The Nation Newspaper

Category: Monday

  • Bombing Babangida

    Twenty seven years after Dele Giwa was bombed at breakfast, it is fascinating that a new book seeks to reinforce the weight of public suspicion that Gen (retd) Ibrahim Babangida, the former military ruler who was in power at the time, probably had a hand in the macabre murder of the colourful journalist. Perhaps the devastating beauty of the 360-page volume, entitled Honour for Sale, derives from the fact that it is signposted as “An Insider Account of the Murder of Dele Giwa,” making it the first version of events written from close quarters unambiguously pointing an accusing finger at the Babangida administration.

    The author, Major (retd) Debo Basorun, has a faultless qualification for the documentation, having served in the Babangida regime under the title of Press and Public Affairs Officer (Military Press Secretary) to the Military President of Nigeria between 1985 and 1988. His effort, therefore, can be considered as a testimony by a member of a charmed circle, who should know what he is talking about. Indeed, Basorun drops a bomb in the prologue to his autobiographical book, saying, “It is a laborious attempt at documenting over twenty-one years of a kaleidoscopic but exciting career – a gaudy reminder of the sweet days at the pinnacle of power and how a miscalculation on the part of the powers-that-be led me to uncover the truth that, in concert with his Intelligence Chief, Colonel Haliru Akilu, Babangida has not come clean with the Nigerian people – nay the world – concerning the duo’s roles in the mindless assassination of a foremost Nigerian journalist of his time, Dele Giwa.”

    In addition, Basorun states in explicit terms, “I am hopefully looking forward to the day when General Ibrahim Babangida, Colonel Haliru Akilu and myself would be brought before the people’s court to answer all we know pertaining to the cruel murder of a most illustrious Nigerian, Dele Giwa.” Clearly, this is the statement of a willing prosecution witness. The question is: With the release of this explosive book and its accusatory contents, wouldn’t it be appropriate to reopen the Giwa murder case?

    Unfortunately, such a possibility would appear complicated, particularly in the light of certain precedents. It is instructive that quite early in the tragedy, efforts to obtain justice by Chief Gani Fawehinmi, Giwa’s enthusiastic lawyer, were dampened by the mysterious stance of the journalist’s colleagues and co-founders of Newswatch magazine who disowned the legal activist in a November 5, 1986 edition; this was under one month of Giwa’s killing on October 19. Similarly enlightening is the fact that in 2001, Babangida rigidly refused to appear before the Human Rights Violations Commission, popularly known as the Oputa Panel, concerning the Giwa murder. Remarkably, Babangida betrayed desperation for silence by going to court. With Col (retd) Akilu of the Directorate of Military Intelligence (DMI) in his regime and Lt. Col. (retd) A.K Togun who was the Deputy Director of the State Security Service (SSS), he obtained an order barring the commission from summoning them to appear before it. It is apt to contemplate why they were so unwilling to face the public on the controversial matter, considering that the forum provided a golden opportunity for their exculpation. An astounding travesty of justice followed with the reported comment by the commission’s chairman to the effect that while it had powers to issue arrest warrants for the trio, it decided against such a move “in the over-all interest of national reconciliation.”

    Against this background of serial difficulties in the path of justice, it will surely require reimagination on the part of the justice system to resurrect the Giwa case. However, it would be a huge discredit to the country’s treatment of crime and punishment if Basorun’s momentous insights are trivialised by those officially positioned to act on such “revelations.” There is no doubt that Basorun’s bold account brings fresh dimensions to the unpleasant incident, and deserves to be investigated. If the book’s contents are ultimately swept under the carpet for convenience, it would amount to an official endorsement of impunity and send a dangerous signal that murder might not necessarily be a punishable transgression. It is the kind of dismisiveness that continues to encourage killers. In this connection, it is disturbing that so far no suspect has been formally charged with Giwa’s murder, a situation that Prof Itse Sagay (SAN), one of the high-profile symbols of social conscience who witnessed the book presentation, described as “the institutional failure of the state.”

    It is intriguing that Basorun, for all his emphatically implicating allegations against Babangida on the Giwa murder issue, fails rather disappointingly to provide an answer to the crucial question as to why the journalist was killed. This central subject of the motive for his peculiar murder by mail bomb has unsurprisingly spawned a rich collection of conspiracy theories, which Basorun’s book does little to clarify. Evidently, the knot is at the heart of the puzzle, and untying it would yield useful clues on the identity of the killers.

    Perhaps the enduring mystery bears testimony to the uninspiring state of investigative journalism in the country, which is ironic because Giwa had a reputation for that aspect of reporting. It amounts to a grave dishonour to his remembrance that there has been no serious journalistic attempt to unravel the circumstances of his cruel death at age 39. No whodunnit yet, regrettably.

    In the final analysis, Basorun has written a social service book not only because it is in a general sense focused on the underbelly of society, but also because it particularly illuminates to a significant degree the intricate expressions of “intrigue and treachery, clannishness and base humanity” characteristic of some of the military characters who abused power in the country.

    However, it would appear unfair to be judgemental based on Basorun’s book, despite its persuasive confidence. It is precisely this necessary margin of doubt that the accused should exploit in order to redeem their soiled image. As Babangida particularly, who is 72, advances in age, he should take advantage of the window to wash his hands clean, specifically in connection with Giwa’s blood. Giwa’s killing was a crime against humanity. Let no guilty party be under the illusion that strategic quiet will calm the storm.

    One curious dimension to this tale is the place of conscience in human affairs. It is inevitable to reflect on the possibility that Giwa’s murderers might be troubled in their souls, but that is not enough. On the other hand, supposing the killers here are monsters with repressed conscience? Possibly the high point of the book launch on November 22 at Freedom Park, (Old Prison Yard), Broad Street, Lagos, was the moment Basorun made his remarks with emotional sobs. His most poignant line was expression of regret on account of his association with what he termed “a government known for evil.” He ends the book on a revealing and deeply frightful note, saying, “I will count on all well meaning citizens of the country not to be deterred if Babangida eventually succeeds in snuffing the life out of me.”

  • PDP in APC

    Last week’s defection of the Abubakar Baraje-led PDP to the All Progressives Congress APC will for quite sometime, continue to dominate public discourse. Not only did it herald a redefinition of the political equation of this country, it is bound to send the ruling party back to the drawing board. There are now higher prospects that these coalescing interests will culminate in the emergence of two strong parties that can checkmate each other during elections. This should be something to cheer for all true lovers of democracy

    The defection is seen by many as the long awaited birth of a two party system and a prelude to the deepening of democracy on these shores. In the days ahead, we expect to witness alignment and realignments among the various political interests. Though not entirely unexpected, the defection must have taken the leadership of the ruling party by surprise since they are yet to conclude negotiations with the group.

