Consensus now has different connotations.

To the old breed, it is the selection of candidates through mutual agreement; a collective decision ratified by all and sundry without a dissenting voice. To that extent, it could be described as the cult of agreement and amity.

However, to the younger generation, particularly the emerging and impatient political class, consensus is imposition. It is misunderstood as systematic exclusion, dictatorship and violation of internal democracy.

Since election is not involved, they believe it is a disservice to competitive electoral process.

But, either in the past or currently, consensus is acknowledged as a mode, which makes its alternative, the direct primary, more compelling, if it is rejected.

It is more or less a product of convention and hitherto time-tested procedure that cannot be trusted in all circumstances.

The debate on its suitability is on the front burner, following the recent All Progressives Congress (APC) national convention in Abuja. The brand of consensus by coercion or compulsion adopted by the ruling party upset many aspirants for party positions. To observers, it was akin to consensus under duress.

Consensus is not new in contemporary Nigerian politics. It worked perfectly in the past and the process was devoid of acrimony and tension.  Even, in pre-colonial traditional settings, princes were picked as successors to the throne in the days of yore through mutual agreement among the contenders. The goal was to avoid strife and rancour.

Old political warhorses still around would attest to the pre-eminence of consensus as a mode of selection that fostered unity in the past. In the pre-independence era, it was in vogue in the three, and much later after independence, four regions. Consensus is perceived as a better process for selecting candidates for party offices and general elections, where possible and practicable.

The only limitation is that, once there is a dissenting voice, the alternative, which is election, either direct or indirect, is adopted.

The main element of consensus is mutual agreement. Before the demise of first generation parties – the Northern Peoples Congress (NPC), Action Group (AG) and National Council of Nigerian Citizens (NCNC) – the agreement was not necessarily between or among aspirants for parliamentary tickets, but agreement among the  wise men; dependable and respected party leaders who, as moral voices, made the right and patriotic decisions for the platforms.

The pattern of leadership recruitment and followership enlistment was dictated by the party. In the defunct AG, led by the late Chief Obafemi Awolowo, only well known, reputable and loyal members were qualified to seek the ticket.

Criteria for selection through consensus included age, education, job qualification or what was referred to as second address, party membership, good character, involvement in community and intra-party activities, belief in the party’s ideology, hierarchy or seniority, sacrifice and loyalty to the platform. Curiously, money was not a criterion, because the tickets were not for sale to the highest bidder.

Once these criteria were set, the best were picked for the regional or parliamentary elections. Other aspirants, while bidding for their time, would return to the party to work harder. Few aspirants, who were not picked, could rebel by standing for election as independent candidates. Poll results in those days could be predicted with accuracy. The rebellious aspirants who opted for independent candidacy often lost their deposit at the poll.

The First Republic was terminated by the military coup of 1966. Thirteen years later, although AG had metamorphosised into the Unity Party of Nigeria (UPN), consensus became somehow outdated and unpopular. Many dismissed it as preferential treatment or tacit imposition by the gerontocrats. Therefore, Awolowo and other party leaders reluctantly adjusted to the intense intra-party agitations for further democratisation of primaries. Indirect primary or delegate mode was adopted. Their subsisting fear was the likely invasion of some moneybags with an intention to buy or hijack the tickets. But, it never happened in the UPN. It also never happened in the ruling National Party of Nigeria (NPN), Nigerian Peoples Party (NPP), Peoples Redemption Party (PRP) and Great Nigerian Peoples Party (GNPP).

In the Third Republic, the new breed perceived consensus as old fashioned. Under the Social Democratic Party (SDP) and the National Republican Convention (NRC), there were stiff competitions for party offices and tickets for elections. The contests drew the SDP on edge at the party convention when Mohammed Arzika and Baba Gana Kingibe clashed. The race for party chairman was hot. But, unlike consensus, where few party leaders would meet to decide the fate of contenders and the entire party, party representatives or delegates chose candidates on behalf of the vast party membership.

During governorship, state and federal parliamentary and presidential primaries, indirect primaries were adopted. The process was acknowledged to be more open and transparent than consensus. There were two parties. Party members queued behind their preferred candidates at shadow polls. However, the Third Republic was aborted.

In 1998/99, the Afenifere/NADECO/Alliance for Democracy (AD) leaders were disposed to consensus in the Southwest. Primaries were held, but the push towards consensus was stronger.

More of consensus by party elders, and less of direct primary, produced Olusegun Osoba who triumphed over Femi Okurounmu in Ogun State;  Bisi Akande, who was preferred to Mojisoluwa Akinfenwa and Iyiola Omisore in Osun; Lam Adesina in Oyo; Ade Adefarati in Ondo and Niyi Adebayo, who was preferred to Samuel Kolawole in Ekiti.

In Osun, Akande never vied for governor. But, in a dramatic manner, the AD leader, Chief Bola Ige, anointed and pronounced him as an aspirant.

Why consensus by illustrious founding fathers could not be faulted was that there was no deviation from their set rules. The political leaders were in one accord. Aspirants were assessed based on the set criteria.

Besides, the criteria or the standard they gladly set had predictive values. Those selected by consensus usually ended up in parliaments and State Houses as high performers. They lived to expectation in public offices.

In those previous dispensations, after victory, elected public officers regarded themselves as products of the party. They subscribed to the doctrines of party supremacy and discipline.

Why the fuss about consensus, when APC’s constitution actually makes provisions for it?

It is because of the way and manner they went about the process.

Many aspirants complained about consensus at gunpoint. It was a special case of ambush. Some complained to reporters that they were not aware of any consensus before and after they bought and submitted their forms. There was no wider consultation after leaders had made up their minds on some candidates.

Many aspirants begun their campaigns, traversing their regions. They were targeting votes from delegates, not knowing that they have been excluded.

The ruling party had postponed the convention, which it never really prepared for. Therefore, to meet the provisions of the Electoral Act, it was conducted hurriedly.

Six national chairmanship aspirants, including Tanko Almakura, Abdulaziz Yari, George Akume, Saliu Mustapha, and Sani Musa, campaigned round the country. Governors who now own the party never adopted or endorsed any of them. Instead, they went to President Muhammadu Buhari to endorse a consensus chairman.

The President requested for the list of aspirants. Then, he rejected the six and suggested Abdullahi Adamu. Initially, the governors packaged a feeble resistance. The Commander-in-Chief insisted on his choice. Later, the six aspirants embraced reality. Who are they to dare the President?

