The Nation Newspaper

Category: Segun Ayobolu

  • Insecurity and ruling class culpability

    LET us imagine for a moment that the Fulani were to vanish from Nigeria today, would that bring an instantaneous end to sundry acts of violence and criminality that pervade the land such as armed robbery, communal clashes, kidnapping, terrorism, rape, religious extremism, as well as drug induced gang and cult violence among others? The answer to this question can most certainly only be in the negative. Yes, atrocities by herdsmen, most of who happen to be Fulani, in desperate search of water and pasture for their cattle, constitute a major factor in the insecurity challenge in contemporary Nigeria. But this is not necessarily because the Fulani are necessarily more disposed to violence than other nationalities that comprise Nigeria. It is just that the nature of the source of economic livelihood for the herdsmen, which is rearing and trading in cattle, demands that they must ensure the nurturing and survival of their animals by all means.

    Unfortunately, the northern faction of the Nigerian ruling class has utterly failed in its responsibility to modernize the livestock business in the region, provide mass education for the teeming masses of the north including herdsmen, reduce the level of poverty and establish a network of ranches that will make it unnecessary, even uneconomic, for the latter to traverse long distances tending their herdsmen. As a result, clashes between the herdsmen and farming communities in the south, where an ever bourgeoning population growth has intruded upon and blocked grazing routes that once lay fallow, become inevitable with the attendant harvest of sorrow, blood and tears.

    In a way, both the herdsmen and the farming communities who incessantly clash over land with the latter most times being the worst affected are victims of the absolute ineptitude, industrial scale corruption and incredible lack of vision of the Nigerian ruling class. The Academic Staff Union of Universities (ASUU) made this point pungently in a two-page publication in a national newspaper early this year. Unfortunately, ASUU’s brilliant analysis of the pertinent issues was not widely circulated for mass enlightenment of the people. As it were, the herdsmen are not the owners of most of the cattle under their care. They are hired hands who are paid to take care of the animals by the large scale cattle owners.

    By the same token, the AK 47 machine guns that many of them are now seen to carry without the slightest inhibition could not have been procured by the herdsmen. It is highly unlikely that ordinary herdsmen can afford the economic cost of procuring such sophisticated weapons. The well connected, wealthy and powerful cattle owners must thus have armed their hired herdsmen with these weapons, which explain the brazenness with which the latter brandish them even in the sight of security agencies, which appear inexplicably helpless to act.

    Unfortunately, however, the peasant farmers against whom these weapons are used are as much victims of ruling class exploitation and incompetence as the herdsmen. For, the failure of the ruling class to radically modernize agriculture through the maximum use of science and technology, organize farmers into a massive network of modern cooperatives so that they can enjoy the benefit of ‘self-help through mutual help’ (apologies to Awo), and ensure an effective linkage between agriculture and industry means that the peasant farmers themselves are caught in an avoidable poverty trap. The continuing de-industrialization of the country means that agriculture cannot benefit from a vibrant industrial sector.

    In the absence of modern storage facilities, much of the agricultural produce of the peasant farmers in the rural areas get spoilt before they can reach the markets leading to massive wastage. It is unlikely that the armed herdsmen will be able to launch attacks against well protected industrial scale farms owned by wealthy members of the ruling class. The critical insight I gleaned from the ASUU publication is that both the herdsmen and peasant farming communities belong essentially to the same economic class of exploited and deprived Nigerians and number among the teeming army of the poor that has made Nigeria the unenviable poverty capital of the world despite the country’s rich resource base.

    Conversely, those ethnic entrepreneurs who vociferously appear to be defenders of either side of the herdsmen-farmers divide are essentially united as largely wealthy members, to varying degrees, of the ruling class. Despite their pretensions, neither occupies a moral high ground. Their perception and utilization of state power as a means of economic empowerment and wealth accumulation, either directly by occupying public office or indirectly through contracts and other forms of patronage from the state, is what characterizes members of this class irrespective of ethnic and religious differences or partisan political colorations. This is the same class whose acts of commission or omission over the years are responsible for the stagnation of the livestock production business in the north, the underdevelopment of agriculture in the country generally and the continuing de-industrialization of Nigeria.

