READERS will please permit and grant me the indulgence to quote at some length from the writings of the late Dr Bala Usman and Dr Olusegun Osoba, both renowned radical historians, who opposed the the majority draft 1979 Constitution and not just submitted a minority report that vehemently critiqued the report produced by the other 47 members of the Constitution Drafting Committee (CDC), but also wrote their own minority draft constitution. All too many contemporary commentators create the utterly misleading impression that the 1979 Constitution was just an authoritarian hand down from the extant military regime with no input from civil society. Nothing could be further from the truth. The CDC was comprised of leading legal minds, distinguished administrators and bureaucrats as well as eminent scholars from disciplines with relevance to constitution making and the political history of Nigeria.

It is all too fashionable now for an assortment of persons with the benefit of hindsight to demonstrate superficially impressive wisdom after the fact to denigrate, chastise and flagellate the 1999 Constitution as the source of all our woes as if, were the constitutions of the most successful constitutions in the world to be imported into the country, our perverse moral values and institutional incoherence would not make a mess of it all. After all, the decision to adopt the American-type presidential system in 1979 was informed, largely, by the glaring abuses and crass misdeeds associated with the British-style parliamentary system of the first republic. But then the perverse value system and dysfunctional behavioral traits that ruined the first republic, ran the second republic aground and are even now eroding the very foundations on which this fourth republic stands, gets worse by the day. In my view, Drs Bala Usman and Segun Osoba stand shoulder high above the contemporary critics of the extant 1999 Constitution, which has its roots in the 1979 document, because they were profound prophets, veritable futurologists who saw tomorrow.

For instance, in a paper titled “National Cohesion, National Planning and the Constitution”, which he presented at the ‘National Conference on Issues in the Draft Constitution”, at the Institute of Administration, Ahmadu Bello University (ABU), Zaria, on 21st to 24th March, 1977, Bala Usman demonstrated why many of the lofty aspirations and well meaning provisions of the majority draft of the 1979 Constitution would be difficult to actualize. With amazing acuity, he declared “It seems quite clear that, if their constitution is adopted, far from moving towards national cohesion, Nigeria will become torn with ethnic and religious disunity and sectionalism. Far from providing a basis and framework for the development of national cohesion and democracy, there will be an intensification of the present grossly uneven pattern of underdevelopment, greater capitalist and bureaucratic greed, individualism and chaos. When that happens, the Nigerian people will be accused of being too immature and irresponsible for democracy and preparations will be made for consolidating the status quo and ensuring ‘law and order’ through repression and terror. From the individualism, greed, chaos and thuggery of capitalist bureaucrats and politicians we shall move to the indiscipline, chaos, individualism, greed and repression of capitalist bureaucrats and soldiers”.

These prophetic words were written before the monumental corruption, gross indiscipline and crass democratic violations that led to the collapse of the second republic; before the advent of the Babangida and Abacha years of the locusts; before the ongoing merry-go-round, game of musical chairs of gross avarice and inept governance between an APC government at the centre that is all too difficult to differentiate, morally and ideologically, from the preceding PDP administrations. Dr Bala Usman noted, for instance, that the majority draft made the office of the executive president so powerful so as to enable him provide effective government and become a focus of national loyalty.

He argued however that without constitutional provisions to ensure the democratic nomination of candidates, the democratic formulation of the party programme and collective decision-making at the party and all other levels, the provision for a powerful chief executive at the centre and states would be ultimately counterproductive. As Dr Usman put it in his inimitable manner, “Without provisions to ensure this, the president and governors will, far from being a focus of loyalty and effective leaders,  be merely megalomaniac political operators whose personality and ego will be the most prominent aspects of their governments”. Pray, is this not what exactly we are witnessing across the country today?

It is unfortunate today that all too many people believe they are in a position to pronounce magisterially on a suitable constitution for Nigeria even without sitting down to do the serious studying and thinking that this aspiration demands. Chief Obafemi Awolowo’s ‘Thoughts on the Nigerian Constitution’ was the product of several hours of studying and burning the midnight oil in the solitude of prison during which he studied the constitutions of virtually every democracy of the world at the time to arrive at an appropriate proposition for Nigeria. Drs Usman and Osoba arrived at their minority draft after a painstaking study of the majority draft and a rigorous interrogation of the premises on which its proposals rested. For instance, they were of the view that the majority draft concentrated excessive powers on the President and Governors including the powers to appoint and fire ministers and commissioners, which, they argued, would allow “for the emergence of the chief executive as a monstrously powerful and authoritarian political figure.”

Their own proposition was thus that (i) “The President at the Federal level shall appoint from the House of Representatives somebody who shall be Prime Minister and will have the responsibility to appoint his ministers from among members of the Houses of the National Assembly together with whom he shall form a government and exercise executive authority in the day-to-day running of the affairs of state; and (ii) the Governor shall appoint from the State Assembly somebody who shall be Premier and will have the responsibility to appoint state commissioners from among the members of the State Assembly together with whom he shall form a state government and exercise executive authority in the day-to-day running of the affairs of the state”. It is difficult to fault their contention that “Apart from resulting in a satisfactory measure of diffusion of executive powers, with the President and Governor still having substantial executive powers including the general direction of the conduct of their respective governments, this arrangement will ensure that all those who participate in exercising the executive authority of the Federal or State government have at least the formal mandate of the electorate”.

There can be no better experience than getting a copy of the Minority Report & Draft Constitution for the Federal Republic of Nigeria produced in 1976 and studying it carefully as the country still strives to grope her way out of the miasma of constitutional darkness. One distinguishing feature between the majority and minority documents is the simplicity of language and clarity of thought of the minority document. As the authors wrote, “The pompous verbosity, the obscurity of the technical legal terms and the innumerable cross references characterizing the majority draft seem to have been deliberately engineered to make it impossible for anybody with a moderate general education to read and understand it. We suspect that these features of the majority draft might create, even for members of the legal confraternity, almost insurmountable difficulties of comprehension and interpretation is.