Two things were clear. One, consensus was proposed. But, the agreement required to drive the idea was absent. The aspirants could not agree among themselves to support a candidate. The governors who wanted to reassure the President of their collective loyalty could not agree on a candidate. The President proposed a beneficiary of consensus. Although other aspirants and the governors grumbled, Buhari had his way.

It was after the President insisted on Adamu that many governors started struggling to have the phone numbers of someone who would be their chairman for the next years.

Two, taking a cue from the President, governors too insisted on nominating ‘consensus’ candidates for other party offices zoned to their regions and micro-zoned to their states. The Unity List was elusive.

The battle shifted to the regions. There was commotion. Time was too short to iron out issues at that level. Old cleavages resurfaced. It was CPC versus ACN, or CPC versus PDP or CPC versus ANPP.

Unable to resolve the logjam at the regional level, the antagonistic gladiators carried their battles to the convention. Tension engulfed the party. Although all the chairmanship aspirants agreed to step down for Adamu, many aspirants for other party positions refused. A few of them went to the podium to deny stepping down for rivals.

To evade a grand elective convention, which it was not adequately prepared for, APC attempted to whip recalcitrant aspirants into line. The Election Committee resorted to blackmail, telling aspirants who refused to step down that they risked losing the election and forfeiting a refund of their nomination fees.

The threat underscored the display of immaturity by the Election Committee. Thus, tempers rose. While some young aspirants panicked, older and experienced gladiators were unperturbed.

In the Southwest, reason later prevailed over emotion. Elderstatesman Aremo Olusegun Osoba, former governor of Ogun State, saved the region from embarrassment. He was able to pacify aspirants for national secretary-Bayo Shittu and Aberdeen Olaiya- to step down for Iyiola Omisore.

The Electoral Act has tied the hands of political parties and their leaders. Consensus implies an agreement among contenders who are expected to write a letter of withdrawal from the race. If this is not done or an aggrieved contestant goes to court due to exclusion or marginalisation, the exercise may be declared null and void by the temple of justice.

The scenarios cast doubt on the efficacy of consensus in APC. Although the opposition Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) succeeded in selecting former Senate President Iyorchia Ayu as consensus chairman, the ruling party failed to put its house in order.

During party conventions and primaries, political parties must brace up for the challenge of political participation. The slots, relative to the number of aspirants, are usually few. Screening is important. But, it should be fair and credible.

It is not proper to tell aspirants to ‘go and sit down’ after paying millions for forms and preparing for election, only to be told that the party has opted for consensus. It is worse when they are not consulted or carried along, their opinions are not sought and the elements or circumstances warranting the option are not properly explained to them. If there is no involvement in the discussions or decisions on consensus, collective commitment may be difficult.

There is nothing wrong about consensus. But, the process should be followed. It is often difficult for many party leaders to respect the procedure. Instead, they may resort to blackmail, intimidation, oppression and suppression. This is the crux of the matter.

The implication is that APC needs to have a rethink about consensus in the future. If it failed at the convention during the election of party officers, can it be successfully adopted during the party’s presidential primary?

Why is it that some elite are fond of threatening to raise what has now paled into a third force against the two major parties, only few months to parties’ primaries?

Why did they desert the drawing board by refusing to work ahead, only to seek collaboration with some rights activists and failed politicians who could not make a headway in either the All Progressives Congress (APC) or the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP)?

This is the tragedy of the peculiar Nigerian third force: ideologically fatigued, politically lazy, strategically directionless. They are remote from the grassroots, bereft of winning ideas and strategies. Yet, they posture as messiahs during periodic elections.

What is the third force up to, besides being a band of political jesters? Or, are they warming up for post-2023 polls?

The members of the third force are aggrieved and deprived actors battling with fading popularity, influence and relevance. Some of them have tasted power, but now seem to be left in the lurch. Most of them now crave state power and resources, which have eluded them or slipped from their palms as one-time actors, collaborators, allies and beneficiaries of the system they now fruitlessly seek to vilify, dethrone, discredit or blackmail.

Since the public may not be able to differentiate between them and APC and PDP chieftains, they try to enlarge their coast to accommodate right activists of yesteryears and other credible voices in the society who have genuine complaints against poor governance.

Fundamentally, the jurisdiction of the third force is theoretical opposition to the current political leadership. The tool is criticism, particularly of the prevailing social order, the pastime that earned those pro-democracy crusaders of yore a pride of place during the battle against the inglorious military rule.

The third force is a mixed grill of scholars, unionists, radicals, progressives, reform advocates, arm-chair critics, aggrieved ultra-conservatives, and other haughty politicians.

Their leaders are blessed with the gift of the garb. Deploying adequate verbal facility, their agenda is momentarily captivating to the gullible.

But, there ends their bravado. The third force campaigners are weakened by their own poor projections, lack of an enduring organisational ability, absence of steady and result-driven mobilisation capability, palpable deficiency in self-assessment, and their superciliousness about conspicuous realities.

Even the masses they claim to be fighting for can hardly comprehend the substance of their message, their melodramatic display of lexicology and shibboleths. Their proposal for collaboration is not mass-oriented.

Not only is their style boring, the activists in the rainbow coalition tend to swim in identity crisis, following the restoration of civil rule, which altered the approach to protests in a democratic setting. But, acting within the constitutional bound, they are at liberty to chase shadows.

From the moribund Coalition for Nigerian Movement (CNM), through the lame duck Interventionist Movement, to the National Movement and Consultative Front, there is a valid effort at window dressing; a dissipation of time and energy.

The third force – past and present – only exists on the pages of newspapers. After elections, it disappears, only to re-appear in another four years. It lacks a formidable structure with taproot across the nooks and crannies of the country. The goal, according to observers, may be restricted to attention seeking.

Observers have berated the arrowheads of the group for a shortfall in historical perception.

Historically, despite the multiplicity of parties, the country has always shown a tendency towards two-party system. This had manifested in previous political alliances.

At independence, the three major parties -Northern Peoples Congress (NPC), National Council of Nigerian Citizens (NCNC) and Action Group (AG) – struggled for the control of the Federal Parliament under the cabinet system.