    Issues tabled before the president as conditions for peace include among others, the sack of the national chairman of the PDP, Alhaji Bamanga Tukur, reinstatement of dissolved state executive committees of the party in Adamawa and Rivers states, commitment from Jonathan that he will not run in 2015 and cessation of harassment of some of the governors by officials of anti grant agencies.

    With the sudden defection by five out of the seven dissenting governors, it would seem that a death knell has been sounded to whatever remains of that negotiation. Having joined the APC, all further negotiations appear foreclosed even as two of the dissenting governors still hope to go on with it. How they intend to do this given the new development is hazy.

    Expectedly, the development has generated considerable interest from a broad spectrum of the Nigerian population depending on which of the political divide one belongs. The APC leadership sees it as a defining moment in Nigeria’s political history. With 16 governors in its fold, it envisions the strengthening of a strong two party system. In its calculations, the defection has made it a strong alternative to the ruling PDP with higher chances of defeating it in the coming national elections. Such has been the level of optimism generated. There are merits in this optimism especially when the efforts that crystallized into the formation of APC are put into reckoning.

    But the PDP sees the development as good riddance to bad rubbish. For them, the move is long expected as it would now enable the party to put its house in order. The party said it will not lose sleep since decampment is not novel to it. It believes the PDP is such a large organization to be rattled by the actions of the five governors. The PDP is entitled to its views on the matter no matter how unconvincing they might seem.

    Beyond these however, are very fundamental issues that have been thrown up by the defection. The strengthening of a two party system is one especially given the dangerous slide to a one party state. There is also the issue of giving the electorate a plurality of choice. These are bound to find expression in the emerging order provided certain conditions are met.

    The first of such conditions is that the two parties must be visibly distinct in both ideology and orientation to be able to offer alternative political choice. Their manifestoes and programs must proffer alternative paradigms on governance and how to provide for the greatest good of the greatest number of our citizens. They must also be peopled by those who have shared vision on how best to tackle the developmental challenges of their constituents.

    Compatibility of interests, orientation and perception on the essence of governance is a sine qua none for co-habitation.

    That is where the defection has serious drawbacks. The APC prides itself as the party of the progressives. It also sees the PDP as a conservative party.

    But it has gone to town celebrating the coming into its fold of a group that had been deeply ensnared in the conservative train. It remains to be imagined how the APC intends to wean them of this conservative predilection. Or are we about to be treated to the biblical similitude of the pouring of an old wines skin into a new one? Will the new wine not be contaminated by the mixture? That is the challenge ahead. The way it is resolved will lead us closer to whatever national value or lack of it there is in the current marriage.

    The action of the PDP governors has been hailed in some quarters for its capacity to deepen democracy. That could as well be. However, when their reasons for leaving their party are juxtaposed against this optimism, the entire euphoria may add up to nothing. The issues they tabled before Jonathan say it all. Apart from the matter of internal democracy, all others in their agenda are largely propelled by self-serving and sectional considerations. Even the agitation for internal democracy must be taken with a pinch of the salt. Before now, these governors had benefited disproportionately from the scant regard of their party for internal democracy. They had been part and parcel of the bazaar that is the imposition of candidates both at the national and state elections. It served them well as long as they took advantage of it to determine who runs for political office or not. They saw nothing wrong when they sidelined their opponents through their undemocratic control of what has now become known as political structures. Now they have been cornered by their own dialectics, they complain. Is it not an irony of sorts that these later day apostles of internal democracy had the temerity to demand that Jonathan should repudiate his right to contest the 2015 election as a condition for peace? This demand has inflicted incurable damage to their claim to being apostles of good conscience. At any rate, were they not part and parcel of the Jonathan regime that has received unmitigated bashing from the opposition? What has been their reaction to all the ills bedeviling the country since that party has been in power? These are the issues to ponder. It could well be that the defection is a fresh undertaking by the governors to turn a new leaf. Only time will bear that out.

    To be sure, the defecting governors are within their rights to seek political accommodation in any party of their choice. But there is a problem when you hide under seemingly national goals to project interests of a selfish or sectional nature. Governors Chibuike Amaechi and Muritala Nyako’s further insight into the reasons for their defection bear this out. Amaechi told reporters that it is to protect Rivers oil wells that are being ceded to other states. Nyako’s grouse is with Tukur’s dissolution of the state’s executive committee of the party. How these will further the course of national politics and democracy remain at best, illusory. It would appear behind this façade is the masquerading of selfish and sectional interests under the garb of patriotism. Its outcome could turn out a mixed grill of the good, the bad and the ugly.

  • Anambra: Between gods and godfathers

    Anambra: Between gods and godfathers

    Atahiru Jega is a typical Nigerian in the game of deceit. His face does not show it. His voice does not tell it. His manners do not demonstrate it. But his results devastate us. Like his boss Gooduck Jonathan, he carries a mien of deceptive gentility.

    This image made many acclaim Jonathan for appointing a former don as our electoral umpire. He introduced himself with a cherubic face, a fragile pair of eyes and a voice immune to the vulgarities of the age.

    He cut that cartoon figure last week as he tried to explain away his incompetence over the Anambra governorship elections. In one breath, he told us he did a shoddy job. In another breath, he asked us to abide with it. The election, he confessed, was inconclusive. But there was nothing he could do about it. His hands were tied. We are supposed to accept the violation like a raped nubile. The experience was awful. Blood abounded. But the deed was already done. The rapist told us it was a pity we did not enjoy the performance. But we could go to the bathroom and wash up and hope the next experience would be worth the moans and screams.

    He gave us the result as a fait accompli. Hear him: “we regret shattering the expectations of Nigerians but we did our best under very difficult circumstances to have a free, fair and credible election.” In one word, the results that made the Fidelity Bank candidate, Obiano of Governor Obi’s APGA, were not credible. He now says the aggrieved should go to court. Yet he wants to pour more sand in the garri of the other parties by setting the supplementary elections for another date. The foundation, by his own confession, was frail. How do you want to build on it?

