The Nation Newspaper

Category: Saturday

  • Buhari, Jonathan and the Chibok —Dapchi duel

    THE presidency is unlikely to offer any explanation as to why President Muhammadu Buhari yielded to the temptation to compare his government’s response to the February 19 Dapchi abductions with ex-president Goodluck Jonathan’s hesitant approach to the 2014 Chibok abductions. He did it anyway, and spoke glowingly of the steps he took to address the disaster immediately it occurred. Both abductions had schoolgirls as victims, and the attackers were factions of the Boko Haram sect. However, that the latest attack in Dapchi took place at all is undoubtedly a significant embarrassment to the Buhari presidency which strangely believed, judging from the president’s words, that its peculiarly prompt response to the disaster offered some amelioration. It is not clear why he thinks so.

    Nigerians may disagree with the president, but here is how he defended and applauded his response: “The Federal Government’s response to the unfortunate abduction of the schoolgirls is a clear departure from the insensitivity of the past administration which looked the other way while the Chibok girls were taken away in 2014 and held in captivity for over three years. Due to our commitment, over 100 Chibok girls have been rescued and reunited with their families, sent back to school and empowered with requisite skills. You may recall that recently, our negotiation efforts led to the release of abducted University of Maiduguri lecturers, some women police personnel, students and even an NYSC member. We, therefore, have no doubt that the Dapchi girls will be rescued or released. I can assure parents, Nigerians and the international community that we will do all that is within our power to make sure that the girls are brought back safely to their families.”

    If the president hoped that the mere fact of a difference between his response and that of his predecessor offered proof of his assiduity and empathy, he must be strangely mistaken. The Boko Haram sect abducted some 219 schoolgirls from a girls’ school in Borno State in April 2014, some four years ago. The repercussions of that abduction are still felt today, both in terms of the tragic consequences to the victims and their families, seeing that over 100 of the girls are still in captivity, and the implications for the politics and image of the former president, Dr Jonathan. In the latest case, 110 schoolgirls were abducted in Dapchi, Yobe State about a month ago, virtually in similar circumstances, with the security agencies caught flat-footed. Somehow, the president, perhaps feeling awkward that a similar tragedy occurred under his watch, has selected an aspect of the abduction for a justificatory excursion.

    Nevertheless, the Buhari and Jonathan presidencies obviously put more confidence in negotiating the girls’ release than, according to them, risking a bloody rescue whose outcome is uncertain. The earlier abduction was consequent upon the carelessness of the Nigerian government, their lack of proaction, even their evident stupefaction. The latest abduction is also consequent upon the carelessness of the government, four years after the first; and it also exposes the current government’s enervating lack of proaction.  By all accounts, the so-called rescue of the first batch of Chibok girls was facilitated by payment of ransom. There is nothing President Buhari has said that gives any indication that both the second batch of Chibok girls still in captivity and the Dapchi 110 would not be facilitated by ransom payment. Indeed, hearing the president speak enthusiastically of getting the girls back home sooner than many think gives the impression that somehow the government fully understands the currency of Boko Haram’s trade in humans.

    The opposition Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) seems to think the president is politicising the tragedy. No one can stop the Buhari presidency from actively negotiating the schoolgirls’ release, nor in taking the accolades if they are able to pull it off successfully. Such gloating goes with the territory. The Jonathan presidency had the opportunity to negotiate the girls’ release before the last general elections. Had they succeeded, they would have taken the glory and politicised the freedom of the abducted girls. Dr Jonathan never visited Chibok; President Buhari, after initially dithering, has managed to visit Dapchi. Though he said nothing inspiring in Dapchi, nor gave a big policy statement other than putting down his predecessor, at least he visited ground zero of the abduction.

    Could this be the last major abduction Boko Haram would orchestrate? It is hard to say. Despite the president’s self-congratulations, it is evident that his forces in the Northeast, particularly in Yobe and Borno States, have neither shown the operational fervour and proficiency expected of them nor displayed the instinctive preemption that should have stood them well in that volatile region where Boko Haram’s potential victims abound in excess. It took Boko Haram four years to plot another embarrassing abduction. They obviously have the luxury of time, having lost considerable ground, and are more inclined to restricting themselves to their newfound status of spoilers and wet blankets. The terrain is vast, and troops are spread thin. The Nigerian government will be hard put to find the right formula, amidst such territorial vastness, to knock the sect into a cocked hat. It is these new threats and general unknowns that should preoccupy the Buhari presidency rather than gloat in comparative fantasies.

    President Buhari may have responded with alacrity to the Dapchi abductions, but it is to his discredit that the lessons of both the Boko Haram revolt and the course of the insurgency have not been learnt in order to help him forestall a repetition of the tragic abductions. He has learnt to delegate responsibilities without supervising his men; and worse, he has seemed able to appoint officials he appears incapable of sacking. It can therefore be inferred that President Buhari does not seem to be running an inspired and motivated government but an administration of lackadaisical friends and family. He has indicated that a panel to find out what went wrong in Dapchi would help him get to the bottom of the disaster. If the panel musters the sense and skill to expose the rot that facilitated the Dapchi tragedy, would he have the gut to wield the axe? How much axe has he wielded over many of his patently incompetent and misspeaking appointees?

    Admittedly, there are some differences in the responses of the Buhari and Jonathan presidencies to the schoolgirls abductions in the Northeast. But those differences are not enough to make them duel, let alone for one of the parties to claim the moral high ground. After all, Dr Jonathan can also interpret the festering insecurity in the country as a product of President Buhari’s inexpert and even prejudiced and myopic handling of the crises bedevilling the land. Neither of the two presidents caused the outbreak of the revolt in the Northeast, and neither, it can be asserted with some fair degree of accuracy, gave it extra stimulus. Therefore, rather than revel in needless self-glorification and name-calling, President Buhari should have more appropriately focused on the pressing issues at hand, especially the Dapchi abductions, which required his entire concentration, genuine empathy, reform of the security forces, and absolute retooling of his waning politics.

    Dr Jonathan was roundly and probably soundly defeated in the 2015 polls, partly because of his awkwardness and complacency in the presidency; President Buhari, who campaigned on possessing more than an average talent in matters of statecraft, should restrain himself from exhuming those ghosts of Nigeria’s dreary past, especially when he has not shown himself capable of profiting from the lessons of their untimely demise.

  • Pragmatism, deterrence and peace  

    The  sacking of US Secretary of State Rex  Tillerson by US President   Donald  Trump  after  a visit  to Kenya and Nigeria and the issues surrounding that situation is food  for thought today in all  its ramifications. We look at that single  incident in the context of today’s  topic   and the lessons  and conclusions to be drawn   therefrom which  are many and so interwoven,  just as they  are far flung across the globe.

    The  first    was that the unexpected meeting   between  the US President Donald  Trump  and North  Korean leader  Kim  Jung Un was  announced while the  US Secretary  of State  was on his African  visit  and he was taken  aback  by the development. The second  was that on the eve of his arrival in Kenya the self – declared  President of Kenya  Ruhallah  Odinga and the elected  President Uhuru Kenyatta   unexpectedly   appeared  at a press  conference where  they announced  to a bewildered  world  and even  more surprised  and astonished Kenyan  citizens, that they are ready  to work together in the interest of Kenyan  unity  and progress. The  third  was  the  reported  announcement  by the Nigerian  Foreign  Affairs Minister,   Geoffrey   Onyeama that Tillerson’s    sack  after  his visit  to  Nigeria will  not affect   whatever  agreements and  deals made  during  his visit  to  Nigeria immediately  after which  he was given the boot by his boss, the US    president.

    Starting from the  announcement from S Korean envoys who  visited the N Korean leader in his country and went to the US to  brief the American  president on that  historic meeting before  making the announcement   that made the world hold its breath in   disbelief  and  relief, that a nuclear holocaust  has been averted in our time, it was  obvious that a  scenario of unprecedented  diplomatic  pragmatism was  unfolding right before an unbelieving world.  That  two strong global  leaders who had called each other idiots without  mincing words  and  had  boasted  that each  had enough nuclear arsenal  to wipe out the  other and the rest of the  civilized  world,  have now agreed  to  meet and discuss, was a break through in international relations  and should  qualify the two  for at  least  a Nobel  Prize.  That  is if  the wise  men in Oslo  know what they  are  doing and  can  remember  that they gave the last  US President, Barak  Obama the Nobel  Prize  for peace at the beginning of his presidency for  its potential  for peace and that   presidency after two terms averted its own  red line in Syria  and created ISIS which has spawned  the greatest  terrorism,  migration  and security  crisis of our time.   Surely, the saying in Shakespeare’s  Julius  Caesar   that  ‘ambition should   be made  of sterner stuff  is applicable here. This  is because    this  time,  two strong  headed  leaders have sheathed their dangerous nuclear  swords,   unbelievably after  a sporting  event, to the relief of a frightened world that had prepared itself  for the worst. This  to  me is  a’ real    world ‘  balance  of  mutual   deterrence  that has resulted in a  real  euphoria  of global  peace and is   vintage  diplomatic  pragmatism  that merits genuinely  a Nobel  Prize  for peace, regardless  of the personalities  and past    mutual   and   global  annihilation  tantrums that have  brought us to this present  scenario. Really,  in my view, this is the stuff  of which  genuine Nobel  Prizes   for Peace  are  made as   incentives  for peace should be  generous and  encouraging  especially   at this point in time.