    To find enduring solutions to the grave security challenges confronting the country, we must first and foremost identify the root causes. Ethnic ‘scape-goating’ or stigmatization will get us nowhere. In a recent interview published on the online edition of PM News, frontline human rights lawyer, Mr. Femi Falana (SAN), blamed the current precariousness of life and property in the country on the fact that “for the past 20 years, members of the political class have failed to comply with Section 14(2) (b) of the constitution which states that the “welfare and security of the people shall be the primary purpose of government”. Unfortunately, the welfare provisions of this Section of the constitution, which mandate the state to guarantee the education, health, shelter, provision of jobs as well as access to justice for the vast majority of the Nigerian people were made non-justiciable and thus non-binding on elective office holders. Hence Mr. Falana laments that “Based on the frustration and disenchantment caused by illiteracy and unemployment, many young people have joined gangs of insurgents, bandits, armed robbers and kidnappers”.

    Over four decades ago, in the aftermath of the civil war, Chief Obafemi Awolowo had also touched on this point in a lecture at the then University of Ife on 9th April, 1970. In his words, “I have said it before and I want to say it again, that the causes of our national maladies are essentially economic. It is important, therefore, for us to bear in mind that if we failed to find the right solutions to our economic problems, we would not succeed in solving our political and social problems”. He then went on to assert that “…in order to keep Nigeria harmoniously united, and, at the same time, fulfill the natural, ultimate, supreme, and inalienable purpose of that unity, the present and future rulers of this country must place the most crucial emphasis on, and attach the utmost importance to, the advancement of the economic prosperity and social well-being of the entire people of Nigeria without exception or discrimination”.

    A decade later, specifically on 18th January, 1980, Awolowo, in an address to the Ondo State House of Assembly, Akure, noted that “Out of our 80 million population, about 70 million live in abject poverty whilst about 60 million are actually starving, and have for houses shelters unsuitable for modern poultry or piggery. As against this soul-depressing picture, we have in our midst about 1000 rich Nigerians who in the past cleverly rigged the sources of wealth of our nation, and are now tactically poised to oligopolise all the munificent avenues of riches that may supervene now and in the future”.

    The sage then went on to warn that “The rich, and the highly placed in business, public life, and government, are running a dreadful risk in their callous neglect of the poor and down-trodden We expect that the rank and file of the law-enforcement and security agencies should be devoted and dedicated in their onerous assignments of protecting our lives and property. We expect the low-income workers to be loyal in their respective occupations of drudge-of-all-work. But what they receive by way of remunerations for a whole month is much less than what is spent by each of many of us to entertain his friends every day of the week at home or in some high-class hotels. Indeed, their wage or income is unsuitable for any suitable standard of living”.

    Today, the problems Awo highlighted are much worse than when he spoke. We have sown the wind of ever deepening mass poverty and inequality as well as monumental ruling class corruption. We are reaping the whirlwinds of terrorism, armed robbery, kidnapping and other forms of violence. Over the last 20 years, democracy has not been the harbinger of development that most Nigerians expected. True, the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC) has commendably recovered humongous amounts of stolen funds and plugged various avenues of resource leakage while aggressively plowing such monies into its poverty alleviation and social investment programmes. But Nigerians expect President Muhammadu Buhari and his new team of ministers to considerably raise the bar of performance in his second term in order to truly raise the country to the envisaged Next Level especially in tackling the prevalent unacceptable levels of unemployment, poverty and inequality.

  • Rethinking the Ruga policy

    Former President Olusegun Obasanjo must be chuckling to himself in quiet satisfaction. The wily Ota farmer had recently come up with the thesis of an ongoing attempt at the ‘Fulanization’ of Nigeria and ‘Islamization’ of West Africa, which many analysts had readily dismissed as mischievous and self-serving. His theory was perceived in many quarters as borne out of intense dislike for the President Muhammadu Buhari administration than his ever so often professed love for Nigeria. Obasanjo’s no holds barred criticisms had contributed significantly to the downfall or demystification of virtually all those who had ruled the country after him either as military Head of State between 1975 and 1979 or elected civilian President from 1999 to 2007.

