The Nation Newspaper

Category: Saturday

  • How Lawan misfired over appointments

    An innate attribute of Nigerian politicians is their ability to surprise and amaze. And the Senate President, Senator Ahmad Lawan, has just proved that he is not in short supply of this attribute with the announcement of six aides whose appointments have left political observers in utter shock.

    Numbered among them, according to a June 19, 2019 memo from the Chief of Staff to the President of the Senate, Babagana Muhammad Aji, to the Clerk of the National Assembly, are Dr (Mrs) Betty Okoroh (Special Assistant on Administration to the President of the Senate), Mohammed Isa (Special Assistant on Media and Publicity), Olu Onemola (Special Assistant on New Media), Tope Brown Olowoyeye (Senior Legislative Aide on Media and Publicity (Photographer) and Ogechukwu E. Nwankwoh (Senior Legislative Aide on Schedules).

    One thing the appointees all have in common is that they were all aides to the immediate past Senate President, Dr. Bukola Saraki, who is reputed for doing everything he could to frustrate the plan by President Muhammadu Buhari and the All Progressives Congress (APC) to help Lawan become the President of the 8th Senate. The foregoing is compounded by the appointment, during the week, of Dr Festus Adedayo, an avid critic of APC, Buhari and all they stand for, as Special Adviser to the Senate President on Media and Publicity.

    All the six appointees were said to have been recommended to Lawan by Baba Ahmed, a top aide of Saraki. Lawan was said to have asked Ahmed to help him recruit aides and the latter wasted no time in recommending Saraki boys. He (Ahmed) in turn asked a former media adviser to Saraki, Yusuf Olaniyonu, to recommend a media adviser for the Senate President and Olaniyonu recommended Adedayo, a known Saraki’s loyalist in the media, and Lawan promptly approved his appointment.

    As would be expected, the appointments have turned Lawan’s admirers and supporters against him. Although he yielded slightly to pressure by dropping Adedayo’s name from the list of appointees, he insisted on keeping the remaining five.

    The questions being asked are: Is he so naïve as to surround himself with loyalists of his bitter foe and chieftain of the opposition party? Can he side-step the infamous banana peel in the Senate by starting out in this way? How introspective is he? Does he really have what it takes to lead the Senate? Did he enter into a deal with Saraki without the knowledge of those who backed him to become the Senate President? Questions, questions and more questions.

  • Edo hands of fellowship

    With barely a year to the next governorship election in Edo State, these are interesting times for political observers with keen interest in the politics of the state.

    With the rumour rife that all is not well between Governor Godwin Obaseki and the former governor of the state and National Chairman of the All Progressives Congress (APC), Comrade Adams Oshiomhole, every move in the camps of the two politicians is bound to provoke interest.

    Such is the above picture of Obaseki and a chieftain of Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), Pastor Osagie-Ize-Iyamu, at the birthday thanksgiving service in honour of Pastor Ize-Iyamu and his wife in Benin City yesterday.

    Considering that the two were bitter foes in the 2016 governorship contest with Obaseki as the candidate of APC and Ize-Iyamu flying the flag of PDP, one cannot but wonder what discussion the two statesmen are so engrossed in that they can hardly afford to bat an eyelid.

    Could they be reviewing the poll? Could they be previewing a possible re-match? Obaseki has said he would seek a second term, but Pastor, as Ize-Iyamu is called by his admirers, is yet to throw his hat in the ring. Will he try a second time? Could they also be reviewing the situation in the state, particularly the crisis rocking the APC in the state?

    Obaseki has said he would not share the state’s money with anybody, a statement interpreted in enlightened quarters as a jab at Oshiomhole, his estranged godfather and former governor of the state. In the 2016 election, Pastor was at the receiving end of Oshiomhole who accused him of fronting for the godfathers that he (Oshiomhole) had retired. Could they have been discussing godfatherism, its relevance in the politics of the state and the merits and demerits of the phenomenon?

    Would Obaseki have visited Pastor two years ago when he was in the good books of the comrade ex-governor? What is this telling us about 2020? Is this a sign that there could be a realignment of forces in the state as we inch towards 2020? Will Pastor queue behind the governor to try and retire the comrade ex-governor from the state’s politics like the latter says he did to those elders the pastor kowtows to? Is he telling Obaseki “l’m coming to retire you and your godfather?”

    The unfolding drama in Edo is indeed interesting.

  • Real significance of June 12

    One of the most engaging, incisive, polemical, albeit controversial, treatises I have read on the June 12, 1993, presidential annulment crisis is that by the late Marxist economist and revolutionary theorist as well as activist, Professor Eskor Toyo. In an 82-page pamphlet published in 1994 and titled ‘Crisis and Democracy in Nigeria: (Comments on the Transition from the Babangida Regime)’, the author trenchantly disputes the widespread contention that the June 12 election was indeed the freest and fairest in the country’s history while also vigorously questioning the democratic credentials and integrity of the military president, General Ibrahim Babangida’s, convoluted political transition programme. It would appear to me that the central point of the professor’s submission was that an essentially dishonest, manipulative, deceptive and rigidly regulated transition programme like that of the IBB regime could not have logically produced a genuinely credible democratic outcome.

    Eskor Toyo raised several reasons why he took this position. First, he argued that the two-party system, which produced the Social Democratic Party (SDP) and National Republican Convention (NRC), was imposed and thus deprived many more willing Nigerians the opportunity and right to form parties of their own and deepen competition in the democratic space. Second, the political processes had become so monetized under the Babangida transition beyond what had ever been witnessed in the country’s political history to the detriment of thousands of poor Nigerians who were disadvantaged from either contesting elections or playing any meaningful roles within political parties. Third, the administration’s Structural Adjustment Programme (SAP) had pauperized millions of Nigerians thus making them vulnerable to the cynical manipulation of unscrupulous money bag politicians. Fourth, the administration had banned, unbanned and again banned some of the country’s most experienced and public spirited politicians from participating in the process thus further weakening competition in the system. Fifth, the two candidates who emerged to contest the elections, Chief MKO Abiola and Alhaji Bashir Tofa, were not just fabulously wealthy; they were personal friends of the military president.

