UnderTow

In a week that saw him say almost all the right things and make certain useful observations on every subject he exposited on, Bauchi State Governor, Bala Mohammed, succumbed on Thursday to a moment of beguiling controversy. It is not clear what exactly the temptation was, but the issues involved touched upon the rationality or agreeability of herdsmen wielding weapons, as well as Governor Samuel Ortom of Benue State’s recent outburst. The Bauchi governor appears to believe that other tribes in Nigeria, as well as south-western and south-eastern governors, are making a broil over the herdsmen-indigenes conflicts in their states. His argument was that the herdsmen, as a matter of necessity and self-defence, had to carry weapons, and seeing as the constitution guarantees the right of every Nigerian to live freely in any part of the country and move freely within, then why the fuss about the illegality of expelling them? In that summarisation of the issue, the governor betrayed a fine but faux appraisal of the conflicts. Indeed, the governor reduced the issue to being nothing more than a transgression against the herdsmen’s rights to free movement and life.

His account: “The west does not want to accommodate other tribes but we are accommodating your tribe in Bauchi. We have Yoruba, who have stayed in Bauchi for over 150 years, some of them have being made permanent secretaries in Gombe, Bauchi and Borno. But because the Fulani man is practicing the tradition of transhuman pastoralism, he has been exposed to cattle rustlers who carry a gun, kill him and take away his cows, and he has no option but to carry AK-47 because the government and the society are not protecting him. It’s the fault of the government. Nobody owns any forests in Nigeria; it’s owned by Nigeria. Under section 23, 24 and 25 of the Constitution, every Nigerian is free to stay anywhere. Anybody can speak anyhow but we are only exercising restraint. If cybercrime is being practised mostly by one tribe, you don’t criminalise the whole tribe because of this. That’s why you journalists need to be sensitive and exercise restraint. Avoid writing reports that will threaten the unity of this country… My brother and my colleague Ortom started all this as regards herders clashes with other tribes. That’s why I must commend the Chairman of the Northern Governors Forum, Solomon Lalong, he is a hero in the promotion of peace despite his diverse and minority background, he put an end to the Incessant fighting between herdsmen and other tribes in Plateau.”

How Mr Bala came about the idea that no one owns the forests in Nigeria can only be speculated upon. As a governor, he would have been expected to acquaint himself with at least Section 1 of the Land Use Act (1978), which states that, “Subject to the provisions of this Act, all land comprised in the territory of each State in the Federation is hereby vested in the Governor of that State, and such land shall be held in trust and administered for the use and common benefit of all Nigerians in accordance with the provisions of this Act.” This includes forest reserves, from where Governor Rotimi Akeredolu of Ondo State sought to expel unregistered herdsmen. Has Governor Bala perhaps not been exercising his legal rights as a governor with respect to land? Has he thought all along that the lands in his state belong to the federal government and not the state government? The governor has neither displayed a proper understanding of the issues on ground nor proved that he roundly followed up the progression of events until the executive orders by governors and the forceful eviction of Fulani herdsmen allegedly inspired by Yoruba activist, Sunday Igboho. He also may be labouring under the impression that Governor Samuel Ortom of Benue State is simply grandstanding and rather myopic in his recent outbursts concerning the federal government’s bias towards one tribe to the fatal detriment of the other tribes. In short, the governor could and should have suffered his disagreeable position on herdsmen-tribal clashes to retain the anonymity it had previously enjoyed. To his ruin, he did not; and although many will not think any pro-herdsmen sentiment worth their while, more people have pointed the accusatory finger at him, questioning his credentials as a leader.