    When about two years into Buhari’s first term, Obasanjo trained his trademark missive artillery on the austere General from Daura, the self righteous mystique of the Owu warrior failed him. Even though there was much that was disappointing and disenchanting about the Buhari presidency that had raised so much expectation of change, a not insignificant number of Nigerians felt Obasanjo had overreached himself. It was widely believed that the motive of the man who had been extraordinarily lucky to rule the country for a combined period of 12 years was not the good of Nigeria but a desire to be seen as the best leader ever in the country’s history. Thus, his attempt to rally a third force against both the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC) and opposition Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) was a pitiable flop. His volte face and subsequent support for Alhaji Atiku Abubakar’s election as President in the 2019 polls failed. Buhari was reelected. The self-proclaimed watchman over the country had at last been demystified.

    It was the bitterness of this experience, many felt, that fuelled Obasanjo’s ‘Fulanization’ and ‘Islamization’ postulation just to discredit the Buhari administration. But then, Obasanjo’s flailing theory was given an unexpected shot in the arm by the announcement of the Federal Government’s Ruga settlement scheme, which generated widespread outrage until President Buhari’s wise and timely suspension of the rather bizarre enterprise. According to an assortment of Federal Government officials, the Ruga settlement scheme was conceived to create reserved communities where herders will live, grow and tend their cattle, produce milk and undertake other activities associated with the cattle business without having to move around in search of grazing land for their cows.

    This is ostensibly to find a lasting solution to the incessant clashes between nomadic herdsmen and sedentary farming communities. Yet, the policy would create legally designated communities in all states of the country for the benefit of cattle herders starting with a pilot scheme of 12 states. Since the cattle business is currently dominated by the Fulani ethnic group, those opposed to the Ruga settlement scheme naturally see it as nothing but a disguised attempt at Fulani expansionism and thus a confirmation of Obasanjo’s allegation of a ‘Fulanization’ agenda. This is, of course, far- fetched. On close examination, it appears to me that the Ruga settlement proposal does not differ fundamentally from the idea of ranching, which many argue is the way to go.

    Unfortunately, the President Muhammadu Buhari administration has through some of its actions including key appointments and its seeming lethargy for a long time to the violent excesses of herdsmen in large swathes of the country created the impression of being biased towards the Fulani. This perception has been reinforced by the fact that Buhari himself is a Fulani man. The public distrust of the government and its motives is what has rubbed off so negatively on the Ruga settlement scheme no matter what may be its indisputable merits.

    First, the term Ruga is itself a Fulani word and unsuitable for a national ranching policy. Second, the policy was conceived and its legal framework drawn up in secrecy, which further aroused suspicions of ethno-regional groups already agitated by perceived Fulani imperialist inclinations. A national dialogue giving opportunity for the input of all stakeholders before the adoption and unveiling of the policy would certainly have enabled better confidence building and understanding of the policy. Third, the Ruga policy and the intense opposition to it is partly a function of the crisis of federalism in Nigeria. There is no reason why it should be a federal government project. The state governments who legally control all the land within their jurisdiction should have been left alone to enact ranching laws if they so desire as a state like Benue has done. That way the locals in each state, which want to go into the ranching business, can easily do so without the scheme being interpreted, rightly or wrongly, as a mechanism of consolidating Fulani domination.

    The Federal Government spokespersons who explained details of the Ruga scheme before its suspension, said the settlements would be provided with schools, health facilities, water and power supply for its residents. There would also be a security outfit, the agro rangers established to protect lives and property in the cattle colonies. It certainly did not occur to those who conceptualized this idea that it would appear to many as a variant of apartheid whereby a select group of Nigerians would have a privileged existence in a settlement where all the amenities for civilized existence are provided while majority of Nigerians across the country are subject to the vagaries of poverty, hunger, homelessness, avoidable disease and pervasive insecurity.