    Those who were supposed to register did not see their names on the list. Those who were supposed to vote did not have voting materials in the booths. In a case, a candidate could not vote, as well as his family. A family is the basic unit of a society. That shows basic failure. While adults could not vote, minors were allowed to vote. Underage girls smothered their heads with Brazilian and Venezuelan hair in tune with the fashion of the day. So, a girl that should be 16 is portrayed as 31 at the polls.

    We understand the power of incumbency in an election. Governor Obi of the feminine voice wanted to show that having ruled the roost for eight years he should be able to anoint his successor and hand over to him. He claims to have deserved that honour from the Anambra people for his doings in eight years. Obi has not done such groundbreaking work for his people. His performance as governor can at best be described as modest. Such performances do not enthuse a crowd or stir the blood of loyalty. Rather they rake up lukewarm zeal.

    Lukewarm zeal does not give a governor that automatic honour of anointing a successor. That was Ngige’s strength. The APC candidate is the most important personality to have emerged in this generation from that state. We cannot forget so easily the theatrics of gods and godfathers when he was governor. He allegedly swore to a god at Okija that he would bow to his godfathers. When he became governor, he bowed neither to the gods nor to his godfathers. Rather he kneeled to the people and the constitution. He swapped the oath to gods with those to his citizens, the secret oath fell to the public one.

    The politicians inaugurated the theatre of kidnapping by first nabbing an elected governor. He would not yield to them. He would rather pay the money to the people in terms of infrastructure, education and healthcare than ply the pockets of peacocks. He was held hostage by Anambra and Abuja, but he never chafed. He would rather fail his godfathers and their gods, rather than the people. He left office on those terms.

    A few years after he left office, I visited Anambra State when Obi was governor, and I travelled to some of the towns. The motif of my conversations with the ordinary people was a nostalgia for the days of Ngige. A driver taking me from Awka to a neighbouring town exhaled that his car was guaranteed some longevity because Ngige had opened up quite a few roads and tarred them. The bumps and potholes would not flog his car to premature death.

    That billed the Anambra State election as an election between nostalgia and now, between Obi of the feminine voice and Ngige of the legend. It was a surprise that Nwoye, who never campaigned much, and whose candidacy threw a storm within the PDP, could have even come off second.

    It all shows that the results followed a clandestine script. President Jonathan entered a pact with Obi of the feminine voice who has been one of Jonathan’s ardent supporters. Remember the NGF elections and all he did? They fear Ngige the most. To deny Ngige any prayer, he had to come third. It was the same script in Ondo State, when Jonathan entered a pact with the whitlow of the west against his own party. The dreaded candidate came third.

    So the cry by Jega that the Anambra election was unfortunate and we should just abide it is part of a system that imposes mediocrity on all. Being afraid of Ngige’s return, they are engaged in a battle against memory. So we can say the Anambra election is an example of what Tatalo Alamu called the politics of memory. They are also cringing from the memory of politics and that is Ngige’s soldiery against the mainstays of decrepit system. Stephanie Meyer once wrote in her New Moon of a person “forbidden to remember; terrified to forget…”

    Anambrarians who were terrified to forget voted for Ngige. Those who hated Ngige’s guts are forbidding the people to remember. Conscience has accused them. They cannot have a clear conscience now, because Mark Twain said “a clear conscience is a sign of a bad memory.” They remember the days of Ngige and it sends shivers.

    Ironically, this column fought for Obi to remain and be governor in those heady days. He knows what it means to deny a person of his due. Why is he accepting an election that even the umpire decries as inconclusive? He has become a godfather himself, a status bred in Fidelity Bank and anointed with money.

    Jega should resign if he has honour. He knew early enough that things did not work and he could have canceled the polls like he did in 2011. But he allowed the rotten egg to release its odour before he uttered his lachrymose regret.

    Rather we have an election as a failure of mathematics. The number of invalid votes is more than the valid ones and only 27 per cent of valid votes counted with more than that percentage invalidated. Ngige’s place had to be the area that elections did not happen. And the winner was declared when the number of votes not counted surpassed the difference between the winner and the contestants.

    It is also a failure of English language. How can you say something is inconclusive and the result is announced, and you want a supplementary election because you want to avoid the word rerun? It is also the failure of logic when the party in the state cries foul and the PDP in the centre says halleluiah. Who does not see the Jonathan-Obi pact here? It is a failure of law when the law produces injustice. When values fail us, the law cannot rescue us. In a sane society, our sense of right and wrong will force all parties to withdraw and ask for a rerun. Values save laws. But the gods of greed and godfathers of fraud will accept a cesspit of an election, no matter the cries for justice.

  • Joyless jollification

    President Goodluck Jonathan probably has too much on his plate. This could have been a factor in his unexpected and unexplained illness in London, which caused him to miss the opening ceremony of a two-day meeting of Nigeria’s Honorary International Investors’ Council (HIIC) that coincided with his 56th birthday on November 20. In particular, a major challenge must be the imminence of the country’s 2015 general elections, which continues to generate emotionally charged arguments for and against his possible pursuit of reelection. His elusiveness on the issue has, predictably, compounded an already combustible context. If there is one subject that threatens to cause a political convulsion, it is Jonathan’s suspected but unconfirmed second-term ambition. If he is relying on perfect timing to share his presidential dream with the public, as his words imply and body language suggests, his dilatory tactics are simply postponing the day of reckoning.

    Notably, the background to his mind games is similarly labyrinthine. First, the controversy that attended his defiant decision to run for the office in the face of credible claims by high-profile members of his party, the People’s Democratic Party (PDP), that an extant zoning arrangement precluded his aspiration. Having stepped in, as vice-president, to complete the four-year term of the late President Umaru Yar’ Adua, his antagonists calculated that he would subsequently step down for a candidate from Yar’ Adua’s northern political base to finish an anticipated second term. It is revealing of his character and the party’s unpredictability that he rejected the alleged formula and capitalised on his incumbency with the backing of the party’s leadership.

    This original “sin” degenerated with his declaration that he never swore to spending only one-term in office after his 2011 election, contrary to the insistence of his adversaries that an alleged gentlemen’s agreement underlined the specification. By inference, therefore, he is free to run for a second term in 2015, if he so wishes, which is highly probable. These central scenes from the thought-provoking political drama were unavoidable as Jonathan advanced in his fifties.