More, Section 41(1) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, not 23 (national ethics), 24 (duties of the citizen) nor 25 (citizenship), guarantees the freedom of any Nigerian to move anywhere within the country. That right is however derogated by Section 41(2), and even his quoted Section 24(d) would have posed a problem to anyone living in an area without making any positive and useful contribution. To acknowledge the rights of criminal herdsmen to freedom of movement, without so much as a mention of the losses and disadvantages that the aggrieved indigenes of those areas have suffered at their hands, would be in short to gratify that meanest of human frailties, closedmindedness, and disqualify oneself from the circumspection that should attend great leaders at all times. This, unfortunately, was the camp Governor Bala chose to pitch his tent with, carrying on as though to argue that the wielding of weapons should become a perfectly natural thing to Nigerians without so much as questioning where they may have obtained these weapons. Reports have revealed that these weapons were owned illegally anyway. If a person has a legitimate fear for his safety, the appropriate thing to do would be to apply for a license to carry whatever weapon he may so require for his safety. Does the governor know this?

To continue in the same breath as if he were not a governor, and by extension a part of the government, would make many of the aggrieved parties, including the governors he so excoriated with his faulty arguments, cringe. Some, reluctant to undervalue his comprehension of the deeper and more nuanced issues relating to the herdsmen’s possessing weaponry of the sophisticated kind, believe that he is simply cozening the facts of the issue to satisfy his tribal or perhaps economic interests. That much may be doubtful and almost unfair to the governor, despite his otherwise excellent pronouncements on issues like rape or the rechannelling of some N500m recovered from ghost workers’ salaries to paying off gratuities. It was unfair of him to dismiss the opinions and efforts of his counterparts, one of whom has taken the welcome but perhaps dramatic step of conducting security tours round his state. Despite how dramatic and unnecessary some may believe such a step is, it means some governors are at least taking the issue of insecurity in their states serious enough to try to get to the root of it, instead of sitting on a high horse and pontificating dismissively on the issue. Is it not presumptuous of him to assume that the governors that have taken steps to regularise the activities of herdsmen in their states have not conducted their due diligence in detecting the source of a heinous criminal syndicate that has not only haunted but harassed and terrorised their communities for almost a decade?

But such is the power of what some have described as inordinate ethnic fidelity, an accusation thrown at not only him but many northern governors in general, and an accusation which some of the governors have made spirited efforts to extricate themselves from. Indeed, Governor Bala appears to have forgotten that Nigerians do need the beef and leather that come from cattle. The fact that Nigerians are willing to forgo it speaks volumes. They reason is that it is more pertinent to preserve their lives than to enjoy whatever nourishments may accrue from the consumption of what they will now view as blood cattle. However, the more important point is that while regular Nigerians appear willing to boycott beef, governors are more circumspect and are calling for a ranching or modern system of raising cattle. They have lost too many people for comfort, mostly to the activities of some of the herdsmen who bear these weapons illegally.

An important point the misfiring governor raised, which needs correction, is that the Fulani in general are being stereotyped as criminal herdsmen. This is not true. Herdsmen have been identified as belonging primarily to the Fulani, Hausa and Ebira tribes. There may be others, but of those three, the Fulani are the most popular. Statistics and history prove this. The validity or otherwise of his claim that ethnic profiling lies at the heart of the claim that other governors have dedicated time and effort to pitching tribes against one another is suspect. Governor Seyi Makinde, his Oyo State counterpart, who has been accused of a glacial and apathetic approach to insecurity in his state, preached peace to the wrath and anger of his people. It is also unfair to accuse Governor Ortom, whose state has suffered more than most from militant herdsmen, of fanning the embers of discord with his statements. To the contrary, his statements are an umpteenth echo of the general sentiments of Nigerians concerning the ethnic fundamentalist accusation they have made against the federal government. It is this same federal government that has failed the people – perhaps the only correct statement Governor Bala made to the press.

The governor is no stranger to controversy: until his election as governor, he was hounded by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC). After his election, the Independent Corrupt Practices Commission (ICPC) harried him and tried to square account with him. He has emerged from these controversies, only two of many, stronger, grizzled and immovable. He, however, should be alive to even his own limits before stoking the flames of controversy with his polemic stance on ethnic controversies. Seeing as he does not have the philosophical or ideological sense of fairness required to judge correctly the nature and extent of ethnic issues, he may find obscurity a truer companion than the harsh scrutiny that comes with airing narrowly construed, illiberal and borderline positions.