The NPC had 134 of 312 seats in the House of Representatives. It was not up to the required two-thirds majority. Therefore, the NPC proposed an alliance to the NCNC. To the surprise of AG, led by the late Chief Obafemi Awolowo, the NCNC, led by the late Dr. Nnamdi Azikiwe, forged an alliance with Alhaji Tafawa Balewa’s NPC, instead of the AG, which was closer to its ideological leaning. Thus, NPC/NCNC formed the coalition government headed by Prime Minister Balewa. The AG leader, Awolowo, became the Leader of Opposition.

The implication of that scenario was that although the 1959 election took place under a multi-party arrangement, a semblance of two-party system emerged in 1960, when the first national government was formed.

When the alliance broke down in 1964, two new alliances polarised the country. The NPC and Nigeria National Democratic Party (NNDP) of the late Chief Ladoke Akintola formed the Nigerian National Alliance (NNA). The AG, NCNC, United Middle Belt Congress (UMBC) of Joseph Tarka, and other parties, came together in an alliance under the United Progressives Grand Alliance (UPGA) for the purpose of 1964 federal elections.

In 1979, under the presidential system, the National Party of Nigeria (NPN) and Nigerian People’s Party (NPP) formed an accord. It later broke down.

However, ahead of 1983 elections, a picture of a two-party system emerged. The opposition parties – the Unity Party of Nigeria (UPN), the Nigerian Peoples Party (NPP), Great Nigeria People’s Party (GNPP) and the People’s Redemption Party (PRP) – formed the Progressives Parties Alliance (PPA) to wrest power from the NPN. It never worked.

At the UPN’s post-election congress, Awolowo predicted that the best of the conservatives and progressives would flock together.

In the aborted Third Republic, a two-party system was foisted on the country by the military. The Political Bureau, led by Dr. Samuel Cookey, while canvassing the option, drew attention to the previous pattern of alliances by members of the political class. The party reflected the spectrum of political ideas: a little to the left and a little to the right.

After creating the Social Democratic Party (SDP) and National Republican Convention (NRC), the military also imposed manifestos on them, resulting in a two-party system with ambiguity because the two parties did not evolve from the people.

Yet, during the ill-fated Third Republic, there was no defection of politicians from either of the parties. There was demarcation and streamlining, making it easier for the electorate to make a clear choice between the progressive and conservative platforms. The NRC had 16 governors while the SDP had 14. Unfortunately, the military leader, President Ibrahim Babangida, annulled the free and fair June 12, 1993 presidential election. The two parties were proscribed by another military Head of State, General Sani Abacha.

Consistent with the historic perspective, in 1998, the military government actually proposed a two-party system. The two parties that met the requirements for registration were the PDP and the All People’s Party (APP). However, due to irreconcilable differences, the late Chief Bola Ige pulled his group out of the APP to form the Alliance for Democracy (AD). The Head of State, General Abdulsalami Abubakar, who hurriedly unfolded a transition programme, objected to the birth of a third party after the deadline. But, he was said to have been advised by his deputy, Chief of General Staff, Admiral Mike Akhigbe, who had served as governor of Ondo and Lagos states, to avoid a situation whereby the Southwest, which was aggrieved by Chief Moshood Abiola’s death, would boycott the transition programme, thereby discrediting the process.

Instructively, the country returned to a sort of two-party system during the presidential election. The leaders of AD realised the mistake of separation from APP. Realising that they could not beat the PDP at the poll, AD and APP fielded Chief Olu Falae of AD as a presidential candidate on the platform of the APP, with an APP chieftain, Alhaji Umaru Shinkafi, as running mate. They lost. But, it is significant to note that at the poll, only PDP and APP were in reckoning.

The controversial Government of National Unity (GNU) formed after the election by the PDP and APP reflected that pattern of two-party system. AD became the opposition party.

Although Lagos lawyer, the late Gani Fawehinmi (SAN), won the battle for multi-party system, all the parties outside PDP and APC are paper-weight platforms lacking popular appeal. For example, Accord Party, Labour Party, Zenith Labour Party, and APGA could not muster the strength to position themselves as the third force.

While collaborations among like-minded progressive opposition parties floundered in 1964, 1979, 1983, 1999, 2007 and 2011, the turning point was 2015 when the defunct Action Congress of Nigeria (ACN), All Nigeria Peoples Party (ANPP), Congress for Progressive Change (CPC), and a section of PDP and All Progressives Grand Alliance (APGA) subscribed to a plausible accord, fusion, merger, and alliance. It was an affirmation of the trend of two party system.

Some of those posing as members of the third force today had previously traversed the big and smaller parties.

The birth of a third force may be a matter of fundamental right. But, how far can the third force go? Can it meet the criterion of spread? Can it defeat APC and PDP at the polls? Can it spring a surprise?

Between 1960 and now, four ruling parties – Northern Peoples Congress (NPC), National Party of Nigeria (NPN), Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) and All Progressives Congress (APC) – have bestrode the corridor of power in Nigeria.

But, the current ruling party appears to be the most complex, disarticulated, problematic, pompous, incorrigible, disunited and disastrous.

Feudalist NPC in the Sardauna Ahmadu Bello and Tafawa Balewa era was honest to itself. It did not pretend to be nationalistic. It was the Northern Peoples Congress (NPC) and not the Nigerian Peoples Congress. As a ruling party, it knew its scope and boundary. It never subscribed to any ideology. But, to foster a semblance of national unity, it sought an alliance, not a fusion, with Dr. Nnamdi Azikiwe’s National Council of Nigerian Citizens (NCNC). The terms were respected between 1960 and 1966 when it was liquidated by the military.

The notorious NPN of the Second Republic, despite the shenanigans of its leaders, was cohesive. Its chieftains were focused on looting Nigeria, and they did. Its National Caucus, led by Adisa Akinloye, was powerful and supreme.

The PDP took off in 1998 as a marriage of conservatives and progressives. It promised to be a great party. Its foundations were laid by experienced statesmen and politicians. Its mistake was that, having been hijacked by Generals, the party hired a soldier as its presidential candidate. The rest, as it is often said, is history.

What difference has APC made? What pitfalls has it avoided? Has the party learnt from history? What value has it added to the Fourth Republic?

For almost two years, the party has been seized by protracted leadership squabbles. There has been no family meeting to discuss, re-assess and renew commitment. The national convention has been elusive. The generality of party members, represented by delegates, look forward to the critical reunion. It is a fundamental right of party men and women that has been denied for too long.

At the convention, the party leadership is expected to tender its stewardship. If necessary, the constitution of the party may be amended during the exercise in the light of new realities. Resolutions are take on salient issues. A new National Working Committee (NEC) is selected. The new chairman unfolds his vision. The party will then face the future with hope, confidence, enthusiasm and determination, having obeyed its own constitution.