    In  Kenya, the US Secretary  of State  fell  sick  and had  to skip  some functions but  his host  the president of  Kenya  had  a pleasant  surprise  for  him in terms of peace and reconciliation in Kenya which must  have been on top of his visiting agenda.  Kenya had been victim of terrorism in recent times and the US was trying to shore up regional effort  to combat  terrorists who had struck US embassies  and shopping malls in the area   for  some time. But  what  stole the thunder on Tillerson’s visit  was the unexpected and inexplicable and almost  unAfrican  way the two antagonists in the last presidential elections in Kenya came out to say they  are fed up with fighting and election violence and have made peace. That  to me is highly commendable and I recommend  it to  African  nations  especially  Nigeria where  Boko  Haram  is still  kidnapping  our girls in broad  daylight while  Fulani herdsmen  and farmers are  at loggerheads over farming and grazing rights  while the  government struggles  openly  to be objective and fair  in resolving  the violent and  highly  provocative situation in terms of  huge   loss  of  human  lives now  all over the nation.

    Indeed   Nigeria  could  be said to  be the Waterloo  of  the short  diplomatic career  and    shuttle  of the US Secretary of State Tillerson  as he was fired by the US president shortly  after visiting Nigeria.  The reason  given  by the volatile  US president was that they  disagreed  on the Iran Nuclear  Deal put in place by the Obama Administration  which the new US   president called the worst  deal in US history  and promised to destroy. An  interview  by CNN Christine  Amanpour  of a former US Secretary of State, a lady  recently  shed  more light on the dismissal of the US Secretary  of State. Amanpor  had asked a  leading question ostensibly  to portray the US  president in bad light over the sacking but was unpleasantly  disappointed  by the response  of the lady  diplomat  who served the Obama Administration.   According  to the former  Assistant  Secretary  of State, Tillerson  was pursuing a personal  agenda as Secretary of State  when  he should have subsumed that  to the wishes  and leadership of the US president who  appointed him  in the first  instance. As  if to buttress  this view point   Donald  Trump  announced  that Tillerson’s  replacement,  former  CIA  chief Pompei   is someone who is on the same wavelengths  as him  on most  matters    and especially  the Iran Nuclear  Deal  just  as he thanked  Tillerson with a wave  of the hand for his services. That  really  meant  goodbye  to  bad rubbish as  far  as the Tillerson tenure  as Secretary  of State  was concerned.

    It  therefore  came   as a surprise  that the Nigerian  counterpart of the sacked US Secretary of State, our Foreign  Affairs   Minister  Geoffrey  Onyeama  reportedly  said  that whatever  Tillerson  agreed  with Nigeria was  valid because he came  to  Nigeria as US  representative  and the mouth piece  of the US  president .  Surely  that  is being diplomatically  correct  but   very  realistically  and pragmatically  wrong.  It  is another way  of saying  our Minister of Foreign Affairs  was  being presumptious. Any  agreement with  Tillerson  as US Secretary  of State  will  not be worth the paper it is written  on because of his frosty  relations with  his boss whom  he reportedly  called  a moron  and never retracted  that description when given  the opportunity. Anyway  his boss, the US  President  Donald  Trump   never  forgave him. Tillerson  was a CEO  of  Exxon  Mobil  and was a successful  oil  man  close  to Russia’s Putin   and    was also against sanctions against  Russia  over the invasion  of  Crimea.  Nigeria is well advised to take any agreements with him with a pinch of salt  until  his successor  reaffirms any such  paper  tiger  of   agreements. Once again long live the Federal  Republic of Nigeria.

  • Ekweremadu, military intervention or anarchy

    Ekweremadu, military intervention or anarchy

    Deputy Senate President, Ike Ekweremadu’s admonition on the floor of the Senate, this week, to his fellow political actors against actions capable of provoking another military truncation of democratic governance in the country, a scenario which he considers not improbable, has at least served two useful, even if unintended, purposes. First, it has compelled the military to reassure the country of its commitment to democracy, loyalty to the Head of State and Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces and its institutional fidelity to its constitutionally stipulated role of protecting the territorial integrity of the polity. We will recall that in May, last year, the Chief of Army Staff, Lt-Gen. Tukur Buratai, felt sufficiently concerned to publicly warn soldiers to steer clear of politics in the light of information he claimed to have that certain individuals had been approaching some officers and soldiers for political reasons.

    Secondly, it has given an opportunity for individuals and groups within civil society including lawyers, the Nigeria Labour Congress (NLC), Academic Staff Union of Universities (ASUU), Trade Union Congress (TUC), Arewa Consultative Forum (ACF), Ohaneaze and Afenifere to reiterate the readiness of Nigerians to resist any form of military intervention no matter the weaknesses and shortcomings of our current democratic practice. A cardinal lesson of our political history is that persistence in the practice of democracy, notwithstanding inevitable challenges, problems and crises, is the only path to systematically incremental political development even though the process may be slow, seemingly chaotic, fractious and arduous. The illusion of the military as political messiah has been shattered forever and military intervention no longer an even remotely feasible option in Nigeria.

    Intense and passionate debate, Open and acrimonious disagreement and contention as well as ceaseless disputation are necessary and inevitable ingredients of a viable and vigorous democratic system even as is witnessed in the most advanced democracies. The imposed peace of the graveyard, which military dictatorship claims to guarantee is not only detrimental to development, it also contains the seeds of future instability leading to the path of national disintegration. Even then, Ekweremadu’s warning must not be dismissed lightly. Yes, military rule may not be an option. But when an elected governor behaves no better than a military dictator and demolishes a Senator’s house for partisan political reasons while hiding under the guise of enforcing urban planning laws or Senators are prevented from visiting their constituencies in Kano and Kogi States, for example, or acts of political intolerance, aggression and violence pervade the polity, democracy is clearly endangered.

    When political actors brazenly disregard the constitutions both of their parties and that of the country with impunity and provoke resentment and bitter opposition through the arrogant and unrestrained deployment of power, as is the case with Governors Nasir ‘el Rufai and Yahaya Bello in Kaduna and Kogi states, respectively, something worse than military intervention is being invited – a descent to indescribable and uncontrollable anarchy. Democracy can only serve as the best option for the peaceful resolution of disputes and crises that are unavoidable in an open, free and complex plural society like ours when political actors faithfully adhere to what Professor Billy Dudley describes as the ‘constitutive and regulative rules’ of the game. That I think is the essence of Ekweremadu’s warning even if he could have framed it differently.

    It is for the same reason that Afenifere, Ohaneze, ACF, NLC, TUC, ASUU as well as several lawyers have vehemently denounced Ekweremadu’s comments on the possibility of military intervention if political actors do not moderate their behavior that this column has consistently opposed the call in some quarters for a jettisoning of the extant 1999 constitution and a regression to an overly romanticized 1963 constitution or one untested variant or the other of regionalism. No matter the challenges confronting Nigeria today, the country has experienced considerable political development over the last 19 years of unbroken civilian rule. The successful democratic and peaceful transfer of power from an incumbent to an opposing political party in 2015 shows that the country is gradually moving from being an essentially illiberal democracy towards being a genuinely liberal one. Yes, there is a long road to travel in this regard but truncating the present process and jumping back to 1963 or leaping in the dark in pursuit of some fanciful but unrealistic experiments in regionalism cannot be the option.

    Some have dismissed the 1999 constitution as a military creation and imposition, which does not truly reflect the will of the Nigerian people. Indeed, the late legal luminary, Chief Rotimi Williams, who was a member of a socio-political pressure group, The Patriots, was of the view that the phrase ‘We the People’ that prefaces the constitution is a fraud because the document is not allegedly the product of the collective will of the Nigerian people. If the General Abdulsalam Abubakar regime that handed over to the new democratically elected government in 1999 had done so on the basis of the 1995 draft constitution engineered  by the regime of General Sani Abacha or the earlier 1989 draft constitution drawn up under the Babangida regime, I would have understood this point of view. The 1989 and 1995 constitutions, although drafted with considerable civil society input through national conferences made up of selected eminent Nigerians, had their credibility and integrity tainted by the regime perpetuation schemes of the two dictators.