Most of those who advocate constitutional change or diverse forms of restructuring for Nigeria today locate their analysis at the level of ethnocultural as well as regional divergences and conflicts. Nothing could be more misleading. In conclusion, I will simply adopt some of the submissions of Dr Bala Usman in another lecture he delivered to the Nigerian Union of Journalists (NUJ) in Kaduna on 14th October, 1976 on the central causes of instability and crisis in post-colonial Nigeria. These he identified as including:

1. “The existence of an economic system which permanently generates instability and gross inequalities of (a) standards of living between the majority of the people and those who control public institutions and business; (b) economic development between various villages, districts, provinces, states and sections of the country and sectors of the economy.
2. “The great amount of material benefit which accrues to those holding public offices due to the very high level of official and unofficial remuneration, arising out of the failure to clearly and sharply separate the holding of public office from the private accumulation of wealth in all the major public institutions.
3. “The conduct of public affairs on the basis of the belief widely propagated that political activity is about the competition for material resources and public status between areas, tribes, clans, families and individuals.
4. “The absence of any systematic and effective means by which the common people can on a regular basis understand, guide and discipline those who are supposed to represent and serve them…The key institutions of political representation and public service – the political parties and the civil service, overawed and confused the common people and refused to be genuinely subjected to a coherent and permanent system of public accountability”.

I am of the view that only constitutional reforms and initiatives that address these fundamental challenges can set Nigeria on the path out of the current cesspit of debilitating poverty, pervasive corruption and humiliating underdevelopment. Is this possible at all without transforming current glaring revolutionary pressures into far reaching socio-economic, political and cultural revolutionary change and how feasible is this? Your guess is as good as mine.

By Segun Ayobolu

It is all too common now for sundry political actors and commentators to blame the perceived and real problems, challenges and shortcomings of the extant 1999 Constitution on the structural, institutional and processual failings of the constitution itself rather than on the political actors whose responsibility it is to run the affairs of the polity in accordance with the dictates of the constitution. Seek ye first the kingdom of a new constitution crafted to near perfection and all other things shall be added unto you is the loud and constant refrain from diverse quarters. But then, this is a road we had traversed before only to end up in the debilitating ditch of regime failure and collapse in the ill-fated first, second and now aborted third republics. This dispensation has, since 1999, mercifully lasted for over two decades of unbroken elected civilian administrations even though the most optimistic among us will be loath to aver that we have meaningfully transited from mere civilian rule to genuine democratic governance.

I have heard many eminent senior lawyers, distinguished academics and influential public commentators vehemently contend that the extant 1999 Constitution is no more than a handout from the departing military regime and that it, in fact, lies against itself when it’s preamble describes it as a product of “we the people”. It is difficult to decipher how accurate this perception is. To the best of my knowledge, the 1999 constitution is a wholesale adoption of the 1979 constitution with minuscule amendments. The General Abdusalam regime, which midwifed the transition to this dispensation back in 1999 could easily have opted for the draft constitutions drawn up under the Babangida and Abacha regimes, constitutional exercises that lacked credibility and meaningful legitimacy. Rather, Abubakar opted to return to the 1979 constitution, which was drawn up with relatively high degree of popular participation and involvement of elements of the intellectual, political, business and bureaucratic elite. Those who harbor the idealistic belief that a constitutional document for a complex, plural society like Nigeria can be drawn by the masses of the hoi polloi are living in an imaginary world. Constitution making is essentially and intrinsically an elitist affair.

Of course, the generality of the people must, in the final analysis, have their imprimatur of approval on the final document as debated and produced by the elite, but they have limited ability to make any meaningful input into its making. The collapse of the first republic in January, 1966, was blamed largely on the demerits of the parliamentary constitution and the existence of excessively powerful regions that wagged the federal tail and the practice of a federal system difficult to distinguish from con-federalism. The perceived antidote to this was the reversion to the presidential model of democracy with an all powerful executive presidency with powers approaching the all pervasive suzerainty of a military monarch. Of course, the utter failure and ignominious collapse of the second republic in December, 1983, after just four years of the military’s retreat to the barracks, demonstrated that the fundamental problem was not with the constitution after all, but with both the leaders and the led who followed its precepts and provisions more often in the breach.

In the wake of the deepening crisis of state, society and economy in post-colonial Nigeria, particularly in this fourth republic, when non-state actors and religiously motivated armed groups are engaged in a duel unto death battle with a much chastened Nigerian state, many analysts have fallen back on the ethnic mantra as the be-all and end-all solution to the current Nigerian predicament. Seek ye first and return to your ethno-regional camps o ye people and all shall, once again, be well with our land. Nothing could be more delusional. The utter venality, moral depravity and indescribable elite greed responsible for the depressing depiction of Nigeria as a ‘Crippled Giant’ is not the function of any single elite faction of the Nigerian polity. Let all the component geo-political and ethno-regional units of the country today retreat into their separate cocoons of self-rule and you will see the present maladies plagung Nigeria on an even more brazen scale in the new, smaller micro entities. No faction or fraction of the Nigerian political elite is morally fit to cast the first stone when it comes to blaming others for the pathetic state of an otherwise immensely endowed country.

Read Also: Nigeria needs new constitution before 2023, says NADECO

This is why I continually doff my hat to two radical, progressive, patriotic and conscientious members of the Constitution Drafting Committee (CDC), set up by the Murtala/Obasanjo regime to draw up a new constitution for the country, who disagreed vehemently with the majority draft produced by their colleagues and produced a minority report, which was studiously ignored by the ruling military regime. The two committed and radical dissenters were the eminent historians, the late Dr Bala Usman and Dr Olusegun Osoba. I was lucky to get a copy of the minority draft document titled  ‘Minority Report and Draft Constitution for the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1976’ with a new introduction by Dr Olusegun Osoba, courtesy Mr Femi Falana (SAN). This is a book, which I believe should be widely circulated and read in Nigeria because it dispels many of the ethno-regional myths and mystifications surrounding much of the debate on the national question and the future possibilities of Nigeria.

For instance, one of the key submissions of the duo of radical, progressive and patriotic dissenters to the majority draft of the 1979 Constitution is that “We are of the opinion that, on the basis of the substantive provisions contained in the majority draft constitution, the quantum of power residing in the various levels of government is likely to move progressively in the direction of infinity while that residing in the people will tend to zero. This is because the only symbol of power vested in the people is that exercised every four years in the act of voting in different categories of political officers at general, presidential, gubernatorial and local government levels. Our experience in the recent past would seem to us to have demonstrated beyond all reasonable doubt that this formal periodic and often ritualistic act alone is not sufficient for safeguarding genuine democracy in practice”.