    Interestingly, while Jonathan arrived in London for the HIIC meeting, which did not necessarily indicate that he was too preoccupied with the country’s affairs to celebrate his birthday, the Federal Executive Council (FEC) marked the anniversary briefly with a cake-cutting show before its weekly meeting presided over by Vice-President Namadi Sambo, who described his boss flatteringly as “a gift to the nation.” Sambo’s effusive remarks betrayed a self-serving mentality that was as unbelievable as it was enlightening. His words: “We are privileged Nigerians sharing from the grace of God upon his life. There is no doubt that the great destiny of this man has helped our individual destiny. We will continue to pray that Mr. President succeeds in transforming the country.” The striking reference to “individual destiny” suggested a collective self-centredness at the FEC, elevated above the greater good of the people.

    It is significant that Jonathan’s administration prides itself on being transformation-driven, a projection that was in 2011 symbolically defined by his launch of the Transformation Agenda summarising the government’s strategic priorities as well as the ways and means by which it would accomplish its major programmes and projects for the period until 2015 coordinated by the National Planning Commission (NPC). It is instructive that in September, in reaction to bitter intra-party divisions, Jonathan sacrificed nine cabinet ministers, including Shamsudeen Usman, then Minister of National Planning and coordinator of the Transformation Agenda, who was credited with its design. It is unclear to what extent the removal might work against the plan.

    With leaders who enjoy the self-flattery of the tag “giant of Africa”, without in any way thinking gigantically, it is disgraceful that the country was ranked 41st on a 52-country list called the 2013 Ibrahim Index of African Governance (IIAG), a project of the Mo Ibrahim Foundation. The country not only scored lower than the continental average (51.6), it also ridiculously scored lower than the regional average (52.5) for West Africa. Assessment was based on four key areas: Safety and Rule of Law, Participation and Human Rights, Sustainable Economic Opportunity and Human Development.

    A bigger and particularly poignant irony is the fact that although Jonathan is the first doctorate holder to govern the country, he is apparently also the leader most disparaged for alleged incompetence, cluelessness and lack of vision in the country’s political history. With a PhD degree in Zoology and experience as a lecturer, it is one of the tragic expressions of his administration that Jonathan has failed to demonstrate the depth of intellectual resourcefulness that would normally be associated with an individual with such background.

    It is as well paradoxical that he has not only acquired seemingly implacable political foes right within his party, he is indeed also presiding over a dangerously dismembered party with a dubious future. Perhaps this juncture was predictable, given his antecedents. However, it exposes brinkmanship of the most thoughtless kind and unenlightened self-interest. If the PDP suffers an implosion under Jonathan’s leadership, which seems likely, that would be a fitting monument to narrow-mindedness of the most limiting type.

    It is the sort of crudely restrictive thinking that has transformed Jonathan into a local champ among his Ijaw group whose spokesmen routinely perform the ethnic drama without restraint while dreaming of Jonathan’s reelection. Fixated on sentiment rather than social validation based on good governance, such support is certainly far removed from the ideal. Added to these supporters who wear the ethnic badge is the group of power sycophants from the outside who are simply fair-weather friends.

    It is noteworthy that the Jonathan presidency, more than any other peacetime administration in the country’s history, has been burdened with the menace of ostensibly revolutionary opposition in the form of the Islamist terror organisation, Boko Haram. The extension of Jonathan’s climactic initial six-month imposition of emergency rule in Borno, Yobe and Adamawa states reflects the scale of the security challenge. It is disturbing that there are insightful insinuations concerning the longevity of the insurgency, linking its rigid resistance to the manner of Jonathan’s ascendancy.

    In addition, there is no denying the fact that official corruption is an encumbrance for the Jonathan administration, which seems to be sinking deeper and deeper into the mire as its tenure progresses. It is difficult to point to any major case of corruption that the government has tackled with the desired intensity of seriousness, despite its hypocritical loudness about a so-called anti-corruption crusade; and this tolerance, unsurprisingly, continues to embolden the army of morally deficient public office holders.

    However, perhaps the ultimate albatross around Jonathan’s neck is his other half, First Lady Dame Patience, who is credited with an unrivaled grip on her husband and has earned him an uncomplimentary image. With such a plateful of problems, it is not so difficult to guess what Jonathan must be going through.

  • Gowon’s Godism

    It is intriguing that General (retd) Yakubu Gowon, Nigeria’s military head of state from August 1966 to July 1975 and currently shepherd of Nigeria Prays, a Christian prayer group, is apparently consumed by his “awakening” and has surrendered his power of material analysis. It is too easy to spiritualize concrete events by appealing to so-called divine intervention, an approach Gowon adopted in his focus on a critical juncture in the country’s political history.

    Perhaps he was innocently ignorant of the underlying implications of his comments in a newspaper interview where he attributed the deaths of the dreadful dictator, General Sani Abacha, and the popular symbol of democratic resistance, Chief Moshood Abiola, to the hand of God guided by human supplication. His ahistoricity was not just simplistic; it was profoundly misleading. Such shallowness certainly should not be encouraged because it falsifies reality and promotes unawareness.

    Gowon’s incredible words: “But what the good Lord did was that, at that time, one of the serious political problems we had was Abacha/Abiola, the June 12 crisis. What happened then was that the good Lord took Abacha and paved the way for a return to civil rule and that was to give opportunity for the release of Abiola. Then Abiola, who was also at the other end of the crisis also passed on and therefore left the path for a reasonable, genuine restoration and return to a civil rule. That was achieved through some of the prayers that we did but we did not ask the good Lord for anyone’s demise.”

    There is no doubt that this was an effort at revisionism, which must fail because the essentials are incontrovertible. Against the background of a morally flawed grip on power, Abacha’s unexpected death on June 8, 1998, smacked of machination, following five years of ruthless oppression of the pro-democracy opposition including presidential claimant Abiola, and an elaborate but unpopular preparation for self-succession. Although he reportedly suffered from cirrhosis, events of his final moments suggested that he succumbed to poison. Similarly, Abiola’s abrupt passing one month later on July 7, 1998, was supremely suspicious, particularly in the context of a consistently intense campaign for his release from detention and restoration of his ruptured electoral mandate.

    It is significant to dwell on the hazy circumstances of Abiola’s death, which happened on the day he was reportedly due to be freed. According to a BBC interview at the time with US special envoy Thomas R. Pickering, an American delegation, which included Susan Rice visited the caged Abiola who suddenly fell ill, and subsequently died presumably from a heart attack. It is revealing that although the official autopsy stated that Abiola died of natural causes, Abacha’s Chief Security Officer, al-Mustapha later alleged that he was tortured to death, claiming to have video and audiotapes to back his accusation. It is instructive that 15 years after, the final report of an autopsy carried out by a team of international coroners is still treated as a secret document. Also, there is irrefutable evidence that Abiola was denied proper medical attention for his existing health conditions while he was detained for four years.