    On rereading the pamphlet once again this week, it occurred to me that Professor Eskor Toyo had made another subtle point which is critical to understanding the real significance of June 12. And this is that if a society accepts the right and legitimacy of an essentially authoritarian, even anti-democratic organization, like the military to purport to play a messianic corrective role and lead it on the path of democracy, does it not logically surrender to the dictatorship the right to determine if the ‘pupil’ had met its standard of democracy or not? This is how Eskor Toyo put it: “Once the chorus band of ‘non-extremists’ in the country acquiesced to the military’s assumption of a phony right to give the country democracy, award it a constitution, decide for it what political values are acceptable, prescribe the number of parties it should have, and confer a free and fair election on it, it handed over to the military the right to decide what to accept or reject”.

    He continued rather provocatively: “Since the Nigerian elite and their camp followers accepted the right of the military regime to conduct a ‘free and fair’ election for them, they have to accept the verdict of the military dictatorship on any election conducted by the dictatorship. If people are willing to accept the Local Government, State and National Assembly elections for no other reason than that the military regime accepted the results – and this is the truth – they have no reason not to accept the rejection of the June 12 election and the setting up of an Interim Government by the same regime”. What the professor is saying here, I surmise, is that the best antidote to the ills of democracy is the continuous practice of democracy – not any form of authoritarianism.

    Professor Toyo’s arguments may appear as idealistic and academic. But the fact that his views did not necessarily conform to the conventional wisdom of the time does not mean that they cannot be productively interrogated to enable us appreciate the real significance of June 12. The IBB;s regime political transition programme was indeed flawed in many respects. But it also had some positive aspects that made the historic outcome of the June 12 election possible. For instance, the imposed two-party system played a key role in facilitating Chief MKO Abiola’s pan -Nigerian victory. Despite his immense wealth and national clout, it is not unlikely that a multi party electoral system may have diminished the territorial spread of his victory no matter how marginally.

    Again, even though the two parties were widely described as government created parastatals, Nigeria’s vibrant and dynamic political class readily took ownership of the parties and used them as platforms for keenly contested elections. Again, since they received generous subventions from government and had functional offices in all states and local governments, the parties had well structured administrative organizations and could run effective campaigns nationwide. Also, although the regime’s ‘new breed’ policy was a woeful failure with the so called ‘old breed’ politicians still calling the shots from behind the scenes within the two parties, a whole new generation of politicians were able to make their entry onto the political scene in that era. Furthermore, the electoral process employed on June 12, which was the Option A4 ‘Open ballot’ voting system was simple and uncomplicated, which helped to make the then NEC to count, collate and record the results with all agents having copies in all polling units across the country. This was one reason why the military’s annulment of the election lacked credibility and was ultimately unsustainable.

    However, the real significance of the annulment for me stems from Professor Eskor Toyo’s poser on whether a political transition programme widely discredited as lacking credibility and integrity could at the same time have produced a free, fair and credible election as June 12 is universally described or whether a society that allows a military dictatorship to tutor it on the tenets and practice of democracy can question the military supervisor’s right to determine the success or otherwise of an election it midwifed. I think that the June 12, 1993, presidential election marked a watershed in the attitude of critical segments of Nigeria’s society to the purported role of the military as corrective messiahs who are qualified to engage in extensive political engineering experiments designed to ‘return the country to democracy’.

    When the military intervened in the bloody coup that terminated the First Republic in January 1966, they were given a rousing and enthusiastic welcome by large segments of the populace as saviours of the polity. Under their watch, the country descended to three years of a bloody civil war in which over two million lives were lost. The problems of corruption, fragile national unity and economic underdevelopment, which the military claimed to have intervened to address remained with the country and had even worsened in certain respects in 13 years of military rule. Yet, the military was again widely hailed for restoring democracy and voluntarily returning to the barracks as if they had done the country a favour in October 1979.

    Four years later, partly as a result of the inherited problems from the preceding 13 years of military rule between 1966 and 1979, however, as well as the venality and incompetence of the politicians, the military again intervened in the political process to terminate the second republic in December 1983. Once again they were hailed as military redeemers of an abused polity. Eight years of Babangida’s rule between 1985 and 1993, demonstrated to Nigerians that the military had no answers to the nation’s problems. Virtually all aspects of national life had degenerated under their watch including the military as an institution and this despite the humongous oil revenues that accrued to the country under their watch. When, therefore, the IBB administration decided to organize the June 12, 1993, presidential election at the end of its convoluted Political Transition Programme, Nigerians enthusiastically participated in the exercise because they were fed up with military rule and wanted an elected government with a greater sense of responsiveness and responsibility and one that would be more amenable to accountability and transparency.

    With the June 12 election, a critical mass of Nigerians for the first time took ownership of an election. The subsequent annulment was fiercely opposed and could not stand. A critical mass of Nigerians held Babangida to his word. The military had forever lost its luster as political messiahs who could always do Nigerians the favour of conducting democratic experiments in political engineering, returning to the barracks only to come back once again purportedly to rescue Nigerians from the corruption and misrule of politicians. Cynical, ethno-regional manipulations, corrupt inducement and the most brutish terror under Abacha could only slow down the struggle. It had become unstoppable and gathered momentum practically paralyzing the nation until heaven’s coup that swept Abacha off in 1998 and the hurried military exit of May 29, 1999.

    What June 12 represents, therefore, is the commencement of Nigeria’s second liberation struggle culminating in the military exit of May 29. Because of June 12, military rule and indeed any form of dictatorship are unlikely to be able to thrive in Nigeria anymore. That second liberation struggle was consolidated by the successful change of leadership through the ballot box at the centre in the February 2015 election. One can only hope that politicians in public office on the platform of political parties at various levels across the country will learn the appropriate lessons. Nigeria’s democracy is coming of age and an ever increasingly conscious electorate is unlikely to suffer fools in public office gladly any more.