    That is probably why the Abdusalam Abubakar regime accepted the recommendation of the Justice Niki Tobi Constitution Review Committee, which it had set up to review past constitutions and make recommendations, that the 1979 constitution with appropriate amendments was preferable to the 1989 and 1995 draft constitutions. The Abubakar regime thus handed over to an elected civilian government in 1999 on the basis of the 1979 constitution, which was drawn up under the Murtala/Obasanjo regime, with slight amendments. The 1999 constitution is thus virtually a carbon copy of the 1979 constitution. Can the 1979 constitution be regarded as a military imposition? That would surely be a misleading and rather shallow reading of the genesis and subsequent evolution of the 1979 constitution. It would appear that the Murtala/Obasanjo regime itself was conscious of the intellectual deficiency of the military as regards the task of constitution-making.

    Thus, according to the eminent political scientist, Professor Alex Gboyega, in selecting members of the Constitution Drafting Committee (CDC) to draw up the proposed new constitution for the Second Republic, the regime placed premium, in the words of General Murtala Mohammed, on “our learned men in disciplines considered to have direct relevance to Constitution-making namely – history, law, economics and other social sciences, especially political science and eminent Nigerians with some experience in Constitution-making making were brought in to complete the spectrum”. Let’s face it. Constitution-making is an essentially elitist, not a populist, enterprise. I cannot be expected, for instance, to discuss constitutional issues with the depth, perspicacity and authoritativeness of a constitutional lawyer or a Professor of history or political science.

    Yes, the sanctioning of a constitution by the majority certainly enhances the document’s legitimacy. But it is understandably always a small intellectual elite with the requisite technical knowledge that will be the ultimate determinants of its substantive content. This is probably why the trio of Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and John Jay, authors of ‘The Federalist Papers’ had such an immense influence on the promotion and ratification of the United States constitution.

    Headed by Chief Rotimi Williams, the CDC was made up of some of Nigeria’s brightest and best brains although it was observed that there was no woman on the committee. The draft constitution proposed by the CDC was subjected to a three-month public debate tagged ‘The Great Debate’ on the platform of the defunct Daily Times, which at the time circulated close to half a million copies nationwide and contributions to the debate later published in two volumes. The draft proposals were then considered and ratified by a Constituent Assembly headed by Justice Udo Udoma and made up of members elected, directly or indirectly, on the platform of the local government councils as electoral colleges. True, the military made about 17 insertions into the final document forwarded to it by the CDC. But there was absolutely nothing preventing the succeeding civilian administration from expunging these military insertions if that was the will of the majority of Nigerians.

    As I said earlier, the 1999 constitution is basically a reproduction of the 1979 constitution. There is no doubt much that is wrong with this constitution that promotes excessive centralization of power at the centre. But throwing the entire document away and starting a new experiment de novo after 19 years of unbroken civilian rule under its provenance would be most prodigal, which is why this column supports ongoing, even if too long delayed, efforts to amend the constitution to decentralize greater powers, responsibilities and resources to the states and local governments.

    Even then, decentralization can be ultimately dysfunctional and counterproductive if you have ‘democratically elected’ executive tyrants and virtual monarchs like Nasir ‘el Rufai, Yahaya Bello,  Rochas Okorocha, Nyesom Wike or Ayodele Fayose in power in the states. It is obviously the behavior of political actors like these that prompted Ekweremadu’s controversial comments on military intervention. As I said earlier, however, a greater danger than military intervention, if our political actors continue on the path of impunity, is a descent to total anarchy.

  • The Dapchi debacle and wider implications

    The Dapchi debacle and wider implications

    WHILE arguments are still raging over whether the Muhammadu Buhari presidency demonstrated incompetence both before and after the abduction of the 110 Government Girls Science and Technical College (GGSTC), Dapchi, Yobe State, on February 19, many commentators remind everyone that some 112 schoolgirls from Government Girls College Chibok, Borno State, are still being held in Boko Haram captivity, the remnant from the April 14-15, 2014 abduction that shook the world. They also remind the country that beyond fighting Boko Haram, nothing else is being done about studying and understanding the sect in order to find a resounding victory and closure. Yes, the style of the terrorists has not changed. Indeed, what has appeared to change is the identity of the abductors. For, unlike the Chibok abductions masterminded by the Abubakar Shekau faction of Boko Haram, the Dapchi attack was carried out by the Abu Musab Al-Barnawi faction of the Boko Haram sect.

    Those close to the leadership of the Al-Barnawi faction have attempted to console Nigerians by suggesting that the abductors, this time, are more humane, and that the girls would be released sooner than expected. Cold comfort. What is evident beyond the mere act of the abduction, or the humaneness of the abductors, or the arguable incompetence of the Buhari government, is that the government, like the Goodluck Jonathan presidency before it, appears to be waiting for the end of the insurgency to demonstrate what lessons it has learnt from the crisis and how it intends to find a closure. But that general and unending slothfulness has proved very costly. It is not only inadvisable to wait for that indefinable end to come, it is a much more depressing indicator that no coherent policies are in place to tackle the whole gamut of the insurgency. Indeed that gamut is huge and getting increasingly insurmountable.

    Just like the Jonathan government, the current government seems more preoccupied with fighting and defeating Boko Haram, and indeed many other threats to national security, than any other thing. That they only give some cursory thoughts to the post-Boko Haram era is not quite as reassuring as it should be. But implicit in their actions and policies, not to say in the amorphous structure of their government and personnel, are clear indications that no lessons have been learnt, are being learnt, or are willing to be learnt from the multiple threats to national security, particularly the Boko Haram insurgency. With the entire country almost drenched in blood, and with the government apparently overwhelmed and limited to essentially reacting to the threats, rather than being proactive, Nigerians are beginning to fear that their leaders lack the depth and breadth needed to understand and govern an increasingly globalised, complex and conflictive country. This conclusion is not mistaken, though Nigerians must be in a quandary whether to dismiss each government for incompetence or boldly engage another one without any hope either would be better.

    When the Chibok abductions took place in 2014, the Jonathan government was caught flat-footed. In the hours after the tragedy, not to say days and weeks after, that government moved from flat-footedness to living and operating in denial. The Buhari presidency has on the contrary revelled in showcasing the difference between its own reaction to Dapchi and that of Dr Jonathan on Chibok. President Muhammadu Buhari, Nigerians were told, immediately acknowledged the abductions and described it as a national disaster. The Information minister, Lai Mohammed, together with a few other government officials visited Yobe State, conferred with state officials who briefed them, and gave assurance that the government would do everything to rescue the girls. Indeed, the Information minister told the media that the Buhari presidency had mobilised all military and security nsurgency. It is in fact both compelling and urgent for the government to demonstrate a clear and comprehensive understanding of the revolt in the Northeast as well as design adequate and fitting responses. To do these, the state governments where the revolts have taken place and other states where similar revolts might break out sometime in the future must meet minds with the federal government to tackle the whole gamut of the crisis. So far, they have not indicated that perceptiveness and resolve.

    Last Thursday, the Kaduna State governor, Nasir el-Rufai, spoke in Abuja about the low investment in education in Borno and Yobe States as a contributory factor in sowing the seeds of terrorism in the region. He is right, even though the malaise is not limited to only the Northeast. Both Borno and Yobe States, not to say other states in the North and elsewhere, must find the will to invest heavily in education to take idle and unskilled hands off the streets. If canon fodders are not available, mischief makers would find nothing to do with their canons.

    But low investment in education is not the only problem. States, particularly in the less secular North, must begin to recognise that of all the revolts that complicate law enforcement, religious insurrections are the most difficult to deal with. As the beginnings of the Northeast revolt showed, Borno State, the epicentre of the Boko Haram insurgency, had a history of official romance with religious fundamentalism. Once a huge misunderstanding broke out between the clerics and the government, it was unlikely to be limited to religious circles only. The misunderstanding immediately widened and sucked the government into its red vortex. If these troubled states will not draw a line between the democracy they claim to practice and the theocracy they seem to long for, they may be unable to prevent the widening of misunderstandings anytime they rear their heads. The official dalliance with religious groups, especially fiery sects, must be deliberately and sensibly restricted if violent eruptions are to be averted. The federal government has not seemed to focus its mind in this direction at all.

    Mallam El-Rufai may be right in his Abuja exposition last week about the education crisis confronting the Northeast and elsewhere, but much more than that, the region’s frightening poverty index and high population growth rate would sooner than later predispose the northern states as a whole to other forms of social and economic revolts. The region faces a time bomb. The Northeast states must begin to find ways of reconciling birth control with the region’s dominant religious concept of family and procreation. Population growth may be an electoral asset and a tool for cornering a significant portion of revenue allocation, but a sensible government with an eye on the future, a government more concerned about peace and stability and development, will cleverly embrace the imperatives of political and economic restructuring in the truest sense of federalism. Any other solution, such as sermonising about peaceful co-existence which President Buhari has unwisely limited himself to, will not only fail to work, it will in the long run be counterproductive.