In a lecture delivered to the Kaduna State branch of the Nigeria Union of Journalists ( NUJ) in Kaduna on 14th October, 1976, for instance, Dr Bala Usman, examining the majority provision of a strong executive presidency as an antidote to regime weakness and political instability averred that “To assert, as one newspaper has already done, that an executive presidency with full powers (whatever that means) shall provide us with strong leadership and strong government without weaknesses, power struggles or military intervention is a mere assertion of faith in a fetish, which only obscures the issues. Leaving aside the crucial question of ‘strong government’ for whose interests – a person, a clique, a sectional group, imperialism- it is surely obvious that presidency, even an executive one with full powers, is just one office in a political system. Its capacity depends on the economic and social structures and the nature of the political system”.

Continuing Dr Bala Usman contended that “The question of the type of leadership an executive presidency or any type of executive can provide can only be answered by examining the social and political forces that are likely to emerge dominant within the framework of a constitution and then the effectiveness of the institutions (those touched on in the constitution and those which are not) established for these forces. In the context of Nigeria, the type of political parties which emerge, and the nature and orientation of the public services, are far more important in determining the capacity and effectiveness of any government than the form of the top executive office”.

In the introduction to their minority draft constitution, Drs Usman and Osoba, contended that “As long as the huge disparities in economic power existing among individual Nigerians and social groups within the dominant free enterprise capitalist system operating in our country remain, so long will there be staggering inequalities among Nigerians in social status and political power. While such inequalities persist, the democratic principles of equality before the law, equity and social justice can only operate slogans for mystification and confusion. Consequently, to obviate such a possibility which is bound to have for our country the grim consequences of violent social conflict and political instability, we suggest that that those who aspire to leadership positions in this country must at least be motivated by considerations of enlightened self-interest. These considerations should guide them, as we have done in our minority draft, to provide in our fundamental law (i.e the Constitution of the Federal Republic Nigeria) principles and Constitutional instruments that could commit our political decision makers of the future to a progressive dismantlement of the current economic system of grasping individualism”.

The language in which the draft minority constitution is simple, jargon free and of exceptional clarity. It can easily be translated into multiple languages for the easy grasp of the vast majority of Nigerians. It removes the deliberate obfuscations and abstractions on which brilliant lawyers thrive and smile all too often to the banks with smug satisfaction.

ON the occasion of his 80th birthday on August 17, former military President, General Ibrahim Babangida, understandably enjoyed dominant media attention. There were copious commentaries and analyses on his life and times as well as his role and impact on Nigeria’s politics, society and economy. This is not surprising. If for nothing else, the eight years during which he ruled as, perhaps, the most powerful dictator in the country’s history were experimentally adventurous, action-packed and eventful. It is apparent that those who admire IBB do so passionately and those who hate and detest him also exhibit great passion in their disposition. But on balance, those analysts with a negative view of IBB outweighed those who perceived him positively.

It would appear that the disappointment of many with IBB is the gap between his perceived great potential, the bright promise of his ascendancy to the apex of power in the country in 1985 and the shattering anti-climax of his forced ‘stepping aside’ eight years later. According to Professor Larry Diamond:  “Ibrahim Babangida, more than any other Nigerian leader, had the potential to lead Nigeria into a truly different, more civic, and institutional historical path. Few leaders in the postcolonial history of the Third World have more thoroughly squandered such a critical historical opportunity and imperative”.

In many of the analyses on IBB at 80, the impression was created that his regime was an exceptional evil in the general ebb and flow of the course of Nigerian history. I don’t think so. Yes, a lot of Nigeria’s ills were magnified under IBB. But he did not originate them and neither did they end with his exit from power. IBB in my view showed members of the Nigerian political class the clearest picture of their true selves. Let us take the issue of corruption for instance. True, the IBB regime was scandalously venal. The squandering by the regime of the 1991 $12.4.billion gulf oil windfall as revealed in damning details by the Professor Pius Okigbo panel of inquiry offers a good example. Under IBB, the culture of ‘settlement’ became legendary and all pervasive. But corruption had been growing in magnitude with each succeeding government before IBB.

There are those, for example, who paint the picture of the first republic as a largely pristine, virginal and corruption free era. That is entirely mythical. One of the reasons for the Major Kaduna Nzeogwu led coup of January 1966 was to kick out those it described as “the ten percenters” among others. Reports of inquiries into the expenditure of public funds in the various regions in that dispensation showed abundant evidence of the routine diversion of state resources to run political parties, fight elections and build an indigenous wealthy business elite by the regional governments across party divides. Chinua Achebe’s ‘A man of the people’ graphically portrays the phenomenon of corruption in that period.

Read Also: Buhari warned ex-Power Minister Mamman of imminent sack

The eradication of corruption was a key item in the 9-point agenda of the Yakubu Gowon regime. At the end of its nine-year occupancy of power, only two of that government’s 12 military governors were absolved of corruption charges. All the others had illegally acquired funds and properties confiscated by the succeeding Murtala/Obasanjo regime. The latter in turn earned widespread plaudits for keeping to its stipulated programme to hand over to a democratically elected government in 1979. Yet, the leading military figures in that government left power in 1979 to become key players in the national economy owning vast landed property and acquiring substantial stakes in agriculture, banking, oil, shipping among others. Of course, it is a notorious fact that the civilian administration of the second republic was spectacularly more corrupt than its predecessors. To its credit, the short-lived Buhari/Idiagbon regime was ascetic, fiscally disciplined and adopted a tough disposition against the deposed corrupt civilian political class of the preceding administration. But it’s perceived arrogance, insensitivity to public opinion and deficient political skills helped cut short its stay in power.

Under IBB, corruption soared even higher. And the venality of Abacha dwarfed that of IBB. But can we fault IBB when he insinuated in his Arise news television interview that corruption in this dispensation in the last 20 years is not necessarily less pervasive than in the preceding military period? The problem of corruption is not, fundamentally, peculiar to any specific regime or administration. It is a manifestation of a perverse and amoral value system in which both the elite and the general populace are implicated, a dependent, largely rentier economy and an irresponsible political, economic and technocratic class.

In the management of the economy, many critics quarrel with the IBB regime’s adoption of the Structural Adjustment programme (SAP). But did it really have a choice at the time? The regime had some of the country’s brightest economists on its economic management team. Under successive governments since independence, the adoption of import -dependent, largely extroverted and structurally flawed economic policies without a coherent overarching guiding philosophy had driven the economy to a cul-de-sac by the time Buhari came to power. The Buhari regime deepened the austerity measures introduced by the Shagari administration in response to the crisis, intensified the retrenchment of public sector workers and reduction in wages, increased the proportion of public revenue it devoted to debt servicing and adopted such drastic policy measures as countertrade in the face of severe foreign exchange shortages.