     

  • Democracy, checks and public opinion

    NIGERIA   has  finally  inaugurated its June 12 Democracy Day  with a long speech  by our Head of State and  President on the day. That  speech  by our  president showed  clearly  that  he knows  Nigeria and  its problems like the back  of his hand  but is  asking for time and  understanding of his  mode of  operation in tackling the challenges.  As  a Nigerian,  and a patriotic one too, I   will not  offer an opinion on that  June  12  speech in  which  the president traced  his  personal  history  and contribution right from his free  education as a student, to the War  Colleges in the US and  India, up  to his role as  a  warrior in  the   civil  war  fought  to keep  Nigeria one. I  was moved  by the speech  really  and  I wonder  why  the Senate  did  not go ahead  and discuss it.  That  refusal  however  and the way and  manner the National  Assembly   leadership  emerged  with full on line prime time   media  coverage  of  the election of the principal  officers,  provides  some food  for  thought today.  That  together  with  a letter purportedly  written  by  MKO  to  late  Human  Rights  lawyer  Gani  Fawehimi  in which  he commented  on  the relationship between the  law  and public  opinion with  regard to  his lost  mandate form  the kernel  of our discussion  today. In  fact  my mission today  is to  see  the opinion  MKO  expressed  on the legality  of his mandate in the light  of the  much  publicized  leadership election in the National  Assembly   this  week. But   first   I    have  to state  what  MKO, famous  prisoner now  post humously  honoured with  naming of the National Stadium in Abuja   after   him, actually  said.

    According to MKO’s,  letter the former Secretary General  of  the  Commonwealth  told  MKO  that  he  was seeking  legal  opinion on the currency of his June  12  mandate. Mko said  he  bluntly  told  him  or  asked  what  his locus  was in seeking legal  opinion on his  mandate and  he did that eye ball  to  eye ball.  He  then   proceeded  to tell  the distinguished  diplomat that  nagging  political  problems  do not  always   lend themselves  to legal  opinions and that  the  way  and manner of public opinion are not  dictated  by the fine  points  of  the law. According to the report on this letter,  MKO died two  days later  but it was clear  he was assuring Gani  Fawehimi that  he  would  not betray  his mandate  and  that  the truth  will  prevail.  Which  is what  finally  happened and June  12 has  now become our Democracy  Day  which  is  huge tribute to  MKO’s  tenacity  and  principle  that his  mandate  was   not for sale and  he is indeed the Martyr  of  Nigeria’s  democracy. This  is  a sharp  contrast  to the  brutal  envy  and designs of those who ridiculed MKO’s  mandate  by saying  he  was not  the Messiah  of  our politics  and  democracy.  Such  leaders instituted May  29  as  our democracy  day  and now the Buhari  Administration   has  bowed to public opinion and cast  aside May  29 and  has passed  bill to the National  Assembly  to make the law that  June 12 becomes our Democracy   Day. Really  one can recall  the saying that ‘the mills of justice may grind slowly, but they  grind exceedingly well‘. I  can  imagine  MKO, the  man of endless  proverbs with  his   wide   toothy   grin,  wherever he is in the universe  raising   his arm  in his   famous  V victory  sign   and  signing off  on his  new  June   12  democracy  day with  another  fine proverb   chuckling   satisfactorily   that  ‘he  who  laughs last, laughs best.’  May  his  great  soul  rest  in peace Amen.

    Let  us now ally   the  June 12 developments  we have identified  with  the  actions  of our  legislature in the first  and second term of the Buhari  Adminstration . Of  course  the ruling party.  APC has  learnt  a hard  lesson  from the way the former Senate President  hijacked that  position in 2015 and kept it against  all  odds   to the chagrin and vexation of a  ruling  party to which he belonged at the onset before  defecting to the PDP. ’ Once  beaten twice shy  ‘was the  motto  of APC this  time  around. But  Nigerians  need   not have been exposed  to the long,  time wasting election of  these  leaders, because it is apparent that  our legislators  once elected become immune  to public opinion with  regard  to  benefits of democracy  that Nigerians  who elected  them  should  enjoy. In addition it is questionable that the present legislature  can  perform its legal  function of checking the executive powers  given the way and manner the APC leaders of the legislature emerged  in landslide victories  at  the carnival  of legislative elections. Will  the present legislature provide the oversight and checks and balances  expected in a presidential  system  which  the Saraki senate provided,  albeit  by  default from a stolen senate presidency?  More  importantly  will   the new legislative  leadership  give its  word now that budget  padding will   be a thing of the past and not done secretly  now  that the legislature is  in league with the executive. The  president has roundly  condemned the last Speaker and Senate president for delaying the economic  program of his government with their hostility and we hope this  new legislature  will  speed  up  things but within  the ambits  of  the rule  of  law.

    Now  with  regard  to the mood or public  opinion our  legislators  need  to  be told  some  home  truths  and  know as MKO   noted  wisely that nagging political  questions do  not  always  follow  legal opinions.  This  is best  illustrated  by the saying  that  the law  could be an ass at times. That  in Nigeria explains why legislators who  are expected to vet  the budget  and prune it in terms of cost control proceed  to balloon its  size  by  adding funds for their constituency  projects to it thus   making a mockery  of the presidential system  of checks and balances.  A    similar  example  exists in the US where  the House of Reps  have the Democrats in majority to  impeach  the America President Donald Trump  but  knows that the Senate where  the Republicans are in majority  will  not play ball.  Another  good example of public  opinion  trumping the law is the situation in the US  again where  the Speaker and the Democratic Party  are not on song in impeaching Donald Trump  because opinion polls  show the public is against it.  Just   as   the legislators are not happy with the US President for   failing,  to honor subpoenas legally  issued  for  Trump’s  government  appointees  to  come and explain their roles in government  which  is a legal  function of the legislators.

    In  effect  then MKO  saw through  the machinations and sloppy  legalisms of those  who wanted  him  to seek legal opinion on his mandate by asking what  their locus  was  and  challenging them  presciently  that the law may  not always   be  at  peace with  public  opinion.  Again  I pay  tribute  to a great  Nigerian  and our nice President  who respects public  opinion and  also  pray  for more victories  for the Eagles and the Falcons  at  the new MKO National  Stadium in Abuja. Once  again  long live the Federal Republic of Nigeria.