    Yes, the government can by all means give those in the cattle business the necessary financial support to ensure the establishment, sustenance and viability of their businesses just as is being done as regards those involved in rice, cassava, yams, tomatoes and other small and medium scale businesses in the overall interest of the national economy. But this certainly does not require a nationalized ranching policy under the control of the central government in a supposed federation like Nigeria.

    The government must go back to the drawing board to engage all stakeholders nationwide in order to rethink, redesign, re-designate and refine the Ruga policy. The unnecessarily antagonistic and hostile attitude of government spokesmen like Shehu Garba to the critics of the policy is unhelpful. The point is to patiently and painstakingly explain its rationale and merits to all Nigerians, eliminate its limitations, and make it more nationally acceptable. The reformed policy must respect the tenets of federalism, constitutionalism and respect for the equal dignity and rights of all ethno-cultural groups in the country.

    As presently conceived, the Ruga policy seems to assume that herdsmen must necessarily move their goods from the north southward in search of grazing land and water given the severe desertification and other environmental challenges in the region. But this is entirely mythical. There is absolutely no reason why the Northern states cannot take advantage of the revolutionary advances in science and technology to turn the vast arid land mass of the region to lush, fertile and productive land. Rather than create the impression of being eternally and helplessly dependent on the resources of the south – oil revenue and vegetation for its cattle for instance – the North can exploit modern science and technology to become not just self-reliant in agriculture but to also make the south dependent on it in its areas of strength.

    In the same way, nothing stops states in the south from also going into the cattle business by setting up modern, model ranches in their states as eminent human rights lawyer, Mr. Femi Falana (SAN) has suggested. In a recent most enlightening television interview, Mr. Falana sheds light on this issue and I will quote him at length in conclusion. His words: “Ranching is not a new development in Nigeria; it is not a new phenomenon. The first ranch in Nigeria was established in Cross River State at Obudu in 1951 by the British. It was later taken over by the Eastern Regional Government. The Awolowo regime had a ranch in Akunnu, now Ondo State. The Ahmadu Bello regime had a ranch in Mokwa, Niger State. Under the Gowon regime, the Audu Bako regime in Kano had the best ranches in the country. But what happened was that during the long years of military rule, all the ranches in the country collapsed. That was the beginning of people taking cattle from one part of the country to another. Those who say that we have been doing it from time immemorial are talking rubbish. It is not our history.”

    Mr Falana continued: “In fact in the South West, the Obafemi Awolowo regime introduced a species of cow imported from Argentina. So we must solve the problem and it can only be solved scientifically. And we must learn from what is going on in Africa – Botswana, Mozambique, Kenya, Eritrea, Ethiopia – have the best ranches in the continent. In fact Botswana has a population of 1.2 million people. The cattle population is 2.8 million. That is the largest exporter of meat in Africa and the largest producer of meat. So you don’t need to take cattle round. You produce meat and distribute the meat. We must go modern. There is no sentiment about it. For example, the South- West consumes ten thousand herds of cattle every day. You need to have a ranch. One of the state governments at the very least must invest in ranching to take care of meat production”.

    PMB must be commended for suspending the Ruga scheme. It gives an opportunity to re-think the policy altogether and re-introduce it in a more popularly acceptable manner in the national interest.

  • As Oyegun regains his voice

    APPARENTLY spurred by the Deputy National Chairman of the All Progressives Congress (APC), Alhaji Lawal Shuaibu’s tirades against his successor as National Chairman of the party, Comrade Adams Oshiomhole, erstwhile party Chairman, Chief John Odigie Oyegun, appears to have regained his voice. In a vicious attack on Oshiomhole, Shuaibu had called for the party chieftain’s resignation accusing him of being responsible for the APC’s setbacks in states like Imo, Ogun, Zamfara, Rivers and Bauchi in the 2019 general elections. Oyegun immediately backed the call contending that Oshiomhole lacks the temperament to run a political party. In the unsparing words of Oyegun, his successor “lacks the capacity to manage the different interests and tendencies that constitutes a political party. He engages his mouth before engaging his mind”.