    By all means, the country must plan and work to defeat Boko Haram, which is the principal terrorist organisation afflicting the country at the moment. But far more desirably, the Buhari presidency must show that it understands the complex issues involved, and compel itself boldly and revolutionarily to engage the right methods to deal with the existential crisis confronting the country. It has neither shown the needed brilliance nor found the courage to do what is required and practicable, and has as a matter of fact never spoken about breaking the mould in tackling these dangerous issues. But except brilliant remedies are applied, even after Boko Haram is finally and completely defeated, there will be a recrudescence of the crisis on some inauspicious tomorrow. And as every epidemiologist knows, a second break out is notoriously difficult to manage.

    The Dapchi abduction, it is hoped, has also finally persuaded the government of the dangers of spreading military resources thin, especially because of the military’s needless exposure to police duties. If the government is to have enough assets to hold recaptured territories and not expose itself to the embarrassing abductions Boko Haram militants have seemed adept at, then both the presidency and the Defence Headquarters must recognise the danger of their seemingly casual approach to military deployments. The Dapchi tragedy was embarrassing and inexcusable, and despite the Information minister’s exultant statements about the Buhari government’s prompt response, neither the president himself, who has carried on blithely as if he is unable to comprehend the scale of the disaster, nor his military top brass, who have said or done little  to reassure a grieving and apprehensive country, have handled the aftermaths of the abductions with the gravity and adroitness the situation demands.

  • Accountability, politics and diplomacy 

    Crazy  as  Nigerian  politics can  be at  times,  it can have its lofty  and edifying  moments. As  the film with that unique title-  ‘the  good, the bad  and the ugly ‘goes –  it can  be all  of these  and more. Today  we  look  at a   series  of events not only in  Nigeria but the world at large that  show that while   the morals expected  amongst  world leaders can  be of the highest  ethical  standards at most times occasionally they  fall  short  when  one least  expects.  We  tie  that with the saying in diplomacy  that in international  relations there  are no permanent  enemies  but  permanent  interests  and invoke   a popular   dictum in political  science that  says that  the morals amongst   nations cannot  be the same amongst  individual  leaders,  especially  in politics.

    We  start  with  the Nigerian  Senate which  this week  performed  the very  salutary  duty  of calling on   government  parastatals  to  render  their  audit  report  as required  by law  or face  the music of  legal  prosecution.  The  Senate according to reports  noted that only  ten  percent of the  over 400 public institutions  involved  have complied  and listed  a worrying long list  of various  periods  of non compliance  stretching   from  between one  to five  years.  More    alarming    was the fact  that the list contained  our powerful  anti  corruption  agency, the EFCC  and  the goose  that lays our golden egg, the  NNPC. Not  to talk  of many corporations  that  are supposed  to drive  our economy  and create jobs  and prosperity  for  Nigerians. This  is   aclear  case of   corruption,  institutional  irresponsibility,   lack  of  transparency and accountability   at  the  highest  level  and the government  should intervene. The reasons are obvious and the negative import of this should seriously bother government. If  government  institutions do  not render  audited  report and   accounts, as and when  due, then the  government  cannot claim  to be fighting corruption  as charity  should start  at home with public institutions  accountable  to government supervision, running  and  funding. It is not enough   or even    easy   to classify    or decry this as anti corruption forces fighting back  through  the Senate. This cannot fly. Auditing is part of government running of public institutions. Just  as corporate  bodies in the private  sector cannot  imagine  not  having Annual  General  Meetings and  audited  Annual  Reports,   it  should   be  a rule of thumb  for public institutions to  play ball  or  face  the wrath  of the law  for  negligence. Which  in   this instance  is not only  unpatriotic  and condemnable  but is also brazenly  criminal  in all  intents and purposes. Government  just  must  stop  this nauseating  situation.

    On  the international  scene we  look  at  the visit  of the Saudi  Crown  Prince to the UK  as well  as the visit  of the Liberian President  to Nigeria.

    First, in the  case  of the   visit to  Britain  of    Saudi  Crown Prince  Muhammed Bin Salman,  the British  government has shown  clearly  that in international  relations there are no permanent  enemies but permanent  interests. Protesters  were  busy in  London  condemning the visit  because  of the indiscriminate bombing of civilians in  Yemen  by  Saudi  jets propping up the government  in  Yemen  against Houthi  rebels who are Shia Muslims supported  militarily  by  Iran, Saudi  Arabia’s  implacable enemy  in the two pronged fight to get control  and leadership  of the Muslim  world as we know it today.  The  protesters  are   called ‘ Stop  the  war  Coalition ‘  and ‘Campaign  Against  Arms Trade ‘but  they  might  as well  be barking at  the moon.  This  is because  the UK  government  of  Theresa  May  is negotiating an arms and other business deal  worth over 100m  pounds  with  Saudi  Arabia  on this  visit.  The  UK  government  is not bothered  that this   is   an  unelected leader    in his thirties who  is  acting  for his   father who is  over  80  and  has seized  the powerful  levers of  power in  Saudi  Arabia  where  he locked  up  his cousins and fellow  princes in a luxurious hotel  in  Riyadh  recently, and did not release them until  they  paid huge amounts which  he alleged  they  embezzled    in his own   brand  of anti corruption  drive. The  British  establishment overlooked Saudi  politics  and its  peculiarities,  and rolled  out a royal  red  carpet  for the  Saudi  Prince  to  meet  the Queen  in person  and   the  PM  in 10  Downing  Street.  Such  is  the nature  of British  respect  for   leaders  of  nations that kill  innocent   civilians in war  and  such is the nature  of morals  amongst  nations being quite  different from those  amongst ordinary  human  beings, especially  when  juicy   contracts are  involved  in the face  of an uncertain Brexit  future.

    We  now  look  at the visit of the Liberian  President George Weah  to Nigeria   and  his  humble request  for  Nigerian  teachers  to  help  the Education  sector  in  Nigeria.  Let  me confess  first  that  I  have a soft  spot  for  Liberia  as  a nation  and a softer  heart  for  its new  president  as a  soccer  fan.  This  is because  Nigeria played  a major  role in bringing peace  to  Liberia  at a time  when the Nigerian  government  and military  dictated the pace and role of diplomacy  and even  force in maintaining  and   ensuring    the  security,  sovereignty  and territorial  integrity   of  not  only African states  in general  but that of the ECOWAS  sub region  in particular.  I  do  not want  to say  more  than that except  that the Nigerian  government of the day should help and grant  the request  of the   Liberian  government led  by   former  soccer legend, George Weah.

    With  regard  to  the Liberian  President himself,   I  say   again  that  I  admire him a lot  for   his   football  pedigree  and  success as the first  African  to win the European  footballer  of the  Year  award. I  nostalgically  and happily  recall  his soccer  success  with  the great AC Milan of  Italy   and  the pride  his exploits  gave  Africans as he  won honors  and laurels  amongst  the best clubs  and  giants of  European    soccer.

    In  Nigeria   his  equivalent  in my book  and for  my  generation,  was  my friend  and soccer  hero  Segun Odegbami, who   similarly   in  his playing days gave my  generation of football  fans so much  joy  and pride  with his runs and dribbles   for  the  Green  Eagles  at the National  Stadium  when it was really a  soccer  stadium  and not   the   rusty   event   centre   that  it is nowadays. Let  me once  again salute  the Liberian  President  George  Weah  and  wish  him a productive tenure  of office for  his nation  and   people. Once  again  long live  the Federal  Republic  of  Nigeria.

  • Football ministers

    Football ministers

    George Opong Weah visited Nigeria on Monday – not as a soccer star, but as President of Liberia. He wore a suit, not his favourite number 9 shirt which made fans roar in ecstasy, as he stepped onto the pitch for a game. Weah was a prolific striker, scoring goals with aplomb. He was such a phenomenal player that he did the unthinkable – playing for both Inter Milan and AC Milan FC in Italy. These two teams are bitter rivals, though they use the same pitch for matches. Weah wasn’t the only player to do so but, for an African, it underlined how he was adored everywhere he played.

    I would have been surprised if Weah left Abuja without scoring a goal; he did and the goal, if reviewed, was a spectacular one as it touched on the most important reason why Super Eagles don’t do well in major soccer tournaments and other sporting contingents. Weah isn’t a stranger to our football politics, having been playmate with Taribo West and Celestine Babayaro at Chelsea. Besides, he played against many of our soccer icons, such as the late Stephen Keshi, the late Rashidi Yekini et al.

    Weah had cause to play ceremonial matches with famous players, such as Austin Okocha, Nwankwo Kanu, Samson Siasia, Peter Rufai and other members of the golden era of the game here. They must have discussed our problems with Weah.

    So what did Weah say in Abuja? “Some of the things you see at the World Cup, you will see an entire team go to represent a whole country and you will hear that one minister took the money, they did not pay these players and the players are causing problem. When players are going to camp, it is to relax and focus. And for them to be in camp, they must have everything there for them not to worry, ‘’ Weah said.