     

  • Ndume and the price of obstinacy

    A MAIN feature of the build-up to the just concluded election of the leadership of the Senate was the insistence of the senator representing Borno South, Senator Ali Ndume, to contest the position of Senate President. This was despite the fact that his party, the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC), had made it clear that Senator Ahmad Lawan was its anointed candidate. All entreaties made to Ndume to toe the party’s line and step down for Lawan fell on deaf ears.

    Up till the night before the election, friends, associates and concerned party members tried in vain to persuade Ndume against a move they considered an affront on the party on whose platform he rode to the upper chamber. Top government officials, including a former governor and the head of a powerful government agency, were said to have told him to step down to avoid personal humiliation even if he would not do so in the interest of the party. But like the straying dog that would not hear the hunter’s whistle, the senator remained obstinate.

    At the base of his confidence was his adoption by some PDP elders and governors on the eve of the election. In fact, he told one of the people who persuaded him to step down: “Have you not heard that I have been adopted by the PDP? I am going to win tomorrow.”

    Of course, the election held and Ndume could only garner a paltry 28 votes against the winner, Senator Ahmad Lawan’s 79. The Yobe South senator is now left with the task of worming himself back into the good books of his party.

  • Democracy, checks and public opinion

    Nigeria   has  finally  inaugurated its June 12 Democracy Day  with a long speech  by our Head of State and  President on the day. That  speech  by our  president showed  clearly  that  he knows  Nigeria and  its problems like the back  of his hand  but is  asking for time and  understanding of his  mode of  operation in tackling the challenges.  As  a Nigerian,  and a patriotic one too, I   will not  offer an opinion on that  June  12  speech in  which  the president traced  his  personal  history  and contribution right from his free  education as a student, to the War  Colleges in the US and  India, up  to his role as  a  warrior in  the   civil  war  fought  to keep  Nigeria one. I  was moved  by the speech  really  and  I wonder  why  the Senate  did  not go ahead  and discuss it.  That  refusal  however  and the way and  manner the National  Assembly   leadership  emerged  with full on line prime time   media  coverage  of  the election of the principal  officers,  provides  some food  for  thought today.  That  together  with  a letter purportedly  written  by  MKO  to  late  Human  Rights  lawyer  Gani  Fawehimi  in which  he commented  on  the relationship between the  law  and public  opinion with  regard to  his lost  mandate form  the kernel  of our discussion  today. In  fact  my mission today  is to  see  the opinion  MKO  expressed  on the legality  of his mandate in the light  of the  much  publicized  leadership election in the National  Assembly   this  week. But   first   I    have  to state  what  MKO, famous  prisoner now  post humously  honoured with  naming of the National Stadium in Abuja   after   him, actually  said.

    According to MKO’s,  letter the former Secretary General  of  the  Commonwealth  told  MKO  that  he  was seeking  legal  opinion on the currency of his June  12  mandate. Mko said  he  bluntly  told  him  or  asked  what  his locus  was in seeking legal  opinion on his  mandate and  he did that eye ball  to  eye ball.  He  then   proceeded  to tell  the distinguished  diplomat that  nagging  political  problems  do not  always   lend themselves  to legal  opinions and that  the  way  and manner of public opinion are not  dictated  by the fine  points  of  the law. According to the report on this letter,  MKO died two  days later  but it was clear  he was assuring Gani  Fawehimi that  he  would  not betray  his mandate  and  that  the truth  will  prevail.  Which  is what  finally  happened and June  12 has  now become our Democracy  Day  which  is  huge tribute to  MKO’s  tenacity  and  principle  that his  mandate  was   not for sale and  he is indeed the Martyr  of  Nigeria’s  democracy. This  is  a sharp  contrast  to the  brutal  envy  and designs of those who ridiculed MKO’s  mandate  by saying  he  was not  the Messiah  of  our politics  and  democracy.  Such  leaders instituted May  29  as  our democracy  day  and now the Buhari  Administration   has  bowed to public opinion and cast  aside May  29 and  has passed  bill to the National  Assembly  to make the law that  June 12 becomes our Democracy   Day. Really  one can recall  the saying that ‘the mills of justice may grind slowly, but they  grind exceedingly well‘. I  can  imagine  MKO, the  man of endless  proverbs with  his   wide   toothy   grin,  wherever he is in the universe  raising   his arm  in his   famous  V victory  sign   and  signing off  on his  new  June   12  democracy  day with  another  fine proverb   chuckling   satisfactorily   that  ‘he  who  laughs last, laughs best.’  May  his  great  soul  rest  in peace Amen.

    Let  us now ally   the  June 12 developments  we have identified  with  the  actions  of our  legislature in the first  and second term of the Buhari  Adminstration . Of  course  the ruling party.  APC has  learnt  a hard  lesson  from the way the former Senate President  hijacked that  position in 2015 and kept it against  all  odds   to the chagrin and vexation of a  ruling  party to which he belonged at the onset before  defecting to the PDP. ’ Once  beaten twice shy  ‘was the  motto  of APC this  time  around. But  Nigerians  need   not have been exposed  to the long,  time wasting election of  these  leaders, because it is apparent that  our legislators  once elected become immune  to public opinion with  regard  to  benefits of democracy  that Nigerians  who elected  them  should  enjoy. In addition it is questionable that the present legislature  can  perform its legal  function of checking the executive powers  given the way and manner the APC leaders of the legislature emerged  in landslide victories  at  the carnival  of legislative elections. Will  the present legislature provide the oversight and checks and balances  expected in a presidential  system  which  the Saraki senate provided,  albeit  by  default from a stolen senate presidency?  More  importantly  will   the new legislative  leadership  give its  word now that budget  padding will   be a thing of the past and not done secretly  now  that the legislature is  in league with the executive. The  president has roundly  condemned the last Speaker and Senate president for delaying the economic  program of his government with their hostility and we hope this  new legislature  will  speed  up  things but within  the ambits  of  the rule  of  law.