APC is eight years old. But, to observers, it has not laid a good example of an ideologically inclined and refined party. The fold is perpetually assailed by cleavages. It is permanently addicted to crises. Its leadership is a source of dispute. Its conflict resolution mechanism is fragile and impotenet. The party is big, so is its headache.

APC is an association of incompatible gladiators seeking political power. It is a big house of intrigues, backstabbing and bitterness. Governors, federal legislators, ministers and top board members do not see eye to eye in many state chapters. They are never in one accord. The struggle for tickets and the distribution of spoils of office induce prolonged conflicts, acrimony and discord.

Party chieftains often defer to the President, who is the national leader. But the Commander-in-Chief is not a unifying factor. It is not clear whether he is still for somebody or nobody. The refrain subsists: ‘Vote for me’ at the presidential election, and in other elections, be it governorship or parliamentary, ‘vote for candidates of your choice.’ It underscores the height of hypocrisy, deception and grand endorsement of anti-party activity and indiscipline.

But, unlike dictatorial former President Olusegun Obasanjo, President Muhammadu Buhari is curiously calm and less effective. He has not really oppressed party chieftains. Neither has he interfered in the politics of nominations in state chapters. It appears he has only inadvertently strengthened the cabal to oppress, intimidate and trouble the soul of the party.

APC is a divided house and the strife is taking its toll on the platform. The memory of contrasting legacy parties that fused together to bring about the subtle transformation fills the consciousness of their former members, making it difficult for a new cohesive political family to function well. Chieftains only become emergency allies during electioneering.

Structurally and organisationally, APC is an incomplete edifice. It is the only party without a Board of Trustees (BoT). Also, its National Caucus is dormant, perhaps, sidelined, incapacitated or disillusioned. It seems the party does not need any gerontocratic advice.

To its credit, the party has surprisingly won presidential elections twice. On poll day, Nigerians had to choose between two evils – APC and PDP. A third force is somehow illusory; a figment of hyperactive imagination, an association of political jesters.

It is ironic that despite its defects, APC has not recorded any major defection or decimation beyond the Rabiu Musa Kwakwanso’s challenge in Kano. It has rather continued to enlarge its coast. Many PDP leaders, including governors, have defected to the ruling party to seek refuge, not because it is better or it parades special and intimidating qualities, but just because it is the ruling party.

Yet, the general opinion is that besides the transformation in railways and ongoing road construction in few parts of the country, Nigeria has nothing else to show for the APC years. Its dominance now accounts for the lean period in national history.

The quality of living is lamentable in this period of boring social condition. Only those in government are, to an extent, insulated from the harsh and harrowing experience. The awful picture of the dilapidated economy is frightening and worrisome.

The evidence of soaring poverty is confounding. Unemployment is growing in geometric proportions. Life and property are not safe. Thus, youth migration compounds the challenge of brain drain in critical sectors. Those who lack the opportunity to move out are maladjusted. They turn to crime: internet fraud or ‘Yahoo’ business and unprecedented ritual killings.

APC may also be heating up the polity through its multiple controversies. The party is rattled by its internal contradictions, held in its jugular by few actors.

The hope that the party will make a difference has disappeared. In its place is despair. To the consternation of many Nigerians, APC is also not sincere about the resolution of the national question, although it set up the Nasir El-Rufai Committee on Restructuring to make some suggestions. The report is gathering dust at the party’s national secretariat in Abuja. Unless the APC-dominated National Assembly, which is reviewing the constitution, proves sceptics wrong by demonstrating courage and patriotism, the amendment may pale into an exercise in futility.

The APC-led Federal Government has not done the country proud because the party’s core campaign promises, particularly economic revitalisation and security, have remained largely unfulfilled.

APC is a house always trembling to fall. It may be because it could not seriously uphold some basic principles. While zoning and rotation, not only of party offices but also of its presidential ticket, has served as its pillars, foundation of theoretical unity and initial strength at its inception, the party has attempted to discard the cherished values. The result is the eclipse of fairness and justice.

Although APC is a product of inter-party negotiations among the Action Congress of Nigeria (CAN), Congress for Progressive Change (CPC), All Nigeria Peoples Party (ANPP), and a fraction of PDP and the All Progressives Grand Alliance (APGA), the most dominant and influential power bloc thrown up by subsequent elections has detached from its source and forgotten its history.

Governors have displaced the party’s founding fathers instead of learning from their experience. Some of them are bitter at the mention of power shift from the North to South, as originally agreed.

To edge out a certain stalwart, a campaign of calumny is now brewing. Since presidential zoning and rotation cannot be jettisoned, concerted efforts are now being made by some power barons in the fold to exploit religion and erect inexplicable obstacles ahead of the succession necessity.

In hush tones, they are saying the presidential ambition of Southern Muslim aspirants is an anathema because President Muhammadu Buhari is a Muslim, and a Muslim cannot succeed another Muslim. The bad and illogical campaign is targeted at one man who has clearly become a moving train.

Party handlers, working in concert with some governors, have succeeded in postponing the convention three times. They could only pull the brake during the week, due to the warning that an implosion was imminent.

Nigerians should know now why the country is in deep mess under the current regime. Can those who cannot manage the affairs of their party effectively manage the affairs of the country?

So ‘meticulous’ is the APC handler-turned undertaker that he ‘strategically’ fixed the convention for February 26 so that the plan could hit the rock, especially when it was public knowledge that the umpire had planned to conduct by-elections in some states on the same day.

The Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), which is busy with the preparations, could not have failed to direct the attention of the inept and sit-tight caretaker committee to the proposed polls.

Thus, the exercise had to be shifted, because it was planned to be postponed.

APC is still grappling with the effects of rancorous state congresses in some states. The chapters are polarised. Although the Ahmed Reconciliation Committee has visited the divided chapters, the hope of peaceful settlement is still slim.

Another reason tendered by the committee was that zonal congresses should precede the convention. It took more than a year for the APC interim leadership to realise that certain activities should herald the convention and that the selection of zonal leaders is key.

The abiding peace and harmony that permeated the Southwest progressive bloc in the days of defunct Action Congress of Nigeria (ACN) appear to have vanished.

Under the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC), the progressives, particularly in Osun and Ekiti states, are locked in protracted feud over the governorship ticket.