    So, to go by Gowon’s mystical logic, where does God come into the picture? Evidently, as even Gowon noted, Abacha’s death offered an opportunity for Abiola’s release, which was not effected immediately, contrary to the dictates of fairness. Abacha’s martial successor, Abdulsalami Abubakar, failed to seize the historic moment and there is little doubt that this dilatoriness possibly cost Abiola his life.

    It is noteworthy that Gowon’s flat reference to Abiola as being “at the other end of the crisis” glossed over a fundamental detail, specifically, that the wealthy businessman and politician was the victim of a crude and inexcusable power show by Abacha’s military predecessor, Ibrahim Babangida, who annulled the country’s momentous presidential election of June 12, 1993, which endorsed Abiola. Non-acknowledgement of this pivot, which amounted to a trivialisation of cause and overemphasis on consequence, is worrying, especially on account of its source who, at 79, is regarded as an elder statesman.

    Furthermore, Gowon’s argument that Abiola’s death perfected the removal of supposed barriers, and opened “the path for a reasonable, genuine restoration and return to a civil rule”, carried a ring of negative bias. Contemplating the path not taken, the question of the possible value of Abiola’s presidency, had he been allowed to rule, will continue to haunt the polity. Abiola’s “Hope 93” campaign was full of motivational vitality and the majority eagerly bought his alluring promise of constructive change. Perhaps it was a turning-point opportunity that will be difficult to regain. In addition, would Gowon seriously consider the country’s civil-rule experience since Abiola’s aborted appeal worthy of his adjectives, “reasonable and genuine”? To try a reduction to absurdity, it is apt to wonder whether Gowon regards his inglorious overthrow in a military coup d’état as an instance of divine intervention, a clearing of the path in favour of a superior arrangement.

    However, even if unwittingly, Gowon succeeded in being helpful; his remarks, by inference, again highlighted the reality that Abiola’s death particularly is far from closure. It is precisely because of the possibility of misinformation by individuals of Gowon’s ilk that Abiola’s death deserves to be further probed and its cause conclusively determined. More important, the result of such definitive investigation should be open to the public.

    In this respect, the controversial death of Palestine leader Yasser Arafat in 2004 has parallel angles. While official medical records state that he died of a stroke resulting from a blood disorder, strong speculations that he might have been murdered were apparently validated following the exhumation of his remains in November 2012. After conducting tests on samples taken from his remains, experts at the Vaudois University Hospital Centre (CHUV) in Lausanne, Switzerland, produced a report that said, “Taking into account the analytical limitations aforementioned, mostly time lapse since death and the nature and quality of the specimens, the results moderately support the proposition that the death was the consequence of poisoning with polonium-210.” A highly radioactive substance, Polonium-210 is found in low doses in food and created naturally in the body, but can be fatal if ingested in high doses.

    In Abiola’s case, it is equally crucial to pursue the truth, even if only to shame the theories of premeditated murder. Unfortunately, until the issue is satisfactorily resolved, individuals of Gowon’s mentality will soften the complexity by blaming God.

  • Orji’s belated penitence

    When two years ago the Abia State government came out with the obnoxious policy of sacking civil servants in its employ for being non indigenes, the measure had for good reasons, attracted widespread condemnations. Then, the state government rationalized the policy on the ground that it was inevitable for it to pay the minimum wage approved for workers in the public sector. It shut its eyes to pleas and the argument that the policy was imbued with the wider prospects of denting relations between it and the governments and peoples of the affected states and stultifying efforts at national integration.

    Abia State government was even quick to join issues with some other states trading words in a manner that further exposed the limitations of those who conceived that policy. Coming from a section of the country that has been upbeat in raising allegations of mistreatment from other sections of the country, the Abia incident was seen as unmitigated disservice not only to the unity of the country but that of the Igbo nation. It was very difficult to reconcile with the action, how the Igbo could still reasonably talk of alienation and marginalization in their relations with the central government when one of theirs has become the chief apostle of hate and discriminatory policy.

    The so-called non-indigenous civil servants were eventually sent packing in the most callous way. Since then, the media have been awash with the untold hardship victims have been exposed to. There was this story of a widow who had to be thrown out by her landlord because she could neither pay her rents nor any longer cater for her children on account of the sack. Some may have even died. It is not known that the government paid them disengagement benefits to cushion the debilitating effects of their sudden sack. That had been the sad tale from Abia State and their own contribution to nurturing bad blood and disunity among the people of that geopolitical zone that has not fared well within the Nigerian federation. Some of the states in the zone were so disgusted that they threatened reprisals. Ironically, this discriminatory policy came at a time some other state governments have been making concerted efforts to demonstrate that they are prepared to accommodate people from other states in their public service. Before then also, there had been heated debate on the necessity to incorporate the residency clause in the constitution to make it mandatory for those who have lived a certain number of years in a particular place to become automatic indigenes, enjoying the perquisites and privileges accruing to indigenes. These issues were raised as a way out of the increasing slide to centrifugalism and stave off the burdensome competition between the primordial units and the central government for the loyalty of the citizens. It is not surprising that the inability of this country to decisively address this key and unifying variable has been largely responsible for our failure at national integration 53 years after independence. In place of national cohesion, what we have harvested very bountifully has been the resurgence of ethnic nationalism. The Abia incident therefore had the prospects of pushing this negative tendency to a very ridiculous dimension if not checked.

    Two years thereon, we are now being told that the same government that hounded those who faulted the myopic policy has had a change of heart. Reports filtering from that state have it that the Abia State government has put plans afoot to recall the same civil servants. According to reports, the decision was arrived at during the last executive council meeting presided by Governor Theodore Orji.

    There are conflicting versions of the nature and scope of the reinstatement as well as the rationale for it. While some reports said all the workers have been recalled, some others indicated that those interested are being asked to reapply. The state commissioner for information was even quoted to have said that those who reapply may either be reabsorbed in their former positions as civil servants or posted to schools as teachers.