    Oyegun joined Shuaibu in putting the blame for the party’s loss of some states in the last election on Oshiomhole. It is, however, obvious that the majority of the party’s leadership as well as rank and file do not share the sentiments of either Shuaibu or Oyegun. The National Working Committee (NWC) of the party has thrown its weight behind their Chairman. In the same vein, the State Chairmen of the APC have sided with the Chairman. Not even those former governors who have cause to be strongly disaffected with Oshiomhole have publicly chided him in the aftermath of the elections. Shuaibu and Oyegun are apparently to be severely on their own.

    Were Oyegun to have his way, he would still be sitting pretty today as National Chairman of the APC along with other members of his NWC. The argument of those who wanted tenure extension for the national officers of the party at the time was that the 2019 elections were too close at hand for the party to afford intra –party elections that could prove to be disorderly and divisive. The same logic was extended to those seeking elective offices at all levels. The plot was that they would all be granted automatic re-election tickets at non- elective party congresses and conventions. This would have laid the foundation for the consolidation of the dictatorship of the then incumbent party and elective office holders within the PDP.

    In a moment when he showed a suave and sure hand, rising up to his role as the leader of the party, President Muhammadu Buhari said no to the perpetration of any such illegality. He ruled that the constitution of the party must be followed strictly to the letter and intra party elections held for all party and elective state offices. When one considers what eventually happened in Zamfara and Rivers states and the colossal misfortune suffered by the APC as a result of the party not abiding by its own rules in the states, the APC is lucky that President Buhari rose to the demands of statesmanship at that critical time.

    What Chief Oyegun is obviously still enamored with is the peace of the graveyard that reigned in the APC during his tenure. He considers his leadership as mature and temperate. Many observers rightly saw it as languid, uninspiring and placid. The Edo chief betrayed the great expectations that accompanied his ascendancy to the leadership of the party. His antecedents aroused high hopes. A graduate of the University of Ibadan, he had a meteoric rise in the Federal Civil Service where he became one of the youngest and most accomplished Permanent Secretaries. He was a one- time Governor of Edo State during military President, General Ibrahim Babangida’s convoluted transition programme. But he just could not appear to muster the requisite leadership dynamism and effectiveness for a nascent political coalition in need of a firm hand as helmsman. The party under his leadership was beholden to powerful vested interests particularly the governors. The APC was in the pockets of contending fractions and factions and the Oyegun leadership seemed helpless to do anything about it.

    Under Oyegun’s watch, the party’s national executive watched helplessly as the opposition practically seized control of the National Assembly leadership; a situation that cost the APC administration dearly in terms of harmonious legislative-executive relations and governmental performance in President Buhari’s first term between 2015 and 2019. Several states were rocked by crises that compelled President Muhammadu Buhari to empanel the National Leader of the party, Asiwaju Bola Ahmed Tinubu, to lead an intra-party reconciliation effort. As a result of the reticence and lack of proactive initiative of the party leadership, the so-called cabal moved in to exercise undue influence over the presidency and filling the vacuum created by the party particularly in policy initiation and implementation.

    To the shortsighted, the APC would have been better off not holding intra-party elective congresses and conventions and thus going into the 2019 elections with a semblance of harmony, peace and unity. Nothing could have been further from the truth. The somnolence that prevailed within the party under Oyegun was the proverbial funereal peace. It could not last and could have proved a long term and more dangerous portent for the APC. At least bottled up emotions and frustrations have been forced to the surface. Unless a wound is forced into the open and treated, it cannot heal. With Oyegun and his national executive as well as elective office holders getting non-competitive tenure extension, the APC would have hidden gangrenous wounds under misleading garbs of wholesomeness. Now, a whole lot of party members, including party leaders, know that it is futile to challenge the authority of the party. There is a greater sense of party discipline. If the party can play a more effective role in partnering the government in the areas of policy implementation within the parameters of the party manifesto, a more disciplined and focused APC can reverse its electoral reverses in subsequent polls.