    Now  with  regard  to the mood or public  opinion our  legislators  need  to  be told  some  home  truths  and  know as MKO   noted  wisely that nagging political  questions do  not  always  follow  legal opinions.  This  is best  illustrated  by the saying  that  the law  could be an ass at times. That  in Nigeria explains why legislators who  are expected to vet  the budget  and prune it in terms of cost control proceed  to balloon its  size  by  adding funds for their constituency  projects to it thus   making a mockery  of the presidential system  of checks and balances.  A    similar  example  exists in the US where  the House of Reps  have the Democrats in majority to  impeach  the America President Donald Trump  but  knows that the Senate where  the Republicans are in majority  will  not play ball.  Another  good example of public  opinion  trumping the law is the situation in the US  again where  the Speaker and the Democratic Party  are not on song in impeaching Donald Trump  because opinion polls  show the public is against it.  Just   as   the legislators are not happy with the US President for   failing,  to honor subpoenas legally  issued  for  Trump’s  government  appointees  to  come and explain their roles in government  which  is a legal  function of the legislators.

    In  effect  then MKO  saw through  the machinations and sloppy  legalisms of those  who wanted  him  to seek legal opinion on his mandate by asking what  their locus  was  and  challenging them  presciently  that the law may  not always   be  at  peace with  public  opinion.  Again  I pay  tribute  to a great  Nigerian  and our nice President  who respects public  opinion and  also  pray  for more victories  for the Eagles and the Falcons  at  the new MKO National  Stadium in Abuja. Once  again  long live the Federal Republic of Nigeria.

     

  • That Abiola’s honour will not be in vain

    The good news had been long in coming. In other climes, anyone with the stature of this great man would have been celebrated with such a facility built to host the 2003 All Africa Games held in Abuja. Renaming the Abuja National Stadium after Abiola is the elixir the industry needs for growth. Hosting international competitions inside the MKO Abiola Stadium, Abuja will evoke memories of a great contributor to the industry.

    Moshood Kashimawo Olawale Abiola’s contributions to sports in Africa was unquantifiable. His love for sports was unmatched. He gave in cash and kind to all the sports. He remains the only Nigerian to have run three soccer teams (Concord FC, Lagos, ITT Football Club, Lagos and Abiola Babes FC, Abeokuta) simultaneously.

    The late MKO Abiola’s presence at any competition meant bonanza to the athletes, officials and anyone associated with Nigerian contingents. Abiola’s greatest contributions to sportsmen and women beyond the cash was his penchant for giving them scholarships to acquire education. He didn’t restrict his scholarship schemes to Nigerians. Everyone benefited.

    Abiola was an extraordinary philanthropist. No wonder he was conferred with the award, “First Pillar of Sports in Africa” in 1980. He was also a recipient of the CAF Merit Award in Gold” at the General Assembly in January 1992 in Dakar, Senegal.  Naming the stadium after him is a honour well deserved. He was the chairman of the then Presidential Monitoring Committee that conceptualised the construction of a large-capacity and all-covered sports arena in Abuja in the early 1990s when Nigeria was struggling to host the FIFA U-20 World Cup.

    The then Sports minister, Steven Akiga, described the stadium as a world class, ultra-modern sports facility. He said three foreign firms —German, French and Chinese —built the stadium. Initial cost estimate was about $300m. But, after several delays in construction, that figure was revised far upwards.  

    Now that the stadium has been given its rightful name, the government should direct the Sports ministry to immediately repair the decrepit premises.  The government should budget good cash to the renovation of the MKO Abiola Stadium, such that the place can host all our international sporting events, especially soccer.

    Government should reopen negotiations with the builders to begin the repairs. Besides, they should groom people who can take over from them after their maintenance contract is over. The stadium was left to rot because we refused o get the builders to train people on how to keep the premises and facilities in good conditions.

    It is quite shameful that a structure that cost the government over $ 300 million to construct was left in such a dilapidating condition, with every minister making a sermon of it without doing anything significant to repair it. The stadium’s football pitch is laughable, looking like a grazing field for cattle.

    When the repair is done, the place should never be used for political rallies, musical concerts and parade grounds for national events, but for sporting activities. During sporting events, vehicles should never be driven or parked on the pitch. The tartan tracks should be re-laid with top quality materials which should also be routinely checked to patch torn portions.

    MKO Abiola Stadium can be remodelled to look like such great stadia as Luzhniki Stadium, Maracana, Soccer City, Olympiastadion, Yokohama Int’l Stadium, Stade de France, Rose Bowl, Stadio Olimpico, Estadio Azteca and Estadio Santiago. Who says the stadium cannot host Olympic Games, World Cup, Commonwealth Games, if the government provides the security guarantee and financial backing, which are expected for such competitions?

     

    Can these Eagles fly?

    No team list is perfect for football crazy nations such as Nigeria. Fixations rule the minds of critics, such that when certain players are dropped, the coaches need to explain their decisions. Of course, coaches don’t want to lose matches; they like to win like the fans. They also have a lot to gain from leading their teams to glory. Human beings are prone to errors, which make the subtle protestation from critics unavoidable, even if they count for nothing at the end of the day.

    Indeed, every Nigerian is a soccer expert, irrespective of the fact that they don’t have coaching certificates. Being ardent followers of the game qualifies them to appraise coaching decisions, ahead of major competitions. But, the coaches pick the players. The buck stops on their tables. If their game plans work, good for Nigeria. Otherwise, they carry the can – sack.

    Interestingly, every list throws up posers which seem to challenge certain decisions taken by the coaches. Many question the exclusion of some players, especially when the reasons for their exclusion are akin to what has kept others in the team. Two cases come to mind – Kelechi Iheanacho’s and Leon Balogun’s. Whereas many pundits feel that Iheanacho deserves being dropped for sitting on the Leicester City bench, they don’t see anything wrong with the inclusion of Leon Balogun, who saw most of Brighton City’s games from the stands, unlike Iheanacho who came in as a substitute in some matches and started others.

    Some pundits attribute Balogun’s long absence from Brighton’s matches to injuries; they tagged as injury-prone. In fact, many journalists who were in Asaba last week won’t forget how Balogun lampooned them for daring to ask why he is injury-prone. This writer isn’t insinuating that Balogun will sustain any injury in Egypt. The yardstick for dropping Iheanacho was his inactivity at Leicester. So, Rohr, the man who sits at the stands or watches games from home is more of a regular than the man on the bench? Interesting.