UnderTow

When President Muhammadu Buhari “accepted the resignation” of his faithful service chiefs, who were long overdue for exit from office, two weeks ago the public was more than a little joyful. The vindictive and the aggrieved among them, who had scores to settle with the service chiefs, raised the cry to hang the men. They begged the International Criminal Court (ICC), the United Nations (UN) and even the United States (US) to have their way with all four of them. Some, however, knew that was all wishful thinking. They did not know why, after months of tarrying, the president sprang into action and semantically put the men out of circulation. They suspected it was only a mild anaesthetic and he would soon pull the hare out of the hat. They were not disappointed. Last week, the president forwarded five names to the senate for confirmation as non-career ambassadors. They were Abayomi Olonisakin, Tukur Buratai, Ibok-Ete Ibas, Sadique Abubakar, and Mohammed Usman. Until their recent retirements, all five of them were security chiefs. It remains unclear why the president is so loyal to the security chiefs that he has nominated them as non-career ambassadors. The air is still thick with the smoke left by 52 ambassadors whose appointments were finalised after months of gruelling delay.

While career ambassadors go through trainings in diplomacy and usually carry a high level of requisite education, non-career ambassadors are usually nominated at the prerogative of the president, but they must be capable and meriting individuals. The presidency, maintaining its trademark taciturnity, did not disclose its exact reasons for nominating the recently retired security chiefs as ambassadors. Were they meriting individuals? What skills did they possess in that regard that made them more deserving than other Nigerians of the ambassadorial nominations? Most importantly, should Caesar’s wife not be above suspicion? Already there are those who have theorised that the presidency only nominated them to grant them diplomatic immunity. These are the sorts of controversies that the president should have avoided at all costs. His nomination of the former service chiefs, who were hated by many Nigerians to the extent that the effecting of their overdue retirement caused celebration, to represent the same Nigerians portrays President Buhari as being deaf and insensitive to the people’s pulse. Indeed, the only thing standing between the service chiefs and their ambassadorial deployments will be the National Assembly. Will the legislative arm of government recognise the presidency’s sleight of hand for what it really is? The same sleight of hand was executed by the government in the disbandment of the Special Anti-Robbery Squad (SARS) and the creation of the Special Weapons and Tactics (SWAT) to the dismay of Nigerians.

If it is not already so, it is fast become a habit of the presidency to mock the intelligence of Nigerians in that illusionary manner. After months of outcry characterised by marked federal aloofness, the presidency suddenly acts, only nominally altering the status quo but fundamentally changing nothing. It is the type of inscrutable and apathetic governance that satisfies only those in power and goes against the very grain of democracy. There is no evidence to prove that the presidency will ever repent of its unwelcome politics. It will continue to fly in the face of Nigerians whenever they air their displeasure or make demands concerning how they want the country to be run. The senate, for its part, cannot be trusted to appreciate its oversight functions on the presidency well enough to execute them. They cannot even be trusted to unite in ideology on the rightness or otherwise of grating policies. So for as long as too many chefs brew and spoil the federal broth, the presidency will only get better at its trickeries and Nigerians will continue to spectate in this macabre theatre of illusions.

UnderTow

Inspector General of Police (IGP), Mohammed Adamu, should have hung up his uniform, complete with boots and beret, on February 1 this year in line with the Police Act (2020). But as has become the custom with the Muhammadu Buhari presidency, controversy has reared its all too familiar and unwelcome head. The IGP commenced service on February 1, 1986 and has now spent 35 years and five days in the police force. In that period, he spent about three days illegally in office, working under a cloud of uncertainty, donning the police uniform to the frothing chagrin of Nigerians and generally receiving opprobrious media attention. Section 18(8) of the Police Act compels the IGP to retire after 35 years in service or attaining the age of 60, whichever comes first. The public believes that the man to blame for the IGP’s predicament is the president who appointed him and recently extended his tenure in office by another three months. There are some others who are convinced that the IGP actively sought the tenure extension he was eventually granted, but these are nebulous police matters, and except top-level drama occurs at the presidency, the travesty will remain unclear for quite a while. Already, Mr Adamu was operating under harsh but seemingly deserved public scrutiny. The public has since postured to double its scrutiny of every breath he continually draws in office.