The regime’s high handedness and flagrant  disregard for human rights alienated a large number of Nigerians when it needed to mobilize the energy and support of the vast majority of the populace for its otherwise commendable nationalistic policy options to succeed. At the same time it could not reach an accommodation with the International Financial Institutions such as the IMF, which in turn blocked the country’s access to much needed external credit. As Professor Adebayo Olukoshi put it, “In the face of this, the problems of the Nigerian economy worsened, with inflation still rising further, infrastructural facilities deteriorating, more workers losing their jobs, the payments problems persisting, the industrial sector suffering more setbacks and the agricultural sector stagnating…The Nigerian economy therefore continued to deteriorate, reinforcing the intolerance and authoritarianism of the regime and eventually paving the way for its overthrow in a palace coup…”.

Speedily reaching an agreement with the IMF, the succeeding IBB regime adopted the SAP, which encompassed the substantial devaluation of the Naira, removal of subsidies on fuel and critical social services, deregulation of the economy, liberalization of trade, deregulation of prices and interest rates and reduction of public expenditure among others. The result was deepening poverty and inequality, accelerated deindustrialization, increased unemployment, external indebtedness and the intensification of growth without development. But has any administration departed from this essentially flawed development policy approach since the exit of IBB? None in my view with the possible exception of Abacha. The implication has been the persistence of growth without development, external dependence, internal sectoral disarticulation, galloping indebtedness, growing inequality, poverty and joblessness. Are Nigerians materially better off today than they were 20 years ago? I don’t think so.

His annulment of the June 12, 1993, presidential election has been the major factor for most analyst’s condemnation of IBB. After spending humongous amounts of public resources on an elaborate and convoluted political transition programme, he destroyed with his own hands through the annulment what should have been the crowning glory of his effort. It is obvious that, despite his unconvincing justifications and excuses for his action, IBB was motivated essentially by a desire to perpetuate himself in power for as long as possible. But again, this is a defining trait of members of the Nigerian political class. The first republic collapsed essentially because of the desire of the ruling coalition at the centre led by the Northern Peoples Congress (NPC) to perpetuate itself in power resulting in large scale malpractices in the 1964 federal elections, the destabilization and illegal removal of the Action Group (AG) government Western Regional government and the massive rigging of the region’s 1965 elections leading to the installation of a puppet government and the consequent conflagration in the region that ultimately helped abort the democratic enterprise of the first republic.

By 1974, General Yakubu Gowon announced to a stunned nation that his earlier promise to handover to a democratically elected government in 1976 was no longer feasible fueling speculations of an attempt at power perpetuation. This was one of the factors that precipitated his overthrow in 1975. Obasanjo made history by handing over to an elected civilian administration in 1979. Yet, on his second coming as an elected president in 1999, we are all aware of his attempt to perpetuate himself in office through his third term agenda. The second republic collapsed partly because of the massive rigging of the 1983 general elections to perpetuate the NPN in power irrespective of the will of the majority of the electorate. The Buhari/Idiagbon regime in 1984 did not even set any date for a return to a democratic order and the impression that it was set for indefinite rule was a precipitating factor in its overthrow.

A central feature of politics in since 1999 has been the unceasing efforts of incumbents at the centre or the states to win elections through all sorts of criminal electoral machinations, outright violence, financial inducement, judicial subversion or to ensure that their surrogates succeed them at the end of their tenures. The goal is direct or indirect power perpetuation. The incessant struggles to seize control of party structures such as is currently rocking both the ruling APC and the opposition PDP is motivated by the same kind of obsession with the acquisition and retention of power at all costs that led IBB to annul the June 12 election thus doing grave damage to his own legacy. It is all well and good to criticize and excoriate IBB. But no less critical is the need to identify and exorcise the different shades of IBB within all too many of us.

By Segun Ayobolu

IT is only natural that the still unfolding sensational drama of what is emerging as the rise and fall of celebrated and much decorated ‘super cop’, CP Abba Kyari, following revelations by America’s Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) of alleged criminal transactions between the law enforcement officer and indicted international hi-tech fraudster, Ramon Abbas aka Hushpuppi, has further worsened the image and perception challenges of the Nigeria Police Force (NPF). Easily the most detested, even hated, public organization in Nigeria, the atrocious excesses of its now disbanded Special Anti-Robbery Squad (SARS) was the cause of last year’s massive #EndSARS that rocked many states in the country. But the sheer impunity, callousness, inhumanity and rampant corruption associated with the SARS outfit are believed to be widely pervasive throughout the rank and file of the NPF. The apparently chummy relationship between a top crime-buster and a confessed as well as indicted criminal, with an openly flamboyant life style sustained by stupendous wealth of suspect origin, is astounding.

Even if the allegations of criminal complicity with Hushpuppi is ultimately not proven beyond reasonable doubt, which is highly unlikely given the avalanche of evidence amassed by the FBI and which are in the public space, the association of Abba Kyari with a man who ought to be atop his watch list in the discharge of his professional duties is damning enough. Surely, given his training and experience as a detective, Hushpuppi’s publicly- flaunted extravagant lifestyle ought to have triggered the suspicious instincts of the ‘super cop’. Alas, not only did Abba Kyari admittedly engage in transactions he considered legitimate with a notorious self-confessed fraudster, it has emerged that he had, over the years, also flaunted an exhibitionist, materialistic lifestyle on the social media in a manner difficult to distinguish from the conmen and gangsters he was employed to track, apprehend and haul before the law. For instance, what could justify Kyari’s self-exhibited presence at the recent obscene and utterly insensitive burial ceremony of the mother of a prominent celebrity and socialite where money in diverse currencies was wantonly squandered and debased with reckless abandon in an environment characterized by pervasive poverty?

The Attorney General of the Federation (AGF), Mr. Abubakar Malami (SAN), has rightly said that Abba Kyari will only be handed over for trial in the United States as demanded by the FBI in accordance with strict adherence to due process. This is as it should be. But how much more glorious it would have been if Abba Kyari, given his professional reputation and confident of his unimpeachable innocence as well as integrity, sought the permission of his bosses, voluntarily travelled to the US, submitted himself to the judicial process and come out clean. That would have been a spectacularly redemptive moment not just for the ‘super cop’ as an individual but even more for the NPF and particularly for Nigeria’s image. But then, is the NPF made up largely of corrupt, undisciplined and irresponsible officers and men operating in a Nigerian society characterized by high ethical standards and discipline as well as widespread aversion to corruption? This is certainly not the case. Rather, the much lamented evils of the NPF, particularly its corrupt ethos, are only reflective of the decadent and perverse values of the larger society.