    Some reasons have also been adduced for this curious twist. They claim it is on account of substantial improvement in the internally generated revenue base of the state. With more money in its coffers, it can now comfortably employ its indigenes dislocated from the northern states and re-engage the sacked workers. That should be something to cheer from a government that has come under constant challenge for its neglect of its prime commercial city-Aba. Not long ago, lawyers in Aba had to embark on demonstrations to bring to the fore the sorry state of roads there. Would it surprise anyone if the purported high internally generated revenue profile of the state was raised from that neglected city?

    But that is even beside the point. There are issues to be raised if it is true that the decision to reabsorb the sacked civil servants was due to an unexpected rise in internally generated revenue. It raises the question of bad planning. Modern governments make projections of expected revenue earnings and expenditure and adjust their plans according to such indicators. Since planning is done in an incremental sense, it is possible using the projections of previous years to have a peep into the future. In other words, if Abia state really plans for its programmes, it was possible to predict that two years after, it would have a huge leap in its revenue base. Were that to be so, it would have perhaps, saved itself the embarrassment of having to sack these workers only to suddenly discover that it had no need to do so.

    Effective planning would have shown in very unmistakable terms that in two years time, it will not have problems not only with creating additional jobs but adequately taking care of those in her employ. That is the stark realty that has been raised to the fore by the reasons given by that state government for its policy summersault.

    If the purported increase in internally generated revenue is meant to justify the earlier one adduced for the exercise, I am afraid it has come with additional problems that put to task the competence and limitations of managers of that state. It is a sad commentary on the leadership quality of that state that they were incapable, using revenue growth projection of previous years to have a fair idea of what the situation will be in less than 24 months.

    That is the logical inference of what we are now being made to believe and it does no credit to that government.

    There are also problems with its plan to send some of the civil servants into its school system as teachers. It stands to be seen what point Abia state wants to make by this if it does not intend to ruin the education system.

    In all, it is either the Abia state government is playing to the gallery or it is intent on scoring cheap political points having realized the folly in sacking those workers. If it is sincere with the project, why not automatically recall the workers instead of asking them to reapply with the prospects of being sent to teach. It has the list of those it sacked and ought to have reinstated them before making public show of the matter.

    So nobody should be deceived by this subterfuge. It is all politics. With about 18 months to go, Orji may be seeking national relevance and may want to relieve himself of the political liability that policy has put on his shoulders. Even if Orji re-engages all those sacked, he deserves neither pity nor patronizing words because it is a self-inflicted baggage.

  • Apologies, Enugu readers

    I apologise to my Enugu readers who were deprived of the chance to read this column last week Monday. Governor Chime’s men bought the papers so that his fellow citizens could not read my comment on his farce of a marriage. I hope you read this apology.

  • Confab: Search without rescue

    Confab: Search without rescue

    While debates flourish over whether or not we need a national conference, we should take some time off to reflect on our frenetic search for an answer as a nation. This search predated our independence in 1960, and the search reminds one of the Greek myth of Sisyphus. It is a story of a man who carries a rock up a hill and when he is almost at the top, the monstrous object falls back to the bottom of the hill. Sisyphus carries it up again and it falls back to the bottom and the travel up and down the hill continues for ever. It fits into a perpetual rigmarole. In the words of poet Okigbo, it’s like a coming and going that goes on forever.

    Nigeria has been yearning for a formula in that fashion since Lord Lugard made Nigeria one in 1914, and the odyssey from one constitution to another, from one conference to another, has turned Nigeria into a pathetic narrative of search without rescue.

    Some Nigerians with the patriotism of desperados have clasped President Goodluck Jonathan’s carrot of a confab. Better an imperfect jaw-jaw, they contend, than a pie-in-the-sky war-war that defines the hope of callers for a sovereign national conference.

    Desperation often reflects a hasty and uncoordinated soul. So, the hankerers after a sovereign national conference have said if we want to get it right we have to be sincere and deliberate. But from the way the nation is constituted we cannot have a sovereign national conference, or a conference of any type that will satisfy enough Nigerians. This is a recipe for paralysis, but it is true. The convener is as important as the convention itself.

    To convene a conference must imply the convener’s readiness, like Kerekou in Africa, or Charles de Gaulle in the west, to cede his powers to the convention, which includes control of the purse strings and the military. We know of the conflict between legal sovereignty and popular sovereignty. Jonathan’s concession of a confab admits that the legal one is not so legitimate because many of our elected officers rigged their ways to power. The people have a right to withdraw their mandate.

    The politics of ethnicity and the deep suspicions among the elites have cast us as a nation that can only succeed if we have a leader with a heft of a charisma. That charisma must transcend calculations of primordial loyalty either to tribe or religion. Even those who lack such insular worship of tribe and faith need to convince us, in their image, that they have such grand vision. Our tragedy is that no such personage has emerged in all our history. The only person who had it was Nnamdi Azikiwe in the morning of his warrior life as a nationalist. But he too was suffocated by the Nigerian disease and lapsed into ethnic fealty.

    Nigerians are not ready to accept anyone as a Mandela today. Without such an overarching personage of great moral grandeur, we cannot be trusted to convene a conference of general acceptability. Americans had Washington and Franklin. Yugoslavia had Tito. I have also wondered if the election of representatives will not provide the beginning of crisis. Since the political class will take the lead, allegations of rigging may undermine their bona fides as the people’s voice. So, ab initio, a problem stalks. After that hump, can we guarantee that we shall accept the referendum results?

    Basic to the clamour for a confab is the height of suspicion among the ethnic groups in the country, and that re-emphasises the suspicion that we shall never solve our problem by merely going into a conference. It is this suspicion that has raised the hobgoblin of regionalism, in the west, east, north and even the south-south. We have decided to take shelter in tribe rather than nation, or we have decided to call our tribes nations, and the only time we love Nigeria is when we can ride it to personal wealth or win sports tournaments.

    It all shows a failure of the political class, and their inability to work out a template of values. Where no one trusts that his governor or his senator represents him, even in their own ethnic cocoons, we understand that the problem transcends tribe. It is just about the right values. It is the callow political class that cannot accept loss when it happens, cannot make a scapegoat of a corrupt colleague, or will not build an airport that does not leak. That class is to blame, and also a citizenry so browbeaten into seeking crumbs that it settles for a token school or hospital or road for performance. A few weeks ago, a plane could not land in Benin City because the airport, newly renovated, had no landing lights. The airport is also leaking barely a year after it was opened. In spite of N255 million for luxury cars!