    Oshiomhole may be bullish and hectoring. He may be used to what many see as a headmaster style. That is perhaps what the party needed given the state in which the Oyegun leadership left it. In any case, unlike 2015, the party now has national assembly leaders of its own choice. Oyegun blames Oshiomhole for giving state chapters the freedom to choose among having direct primaries, indirect delegates primaries or consensus arrangements to pick candidates for elective office. But if the comrade politician had insisted on foisting just one method on the party, he would have been accused of dictatorship. There is no doubt that the way to go henceforth is to have direct primaries in which all party members are given the opportunity to participate in choosing party candidates. This will weaken the hold of the fabled godfathers on the party, minimize the influence of money in a delegates’ election difficult to differentiate from an auctioneering bazaar and return the ownership of the party to the rank and file of members.

    All too often, the mistake is made that Oshiomhole’s seemingly dictatorial and hard line style is a function of his experience for decades as a labour leader. Those who reason this way forget that the labour movement in Nigeria, particularly the Nigerian Labour Congress (NLC) as well as Trade Union Congress (TUC) rank among the most democratic organizations in the country’s civil society. It is simple impossible for any leader sitting at the apex of these organizations to take unilateral decisions on their behalf without consulting all the necessary statutory organs and abiding by stipulated processes. Even then, it is a good sign that Oshiomhole, both in his utterances and actions, is showing greater restraint and collegiality, which demonstrates an ability to learn and mature on the job.

    Oyegun’s intervention on the Edo Assembly crisis is unhelpful. He has shown a willingness to jump into the fray and heap all the blame on Oshiomhole whom he accuses without proof of exhibiting traits of ‘godfatherism’ and distracting the governor. He is totally silent on the salient issues of the legality of inaugurating an assemblage of nine out of 24 members and picking legislative leaders from among the minority. This surely is not good for democracy.

    The man in the arena

    There is no doubt that the new Imo State governor, honourable Emeka Ihedioha, has his job cut out for him.

    There is certainly a lot of remolding and reinvention to undertake in Imo following the rather tempestuous tenure of the governor’s predecessor.

    Anyone who had observed Emeka carefully over the years would readily know that he would go far in politics. He is a Theodore Roosevelt’s fabled ‘man in the arena’ whose face is marred by blood and sweat and tears.

    Politics is Emeka’s passion. He is  man perpetually posied in the thick of action. For him, like Awo, politics is the art of selfless service to his people.

    I can remember those years back in 1991/1992 when Emeka and I would be in the late Senator Chuba Okadigbo’s hotel room at Nicon Noga Hilton till the wee hours of the morning, savouring the great man’s political wit and wisdom.

    While I was more interested in the theoretical aspects of the great Oyi’s postulations, Governor Ihedioha was more practically and pragmatically inclined.

    Ever so focused and determined to achieve any goal he sets for himself, I am confident that the governor will make a path-breaking impact in Imo. Here is wishing him best of luck.

  • Real significance of June 12

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

     

  • PDP and 9th National Assembly leadership

    Although the All Progressives Congress (APC) controls a reasonably comfortable majority in both houses of the 9th National Assembly, the numerically disadvantaged opposition party, the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) actually poses a more potent threat in terms of determining the outcome of legislative elections to determine the leadership of the Senate and House of Representatives. This was demonstrated during the process of electing the leadership of the 8th Assembly when the PDP outsmarted the APC and ensured the emergence of Senator Bukola Saraki and Honourable Yakubu Dogara, Senate President and House of Representatives Speaker, respectively, thus thwarting the preferences of the majority party. Even though the APC leadership is obviously determined to avoid a repeat of such a scenario this time around, it is still difficult to offhandedly dismiss the possibility of the PDP pulling off a surprise.