In Ekiti, where Governor Kayode Fayemi is winding up, those itching to succeed him have complained about the primary that produced a former Secretary to the State Government (SSG), Biodun Oyebanji. But, unlike their Osun brethren, the aspirants in Ekiti are not working towards the liquidation of their party.

In Osun, some aggrieved chieftains are up in arms against Governor Gboyega Oyetola, who is seeking a second term. They are telling party supporters and the opposition that he has not performed. They are threatening fire and brimstone. But the governor is unperturbed. He is strengthening his structure and forging ahead for today’s primary with optimism and confidence.

The major factor in the discord may also be the participation of the Southwest in mainstream politics and the misuse of key chieftains’ exposure to federal power and resources.

In Osun and Ekiti, APC chieftains, who took off from Afenifere/Alliance for Democracy (AD) and crossed the AC/ACN bridge to the ruling APC, may have forgotten their past ordeals and tribulations when they were in the opposition, particularly the agony of stolen mandates and the titanic struggles to reclaim them.

In the days of political adversity, they were united, focused and cohesive. But having got power, they now appear incapable of putting their house in order. The fired shots from the opposition have been somewhat curtailed. But APC is obviously waging a war against itself in the two critical Yoruba states. The respected progressives seem to have shed the godly spirit of forgiveness and internal settlement to wash their dirty linen in the public glare.

During the three years of struggle – from 2007 to 2010 – lives were lost. The rescue mission had financial implications. The cost of justice from the tribunal to the Appeal Court was enormous.

An innocent girl was violated in Osun for identifying with the platform. In Ekiti, the decomposing limb of a party faithful was tendered as an evidence of the brutality and violence by the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) during the protracted litigation against the progressives. The judges, clerks, litigants and others in the court could not stand the odour. The weight of evidence was overwhelming.

Have Osun APC stalwarts forgotten the Justice Thomas Naron Tribunal? What about the legal fireworks kick-started by Kola Awodein (SAN) and the dribbling by Kunle Kalejaye? Have they forgotten also the Adrian Forty saga and the controversy over time analysis? Isn’t the memory of the moving train that could not be stopped at Osogbo still fresh?

What about the Oroki Day mayhem? The declaration of Rauf Aregbesola as a wanted person? The detention of party leaders, including former Chairman Moshood Adeoti? The agony of being left in the cold, following the declaration of loser and winner during the 2007 governorship poll? The chilly media war? The suspense? The anxiety? The palpable fear?

Since the two camps in Osun APC dispute are now enveloped by collective amnesia, it may not be out of place to remind them that power did not happen in 2010 on a platter of gold.

Ahead of today’s governorship primary in Osun, there has been mayhem in Osogbo, the state capital. There is still tension as the two antagonistic camps are set for the much expected primary.

It has now paled into a supremacy battle between Oyetola and Aregbesola, which the governor, nevertheless, is expected to win.

What will come after is a sort of post-primary crisis, which could have been avoided or prevented, if the house was cohesive and reconciliation had worked. Even ahead of the primary, the two camps are already preparing for post-primary litigation.

The bane of the progressive bloc in the Southwest is its weak conflict resolution mechanism. Crises are allowed to fester for too long. When elders try to wade in, the warring chieftains have a clever way of intensifying the conflicts by pretending that they have embraced truce.

Oyetola and Aregbesola have the same political background, being disciples and associates of the highly esteemed leader, Asiwaju Bola Tinubu. But, despite the fact that the former Osun governor and Interior Minister enjoyed the endorsement and total support of the former Lagos State governor, who made him Works Commissioner for almost eight years before embarking on the Osun project around 2004, Aregbesola was not inclined to transferring the same love and affection to Oyetola, his Chief of Staff for eight years, who became the party’s standard bearer in 2018.

The election was hectic. It was a narrow victory for Oyetola, a quiet technocrat and silent worker who immediately hit the ground running, following his inauguration.

Yet, the succession could also be described as a victory for Aregbesola, who was not succeeded by a PDP governor. If a PDP governor had succeeded ‘Ogbeni,’ the opposition would have insisted on a pound of flesh.

Aregbesola and Oyetola parade contrasting traits. The former governor is an aluta man; an idealist. He is also cerebral, charismatic, charming. The minister is an orator, a music composer, a lover of colour and drama, a mobiliser, a crowd puller, a moderate populist. His successor is a self-effacing administrator: meticulous, methodical. He is an office person with a knack for details. The governor is highly composed, reticent. He is a great listener and achievement-driven captain.

A combination of these extreme traits should have been converted to an advantage by the party during electioneering and in the course of governance.

However, these personality traits have defined their contrasting approaches to politics and governance, despite the similarity of ideas and goals. Ideally, these ought to pass as the aesthetics of the political space. Regrettably, they may have also accounted for the opposing pressures on them by party men and stakeholders, as well as their clashing reactions to the pattern of influence.

While the Oyetola government is perceived as one of continuity by the APC, a section of the crisis-ridden Osun chapter thinks otherwise; all within the same party. But there is a change of style, which the aggrieved camp is resisting.

Oyetola has focused on certain activities, including regular payment of salaries, debt settlement, infrastructural development, and review of some educational policies. These were not meant to despise his former boss. Analysts have averred that the governor was being realistic, contending that he, more or less, was responding to public yearnings.

But the cold war of succession in 2018 had been carried over. The result was the deepening of gulf and resurgence of a curious predecessor-successor crisis, which has polarised the Osun chapter.

Although party elders, including former governor, Chief Bisi Akande, have tried to broker reconciliation, it was futile. The peace move hit the rock.

A group, known as TOP (The Osun Progressives), which drew inspiration from Aregbesola, then entered the scene. Its goal is to make the governor lose the ticket and disgrace him out of office.

But the group may have exaggerated its strength. Observers have berated its members for a shortfall in strategy. It could not take the party machinery away from the governor, whose camp triumphed at the state party congress. The acrimony within intensified due to the loss of the critical structure.

As Aregbesola openly identified with the group and its battle cry, tension escalated in the party. Amid the flexing of muscles, attention has shifted to Osun APC as a battlefield.

The effect is that if there is no effective reconciliation after today’s contest, Osun APC will go to the poll as a divided house. Post-primary defection cannot be ruled out. But the greatest danger is the likelihood of subverting the interest of the party. Indeed, some aggrieved chieftains may still tarry within the fold for the purpose of undermining it on Election Day.