    Balogun made just eight appearances in the premier league last season, starting just five in his debut season following his move from Bundesliga outfit Mainz 05. While Iheanacho made 30 appearances, nine of which were from the starting line-up. Balogun struggled to break the defensive pairing Shane Duffy and Lewis Dunk – centre back without big reputation in world football and without World Cup experience like the Nigerian.

    Iheanacho’s case at Leicester City was different as he was up against Jamie Vardy and Shinji Okazaki for the striker’s role at the club. Both players were part of the historic title winning side for the Foxes and the coaches were bound to be loyal to them. However, Iheanacho rose above the Japanese in the pecking order and only ranked behind Vardy, an English boy and a fan favourite. Okazaki has since being put on the transfer list. Leicester manager Brendan Rodgers insists Iheanacho must stay at the club.

    “Yes he is (part of my plans), “ Rodgers told Leicester Mercury. “He’s just had his first season adapting to a new club. Then when you’re playing or challenging one of the best strikers in the league, it’s difficult.

    “Kel will come back into pre-season, have a really good pre-season, gain more confidence, work hard and hopefully come out of that with a renewed motivation to show his qualities.”

    Francis Uzoho is in Egypt with just three league club appearances. If goalkeeping becomes a problem, one hopes that others can remedy the situation. In February 2019, the Deportivo de La Coruña goalkeeper moved on loan to Cypriot club Anorthosis Famagusta in the search for more first-team football in the run-up to the 2019 Africa Cup of Nations.

    After making his debut for the club, his health certificate became a cause for concern. Anorthosis Famagusta lost 9 points; they appealed. The club’s appeal was rejected, although Uzoho’s appeal against his personal penalty of a one-match ban and €1,000 fine was successful.

    Since his return, Uzoho has played behind Demetris Demetriou and Ivan Vargiæ with 20 and 10 appearances. So, why is the 20-year-old still Rohr’s number one, if the German’s selection was strictly on current form? Or is the criteria for Iheanacho different?

    Iheanacho  didn’t have a splendid season this year. But playing in one of the biggest leagues in the world places him ahead of those in novelty leagues, such as China, with due respect. It is sickening to accept that an injured Odion Ighalo  was picked for the strikers’ role, leaving Iheanacho. Equally laughable is the thought that Ighalo represents the future of the game here ahead of Iheanacho.

    Ighalo did not play well at the Russia 2019 World Cup. Yet, Rohr stuck with him all through our games. Ighalo is the highest goal-scorer in the qualifiers, but his lack of fitness shouldn’t rate him higher than Iheanacho. We have  good, young players who lack the experience of the African game, which is robust, fast and energy sapping.

    Rohr needs to establish known indices for picking his players reminiscent of what Clemens Westerhor did when he was in charge. He told everyone who wasn’t playing for elite teams in Europe to forget about playing for Nigeria. That order propelled our players to give their best at all times. Many joined bigger clubs while playing for Nigeria. This benchmark improved the team’s quality of play. And Nigeria was better off for it.

     

    Madness at Agege Stadium

     

    The organisers of the domestic game lost the best chance to persuade television station’s owners to key into the country’s football Monday evening when urchins invaded the pitch in their quest to beat up match referees. Sadly, the Kano Pillars’ player who masterminded the show of shame, Ali, is a tested player who played for the country.

    Why Ali chose to confront the centre referee, Adebimpe Quadri from Lagos State immediately after the game still baffles everyone, especially as the game was a draw – 1-1. But, going by Kano Pillars’ fans complaints, they were nursing a grudge against Quadri  over the way he handled last year’s Aiteo Cup finals inside the late Stephen Keshi Stadium in Asaba, where Enugu Rangers recovered from the three goals deficit in the first half to beat the Kano side, having drawn the game 3-3. Rangers eventually won 4-2 on penalties after 120 minutes.

    It is good to know that Ali has been banned for 12 matches. Kano Pillars fined N8 million. The decision to bar their fans in Kano from watching Pillars at three home matches is heart warming. We hope that these sanctions are not reduced on spurious grounds. What the characters did on that day was shameful and a bad testimonial for the game.

     

     

     

  • Senate President: How South-south governor engineered PDP’s loss

    THE embarrassing defeat suffered by the PDP in Tuesday’s contest for the position of Senate President would have been avoided but for the insistence of a South-south governor on the eve of the election that the party must adopt a candidate, contrary to the party’s initial position that it would not present or adopt any.

    The South-south governor, whose state is awash with oil funds as a result of hefty monthly allocations and also the centre of war in past elections, was in Abuja a day before the election, where he argued forcefully for the party to adopt a candidate.

    Even when other top party members drew his attention to the fact that the PDP did not have the number for a keen contest, he retorted: “What is number?” He then said he was ready to put down any amount to buy over enough APC members-elect to make up the number the PDP needed.

    At that point, the opposition party decided to adopt APC’s Senator Ali Ndume who lost to Senator Ahmad Lawan by a wide margin. Whether the South-south governor spent the money or APC senators-elect collected but voted their conscience, no one knows. But adapting the words of former Akwa Ibom State governor, Senator Godswill Akpabio, the South-south governor reportedly boasted that the votes that money cannot get, more money will get.

  • June 12, the speech, the politics

    FINALLY, after many years of pussyfooting and controversies, June 12 has finally become the public face of Nigerian democracy. President Muhammadu Buhari proposed memorialising the date months ago by taking the first tentative steps towards redeeming it, then he submitted an executive bill to back it, and has now signed the proposition into law, complete with a national holiday package and, perhaps soon, formalising it as inauguration day. This president has been giving the pro-democracy and human rights communities things to celebrate, and the recipients are all pleased, including those who see it as a Greek gift and those who regard it as a superficial gesture. In whatever way June 12 is regarded, the gains of the past one year, which began with the president apologising to the winner of the June 12, 1993 presidential election, MKO Abiola, has culminated in a public holiday proclamation that is unlikely to be reversed.