    Spot on Weah. Most ministers of sport advance the argument that since the cash is coming from the government’s vault, they should be the ones to disburse it – as if they own the cash. It is difficult to explain why the ministers don’t trust NFF members as the president trusts them. Those of us who cover sporting competitions find it difficult to answer questions concerning our ministers dishing out cash to players when the ministry has officials who can do the job. Foreigners wonder how such ministers can audit expenditures. Which auditors, appointed by the ministers indict him?

    What these ministers do is to blackmail NFF members. They polarise the media to stir up controversies, which compel the government to constitute probe panels whose outcomes are of no consequence, if the ministers succeed to muscle the federation chiefs to do their biddings. These football ministers set the NFF members against themselves with the face-off affecting the team’s performance. They then constitute Presidential Task Forces (PTFs), whose members, most times, are the ministers’ friends. And critics of the federation take over the jobs of the coaches.

    It got so bad in two instances that the incumbent coach watched in awe and pain as interviews were been conducted for his job during tournaments. The late Shuiabu Amodu qualified Nigeria for two World Cup competitions, but was sacked, no thanks to our all knowing sports ministers. Sports minister Solomon Dalung told the media that the Muhammadu Buhari administration saved N7 billion when there wasn’t a PTF body to superintend during Nigeria’s qualification series to the Russia 2018 World Cup.

    What most ministers don’t know is that Nigerians can’t be fooled by their theatrics, especially the corporate world, which would not do business because of frequent policy somersaults in governance. Besides, the ministers think that creating confusion in the Glasshouse, and unfounded allegations against soccer chieftains, would convince the business moguls to listen to their requests. No show.  No business concern would invest in projects bedevilled with controversies and tales of sharp practices. Nigerians look forward to the day when the Sports Ministry would also be probed since it is always the soccer chiefs that pilfer government’s cash. We wait.

    We had a minister in the past who watched matches live at the stadium, but compelled the NFF men to drive back to his hotel some three hours away to collect players’ bonuses which other countries paid immediately after games. The minister insisted on doing the paper work whereas he had a personal contingent of 35 people (cooks, nannies, house boys, relations, kids etc). What manner of paper work did the minister want when the federation had stipulated what they wanted the cash for in the budget which the government approved? Shouldn’t the minister have given the cash to the federation to disburse and ask them to account after the tournament, the way others do?

    Nigeria is usually the laughing stock when players refuse to train until their cash is given to them. Most times the players spend the night before a game sharing money that should have been transferred into their accounts immediately after matches like it is done in their European clubs.

    We also had a minister who got government cash for a recuperating Nigerian athlete, who got paid in two tranches at different times. Was it not a sports minister who boasted that he would convince the government not to waste money on Nigeria’s qualifiers for the Mundial because Super Eagles can’t win the trophy? Yet, the minister was on every trip to watch the team, of course earning estacodes for himself, that is if he didn’t have other people who accompanied him. They tell us that they accompany the teams to deliver the president’s goodwill messages. Indeed.

    Now that the new NFF has got the Aiteo Group to invest in our football, I want to see if the minister would ask them to hand what they generated to him. So far, Aiteo has spent $600,000 and N320 million on the team en route its qualification for the Mundial in Russia. Again, the NFF has secured a deal worth N2.5 billion over five years with Nigeria Breweries, with NFF President Amaju Melvin Pinnick assuring Nigerians that he would generate $2.8 million more for the team.

    Already, FIFA has released $1.5million to the 32 qualifiers for the Mundial, Nigeria inclusive. Another $8 million await Eagles for the group stage matches. and the figures are staggering as the teams progress. So, what would that minister be saying now that cash running into millions in dollars hits the NFF account? What manner of advice would he have given the President asking him not to fund Nigeria’s participation to the World Cup? Is the World Cup all about winning?

    Weah spoke about Nigeria’s chances at the Mundial, saying: “I think Nigerian team is a model; we all followed them. I have played with great Nigerian players; I played against them. Now you have a new generation. The fact that they qualified is a good thing for Nigeria.

    “But I hope they will prepare very early because they are going to represent Africa and we will be there to watch them, for them to bring the trophy for the first time if it is possible. But I think the seriousness to go to World Cup is not to pay players to go, I want every African government to know, if you win World Cup is a pride to Africa is not just to Nigeria, so we must do everything to ensure that the players are not stressed, make sure they concentrate, make sure their incentives are given to them to motivate them.

    “Remember I played in European setting, when we go to camp, we have nothing to do. The only thing we have to do is to take a shower and prepare for the game, everything is laid down here and so you have no excuse.  So, let the players not have excuse, support them and let them go and bring back that cup.”

    Weah noted that every government in Africa complains when it comes to sports. He thanked President Buhari for supporting the Super Eagles to qualify for the 2018 World Cup in Russia.

    He said: “I was amazed the other sitting before Macron; he talked about his sports agenda because he believes you can build capacity through sports, and through sports you can also encourage people to work, to do what they want to do.

    “I have been fighting for so long for my national team to qualify. Imagine, I’m the World Best here in Africa, the only world best. And I told French President Macron that FIFA built one stadium in Liberia and we have one Ballon D’or,  so if you build 10 stadia in Liberia, you will have 10 Ballon D’Or.’’

    Weah revealed that he had convinced the World Bank to support his country’s sports revival with $5 million. This is what Nigerian sports need, not ministers who abandon 29 other sports and bicker with soccer. It hurts to note that these other sports are money spinners too, like soccer, in countries where sports is seen as a business, not one to compensate failed politicians.

    “As a former coach, technical director and former sponsor of the national team, you know is not only football. When Liberia goes to represent us at the Olympics, we only see the officials drilling with our flags, we don’t see no athletes.

    “This year, we have made sure that all of our sports we will have someone to represent us and I will be there to monitor them. That is why we put a former player as the sports minister that I will work with to revamp Liberia National Team and I know he will do it best. And those techniques that made Liberia qualify twice and missed the World Cup three times, I will make sure that I work with him so that he can do the work and ensure that our athletes go and represent our country,” Weah said.

    I envy Liberia. I won’t be surprised if Liberia becomes the new Mecca for sports in the next decade, with President Weah. Who won’t fund sports when the marketing drive is being initiated by the country’s President?

  • Obasanjo’s myth of infallibility

    Obasanjo’s myth of infallibility

    IT is hard to know what to make of former president Olusegun Obasanjo’s insinuation of his own infallibility. Addressing students of the Ijaw National Academy in Bayelsa State recently as part of the events to mark Governor Seriake Dickson’s sixth anniversary, Dr Obasanjo argued that his failings as president were excusable on the grounds that he took decisions based on the best information available to him at the time. It is remarkable that after many years out of office, it still has not dawned on the former president that nothing excuses bad and sometimes injurious decisions. Just like former military leader Ibrahim Babangida who sometimes remorselessly accept responsibility for some of the bad decisions he took in office, Dr Obasanjo keeps an expressionless face when he wrestles with his own decisional demons.

    Not only has the former president now qualified as a thinker, particularly with his PhD in Theology, he also ruled Nigeria both as military head of state and an elected president. By experience and learning, therefore, more introspection is naturally expected of the former president who led Nigeria first between 1976 and 1979, and then between 1999 and 2007. But bafflingly, he has often been wary of the morality, discipline and depth required of him, virtues the country, nay the African continent, presumed him to possess in abundance. Here is how Dr Obasanjo defended his failings: “What is it I didn’t do in office that I now want to do? Do what you can defend before God, man and conscience. With the knowledge, resources and facilities that I had, there is nothing that I did not do. None. If I had more resources, then I think I would have done differently, but with what I had and the resources at my disposal, l would say no, I did all that is humanly possible when I was President. I was not perfect, only God is. Also bear in mind that people you work with will make sure you don’t see all things. If that happens, who do you blame? Some of them will do everything. What is important is that you must not have regret. I do not have any regret about things I did when I was in government or in any leadership position I have held. No regret.”

    Obviously, neither the country as a whole nor the Ijaw people to whom he spoke when he addressed the academy, are going to hear from him any remorseful statement about the military invasion he ordered against Odi community in Bayelsa State, an invasion that led to the killing of scores of indigenes and the levelling of the town. Neither the country nor the people of Lagos are going to get from him the contrition a great leader proves himself capable of, especially regarding his defiance of the Supreme Court judgement that ordered him to release Lagos local governments’ impounded share of the federal revenue allocation. He seems to suggest that those bad decisions, among a myriad, were justified on the grounds of either the available information at his disposal at the time or the deliberate mischief of his aides who conspired to constrict or subvert his options.