As a foregone conclusion, the cracks may strengthen the equally crisis-ridden PDP to challenge APC to a duel with greater confidence.

Did Aregbesola’s outbursts at Ijebu-Jesa signal the parting of ways? To many chieftains, it is worrisome that loyalty is tested by the storm and stress of political life.

But the great leader, his former boss, being a very accommodating and tolerant politician, is not likely to shut his door at associates, should they show remorse and retrace their steps.

To observers, the ego of the faction would be further bruised, if Oyetola, after winning re-nomination, also triumphs at the second term poll.

The plot to stop or postpone today’s primary collapsed few weeks ago. The factional chairman’s lawyer had submitted a petition to the national leadership of the party to put the screening of aspirants on hold. The request was not entertained. The reason was that the National Caretaker Committee, led by Yobe State Governor Mai Mala Buni, recognises Gboyega Famodun as authentic Osun APC chairman and not Lowo Adebiyi, who Aregbesola is backing.

That the minister is not supporting the second term ambition of his successor is within his fundamental rights. But, is he in a vantage position to pull the rug off the governor’s feet? It will be another wonder of the world if the “TOP” triumphs at the primary.

Will the Monday violence be repeated today?

TOP and the authentic party machinery have clashed, ahead of the shadow poll. What is the assurance that those who shot into the air on Monday will not repeat the action during today’s primary?

Unlike Osun APC, the Ekiti chapter is not in a deep mess, although there is an unfinished business of reconciliation. The governorship shadow poll generated controversy, but reason seems to have prevailed.
Three aspirants – Senator Opeyemi Bamidele, House of Representatives member Femi Bamisile and former Commissioner Dele Faparusi – who lost to Biodun Oyebanji, have reiterated their commitment and loyalty to the party. They had expressed misgivings about the primary, but they have assured the APC that they will neither go to court nor defect to another party.

Should Osun gladiators not learn from their Ekiti counterpart?

Until the factuality surrounding his mysterious demise is unraveled, the big question will continue to stare the nation in the face: who killed Bashorun Moshood Kashimaawo Olawale (M.K.O) Abiola?

Almost 24 years after, the controversy over the sudden death of the winner of the June 12, 1993 presidential election in detention remains unresolved.

Former Head of State, General Abdulsalami Abubakar, recently exacerbated the conundrum. He said Abiola died after an illness. He rejected the popular assumption that the life of the business mogul was surreptitiously terminated.

Was Abiola given adequate medical attention in detention? How often did the military rulers – General Sani Abacha, who detained Abiola, and Abdulsalami, under whose watch he died – allow his doctors to see him? If someone was held captive for winning a democratic, free and fair election, did it not amount to psychological torture?

If Abdulsalami, who was party to the military leadership that incarcerated Abiola, had released him after he succeeded the late General Abacha, perhaps the story would have been different.

Until he passed on, Abiola’s physician, Dr. Ore Falomo, always insisted that the Aare Onakakanfo of Yoruba was killed in detention.

The puzzle: was there an autopsy? Where is its report?

The remark by former Chief of Staff, Lt.-Gen. Ishaya Bamaiyi, that the eminent politician did not die of natural causes has fueled the suspicion that some forces decided to get rid of him because he had insisted on the revalidation of the annulled poll results.

Few weeks before Abiola’s sudden death was announced, the nation was hopeful about his release. He had been sighted, though a bit emaciated, in a group photograph taken when a former American Assistant Secretary of State, Susan Rice, visited him in detention. Also sighted in the photograph was the late Admiral Mike Akhigbe, former Chief of General Staff.

His shocking demise came a week he met with the then United Nations (UN) Secretary General, Mr. Kofi Annan, who claimed that Abiola “had promised to forswear his claim to the presidency and work toward a smooth transition to democracy,” according to The New York Times of July 8, 1998, a day after Abiola’s death.

It appears that Abiola was in high spirit and full of expectation. He was hale and hearty. He had hoped to regain his freedom.

But, few days after, a bewildered nation was jolted by the news of his death, which occurred a month after General Sani Abacha also died mysteriously.

Abiola died in the hand of his military tormentors. What they did after was to regroup and anoint one of their own for the 1999 succession battle.

In his book, titled: The Vindication of A General, Bamaiyi attributed Abiola’s death to a sort of inexplicable conspiracy within the military government that succeeded the Abacha re gime. Abacha incarcerated Abiola. However, Bamaiyi emphasised that he died when Abdulsalami was in the saddle.

“I believe only General Abubakar and those he used to handle Abiola’s death can tell Nigerians how Chief M.K.O Abiola died. Abiola could not have died the way he reportedly died,” he said.

However, the former Army chief also blamed the pro-democracy movement for advising the proscribed Social Democratic Party (SDP) candidate to reject the bail conditions reeled out by his captor, Abacha. The bail conditions were to tie Abiola’s hands and sentence him to self-liquidation.

According to the terms, the symbol of the struggle, who had declared himself President at Epetedo on Lagos Island, was expected to recant and give the military regime an assurance that he would abandon his mandate. Predictably, the bail was turned down by Abiola’s compatriots in the now defunct National Democratic Coalition (NADECO), not only because the late Alhaji Lamidi Adedibu was a wrong envoy, but because a conditional bail at that stage of the struggle was considered illogical.

Read Also: How MKO Abiola died, by Abdulsalami

Abiola knew that his life was in danger. He wrote several notes to the pro-democracy crusaders. In one of the letters, he stated that “Abacha has dug a grave for me and all that is left is for him to cover it”. Pro-democracy leaders who were not captured, including Pa Anthony Enahoro, Prof. Wole Soyinka, Asiwaju Bola Tinubu, Honourable Olawale Oshun, Commodore Dan Suleiman, Chief John Odigie-Oyegun, Chief Ralph Obiora, Dr. Amos Akingba, Lt.-Gen. Alani Akinrinade and Prof. Bolaji Akinyemi, ran into exile.

Many Nigerians had expressed fears for Abiola’s safety, especially when Abacha unfolded a self-succession agenda. The signs were ominous. Even the anti-June 12 detainee, General Shehu Musa Yar’Adua, who had influenced the 1994 National Conference to set a terminal date for the military regime, was later allegedly injected in the prison where he died. Mrs. Kudirat Abiola, who had sustained the struggle for the actualisation of her husband’s mandate, was murdered on the street of Lagos.