    Many top politicians and analysts, particularly from the Southwest, have damned the June 12 gains with faint praise. While a few critics see the gains as a red herring, many others see it as nothing more than a symbolic but largely empty gesture in the direction of democracy. They argue that the country’s fundamental problems, such as a poor and misshapen structure and weak institutions, can only be tackled by a deep and scientific re-examination and remedy of the issues that destabilise the polity. Mere amelioration or administration of palliatives will amount to futile tinkering. The critics do not admit that President Buhari has wrong-footed them on the matter of June 12 consistently for about a year; instead, they see him as playing realpolitik. They squirm over the integrity of the June 12 declarations and law, and castigate the dissonance between the apologies and declarations on the one hand, and the president’s own consistent and obvious anti-democratic practices on the other infuriating hand.

    It is indeed possible that the president may not be fundamentally disposed towards anything that has to do with June 12, or have an inspiring understanding of its many nuances and implications for democracy and the rule of law. It is even possible that privately, the president, who has never come across as someone with a great sense of history, may be offended by the persistence of many activists on the need for the nation to come to terms with the issue of June 12 and find a closure to something that has inflicted so much pain on the nation. It is also possible that the position of June 12 in the nation’s history as a watershed may completely or partially escape the president. But because these analysts and sceptics are not mind readers or soothsayers, they may in fact be unfair to the president to suggest he is acting mala fide. Even if it is argued that he had never said anything persuasively favourable on June 12, there is nothing to suggest that he has not become converted to its historical significance.

    Happily, however, many commentators from the Southwest, including the region’s leading political figures, have suggested that President Buhari has done and said the right things about June 12. They acknowledge that it would be futile to cavil at the president’s apology offered on behalf of the country to the Abiola family which bore the brunt of the June 12 harassments. They also find nothing evil in the president acknowledging Chief Abiola as the winner of that fateful election. And they enthuse over the national holiday proclamation and the recognition of June 12 as Democracy Day. Indeed, it is hard to fault their summations. It is even harder to support those who grumble against the president’s many, though piecemeal, efforts to come to terms with the event of that date and find a fitting closure.

    If President Buhari meant his efforts on June 12 as politics to curry favour with the electorate, it is inconceivable that he should be denied his due as a politician. And so whether he is genuinely persuaded about June 12 or not, he has said and done the right thing. If righting the many wrongs surrounding June 12 is meant to give sop to the devil in preparation for unleashing evil upon the land, it still does not make sense to second-guess him or rebuff his salutary efforts because of some anticipated evil. What if the other shoe does not drop? The nature of politics is to estimate and judge every move on its own merit, and from time to time. Some soothsaying may be apposite, and some complex ratiocinative exercise may come in handy, but these must never be to the detriment of correctly gauging the mood of the times and judging the rightness of the issues. President Buhari has taken agreeable steps on June 12; he must be encouraged to do more than naming a national monument, the National Stadium in Abuja for instance, in honour of the winner of the June 12, 1993 president poll, Chief Abiola. The late politician needs to be officially declared the winner who everyone, including the electoral umpire of the time, knows him to be; symbolically installed president, and his privileges and transferable entitlements be accorded his family. His business empire was virtually crushed. The nation needs to make reparation. There will be some arguments about whether to make June 12 MKO Abiola Day, but in the end, making that day Inauguration Day seems to trump any other suggestion.

    President Buhari may have played politics with June 12, particularly wrong-footing his political opponents, but who prevented his sulking predecessors, all of whom had the chance to find a closure to the matter, from coming to grips with the issue, staring down his critics and the controversies that hamstring it, and delivering their own closures? Who denied them that leeway? They probably lacked the courage, or are convulsed by guilt, or lacked the conviction, or lacked a sense of history. It is misplaced anger to blame President Buhari for exploiting the issue to position himself well in the eyes of the public. The place in history he has chosen, just like the sacrifice Chief Abiola courageously made, will remain indelible.

    But while the president may have done a lot on June 12, including renaming the national stadium and rechristening inauguration day, and also said the right things, he gives little indication in his inauguration address that he fully appreciates the symbolism of the moment. No one compelled him to defer his May 29 inauguration address to June 12; but once he did that, he had an obligation to judge the moment and give an inspiring speech that would rally the country, sans religion and tribe, behind a lofty banner he had hypothetically concretised in words and defined with philosophical aplomb. Not only did the speech read like a tedious budget address, except for the redemptive elements of the stadium renaming and one or two pearls, it was a humiliating disservice to the spirit of June 12.

    It was an opportunity for the president to soar to dizzying rhetorical heights, after delivering so illustrious a tantalising package of events and sayings which had incubated in him for about a year. But what came out very clearly, which his opponents tried to exploit to belittle the plaudits he should receive over June 12, was that he is at bottom a president who is uncomfortable with democracy and its disciplined and rigorous concomitances of the rule of law and respect for institutions. Consequently, he made no profound statement on democracy, federalism, rule of law and the rights of the people. He is unlikely to make any such statement anytime soon or in the distant future, let alone advocating the complete subjection of the three arms of government to the strict provisions of the constitution.

    The president’s detractors can neither change nor obliterate what he has done on June 12. They accuse him of being presumptuous and hypocritical. Since they know so well what else he should have done on the issue, they are at liberty to continue to advocate for a refinement of those things until June 12 reaches a transcendental and glorious finale, an apotheosis that no one in Nigeria can gainsay.

  • Politics, diplomacy and war

    There  was some consternation and indignation  in some religious circles  on the news  that the Nigerian President went  for  a meeting of an  organization of Islamic states –  the  Organisation of Islamic  Cooperation  – OIC – immediately after he  was sworn in on May 29  for a  second term.  The reason  for that   was that  Nigeria  being a secular  state, our head  of state  should  not be seen at  any such  religious  gathering of sovereign states.  The  OIC  boldly   claims   to  be the voice   of the Muslim world  and its aim is to safeguard   and   protect  Muslim interest   and welfare    globally. But  undoubtedly  Nigeria  has not been  a secular  state  for a  long time even  though  the constitution states  clearly  that that is what  it should be. What  is even  more controversial  is the fact  that our  President went to this  meeting of an organization of Islamic  states while  the charge  that  Boko  Haram has as its  objective  the ‘Fulanisation  of West  Africa’ , and   the ‘Islamisation  of Africa’    by a former  Head  of   State    was   still  exploding    like  a bomb. Surely  the interpretation that  keen  observers  of  Nigeria’s political  direction   and  governance   can deduce from the OIC  meeting  attended  by the Nigerian  President is that a diplomatic  and religious  answer  has  been  given  to the Islamisation and Fulanisation question as  something in the offing  or  a possibility  that  Nigeria  is heading in that direction in the  second  term of  the  Buhari  dispensation. Really, the fact  that the  Nigerian  government  has  not  refuted the  Obasanjo   twin accusations on  Islamic  domination of Nigeria  gives cause  for serious concern  which  the  OIC  meeting attendance can only  exacerbate. Which  is  another way  of  saying the OIC  issue was avoidable  in terms of  timing and sensitivity on  the part of  government  and non Muslim Nigerians have cause to  be apprehensive  in terms  of security  and religious freedom as  embedded  in the Nigerian  constitution.