Read Also: Disu takes over from Kyari at IRT

In truth, the amoral disposition to conduct in formal office, both in the public and private sectors, which informs the utilization of organizational roles to corruptly and criminally accumulate wealth, is no less pervasive in the civil service, media, academia, legislature, judiciary, business corporations, as well as civil society and non-governmental organizations to name a few. Thus, the average policeman either at the checkpoint on the highway or in his office at operational headquarters perceives his uniform, weapons and immense authority as means of primitive accumulation through exploitation of the public or collusion with criminal elements. Even then, beyond the Abba Kyari debacle, there is still hope for redemptive institutional change in the NPF.

For instance, the promptness and sense of urgency with which the Inspector General of Police (IGP), Mr. Usman Alkali Baba, responded to the allegations against Kyari, suspended him from office to allow for a thorough investigation and set up a four-man team to undertake the task, is in itself exemplary and highly commendable. It signals a leadership with little toleration for the kind of impunity now associated with the NPF. Even more, the choice of DCP Tunji Disu as Kyari’s replacement as Head of the Intelligence Response Team (IRT) was certainly well thought out and carefully considered. As the immediate past Commander of the elite anti-crime outfit in Lagos State, the Rapid Response Squad (RRS), Disu was the epitome of efficiency, effectiveness, diligence, firmness, professional dexterity and humility. He instilled in his men a high sense of self-esteem which engendered high ethical conduct and compassionate, respectful relationship with the public.

Always impeccably kitted, men of the RRS became well known and admired for such humanitarian acts as providing succor to accident victims on the highways, giving assistance to stranded commuters and vehicles, including provision of liters of fuel to drivers in extreme situations, conveying women in labour to medical facilities in emergency cases even while proficiently discharging their primary responsibility of combating crime. Disu holds a Bachelor of Arts degree in English from the Lagos State University (LASU), a Masters degree in Public Administration from the Adekunle Ajasin University, Ondo State, and has attended several professional courses abroad and within the country. He has served with distinction in diverse capacities in units and commands across the country without a whiff of scandal to his name.

Disu’s predecessor at the RRS, who also served with immense positive impact, is Mr. Hakeem Odumosu, now Lagos State Commissioner of police. Before his tenure at the RRS, Odumosu had headed the Lagos State Environmental Task Force Team, which played a key role in the remarkable improvement in the previously notoriously chaotic environment of the megacity. Tough, uncompromising and ruthless in his war against criminals, Odumosu is nicknamed ‘Tango Fire Fire’!, especially by those lawless elements at the receiving end of his fierce onslaught.

Ascetic and focused, Odumosu holds a Bachelor of Arts degree in English Language from Ahmadu Bello University (ABU), Zaria; a Bachelor of Law degree and an M.Sc in Peace Studies and Conflict Resolution from the National Open University of Nigeria (NOUN) as well as a Masters degree in Public Administration from LASU. Apart from at least four postgraduate diplomas in different disciplines, he has written two educational books on English language and grammar. In his scores of postings across the country over the years, Odumosu has served with diligence, commitment, excellence and without blemish.

The immediate past Commissioner of Police in Nassarawa State, Mr. Bola Longe, is one of those recently elevated to the position of Assistant Inspector General of Police (AIG) and has resumed work at the police headquarters in Abuja. Bola Longe was my course mate both during our first and second degrees in Political Science at the University of Ibadan. Uncompromisingly radical and reflexively anti-establishment as a student, Bola Longe was one of the most charismatic and impactful presidents of the Students Union of the premier university. In addition to his B.Sc and M.Sc degrees in Political Science, he holds a Masters degree in Peace Studies and Conflict Resolution from the University of Ibadan, a Bachelor of Law degree also from the premier university and an LLB (Hons) from the Nigerian Law School. Again, Longe has an exemplary record of excellence in the various responsibilities he has been assigned over the years both across the country and abroad. A pastor of the Redeemed Christian Church of God (RCCG), his fierce disdain for any form of corruption is widely acknowledged in the force.

What characterizes these officers is their great pride in the profession of policing, the uniform of the police officer and the NPF as an institution. These are, of course, only three out of the numerous accomplished cops of outstanding competence and character in the Force. Like his immediate predecessor, Mohammed Adamu, the current IGP deserves credit for identifying and elevating some of the best and brightest talents in the force. If this kind of commitment to merit and excellence is sustained, there is no doubt that brighter, better and more glorious days lie ahead of the NPF. But this will be dependent on massive infusion of funds to comprehensively re-tool the force to improve its operational efficiency as well as substantially enhance staff welfare to boost morale and institutional self-esteem.

WHEN he recently led members of the All Progressives Congress (APC) Caretaker and Extraordinary Convention Planning Committee (CECPC), which he leads as Chairman, to present its interim progress report to President Muhammadu Buhari at the Presidential Villa, Abuja, Yobe State governor, Mallam Mai Mala Buni, claimed that the committee had resolved raging crises within the party, reconciled warring factions and tendencies and restored peace and normalcy. “I am pleased to state that the party is now more peaceful, more accommodating and more united with greater prospects than when we came on board”, Buni told the President. An impressed Buhari noted in response that, hitherto, the party structure was disturbed by the conflicts that preceded and followed various elections but that, under the Buni-led CECPC, the party secretariat had been witnessing a beehive of peaceful activities because of the success of the committee’s reconciliation efforts.

The crises and vehement disagreements witnessed in several states during the APC’s ward congresses, which held nationwide last Saturday with the exception of Anambra and Zamfara states, however, indicate that whatever peace and harmony governor Buni enthused about was no more than that of the graveyard in many states. In Delta, Kwara, Akwa-Ibom, Ogun, Osun, Lagos, Ebonyi, Bayelsa, Niger, Enugu and Rivers, for instance, there were discordant tunes and parallel congresses by apparently still dueling and unreconciled factions and tendencies. This is, of course, not necessarily a failure of the CECPC. After all, the exercise was largely hitch free in some other states including Kebbi, Abia, Ondo, Kaduna, Adamawa, Sokoto, Gombe, Edo, Kano, Borno, Plateau and Kogi among others. It is only that the belief that disagreements and crises could be resolved once and for all and contradictory tendencies permanently reconciled or eliminated within a political party is unrealistic and illusory. Contending factions, fractions and tendencies are inalienable features of political parties much more one as large as the APC and given the trajectory of its hurried formation as an election winning coalition to dislodge the then ruling Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) from power at the centre.