Indeed, some NADECO elements had a premonition that an ugly incident was about to occur. Unfortunately, they could not avert it.

In his book, titled: Clapping With One Hand: June 12 and the Crisis of A Nation State, Third Republic House of Representatives Chief Whip and one-time NADECO Secretary Olawale Oshun said: “It was on June 28, 1998 exactly that information reached some key elements within the democratic movement that the President-elect, Bashorun M.K.O. Abiola, would be murdered soon, and in any case, not later than September 1998. The information came via a document from a source we knew, respected and trusted.”

Despite the information, certain elements in the movement did not believe it. Although the Radio Kudirat had been previously used to disseminate information about the planned attempts on Senator Abraham Adesanya’s and General Yar’Adua’s lives, the handlers of the station dismissed the planned attempt on Abiola’s life as a wild rumour.”

On page 268 of the book, the sensitive document available to the pro-democracy movement reads as follows: “Abdulsalam Abubakar: He is an active member of the ‘die hard’ Northern oligarchy. Well respected in the military circle and a bridge between the military cultic group groomed and nurtured by the late General Sani Abacha and the liberals in the Army.

“He was chosen to be the Head of State, not because he was the next high ranking officer, but because the way had been pre-paved for him -remember ‘The Plot Against Diya?’ He is still not acceptable to Buhari, Gumei and Gwarzo, who together asked the ‘Dare Devil Cultic Group’ to obtain written pledge from him to ‘consolidate Northern domination of political power,’ which unfortunately, he wrote and signed before he was approved.

“He asked to be surrounded by new ‘Yoruba’ friends, which unfortunately would include some of the recently released political detainees. The new regime is working tirelessly to secure the friendship of this new group.

“The only ADDENDUM the new regime and its collaborators has is to: ensure that Chief M.K.O. Abiola does not become the President of Nigeria in whatever form and Hausa/Fulani domination of the presidency is not compromised.

“The new regime is: Totally against Chief M.K.O. Abiola’s mandate; Proposing a new transition to democracy by 2000 – 18 months programme to be announced on October 1, 1998; Although would include some released detainees in his Cabinet, it would still be intolerant of opposing political views and hence be as repressive as ever before; The regime is thinking of compensating the families of the slain Ogoni activists and granting amnesty for the 19 Ogoni youths as a way of placating the Ogoni people; NECON (National Electoral Commission of Nigeria) would be dissolved and a new electoral commission formed; New parties to be registered; Negotiated amnesty for Diya and co likely, but not soon.

“According to the reliable source, this regime would fight the press with all its power. An impeccable source said that all proposed elections are to be postponed. New election dates would be announced by the newly formed electoral commission.

“Let me state here categorically that this is not a prediction at all. It is the pre-conceived plan of the new regime, exposed by an insider. What is absolutely necessary now is to mount relentless and forceful pressure on the regime and drum it to its ears that anything less than the immediate restoration of a democratic government would not be acceptable to Nigerians and the international community and that the opposition is battle ready to take the bull by the horn this time round and would be ready to give all it takes to drive the military out.

“Another very important thing is that Abiola’s mandate should not be compromised at all. NALICON (National Liberation Council of Nigeria) and NADECO should rally round pro-democracy forces so as to reach a common goal.

“The important report sent to me today: A notorious gang in the Nigerian Army has completed their plan to assassinate Chief Moshood Abiola as a ‘final settlement of the Abacha/Abiola war in a “no victor, no vanquished way.’ Believe it or not, if the report given to me is anything to go by, Chief Abiola’s death would be a matter of days or before the end of September. This may look ridiculous, unthinkable or like an outright fabrication. But, believe it or not, it is true. Tell other pro-democracy groups, both abroad and home, to mount very intensive pressure on Abdulsalami Abubakar to release Chief M.K.O. Abiola now.

“The new regime will fail to protect Chief Abiola from assassins because it has not been able to persuade them to rethink the Nigerian national question. They might even seize power from Abdulsalami in order to achieve their destructive (plan). People are hell-bent (on) destroying the corporate existence of Nigeria than see Abiola become President.

“NOTE: Please, take immediate action on this report…”

Was the report embellished or exergerated? What was the degree of authenticity? Also, was there any ground to believe or doubt it?

The zoning war is raging. But chieftains of the two major parties – the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC) and main opposition Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) – appear unperturbed by the ruination the political blaze could educe. They continue to continue to hide in the cocoon of an inexplicable prevarication. When will the two main parties face the reality?

The battle cry was first sounded by the Southern Governors’ Forum. Led by Ondo State Governor Rotimi Akeredolu, the forum’s chairman, the governors emphasised during their meeting in Lagos that power shift from the North to the South was non-negotiable.

But some northern governors felt upset by the position of their southern counterparts. Led by Plateau State Governor Sam Lalong, the chairman of the region’s governors’ forum, they called for power retention in the North so that the region could call the shots for unbroken 16 years.

By next year, the North would have ruled Nigeria for almost 45 years of the 61 years since Independence.

Other northern groups supported the region’s governors. But they only backed their clamour with feeble explanations. The National Publicity Secretary of Pan-Igbo socio-cultural group, Ohanaeze Ndigbo, Chief Alex Ogbonnia, observed that the resolution of the northern governors smacked of gross insensitivity. He said it also portends a bleak future for the country.

The constitution of the APC tends to support the push for zoning, although it is usually denied. It states that “without prejudice to Article 20(2)(iii) of this constitution, the National Working Committee shall, subject to approval of the National Working Committee, make rules and regulations for the nomination of candidates through primary elections.

“All such rules, regulations and guidelines shall take into consideration and uphold the principle of federal character, gender balance, geo-political spread and rotation of offices, to as much as possible, ensure balance within the constituency covered.” For the presidential poll, Nigeria is the constituency.

Also, zoning is not alien to the PDP. The six positions – President, Vice President, Senate President, House of Representatives Speaker, Secretary to the Government of the Federation and the party’s National Chairman – are often rotated between the North and the South. This is understood by its founding fathers, who frowned at the attempt by President Goodluck Jonathan to recontest in 2015, claiming that the ticket ought to be zoned to the North.

In fact, Article 7 of the PDP constitution specifically states that it will adhere to zoning of elective offices among the various regions.

In the past, no categorical pronouncement was made about zoning. But the party’s caucuses knew how to make it happen, unlike now. In 2015, APC had zoned the presidential ticket to the North, based on the understanding and agreement that it would shift to the South in eight years.