    The tenor of his justificatory arguments indicates and speaks more clearly to his eternal cocksureness than the accuracy or falsity of the facts available to him when he took his decisions. He would not do anything different, he almost gloated, should he be faced with the same issues and the same inputs. But what his audience wanted to elicit from him — especially given the fact that Odi town, which his military wrongfully invaded and burned just a few months after he assumed office in 1999, is located in the state where he was addressing the academy — was a discourse on the subject of Odi, his opinion of the event that has scarified the town, and what he now thought of his actions in retrospect. But Dr Obasanjo is not one to yield, no, not by a mile. He preferred, he said, to hide under the whimsical justifications of mischievous aides and what he went on to describe gleefully as available contemporary facts. The November 1999 Odi invasion has since been litigated and adjudicated, with a full and final payment of N15bn made to victims. It would not have hurt Dr Obasanjo to speak on the quality of intelligence available to him at the time of ordering the invasion, even though most commentators at the time feared that the decision was based more on emotions than facts, to wit, that the former president felt that the killing of the 12 security agents that served as the casus belli for the invasion was a challenge to the almightiness of the security forces and the government. Had he spoken of the available intelligence presented him at the time, and had he extrapolated from it to caution leaders everywhere on how fine policies could sometimes miscarry, both his audience and the entire country would have profited from his introspection, remorse, and the humanity which many, alas, thought he was incapable of exhibiting.

    Among other policy miscarriages, it was also expected that he would speak about his flagrant disregard for the rule of law, in particular for the judgement of the Supreme Court regarding the Lagos council funds which he treated so contemptuously. He did nothing of such. He kept a brave face despite knowing that his audience needed him to identify a few controversial issues that dogged his presidency, and speak to those issues with enlightened hindsight. By sticking to the pompous highway and pontificating on curious ancillary issues, not to talk of his boastful lack of penitence, Dr Obasanjo unwittingly demonstrated his lack of understanding of the role which character plays in building and sustaining the legacy of a leader, and in developing and projecting a great personality worthy of historical lionisation. Indeed, far beyond suggesting that he did no wrong, or that if he did any wrong, then it should be blamed on extraneous factors, he sadly gave the impression, by his stubborn loyalty to his decisions in office, that he is incapable of the judgement and intuitiveness which hallmark exceptional leadership, the anvils on which great leadership is forged.

    There was, however, a second notable strand in his address to the Ijaw academy. Perhaps because of his PhD in Theology, the former president felt the burden, if not challenge and inspiration, to offer an original idea on the essentials of leadership. Hear him: “If you are a leader that fears God, the chances are that you will be good. If you do not fear God, forget it. A leader has to have knowledge, be a team worker. They are very important. You must fear God.” Mercifully, he did not deem it fit to elaborate on that sophomoric philosophy. His view of God is well known, so, too, are his suspect Christian principles. But how would he categorise the leaders of great and powerful nations who either, by Dr Obasanjo’s theology, worship idols or worship nothing? How would he view China, Russia, the Mongoloid leader, Genghis Kahn, the great Caesars, etc who paid no heed to Dr Obasanjo’s entranced idea of deity? Leadership is such a deep and almost unfathomable issue that no one, let alone Dr Obasanjo, had the right to treat so cavalierly.

    In any case, Dr Obasanjo believes he knows and fears God. Yet, few around him think that, by any stretch of the imagination, he qualifies as a good leader. He not only ordered invasions that led to the needless death of scores of innocent people in Odi and Zaki Biam (Benue State), he is known to eye the concept of justice warily, had deliberately orchestrated injustice as evidenced by his approach to the Lagos council revenue issue, intrigued for a third term agenda, and organised what remains till today probably the vilest elections in Nigerian history. There is much more to leadership than Dr Obasanjo presumes. The country can only hope that when he finally comes round to writing his memoires, he will prove everyone wrong by penning the truth and exposing in simple language everything his convoluted and indefensible lifestyle has encrusted in mysteries.

  • APC and the tenure question

    APC and the tenure question

    Briefing newsmen after Tuesday’s National Executive Committee (NEC) meeting of the All Progressives Congress (APC), the often effervescent Governor of Kogi State, Alhaji Yahaya Bello, said the party’s NEC, in accordance with its constitutional powers, had decided to extend the tenure of its Chief Oyegun-led National Working Committee (NWC) as well as the party’s state executives by one year. Governor Bello was obviously referring to Article 13.3 (ii) of the party’s constitution, which empowers the NEC to “Discharge all functions of the National Convention as constituted in between elections”. Expatiating on the reasons for the NEC’s decision, Bello said, “Considering the time left for the party to conduct all the congresses and conventions and considering that our leader, Senator Tinubu, has been charged with the responsibility of reconciling all aggrieved members of our party, we cannot afford to approach the general elections with more dispute and crises. Let me tell you that this will not stop the convention of the party. But to go into elective Congresses is what we are trying to avoid, relying on the constitution of our party.”

    Clarifying Bello’s statement on Tuesday night, however, the Chairman of the Nigerian Governors Forum (NGF) and Governor of Zamfara State, Alhaji Abdulaziz Yari, situated the NEC’s decision in its appropriate legal and constitutional context. He stressed that the desire of the NEC to extend the tenure of the party executives’ was still only an expression of interest until necessary constitutional amendments to that effect had been undertaken in accordance with the constitution of the party. In Governor Yari’s words, “What was done today is only an expression of a desire to extend the tenure of Chief Oyegun-led National Executives. The power of the Convention to extend tenure is exercised only by way of a constitutional amendment. The power of the National Executive Committee of our party cannot go beyond doing so by way of constitution amendment”.

    Governor Yari defended his position by reference to Article 30 (i) of the APC constitution, which states that “This Constitution and Schedules hereto can be amended only   by the National Convention of the Party”. Yari’s point is, in my view, succinct and surgical. Article 13.3(ii) empowers the NEC to “discharge all functions of the National Convention as constituted in between conventions”. One of the functions (powers) of the National Convention is to extend the tenure of party executives if it so desires. But the National Convention, itself, cannot exercise this power without constitutional amendment. And constitutional amendment, according to Article 30 (i), can be effected only by the National Convention. This is why an Extraordinary National Convention of the party had to be convened on October 29, 2014, for the sole purpose of effecting necessary amendments designed to align the party’s constitution with the Electoral Act.

    But why is amendment of the party’s constitution a necessary condition for any extension of tenure for party executives to be legal and valid? This is simply because Article 17 (i) of the party’s constitution states that “Except as otherwise provided by in this constitution, all officers of the Party elected or appointed into the party’s organs shall serve in such organs for a period of four (4) years and shall be eligible for re-election or re-appointment for another period of four years only…”. Even more importantly, according to legal experts, Section 223 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria provides not only for “the periodical election on a democratic basis of the principal officers and members of the executive committee or other governing body of the political party…” but in sub-section 2a of that section specifically states that “the election of the officers or members of the executive committee of a political party shall be deemed to be periodical only if it is made at regular intervals not exceeding four years…” The NWC’s tenure ends in June.  If it is not careful, therefore, the APC’s NEC stands the risk of violating not just its own constitution but the constitution of the country.

    Does time constraint provide a plausible excuse for the APC not holding elective congresses and conventions as insinuated by Bello? This certainly should not be so. After all, the party held three successful National Conventions within a period of seven months in 2014. It is all a function of the efficiency and efficacy of the elected and appointed party executives as well as the party bureaucracy they preside over. Again, how do we explain the seemingly morbid fear expressed by Yahya Bello, and echoed by Chief Oyegun, that elective congresses and conventions will necessarily result in crises that will negatively affect the party in the 2019 elections?

    Again, this was certainly not the case in the keenly contested National Convention through which President Muhammadu Buhari emerged as the party’s candidate in 2014. The important thing is that the primaries were widely perceived to be unquestionably credible, free, fair and transparent thus making the results generally acceptable to all aspirants. The impression must not be created that party members are politically immature and unable to accept the outcome of results of intra-party contests that they do not win. Elective party congresses and conventions must not be portrayed as negative activities that disrupt and destabilize parties. In reality, these activities constitute the equivalent of organizational muscles and sinews of political parties. Just like the muscles of the human body are strengthened through regular exercise, the organizational muscles of political parties are strengthened through regular, constitutionally stipulated intra-party electoral competitive exercises.

    On the other hand, parties gradually atrophy and ossify into inertia and apathy when intra-party elective congresses and conventions are stifled or cynically and illegally manipulated in violation of the will of the majority of party members. Just as ultimately happened with the PDP leading to its monumental electoral loss in 2015, parties that stifle internal electoral competition purportedly to avoid crises gradually lose their organizational agility and capacity to compete effectively against opposition parties in general elections. Elective congresses and conventions ahead of the 2019 can only strengthen rather than weaken the APC. They will invigourate and energize the party at all levels. They will provide opportunities for thousands of party members who legitimately desire to occupy party offices to exercise their right to vie for those positions. This can only reduce the level of frustration and possibly indifference and apathy among the large number of talented party members who are made to feel that their aspirations are stifled by lack of opportunities for intra-party contests.