Rather than seeking to achieve the impossible, even undesirable, goal of eradicating contending intra-party interests and tendencies, what is critical is to hold constitutional structures, processes, principles and provisions of the party inviolable and binding on all members no matter how highly placed. In a political party run in accordance with the principles of justice and adherence to the rule of law, all ‘animals’ should be equal and some, including state governors and other public office holders, not deemed to be more equal than others. It is exactly on this score that the APC shot itself on the foot when, on June 16, 2020, it removed the comrade Adams Oshiomhole-led National Working Committee (NWC) of the party from office in a manner that did not conform with the provisions of its constitution. Following the Court of Appeal’s affirmation of Oshiomhole’s suspension by his ward, which rendered his continuation as National Chairman untenable, the party should have filled the ensuing leadership vacuum and resolved any attendant crises scrupulously in accordance with its constitution.

Read Also: APC and the perils of impunity (1)

What happened, however, was that the Assistant National Secretary of the party, Mr Victor Geidam, who had at that time reportedly resigned his party position to contest for an elective office, unilaterally declared himself Acting National Chairman on the basis of a purported court ruling of dubious and nebulous provenance. It was on that pedestal of brazen impunity that he convened a National Executive Committee (NEC) meeting of the party at which the NWC was dissolved and the CECPC set up. How a President Buhari, whose credential of commitment to due process his aides often flaunt, was convinced to lend the weight and authority of his office to this travesty is baffling. It is not impossible that some of those in the President’s inner circle believe that the immense powers and resources of the presidency can now be mobilized to seize control of the APC and alter the balance of forces within the party as originally constituted by the legacy parties that coalesced in its formation.

In plotting such acts of impunity, however, the shadowy actors did not anticipate and plug all possible loopholes as almost invariably always happens in such cases of subversive intrigue and subterfuge. Thus, by appointing a sitting governor to head the CECPC and act as its National Chairman, the party plainly ignored the clear and unambiguous provision of Article 17 (iv)of its constitution, which states that “No officer in any organ of the party shall hold executive office in government concurrently”. And with no less clarity, Section 183 of the 1999 Constitution states that “The Governor shall not, during the period when he holds office, hold any other executive office or paid employment in any capacity whatsoever”. If language means anything, these unequivocal declarations give no room for maneuver to those who wish to violate them. It was on this potential banana pill that the APC only narrowly escaped losing its emphatic gubernatorial electoral triumph in Ondo State when a slim 4-3 majority verdict of the Supreme Court affirmed governor Rotimi Akeredolu’s victory on the technical ground that the petitioner, Mr Eyitayo Jegede (SAN), did not join Buni, whose legality as Acting National Chairman of the party was challenged, as a party in the suit.

Following the ruling of the apex court, some voices of reason in the ruling party, particularly some of its senior lawyers, have sought to get the party to  chart a redemptive path out of its current journey of impunity and return to adherence to constitutionality and the rule of law. But impelled  by what can rightly be described as the arrogance of power, a number of other leading lawyers and members of the party are advising the APC to double down and maintain the Buni-led CECPC in place apparently believing that, as the ruling party, it possesses sufficient, power, clout and resources to overcome any judicial hurdles. Those who are advising the party, with its eyes wide open, to plunge headlong into the thorny thicket of impunity with possible devastating consequences for its structures at all levels have obviously learnt no lessons from the APC’s self-inflicted electoral reversals in Zamfara, Rivers and Bayelsa states courtesy of judicial decisions that sanctioned its constitutional violations.

Asserting their support for the continuity of the Buni-led CECPC, some leaders of the party contend, implausibly, that the binding majority judgement of the Supreme Court actually affirms the legality of the caretaker committee as well as the constitutionality of Buni’s position. According to the APC Governors Forum, for instance, “The judgement has also settled the legality of the National Caretaker  and Extraordinary Convention Planning Committee. The court has correctly ruled that in line with Section 13.3 of the APC Constitution, the CECPC was constituted by the National Executive Council of the APC to act as the National Working Committee”.

Responding to this view, a number of concerned lawyers within the APC have pointed out that “For the sake of clarity, the Supreme Court did not affirm Buni’s leadership of CECPC as lawful. The Supreme Court rather refused to pronounce on it DEFINITIVELY until Buni is made a party to a pre-election matter or a civil suit. The Supreme Court did not even clothe him with immunity in this regard. It was silent on it”. Continuing, the lawyers submitted that “The Supreme Court only reaffirmed the right of APC and any political party to constitute Committees like the Caretaker Committee to run its affairs on an interim basis. Nobody has ever questioned this right. What is in issue is the legality or  constitutionality  of Buni, a serving governor, appointed to head such a Committee and the full effect of this breach, if considered on the merits”. The APC can certainly not predict the ultimate outcome of any legal challenge to the constitutionality of the Buni-led CECPC. Why then should it be difficult for the party to steer clear of all forms of illegality and refrain from taking avoidable and potentially self-destructive risks? The party should remember the adage: ‘Those whom the gods want to destroy, they first make mad’!

Echoes of excellence from FUOYE

LEADERSHIP matters. At the end of its evaluation of new academic programmes  at the Federal University, Oye-Ekiti, (FUOYE) in March/April, 2021, the National Universities Commission (NUC), on 2nd August, 2021, accorded full accreditation to six academic programmes of the university. The programmes, which have run successfully for two academic sessions after approval was obtained for their introduction, are Agriculture as well as Hospitality & Tourism Management in the Faculty of Agriculture;

English & Literary Studies and Theatre & Media Arts in the  Faculty of Arts;  and Demography & Social Statistics as well as Sociology in the Faculty of  Social Sciences.

Established during the tenure of the immediate past Vice Chancellor of the institution, Professor Kayode Soremekun, the fully accredited academic programmes will be valid for five years before being revisited according to the guiding regulations of the NUC. Suffice it to note that students admitted for programmes subsequently denied accreditation suffer dire and unsavory consequences. This feat testifies to the high standard of instruction, staff and facilities at FUOYE and demonstrates, once again, that with the requisite qualitative leadership, even relatively newly established universities can soar high.

By Segun Ayobolu

UNDERSTANDABLY and characteristically, leading legal minds in the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC) have expressed divergent views on and interpretations of the Supreme Court verdict that legitimated the electoral victory of Ondo State governor, Mr Rotimi Akeredolu (SAN) on Wednesday. While the majority judgement delivered by four judges of the apex court dismissed the appeal of the People’s Democratic Party (PDP) candidate in the election, Mr Eyitayo Jegede (SAN), and affirmed Akeredolu’s victory, a minority of three judges of the apex court allowed Jegede’s appeal and found the governor’s victory in the election, nugatory and void. Of course, the majority judgement prevails and Aketi remains governor of the state.