    In the same city, Edo State Governor Adams Oshiomhole pointed out that if we do not have a country, as it is asserted, “we should start building one.” He gave example of himself as a minority who won an emphatic victory over a son of the soil. President Jonathan won elections in many non-Ijaw areas in 2011 because many wanted to give a chance to an “other.” But he has governed without a sense of inclusion. If he had governed like a statesman, people will talk less about retreats to tents of tribes and faith.

    Tribe does not give food or shelter or good education. Good leadership does. Few, for instance, can complain about the governor of example in Lagos, Babatunde Fashola ,SAN, who seems in a hurry to do everything from roads to schools to even registration of residents.

    That is the conference of performance. A string of good works will abolish narrow loyalties. We have had many panels to examine virtually everything in the country since independence, and this abundance of archival details mocks us. Is it about the minority problems, oil, education, federalism, civil service? They are in the archives. Is it about student riot, corruption, sports management or health care, or infrastructure or power? You only need to seek and you will find. We seek in this country and we find. The missing link is rescue. I call it panelism. We are always learning and never coming to the action of the truth, to paraphrase St. Paul.

    We need to create a museum of panel reports. We must have the worst records of a country that has discussed everything and implemented little. The museum should show all the panelists, all the files, or the memoranda, all the narratives. We can go there to see our solutions, and maybe that museum will tell us that we have already had a confab. We only need execution. Documents will ultimately result from any conference now canvassed, and I hope it will not find its way to that museum.

    Nobel laureate Orhan Pamuk’s novel The Museum of Innocence is about a rejected lover who creates a private museum to memorialise his times with a girl, including cups, bed sheets, hundreds of cigarettes, underwear, etc. Are our sundry reports times of innocence? Maybe it is naivety. Those are wasted opportunities, what poet Wordsworth calls a “sordid boon.” Or are we just happy in our misery with the militants, slums, Boko Haram, joblessness, etc.? Maybe we are like Sisyphus who never arrives. Albert Camus, also a Nobel laureate, says Sisyphus is happy and loves the fruitless routine. I don’t wish Sisyphus on us.

  • Slippery Seven

    Weighing the pros and cons of the intriguing road show by a high-profile circle of the All Progressives Congress (APC) is likely to be controversial. However, in the final analysis, it is the measurement of results that counts. Therefore, it would be interesting to see what mileage the party would eventually get out of the tour.

    It is apt to identify the fact that the adventure was informed by opportunistic calculation, which is not necessarily pejorative in the political context. Evidently, the exercise was inspired by the fractious reality of the ruling People’s Democratic Party (PDP), and would not have been a serious option in the absence of the schism. Even then, it was strategically simplistic, perhaps denying the fundamental truth that the PDP’s in-fighting is not sufficiently radical to allow penetration by external invaders.

    Basically, the party’s troubles are indicative of an internal power struggle, which in no way translates into an abandonment of the bond. To interpret the division in terms of ideological disenchantment is to tragically miss the point. They are all birds of a feather and, at the end of the day, would always flock together.

    There can be no doubt about the visceral association, a fact that was adequately projected to the would-be persuaders at every stop. Whether it was in Kano, Jigawa, Adamawa, Rivers, Kwara or Niger, there was a striking stock response to the seduction; specifically, that the seven antagonistic PDP governors, tagged G-7, were still interested in remaining in the party and optimistic about fence-mending. If there was any question about where their hearts belonged, Rivers State governor Rotimi Amaechi provided fascinating clarification when he told the visitors, rather audaciously, “I will consult the president. I will. He is from our zone. I will consult all the consultables.”

    A perfect example of cheekiness and reductio ad absurdum, Amaechi’s remarks carried enormous significance on account of his status as chairman of the Nigeria Governors’ Forum (NGF), and against the backdrop of the crisis that characterised his re-election to that position, during which he enjoyed the principled support of progressive elements outside his party. If he would indeed need the advice of President Goodluck Jonathan, who is a major PDP leader and his supposed political adversary, among others, to make up his mind to join APC, it suggests that such departure is improbable. Also, it is a reflection of the superficiality of the division within the PDP.

    At least two other comments by G-7 members are noteworthy for their negative implications for the APC’s romance with the group. While Kwara State governor AbdulFatah Ahmed, in a manner that suggested a put-down, described the visit as “a marketing activity,” Jigawa State governor Sule Lamido declared emphatically, “It is our desire to ensure that we remain in the winning party.”

    It is relevant to ponder why the PDP has such a grip on the imagination of its members, with the effect that they refuse to think outside the party. Two notable examples of this reality will suffice. First, former vice president Atiku Abubakar left the party to join the then Action Congress (AC), only for him to unceremoniously return to the PDP to seek its presidential ticket, which he was denied. Second, former Abia State governor Orji Uzor Kalu disowned the party to start the Progressive People’s Alliance (PPA) which under his inspiration won governorship elections in two states. Then, abruptly, he dumped the party and returned to the PDP. In both cases, it is important to stress, the two returnees had to endure indignities just to achieve reabsorption.

    Perhaps inadvertently, the APC has raised the profile of these governors, who belong to the faction also called the “New PDP”, namely, Lamido, Musa Kwankwaso (Kano), Aliyu Wamakko (Sokoto), Ahmed , Amaechi, Murtala Nyako (Adamawa) and Babangida Aliyu (Niger). It is difficult to understand why the APC is courting them, suggesting that they are indispensable power brokers. Furthermore, moves to attract them significantly blurred the vital ideological distinction between their original platform known for conservative elitism and the APC’s acclaimed progressivism. Or is APC saying there is no difference?

    It is disturbing that in the sugar-coated language of a suitor, the APC’s leadership spoke superlatively of the performance of these governors. More worrying, by this undiscriminating show, the APC unwittingly undermined its own structures in the affected states. Should its overtures fail, how will the party explain to the electorate that it is a better choice for governance, rather than the characters it has praised immoderately, or those associated with them?

    It is understandable that the party is anxious to redirect Nigeria, but it certainly shouldn’t be at the expense of ideological purity. The party’s essence deserves protection always, and mingling with actors of dubious credentials cannot profit it in the long run. With the all-important 2015 general elections in sight, it is no surprise that the party is exploring possible winning formulas. However, it must avoid giving the impression of desperation.