    A political party must not allow itself to be held hostage by those who will accept nothing but victory in intra-party contests and resort to seeking to plunge the party into crises if they lose. That can be no valid excuse for not holding elective congresses and conventions as stipulated in a party’s constitution. In any case, there is no way in my view that the APC can constitutionally avoid holding elective congresses at ward, Local Government and State levels of the party. This is because the ward, local government and state executive committees of the party do not have similar powers of exercising the functions of congress in between congresses as the NEC has.

    The fears that holding elective congresses and conventions will hurt the party’s chances particularly in the presidential elections are self-serving and exaggerated. True, the APC government may not have met the high expectations it had raised before its assumption of power. But it has performed modestly well and I am sure that a significant number of the electorate will still prefer the party to the return of the PDP. Besides, whatever may be his lapses, President Buhari’s personal integrity still remains a huge asset for the APC. In any case, the PDP, although it is reforming gradually under Prince Uche Secondus, cannot realistically expect to bounce back to power in 2019. It has suffered too much moral, structural and psychological damage. President Obasanjo’s Coalition for Nigeria Movement is evidently dead on arrival. Why, then, should the APC fear to hold elective congresses and conventions? It is unjustifiable.

    Apparently and perhaps understandably, Chief Oyegun, has strongly defended the proposal to extend his NWC’s tenure claiming that elective congresses at this time will be disruptive and counter- productive. One would have thought he should be eager to submit himself to the will of party members in an elective National Convention if indeed he is confident that he has performed creditably as party Chairman. As a former outstanding Permanent Secretary, former State governor, NADECO activist and experienced politician, his election as National Chairman raised high hopes that he would help lead the hurriedly formed party towards greater structural cohesiveness and ideological clarity after its 2015 victory. Instead, under Oyegun, the party has been plagued with a multiplicity of crises that could either have been nipped in the bud or promptly resolved with a more creative, firm and proactive leadership. The APC should confront its internal demons now by holding elective congresses and conventions and jettisoning the idea of tenure extension for national and state party executives. If not, if it wins re-election in 2019, the first year of the new APC administration will be squandered on the politics of intra-party elections. To avoid that, the party may again have to further extend the tenure of incumbent elected and appointed party executives to its own detriment and that of Nigeria’s democracy.

  • Corruption, religion and politics

    Corruption, religion and politics

    In  my time as an undergraduate  at the great Ife  in the early  seventies, more  final  year students  chose  to work at  the Department  of Customs  and Excise  than in any  government institutions on  offer  for  employment   and recruitment   after  graduation at  that time. Most never  wanted the Civil Service  and working in oil  companies  and banks   were the more  preferred  places for new  graduates.  The  reasons were obvious. Those  in Customs  who   left  the campus on graduation got richer quickly  and built  houses in a year  or two, while those in  the civil  service  only showed traces of toil  after getting their first  cars in  record  time. Those in banks and oil companies  were the rich  boys and girls in town.  These  in those  days were the eligible bachelors  who  married  the most  beautiful ladies  in town  and threw  the most  expensive parties.

    That  was in the seventies  and I  was  part  of it   and let  me use  myself as an example because I  cannot sue myself   for  defamation   or  slander   as my Sociology Professor,  the late  Pa  Sam  Adenola  Igun  use  to  say  in those days at  Ife. I was in the Civil Service   after   graduation as  an Assistant  Secretary on level 08. I  managed  to get  a job at the Daily  Times  as Staff Writer  and made it to  a bank   where  I worked  for 27  years before  retiring a decade ago. That  was  my time, a far  yesterday   and a far cry too,    from   the realities of today  which we will  look at  in the  context of today’s topic.

    Nigeria  today  has a government in place  that came into power on the  reputation  of a presidential candidate   renowned   for  integrity  and discipline. That  government was elected  in the  2015  presidential  elections and has fought  corruption massively  and seized looted  properties  from  looters.  Recently   there was   talk of selling seized  properties  from  looters  and two strong voices came up  like thunder.  The  first was that of the Sultan  of  Sokoto  the Head of the Nigerian  Muslims who  said despite the  war on corruption,  corruption is still  very  much  with  us. The other was that of the  governor of Ekiti State,  Ayo  Fayose   who  said  that  the names  of looters should be published  before seized  assets  are sold. Obviously  anti Corruption  forces  have fought back desperately  and the government itself  is fighting for its political  life  just  as the next elections of 2019  is around the corner.   I  have put this scenario  of the nature of the government of the day in perspective so one can  appreciate  the   comparison  I  want to make between  the eligible  bachelors of  my time and those  of the present time.

    The eligible bachelors of today are not in the Customs or  banks or oil  companies  as before. They are in the Political Class,  the Civil Service, the Security services,   and    the religious institutions. Special Assistants –SAs for short are the dream  husbands  for parents who  want the best for their daughters in marriage  nowadays. Pastors  are elegant  and very  wanted,   budding grooms  grooms  that  most Nigerian  mothers    seek   for their  unmarried  daughters  so  that the immediate future  can be bright for them  and their family at  large. Of  course  politicians and Honorables are the toast  of high  society  in any or all  of our 36  state capitals  and  the numerous  local  governments,  where  even  local  councilors will  get  a royal  treatment  before  any teacher  or  university  lecturer. That is the situation on the ground nowadays  in  Nigeria  as we battle corruption   and prepare  for another  presidential  election next year.

    What  is however  pathetic  about  the scenario  I  have  dug  up is that  in the battle against  corruption  of  the  present Administration    today, and in  the nation at  large,  the professions and calling I  have highlighted   as  reeking with  the most  eligible bachelors in society   nowadays,  are  in the   front  line of the government  of the day’s     fight  against  corruption. Your  guess  is as good as mine  therefore  how  successful  they  have been.  I   add  very   significantly   that   these  Nigerians   are  mainly  from the two  major  religions in  Nigeria namely   Christianity  and Islam  and   again  they   are  the toasts of   sermons and  praises   at all  our mosques   and churches  where  they  are blessed    as  products of divine benediction   and salt   of the earth,   regardless of the source of huge  donations and grants they  bring personally   for  the welfare    of the leaders   of  these  religious institutions. I will    therefore  illustrate  with  three  events   both  here  and in  the USA to  show that  corruption  is hydra headed  and that those  who  are  expected  to fight it must  like Caesar’s wife  be above reproach as  those who  live in glass  houses  should   not  throw  stones.

    I  will  comment  on the news in the media that there  was  corruption in the election of the Bishop of  Lagos by the House of Bishops in  the   Nigerian Anglican  Communion in Ilorin, the capital  of Kwara  State  recently.  I will  take issues  with  the suggestion of the US President Donald  Trump  that  teachers  should be trained  to use guns after  a mad student walked calmly to a school  from where  he had been dismissed  in Florida, USA,   and killed  17  of his school mates. I will  round up with the  observation  of  the Sultan  of  Sokoto  that corruption  is still  very  much  a way  of life in Nigeria   in  high   places   and  that criminals  should   be called  criminals regardless  of whether   they   are  Christians  or  Muslims.

    The  news  that bribery  was involved in the election  of the new  Bishop of Lagos  by the House  of Bishops in Ilorin bothered   me as I am an Anglican  and worship at Christ Church  Cathedral,  Marina, Lagos,  the Mother Cathedral  of  the Anglican  Communion in Nigeria and the seat  of the Bishop of  Lagos. The  pedigree  of this   Cathedral   is an  important  one in the  history of the Anglican  Communion  and the House  of Bishops  should accord that respect to history  and know that  the election of its Bishop is important   and  should  be treated  with great  respect and circumspection  given  its huge  contribution now and in the  past, to the fortunes  and growth  of  Anglicanism in Nigeria.

    Christ  Church  Cathedral, Marina   should  not be treated  as  just   a part  of  the Anglican  Community in Nigeria because it has paid its dues  in  terms of the quality  of its congregation  and its leading role  as  center of  high  quality  church music, its impeccable Choir  and communal  rendering of liturgy and Songs  of Praise  of   the highest quality  in  Nigeria. Succession  to the seat  of the Bishop  of Lagos should not be stage managed  as alleged  and not at  all  by those who  think money  can  buy anything in Nigeria  including the House  of  God. The  end should come decisively  to  an era of those who have  said the clergy  should not be given second hand cars and should only use new Camrys  when  most of the congregation  in many Churches  do   not even own cars and are  expected to buy such expensive spiritual  fringe  benefits  for their spiritual  leaders. Money  indeed is the root of all evil  but it should  not  affect  the choice  of who is the  Anglican  Bishop  of  Lagos.