But the victory is widely perceived as a narrow escape by the governor as the verdict could easily have gone either way and the PDP could as well have been in control of Ondo state by now. It is instructive that the fulcrum of Jegede’s appeal was not that Akeredolu did not win the election. That fact could hardly be creditably disputed. Rather, the plank on which his appeal stands was that the Caretaker National Chairman of the APC, Mr Mai Mala Buni, who signed Akeredolu’s nomination form forwarded to INEC, was unqualified and incompetent to do so since the APC constitution only allowed a duly elected National Chairman of the party do so. In other words, the nomination was therefore irregular and illegal. In lawyer parlance, something cannot stand on nothing. The minority judgements both at the Appeal and Supreme Courts upheld this position.

It is instructive that all seven judges on the Supreme Court panel agreed with the submission that pertinent questions arise as regards the legality of Buni’s current dual positions as both governor of Yobe State and Acting National Chairman of the APC. Section 183 of the 1999 Constitution explicitly and unambiguously states that a governor cannot simultaneously hold the position of governor and at the same time occupy any other executive office or paid employment in any capacity whatsoever. In her lead minority judgement, Justice Mary Peter-Odili noted that the APC by Article 17(4), of its constitution has provided for how it’s affairs should be managed and what offices its members could occupy at a time. As she crisply put it, “This article draws strength from Section 183 of the 1999 Constitution. Therefore, when the second respondent (APC) put up a person not qualified  to author its nomination, by virtue of the provision of Article 12(4) of its constitution and Section 93 to do so, that document is null and void”. Thus, the APC should not be allowed to profit from its inexplicably willful lawlessness.

However, the majority judgement was of the view that Jegede’s appeal was fatally flawed because he did not make Buni a party to the petition and so the latter did not have an opportunity to defend himself in accordance with the principle of fair hearing.  But the minority judgement averred that there was no need for Buni to be joined in the petition since the APC had been sued and the Yobe state governor had acted illegally on behalf of the party by signing Akeredolu’s nomination form when he was legally incompetent to do so. It is not often in recent times that we have seen this kind of robust and vigorous disputation by dissenting judgements of the Apex court. This is certainly good for the apex court, salutary for the evolution of Nigerian jurisprudence, positive for the robust promotion and defense of he rule of law and necessary for the the institutional autonomy and resilience that is necessary for the nurturing of a vibrant and sustainable democratic culture.

No less enchanting and stimulating have been the exciting debates among some leading legal practitioners as regards the interpretation of the Supreme Court verdict and its implications for the APC. In his characteristically robust and brutally frank intervention, Minister of State for Labour and Productivity, Mr Festus Keyamo (SAN), was of the view that “the little technical point that saved governor Akeredolu was that Jegede failed to join Mai Mala Buni in the suit” and pointing out that “Any other person affected by the actions of the Buni-led  CECPC will, henceforth, not fail to join him in any subsequent case in court. These include any subsequent election matter in any part of the country and the APC primaries that are about to hold. The Supreme Court has just weaponized all those that would be aggrieved by the APC congresses to proceed to court to challenge the competence of the Buni-led CECPC to organize the congresses and national convention”.

It would appear that in offering this professional advice, Keyamo has in mind the high cost to the party in Zamfara and Rivers states  for acts of rampant violation of its own constitution that rendered it ineligible to contest for key elective offices. An act of legal infraction was also responsible for the nullification of APC’s electoral victory in Bayelsa  state at the last polls. But a senior counsel in the Rotimi Akeredolu legal team, Chief Niyi Akintola (SAN) has a position diametrically opposed to that of Keyamo. He argued that minority judgements have no value and are of no legal consequences. True, the minority judgement cannot override the majority decision. But it is certainly of immense intellectual, jurisprudential and historical value. Such judgements will certainly come within the contemplation and studies of legal minds as they seek to deepen knowledge and expand the horizon of Justice in the continuous development of Criminal justice administration in any jurisdiction.

Again, Chief Akintola  asserted that “the Supreme Court upheld the position of the Court of Appeal and the Election Petition Tribunal that Buni’s position as governor doesn’t contravene provisions of  Section 183. The congresses can go ahead as scheduled. There is nowhere the majority judgement that says Buni preached Section 183. The minority judgement is of no value, it has no consequences”. It would be more accurate to say, in my view, that since Buni was not joined as a party in Jegede’s petition, the majority decision did not advert its mind to issue of whether or not his appointment as Acting National Chairman violated Section 183 of the 1999 Constitution. Thus, in his lead judgement, Justice Emmanuel Agim submitted that “All the issues raised, revolved around Mala Buni. But Mala Buni , who is at the centre ,of the dispute was not made a party to the petition. It is obvious that the determination of the issues will affect him…Failure to join him render the determination of the matter impossible. To proceed to do so would have violated the fair trial of the case”. Keyamo’s pertinent question is: would the story not possibly have been different if Buni had been joined in Jegede’s petition? What would happen if in forthcoming elections in Anambra, Osun and Ekiti, aggrieved parties decide to make a legally incapacitated Chairman of the caretaker committee a party to whatever suit they choose to file in court?

By Segun Ayobolu

As the ruling party in the centre and in several states, the All Progressives Congress (APC) has not only the responsibility of maintaining the security of lives and property across the country, the primary and most important duty of government, but also to ensure good and effective governance across diverse spheres and sectors. It is obvious that security is one of the most serious challenges that the APC governments at the centre and in the states confront. On assumption of power in 2015, the party inherited the protracted Boko Haram insurgency in the North- East from the erstwhile ruling party, the PDP. However, under the APC’s watch, this dire and combustible scenario of insecurity has widened nationwide to include Banditry and kidnapping in the North-East as well as widespread herdsmen-farmers clashes in the North- Central and sundry criminalities by herdsmen in the South-West and South-East. We cannot also discount insurgent and separatist restiveness and agitations by some elements in the South-West and South-East, mostly motivated by what is seen as the President Muhammadu Buhari administration’s skewed appointments and policies allegedly to favor his own part of the country to the detriment of others.