    Since  the advent of  the Boko  Haram  insurgency  in the North East   and the inability of two  administrations  to  contain it,  there  have been concerns by Nigerians over religious   freedom and  Islamic  domination.  Although it has been  argued  that  Boko  Haram was  not  Islamic  by  nature because  it  means ‘No  to Western  education ‘there  is  no denying its  Islamic  orientation  and  objectives  of  conversion of  non Muslims  to its  declared  objective,  which  to propagate  and  spread Islam  even  though it is going about its stated goal  of saying No  to  western  civilization.

    Nigeria  then  is  heading in the direction of  nations  in  Europe  like  Hungary, Czech, Slovak, Poland  and  even  Catholic   Italy. These   are nations  who  are  accusing  other European    governments -like  Germany  and  France-  of   allowing    influx   of  migrants and refugees  from the Middle  East  who are Muslims  into  Europe – of trying  to change the identity of  Europe  because  the immigrants  are Muslims who  will  not integrate and  Europe  is  Christian.  Such  nations  like  Hungary  and Poland   are  being governed  by leaders branded  as anti migrants and populist  and according to some analysts US President  Donald  Trump  who    is  staunchly   anti migrants  is said to be their leader  and shining example. But  in the  UK,  emulation of the Trump  ideals  created Brexit  and has led to the elimination of  Theresa May  as PM. That  has led  to Trump supporting  pro  Brexit  Conservative Party  leaders  to succeed May  during his recent  state  visit  to the UK  after  the lavish  reception given  him by the British  monarch,  Queen  Elizabeth 11.

    While  the   nature  and grandieur  of the Trump  state  visit  highlighted the  special  relationship  between  the US and  Britain,   the issue  of  migration exposed  some sour  points of  religious  freedom and  diplomacy  which  are hangovers of history especially colonization. It  was unimaginable to expect  a Mayor  of  London  or an Opposition  leader to  organize  a demonstration against  a   US President on a state visit  being hosted by the Queen. But  that was what happened when  Sadiq  Khan, the Muslim Mayor of  London  called the US president a  leader  with the mentality of an 11  year  old boy. The  Opposition leader Jeremy  Corbyn  had his request  to meet  the American  president turned down  by Trump  but  Corbyn  was busy  anyway  addressing protesters  against  the state visit  of the US president.  The  Trump   state  visit  highlighted how politically  and  culturally   the  landscape    has changed  in Britain and  how  British   identity   has  changed in terms  of  multiculturalism  which   bred    resentment   and  frustration, leading to   identity  crisis   culminating   in the Brexit vote that has  greatly  divided a once solid   United  Kingdom, now  in the throes  of  Brexit  pain  and delivery.

    In   the  Middle  East  the drums of war  have   been  beating for some time especially   since Trump  appointed the mustachioed  John  Bolton  as his National  security  Adviser. The  most  dangerous  flare  up was the attack on some oil  tankers  near  the strategic Straits of Homuz   where  most of the oil  in the Middle  East  flow out to Europe. Iran  plays a key  role  in passing naval  traffic  and oil  cargo through  the  strait  and   some ships  belonging to  Saudi  Arabia were  attacked   recently  and suspicion  was focused  on  Iran. Iran  has  denied  the charge and asked for  an independent investigation by the UN. But  Saudi Arabia  and its Gulf  allies want  Iran  to  be  scapegoated  for the incident and the reason is  not  far fetched and  the US  is  the weapon that the Saudis want  to use  against Iran.

    What   Saudi Arabia is exploiting is  Donald Trump’s  phobia and pledge  that Iran  will  never  have nuclear  power  because  he claims Iran  is  an exporter  and financier   of  Islamic   terrorism.  But  both  Saudi  Arabia  and  Iran  are  promoters  of two  types  of  Islam,  namely Shia[Iran ]  and Sunni    [ Saudi  Arabia].  Mecca  the capital of  Saudi  Arabia  is the capital  of the Muslim  world  and  pilgrims even those from Iran  cannot  but go there for pilgrimage. That  alone should make Iran   and  S, Arabia to close ranks. Instead,  the  Saudis  and Israel, the enemy  of the Muslim  world   are  goading the Americans to go  to  war  and  destroy Iran, a nation  of brilliant  scientists  and  engineers   who  are bound one way or the other to  have nuclear  power  because  their  citizens  have the brains and are  well  educated with  the leadership provided in  their  theocracy, which  the US thinks  it  can  replace  with its brand of  democracy. An    elusive  goal  for the US in  my view  especially nowadays when  democracy  is  not  putting  food on the table  for the poor  of the world  but is simply widening the poverty  gap  between  the rich  and  the poor  and empowering  the very  rich  few at  the expense  of  the starving millions the world over.

    It  is  my view  that  Saudi  Arabia and Iran  should  team  up  and bury  their sectarian  hatchet  to  save  the reputation of  Islam  as a religion of  peace. That  reputation  is being soiled  by  Boko  Haram and  ISIS and  both  Iran, an  Islamic  theocracy  and  Saudi  Arabia, a monarchy  have  the resources, the will  and   the trust  of their  citizens  to lead  the  Muslim  world  in this  regard  in the interest  of world  peace.   Surely   many  parts  of the  world  besieged by fear  of  Islamisation  will  be grateful  for  both nations for  making the world  safe  and never in  doubt  when  people say  Islam  is   a religion of peace .Once  again  long live the Federal  Republic of  Nigeria.