    On  Donald  Trump’s suggestion  that teachers  should bear  arms I  think  he was just  trying  to dance to the  powerful    guns lobby  on the right of Americans to bear  arms. His excuse was that if teachers  have arms mass killers  could be stopped faster. But then teachers according to analysts did not enter their profession to bear arms but to educate.  The US’  problem  is that it has over pampered  its youths  and the result  is the  unprecedented  killings by teenagers of their  mates.  The  present generation  of  Americans  glorify  rights at  the expense   of  God  and   even   their own security. Even  the present killer of 17  innocent kids  was given a VIP treatment in  court  with the female police officers handling  him  so  carefully  and with something  akin  to affection. That will not deter crazy people like  him  from envying and wanting to emulate  him.  In  addition the students of the school    who   were  killed  by one of them   were  allowed   to   lead a delegation    to  the White  House   to  meet  the president of the US  who  simply said he has heard  them   and was thinking of  making a law   to check  mental  history   and raising the age of gun owners   to  21, well  beyond the age of the students.  It   is the moral  right of parents   in the US   to  control   and discipline their   children   in school   as   students   not   turn them  on society  as protesters  when  one of   them   turns  the gun on his fellow    students    in  this crazy  manner.    The   US  motto    is ‘In   God  we trust ‘   but  in reality  Americans    value  their rights  to  own  guns   and    live   as gays   more  than  their God  or even their security.  Indeed   America  has not been truthful to its own on the guns  issue  and is going to  pay a huge price  now  for that moral  corruption  that can  only spew  out  more violence and killings after  the six  that have occurred  in  schools   in   the two  months of this year  alone.

    Lastly,  the  Sultan  of  Sokoto  at a recent  book launch  observed  that the Fulanis as a tribe  have been  branded  as killers because  of  some Fulani  herdsmen killing people all  over the nation. According  to reports, the Sultan said – There  are millions of  Fulani who don’t even know what a cow is. I am Fulani I am not  a herder. He then concluded –Lets  give criminals their ideal  name, not Christian criminals, not Fulani criminals, not Muslim criminals. If  the government   has  failed, let  them call us to come and help  out. I cannot agree more with the Sultan. Once  again,  long live the Federal  Republic of Nigeria.

  • Roaring Rohr

    Roaring Rohr

    I don’t envy Gernot Rohr. He has the daunting task of ensuring that Nigerians enjoy the matches of the Russia 2018 World Cup, beginning with Nigeria’s opening game against Croatia on June 16. The German updates us on his work whenever he comes into the country. And his plans are quite laudable, with many of them answering questions on our preparations for the Mundial.

    Rohr isn’t asking us to pray for the Super Eagles. Nor is he stirring any controversy about his dealings with his employers, the Nigeria Football Federation (NFF). He isn’t talking about going back to the drawing board (it must be in tatters now) . He is telling us his plans and debunking those that are off the mark. We have been saved the needless debate of the powers of the Technical Committee over the tactician. No cheap talk of having a certain number of home-based players. We seem to know those likely to make the country’s 23-man squad to the Mundial.

    Rohr’s plans are not speculative. Now we know that Vincent Enyeama is out of the squad. This Enyeama disclosure underscores the importance that Rohr attaches to our preparations. He has sent one of the goalkeepers’ trainers to Spain to drill Francis Uzoho. This means that Uzoho will be the country’s number one goalkeeper at the Mundial. The training sessions are meant to keep him fit. And the managers of Uzoho’s Spanish side have keyed into Rohr’s dream by fielding the Nigerian in the team’s recent matches. Uzoho has recorded 10 clean slates showing the huge prospect he is for Nigeria.

    The friendly games against Poland on March 23 in Warsaw and Serbia on March 27 will give the manager the platform to see how well the trainer has worked on Uzoho in Spain. It will also serve as the best opportunity to improve on Uzoho’s confidence. Ezenwa has been off the pitch due to injuries; he can’t feature in such top grade games against Poland and Serbia.

    Rohr knows how not to dampen the morale of contenders for each position. The truth is that the first choice goalkeeper looks like Uzoho, irrespective of what Rohr told the media on Wednesday in Germany.

    “Uzoho is working hard, but he is only third choice keeper at La Coruna, and very young. Let’s work on all our goalkeepers,’’ he said, adding: “We will give the same attention to Alampasu, Alloy Agu will work on the local lads as well. We will work equally with all the goalkeepers we have available, even with Daniel Akpeyi in South Africa.” Well said, Rohr; it is better to throw the fight for positions open.

    Ezenwa and Akpeyi will warm the bench, although Ezenwa may feel cheated, having manned the goalpost creditably. The World Cup is the platform for excellence, not the podium to celebrate mediocrity. Fielding Uzoho ahead of Ezenwa raises hope for Brian Idowu at the left back position. Idowu utilised the opportunity of the Argentina game to score a goal on his debut and impress Rohr, who had been pondering how best to plug the hole at the team’s left back position.

    Idowu’s imposing personality and sublime skills stand him out as a defender strikers must be wary of. He also showed tremendous pace and strength while running down the left flank. His goal against the Argentines enhances his chances of manning that position for Nigeria.

    Will Rohr rely on players’ experience or their current forms in picking his first 11? Elderson Echiejile is the most experienced left back, having played at the Brazil 2014 World Cup and the 2013 Confederations Cup held in Sao Paolo. Echiejile graduated from the age-grade teams to the Eagles after stints with Bendel Insurance FC of Benin City in the domestic league. What would give Rohr’s team the tenacity at the rear would be those versatile players who can play in more than one positions. Ola Aina, another Nigeria-born lad offers the manager that quality since he can play in any of the five defensive positions. Aina is distinguishing himself weekly for Hull City in the Coca-Cola Championship League in England.  He has been selected severally this season in the division’s team-of-the-week.

    Tyronne Ebuehi will be the surprise first team player at the Mundial. He is immensely gifted; recall the ease with which he took the ball off the feet of  the Argentines. Ebuehi didn’t play regularly in the qualifiers, largely because of the physical style in Africa. He doesn’t have to chase his markers since he ensures that he gets to the ball first.

    Such intelligent players earn their marks at the Mundial, little wonder Ebuehi has been listed in the team-of-the-week in Holland for Netherlands ADO Den Haag recently in the Dutch League. Will Rohr dump Shehu Abdullahi for Ebuehi? Reading Rohr’s mind, one won’t be shocked. Ebuehi is a natural defender, unlike Abdullahi who is a defensive midfielder. This explains why he hesitates to launch tackles inside the penalty box. Natural defenders would simply shield the ball and make it almost impossible for the striker to score, except such strikers are English – apologies to Arsenal manager Arsene Wenger, who once described English strikers as divers for penalty kicks.

    Abdullahi has made the right wing back position his. But with the way Ebuehi played against Argentina, he must roll up his sleeves to keep the shirt. Aina could dethrone Abdullahi, now that it appears that Idowu has clinched the left wing back shirt, if he does well against Poland in Warsaw and Serbia in London.

    The central defensive pair of Troost-Ekong and Leon Balogun have been very effective. My only fear is with injuries (God forbid), but it is in the game to be injured or become ineligible for the next game due to card offences. Pundits aren’t comfortable with Omeruo’s style, despite his playing at the Mundial in Brazil in 2014. Will Rohr hit Europe again to get Nigeria-born lads to serve as substitutes? Names, such as Kevin Akpoguma, are being dropped as prospects even as the manager is ruling out any new face in the squad. Coaches talk like that. They like to keep their cards to their chests.

    What is important to Rohr is how to distinguish himself in his debut appearance at the Mundial. Having been persuaded to leave Germany FA for the Nigerian job, Rohr knows that doing well at the Mundial will raise his profile at home. It will also throw open the gate of opportunities from clubs and countries seeking to improve on their profile in global football. It is a win-win situation for Eagles and Rohr – both parties need the World Cup stage to excel.

    I’m glad that we are going to the Mundial with the youngest group of players. I’m inclined to celebrate this feat because a large number of players use birth certificates, not sworn affidavits. Age cheating has been the bane of our national teams after big competitions, such as the Mundial. If we exit from the Russia 2018 World Cup, we won’t be talking about a complete overhaul of the team. We would know if the exit arose from having an inefficient manager. Those players to bid farewell in the new dispensation will also be known. Conversely, if we excel, Rohr stays and builds on what he has in place.

    Nigeria, with a population of over 170 million, should make her participation at the Mundial a birthright, given what our players are doing in Europe. We hardly hear of issues of allowances from big players during competitions. Eagles’ players have truncated our chances to excel on the big stage due to the shortcomings of the federation, only to play again under the same setting. Messi and Ronaldo have issues with their federations but they give their best, knowing that the issues will be resolved. Our players make it look like the world will end if they are not paid. Don’t get me wrong;  they deserve their wages. Till date, no federation chief has been found guilty of misappropriation of funds. It means that our players must learn how to believe their federation chiefs, especially if things remain the same.

    Our players know the importance of playing at the World Cup. Many Nigerians haven’t recovered from their wasted revenue when we failed to qualify for the Mundial. Nigerians make a lot of money when Eagles are doing well in major competitions. The media are awash with stories and people do brisk business selling wares with our players’ pictures, business centres accommodate more fans and eateries, bars and hotels increase their stock.

    A credible outing for Nigeria in Russia will attract European scouts and managers to Nigeria in search of more talents like we had in the past.