It is, of course, inevitable that the dire security situation would have unsavory consequences for agriculture and food production as well as for economic recovery and sustainable growth generally. This has been worsened by the unanticipated Coronavirus pandemic which grossly affected the country’s main revenue source, crude oil sales, thus resulting in hugely plummeting national revenues. Consequently, inflation has risen astronomically, food prices have climbed steeply and the already deplorable state of social service delivery has worsened further. All of these have taken the shine off the administration’s otherwise commendable effort in completing critical road and rail infrastructure that had been long abandoned by the preceding PDP governments as well as initiating new ones.

Given the serious nature of the challenges confronting the Buhari administration, it is unfortunate that some elements within the APC have chosen to play distracting and potentially disruptive and destructive intra-party politics rather than allow the administration at the centre and the states controlled by the party to focus in a single minded manner on the problems that have life and death implications for huge numbers of the citizenry. For instance, it is a grand irony that the bandits, kidnappers and other criminal elements in the north in particular are focused, determined and serious-minded in seeking to achieve their nefarious objectives. This much was demonstrated,once again this week, by the bandits’ shooting down of a fighter jet belonging to the Nigerian Air Force (NAF) in Zamfara state. The criminal elements obviously have continued to upgrade their fighting capacity and this must bother both the administration and the military.

What the APC confronts in presiding over the affairs of Nigeria in these troubling times is a multi-dimensional crisis that requires its unflinching focus and concentration to effectively deal with. But it is exactly when the party machinery and its stakeholders should be working hard to enable the President deliver on the party’s electoral mandate, that debilitating and unhelpful intra-party wrangling have become the order of the day within the APC. When the governor of Zamfara state, for instance, decamped from the PDP to the APC in June this year, no less than 11 APC governors were on ground in Gusau to receive him into the party. This was absolutely time-wasting and needless. Many of these governors face serious crises of governance in their respective states and should not take their eyes off the ball even for a single minute. It is obvious that the criminal elements that constitute such a danger to us all have their attention focused on their destructive objectives always.

An example of the kind of distraction I am referring to here is the fact that the Yobe State governor, Mallam Mai Mala Buni, has had his attention divided between the mandate the electorate gave him to govern the state and his assignment as the National Chairman of the Caretaker/Extraordinary Convention Planning Committee (CECPC) of the APC. This is no mean task. For, being National Chairman to preside over the affairs of a party like the APC across the country is no less onerous and demanding than being governor of a state. It is impossible for one man to undertake both responsibilities without one or both suffering badly. Thus, the Chairman of the PDP in Yobe state, Ambassador Umar Mohammed El-Gash, in a recent newspaper interview decried what he described as the governor’s prolonged absence from the state various times as a result of his national assignment for the APC.

As Ambassador El-Gash put it, “To me, his assignment as APC National Chairman should be secondary because they have not elected him to chair the ruling party. Everybody is talking about this; not only we in the opposition but even members of his party are also not happy with the way and manner he is giving much attention to APC national assignment than Yobe and I keep wondering what benefits of his engagement with his party at the centre will be to the state”. To be fair to Buni, he cannot be blamed for having to take on a responsibility given him by his party. The problem lies with those who did not see that there was everything wrong with saddling a sitting state governor with this assignment especially at this time.

To the credit of the PDP Yobe State Chairman, he applauded some of the initiatives of the Mai Buni administration in the state such as the construction of an ultra-modern market in the state capital or the ongoing construction of a Cargo Airport. This means that if he were not distracted by the APC assignment, the governor has the presence of mind and competence to accomplish great things for Yobe State. But when we consider the security situation in the state particularly, it will be  seen that it was unwise to saddle Buni with this assignment. For instance, in April, 2021, over 2000 residents were reportedly displaced from Geidam town in the state when it was attacked by Boko Haram insurgents in a prolonged siege. The Executive Secretary of the Yobe State Emergency Management Agency (YOSEMA), Mohammed Goje, said the displaced persons were being camped in Yunusari and Yusafari Local Government Areas. Earlier, in January, 2021, suspected Boko Haram extremists had again attacked Geidam.

Again, in March 2021, suspected Boko Haram gunmen attacked  Kartako community in Gubja Local Government Area of Yobe state shooting sporadically and causing widespread panic in the community. The gunmen who reportedly struck at 5.30 am were said to have set ablaze a military formation in the community while also burning down a primary school and a healthcare center. Barely  a week after displacing over 6,000 residents in Geidam, the gunmen reportedly struck again in Kanamma, headquarters of Yunusari Local Government Area of the state. In May 2021, the UN office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs stated that about 45,000 residents mainly women and children had fled their homes in Geidam and Yunusari areas after Boko Haram had escalated attacks in the North-East region.

According to the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, “Ongoing insecurity in Geidam and Kanama towns, as well as remote locations in Yunusau, Yunufari, Bursari and Tarmua Local Government Areas is impeding access to Internally Displaced Persons. The security of resources to respond to needs remains challenging for government and partners. Multiple displacements and unpredictable movements are impacting efforts to identify and register many of the IDPs. New arrivals in host communities have signaled food, shelter, health and protection services among the most urgent needs”. I cite these examples to show that governance in a state like Yobe cannot be a part time affair with the governor also simultaneously serving as National Chairman of his party.

What should have been a six-month stint for the CECPC to conduct ward, state, local government and the National Convention to restore the APC to democracy and normalcy has become an interminable affair spanning over a year and still with no clear indication when the tenure of the caretaker committee will end. In the interim, therefore, the APC is incapacitated to run as a democratic organization since all its elected organs are dead for all practical purposes and inoperative. The implication is that the party cannot effectively and meaningfully add value to the quality of governance by the administrations elected on its platform at all levels.

It would also appear that the masterminds of the current drama unfolding in the ruling party are bent on decimating the opposition PDP while also exercising a hegemonic hold on the APC by asphyxiating the legacy parties that came together to form the party and enthroning one of them as the dominant and hegemonic force in the party. In the short run, this may  seem to be a tantalizing option to take but it is shortsighted and ultimately self-destructive. For, an iron law of history is that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Some elements within the APC may desire to considerably weaken any opposition to the ruling party from other parties while also seizing control and eliminating other tendencies within the party.

But that was also the path charted by the PDP, which delighted in weakening and destabilizing opposition parties and at the same time sought to eliminate all contending tendencies  within the party in favor of a hegemonic clique that sought to exercise absolute control over the party’s affairs. This strategy worked to the benefit of its perpetrators in the short run but ultimately resulted in the implosion that led to the PDP losing power at the centre in 2015, a catastrophe from which it is yet to recover. Let us hope that the APC can learn the appropriate lessons and quickly return to the path of internal democracy in its own best interest.