While the APC seems to be adjusting to the inevitability of zoning, the PDP appears to be confused about the way forward. The party is divided on the vexed issue. PDP governors who were part of the Lagos Declaration cannot recant. Their northern counterparts, particularly Sokoto State Governor Aminu Tambuwal and his Bauchi counterpart, Senator Bala Mohammed, are vehemently opposed to the agitation. There is no meeting point yet.

Few days ago, Rivers State Governor Nyesom Wike threatened fire and brimstone. He maintained that the next PDP presidential flag bearer should come from the South or the party would be boxed into a risk. His position has upset Tambuwal, Bala Mohammed, former Vice President Atiku Abubakar and ex-Senate President Bukola Saraki, who are eyeing the presidency. Former Jigawa State Governor Sule Lamido also chided Wike, saying his position is not backed by law.

Also, during the week, Ijaw Leader, Chief Edwin Clark, picked up the gauntlet, firing salvos at the northern political elite for lack of accommodation and sensitivity. He said the retention of the presidency in the North would violate the principles of justice, equity and fair play. In his letter to Atiku, Saraki, Mohammed and Tambuwal, the elder statesman advised the northern aspirants to shelve their presidential ambition in the spirit of understanding, balance, national spread and equity.

The mere mention of zoning underscores a serious problem. Nigeria is a marriage of incompatible social formations lumped together by British interlopers. Its federalism is premised on unitarism. The distribution of power and resources is skewed. The tribes are a multitude. Their differences are pronounced. The races do not subscribe to the same religion, ideas and values. There is fear of domination within each of them. There is fear of marginalisation. There is permanent suspicion.

The presidency has not been a unifying factor. The antagonistic ethnic groups only feel comfortable when a son of soil occupies Aso Villa in Abuja, the seat of power. To mitigate any conflict, the idea of ‘turn by turn’ has been a big issue. It sounds logical, persuasive and convincing. It seems to make zoning or rotation between the North and the South a plausible strategy to reassure the regional units that they are not excluded.

But, zoning does not seem to have a strong constitutional backing. There is no direct or specific provision for it in the 1999 Constitution. The constitutions of political parties are inferior. Zoning is a product of political experience. It is a convention that political parties have come to embrace. The assumption is that rotation could foster a sense of inclusion, participation, belonging and national unity and the numerous federating units.

Yet, not all party members have respect for zoning. Again, the position of such people is constitutionally defensible. The conditions for eligibility for the highest office in the land, as outlined in the constitution, do not include zoning. If the President of Nigeria can acquire a national outlook instead of decking the ethnic lenses, if he can redress injustice and promote equity and fairness in governance, his place of origin would not matter.

Also, if Nigeria is run as a true federation and states are allowed to substantially control their resources, there would be less acrimony and more of hard work, healthy competition and unity in diversity.

Too many resources at the centre breed a too powerful President and Commander-in-Chief who is not perceived as a national and unifying figure,

but as a product and representative of his tribe, despite being sustained by votes of the six zones but only in office to promote mainly the interest of his tribe.

Since Nigeria is not one, and the ethnic groups must compulsorily co-exist – as it now appears – the elite have championed power rotation to facilitate their access to power and resources. The masses across the tribes sometimes delude themselves into thinking that their zones will savour relative prosperity when their kith and kin are in the saddle. While the North has produced Prime Minister Abubakar Tafawa Balewa, Gen. Yakubu Gowon, Gen. Murtala Mohammed, Alhaji Shehu Shagari, Gen. Muhammadu Buhari, Gen. Ibrahim Babangida, Gen. Sani Abacha, Alhaji Umaru Yar’Adua and now President Buhari, the Northern Region, minus Abuja, is not better than the South.

But, there is sense in believing that in a plural society like Nigeria, where integration is a challenge, rotating the presidency may foster a sense of inclusion and belonging.

Instructively, the arguments for zoning also have historical basis and justification. In the Second Republic, the leaders of the ruling National Party of Nigeria (NPN) knew that another northerner would not have succeeded Shagari in 1987, if the military had not toppled the civilian regime. What was not certain was whether the ticket should be zoned to the West or East.

The ill-fated Third Republic did not begin on the note of zoning. Babangida, who had designed the transition programme to fail, threw it open. After a lot of hurdles, the late Chief Moshood Abiola of the proscribed Social Democratic Party (SDP) won the June 12, 1993 presidential election. It was criminally annulled. The zoning agitation started afterwards, during the Abdulsalami Abubakar transition programme. Although zoning was meant to serve as compensation for the injury of June 12, it became a mechanism for resolving marginalisation and building trust and stability.

The pattern was set in 1999 when Gen. Olusegun Obasanjo, from the Southwest, became President on the platform of the PDP. His challenger in the Alliance for Democracy (AD/All Peoples Party (APP), Chief Olu Falae, also came from the West.

The trend was sustained in 2007 when the PDP picked Yar’Adua as its presidential candidate. The Action Congress of Nigeria (ACN), in throwing up Atiku as its flag bearer, also considered zoning. The pattern was truncated by Yar’Adua’s death when Vice President Goodluck Jonathan assumed the reins in 2009 and contested in 2011. In 2015, he was stopped as agitations for power shift filled the air. In 2015, when Buhari contested, the PDP fielded Jonathan. He had the constitutional right to contest. But zoning was violated. So, he lost. But in 2019, when APC also fielded Buhari, the PDP corrected its mistake by fielding a northerner in the spirit of zoning. In those times, when the ticket was understandably zoned to the North, Southern politicians knew their boundaries and cooperated fully as loyal party members. They never joined the presidential race.

If the three regions in the South are united in the pursuit of rotation, it is most likely they will achieve the goal. If there is any crack in the wall, the North, as usual, would exploit the division.

However, zoning is not the end, if the tickets are zoned to the South. The three regions -Southwest, Southeast and Southsouth – must still cross the hurdle of micro-zoning.

Today, the argument about merit has been employed to whittle down considerations for zoning. It is misplaced. Is there any zone in Nigeria that does not parade competent Nigerians with intimidating credentials? If the ticket is zoned to any region, there is no shortage of experienced, patriotic and competent aspirants who can lead the country.

The onus is on the two major parties to deepen political practices that can engender unity, cohesion and equity among the regions, instead of playing up the ethnicity and religious factors to gain advantage, create mistrust and suspicion, and deepen disunity that would be detrimental to the future survival of the federation.