    Rather than the direct “door to door” marketing approach adopted in this campaign, the APC brand would most likely benefit from a more subtle but effective PR style. In other words, the party, which is a creation of the merger of the Action Congress of Nigeria (ACN), the Congress for Progressive Change (CPC), the All Nigeria Peoples Party (ANPP) and a faction of the All Progressives Grand Alliance (APGA), would need to define its orientation more concretely and establish a reputation through measurable positive performance of its members in political offices.

    Going into the coming elections as a first-timer, the party, no doubt, would be interested in putting up a strong showing, which would count in its favour in the long term. In this connection, it is hoped that the party will be driven by long-term vision, rather than narrow immediacies. Central to the beauty of a stable democracy is the possibility of change based on the informed preference of the electorate. Despite the rumpus over the country’s structure, Nigeria might yet survive.

    Gradualism has its advantages, especially when the opposite comes with the implication of sacrificing the party’s distinguishing values. Whatever the downsides of the tour, there were indeed redeeming features. In particular, the APC achieved a publicity intensity that has helped to widen its identification. In addition, its consistent message of constructive change boldly projected on the road provided reassuring evidence of its commitment to a better Nigeria. Above all, the ambassadors communicated an aura of integrity and exemplary passion, perhaps the very attributes missing in those at the helm.

  • Jega’s delimitation agenda

    For some time now, the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) has been in public show of its zeal to delineate constituencies in the country before the 2015 elections. Basking on provisions of the 1999 constitution and the Electoral Act which require that such exercise be conducted after 10 years or after a national census, Jega has told whoever cares to hear that he is irredeemably committed to the exercise.

    The commission is partnering relevant agencies and has already signed Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the National Space Research and Development Agency (NASRDA) the office of the Surveyor General of the Federation with two committees set up to give effect to the exercise. Through these MOU’s, INEC hopes to tap into the high satellite imagery resolution capacities of these agencies to cover the entire country. It has also sought assistance from the National Population Commission (NPC) among others.

    Given the foregoing, it is certain that INEC is not leaving anyone in any doubt that it is pursuing the delimitation agenda with vigour. According to its chairman Prof Attahiru Jega, the overall aim is to ensure that every federal constituency should be as nearly equal in size as possible. What this immediately throws up is the equalization theory of his predecessor and the fact that population is going to be the major factor for this exercise. His immediate past predecessor, Prof Maurice Iwu had proposed the equalization of the constituencies such that population differences above 300,000 between senatorial districts were considered very substantial and were to be adjusted. Similarly population differences of 150,000 in the case of federal districts were also to be adjusted. But the proposal was trailed by controversy with that administration unable to carry it out before Iwu left office.

    Ironically, when the Jega-led INEC visited the NPC to seek certified data on the various enumeration areas, he was pointedly told by its then chairman, Festus Odimegwu that there are no certified data for the various enumeration areas. Odimegwu had then said that politicians bought enumeration areas in the same fashion they buy voters’ cards during elections to gain advantage. He also disclosed that it was on account of the unreliability of the 2006 census that the commission decided not to publish it.

    Jega seemed to have come to terms with this encumbrance when he said in a recent communiqué that “even though the aspects of the 2006 census have been countered, it remains the most credible source of data to carry out the exercise”. He had also in the same communiqué which he personally signed, stated that the delimitation was meant to engender equality in electoral constituencies and not to create additional sets at the national level.

    INEC is within its powers to seek the delimitation of constituencies. This is more so as it is in keeping with its powers as conferred by extant laws. Thus, it is not so much the issue of its right as the wisdom and timeliness in embarking on the exercise now.

    First and as rightly admitted by Jega, there is no credible census for the country; that of 2006 inclusive. The 2006 census has been challenged at the census tribunal by sections of the country on account of the manipulation of its figures. Lagos state was so dissatisfied with the outcome that it had to conduct its own version of the census which came out with 18million people as against nine million allotted to it by the 2006 census. There are also other parts of the country where the figures credited to them are at variance with established demographic traits. The South-east is among them. As a matter of fact, an independent preliminary satellite imaging around the Imo area was said to have produced results that would render the outcome of previous censuses a huge joke. Just recently, the figures posted for the 20 local government areas of Lagos State were overturned by the tribunal as they bore no semblance with the actual population on the ground. The point being raised here is very clear. And it is that it will amount to double jeopardy if INEC goes ahead to rely on these flawed census figures to alter the boundaries of the constituencies or set up new ones.

    It is about seven years since the last census was conducted. After seven years, significant demographic changes would have occurred such that the 2006 census can no longer be reasonably relied upon. The situation is not helped by the imperfections of that census and our rising population growth rate.

    When you add observed distortions in that census to the changes that would have occurred in population dynamics over this time frame, its reliability for the exercise is further whittled down.

    For another, the NPC has also been on top gear to give the nation a credible census in 2016. That date is just barely three years away. Does it really make any sense embarking on the delimitation exercise on the eve of a census that is being looked upon to redress glaring inequities of the past? And what is the value in expending taxpayers’ money in the project when it will not fundamentally address observed disparities and can conveniently cue in after the 2016 census?

    Matters were not helped by Jega when he said his commission does not intend to create new constituencies but to adjust existing ones. The purport of this is that even where the commission discovers that additional constituencies needed to be created to redress observed imbalances, nothing of sort will happen. This is as curious as it is confounding. It might be interesting to hear from him why he cannot abort the exercise if he is not prepared to undertake the rigour the creation of additional constituencies entails.

    Even before he volunteers information on this, suffice it to say that those reasons that make the creation of new constituencies inappropriate now are the same reasons why the delineation in the manner Jega proposes it has to wait. My guess is that Jega wants to run away from envisaged controversy which the creation of additional constituencies will engender especially now people have been sensitized on the inadequacies of our previous headcounts. He sees the balancing of the population among constituencies as less contentious. That could also be. But it comes with its problems.

    Again, we are at the threshold of another national conference to redress the imperfections of our federal order. Some of the issues that will feature in that conference include the conduct of a credible census, state and local government creation as well as the unit of representation within the federal arrangement. The way these issues are handled is bound to have very serious impact on the structure and size of our current constituencies.

    Since INEC is not prepared to go the whole length in this exercise, it makes little sense approaching it very grudgingly. There is nothing practically urgent in the exercise that it cannot wait after a credible headcount in 2016. The commission should discard the idea of constituency delimitation and concentrate its energies on the challenges posed by the 2015 elections. Delimitation should wait until we have a credible basis for it. Only then will its outcome meet the wishes and aspirations of the peoples of this country.