    It became difficult to blame the opposition, although there was some level of gloating from the APC that it was Jonathan’s cross. But Jonathan is leader and leaders take responsibility. From depression, they descended to a place of ambiguity. They had no answers. The imagination was empty of rhetoric. Ezekwesili and her followers drummed up the campaign. Although CNN and the international media had moved elsewhere, Nigeria was still on the radar. The conversation never ceased. It was like a low burning flame that never petered out, stubborn, illuminating, spreading, lapping up more victims of leaves and dry paper. The big house, with its big kerosene tank, is threatened.

    Then the inner sanctum of the regime started worrying. Not because the girls were not released. But because the TAN campaigns were revving up and it was getting close for Jonathan to unfurl his ambition. He will not have “I have no shoes” kind of mantra to latch on to. Rather the Chibok girls will stick to him like what we in the Niger Delta call jiga, that little worm that hid under toes of shoeless boys playing around rivers and ponds. He did not want that. They – he and his team – had to get this Chibok nonsense out of the way. They moved into the desperation phase.

    That explains why he eventually dined with the enemy. Remember that picture of him with Ali Modu Sheriff with Chad leader? That was part of the deal. Hypocrisy is the hallmark of the desperate. He can don any identity in order to get things done. Why did he not say, well, Modu knows a thing or two about this matter, and we can parley with him so we can get the girls out? Rather his party called APC Boko Haram party when Modu was an APC man. But when he became a PDP man, Olisa Metu and presidency votaries lost their tongue, only to regain it in chatting with him on the Chibok girls.

    So, are we to thank Jonathan if the girls actually come out? Or he will thank himself for having taken an albatross out of the way of his ambition. It is what we can call a gift horse in the mouth. A cynical boost of goodwill. He would not release the girls if not because his campaign is about to take off. It is an act of selfishness. It reminds me of Lord Byron’s lines in his Ode to Napoleon Bonaparte, “He had no objection to true liberty except that it would make the nations free.” Jonathan was less interested in the Chibok girls’ freedom than the freedom for him to campaign for the second term.