Extending the embattled IGP’s tenure in office on Thursday, the presidency, through the Minister of Police Affairs, Mohammad Dingyadi, had said: “Mr President has decided that the present IGP, Mohammed Adamu, will continue to serve as the IG for the next three months, to allow for a robust and efficient process of appointing a new IG…This is not unconnected to the desire of Mr President to not only have a smooth handover, but to also ensure that the right officer is appointed into that position. Mr President is extending by three months to allow him get into the process of allowing a new one.”

Read Also; Lawyers fault Buhari’s extension of Police IG Adamu’s tenure

The process that the president is now about to get into, according to the minister, is outlined in the Police Act, Section 7(3) of which is clear that the Inspector general of Police shall be appointed by the President on the advice of the Police Council from among serving members of the Nigeria Police Force. Many issues remain unclear, however, in the president’s conduct. When, if he did, did the IGP hand in his retirement letter? What were the presidency and the Police Council so busy with that they could not prevent this extension, another of several controversies, from occurring? Was it slothfulness or pure irresponsible indecision? Or was it a general scornful disregard of the law and due process?

Nigerians noted the prompt and decisive manner President Joe Biden of the United States nominated and appointed his top officials and aides shortly after winning the election. Analysing his efficiency and promptitude, experts diagnosed his rapid appointments as being a zeal to perform admirably. They are not wrong. Any president who has a handle on his presidency and possesses a clear ideology will not dally on matters such as the appointment of the IGP. Retired police chiefs and experts agree that former IGP, Ibrahim Idris, was not half as efficient as his predecessor, Solomon Arase, and was serially disrespectful to the National Assembly, and could not properly control the rogue Special Anti-Robbery Squad (SARS). They say he ran the force aground and that Mr Adamu simply inherited the problem but was not ideological and visionary astute enough to turn things around. Indeed, they argue that the IGP’s impuissance was exposed nakedly first in his repeatedly disobeyed disbandment of the hated SARS and eventually during the abysmal and impolitic handling of the #EndSARS protests.

The presidency and the IGP will not agree with that point of view. The former because it is as culpable as the latter for the structural decay, and moral as well as morale impoverishment of the Police Force, and the latter because he believes he has done his best and that should count for something. The Police Council, meanwhile, has been silent, unwilling to attract attention to itself in the fiasco that has created an anorexic relationship between the police and the rule of law. Paragraph 27 of the Third Schedule to the 1999 Constitution of Nigeria explains that the Nigeria Police Council shall comprise the following members: the President who shall be the Chairman; the Governor of each State of the Federation; the Chairman of the Police Service Commission; and the Inspector-General of Police. Accused of possessing only a kindergarten understanding of human rights and the law, the police force has continually operated seemingly unchecked for years. Although empowered by Paragraph 28(b) of the Third Schedule of the Constitution to perform supervisory functions on the Nigeria Police Force, what has the Police Council done or said? Yes, Governor Seyi Makinde of Oyo State, like many other governors before him, recently piped up on the necessity of state police forces. No, the public does not expect the Police Council to say a word concerning the legality or otherwise of the tenure extension of the IGP. No one wants to fry that kettle of fish for now, so they will let sleeping dogs lie.

The excuse for elongating the tenure of the IGP is only as valid as the argument that the Police Council and the president slacked most woefully and disrespectfully. They knew the IGP’s tenure was coming to an end and should have taken the appropriate steps to ensure that smooth handover the president is so desirous of. At the very least, they could have appointed the next most senior police officer to function as the IGP in an acting capacity. But to walkover the law in the manner brazenly adopted by the president, with not so much as a blush or a stammer, is the unimaginable reality that Nigerians are forced to cope with. The Police Force is desperately in need of some visionary leadership, one that can display the necessary fidelity to champion the cause of the policemen employed in the force that they may function better and more effectively. The IGP could not provide that leadership, and preparations should have been made for his impending retirement months ago. But again, indecision has haunted the Buhari-led administration. It remains to be seen how quickly the irreversible disaster can be mitigated.