    True, rank indiscipline within political parties in this dispensation is not limited to any party but the APC is far more culpable in this regard, which makes it more vulnerable to being outsmarted in elections to pick the leaders of the legislature. Despite the APC leadership having made its choice of legislators to fill the various leadership positions known, for instance, other interested members of the party are going ahead with their campaigns to contest the elections on the floor of both chambers. Thus, if the APC splits its votes in the contest among multiple aspirants from its ranks, a minority PDP voting as a bloc may determine the outcome of the contest.

    The PDP is obviously a more cohesive political party in contrast to the APC. Indeed, it is the cohesion and relatively stronger organizational resilience of the PDP that made it possible for the party to hold the reins of power for 16 years since 1999 before its catastrophic defeat at the centre in the historic 2015 elections. Had the PDP been as fractious and crisis prone in the first 12 of its 16 years in power as the APC has been in just four years in control at the centre, the consequences could surely have been unsavory for Nigeria’s democratic evolution.

    For, an unstable ruling party unable to keep unavoidable intra-organizational disputes within reasonable bounds could have been a grave danger to the political system within the context of fragmented and fragile opposition political parties incapable for the better of the last 20 years of organizing to compete effectively for power. Formed essentially to conserve and stabilize Nigeria’s unjust, unequal and dysfunctional status quo in the post-military era and backed heavily by the retreating military high command in 1999, which had skewed the handover process in its favour, the PDP was primarily concerned with controlling and maintaining its grip on power rather than utilizing it for any ennobling end. It succeeded handsomely in this regard until increasing organizational sclerosis compounded by the sheer venality of the President Goodluck Jonathan years, which had disastrous consequences for the economy and the existential conditions of millions of Nigerians, resulted in its 2015 electoral implosion.

    On its part, the APC was hurriedly cobbled together as an election winning coalition barely a year to the 2015 elections. Furthermore, its key coalition partners are disparate and barely compatible ideologically. While the defunct Action Congress of Nigeria (ACN) strand has a strongly federalist and welfarist disposition, which presupposes far-reaching adjustments in major spheres of the country’s extant structure, the Congress for Progressive Change (CPC) tendency firmly believes in maintaining the current structural status quo believing only in enforcing greater asceticism, fiscal prudence and discipline in the country’s moral life. On its part, the nPDP’s presence in the APC coalition was driven only by a desire to kick the Goodluck Jonathan administration out of power rather than any pretentious philosophical concerns.

    When the nPDP saw itself marginalized in the distribution of key positions in the APC administration in the aftermath of the 2015 APC victory, it quickly moved to hijack the leadership of the National Assembly and successfully did so with the support of its old allies in the PDP. Of course, the nPDP shortly found itself back in the PDP but even then the remaining coalition partners in the APC did not see this exit of perceived strange ideological bedfellows from its ranks as an opportunity to forge a more disciplined, harmonious and focused party. Various tendencies, fractions and individuals within the ruling party continued to strive hard to marginalize and neutralize one another politically. With the approach of the 2019 elections, most party members and leaders closed ranks once again and worked together to achieve victory at the polls.

    Hardly were the polls over than party members began to aim for each other’s jugular. Brick bats are exchanged constantly in the media. Some elements in the APC are already fixated with the 2023 presidential elections even as the party is just about commencing its promise to take the country to the Next Level. Deadly infighting has begun in the party as individuals and tendencies intrigue to outmaneuver and vanquish each other before 2023. It is against this background that the June 11 inauguration of the 9th Assembly will hold and leaders of the legislature elected. Shunning the APC’s position, Senator Ali Ndume is pursuing his Senate Presidency ambition aggressively while Senator Danjuma Goje seems to be adopting a more subtle approach.

    In the House of Representatives, Honourable Umaru Bago Mohammed is the leading contender against Honourable Femi Gbajabiamila for the Speakership even though the party leadership has backed the latter. If enough APC party ‘dissidents’ refuse to toe the party line and split their votes  on the floor of the two chambers and the PDP vote as a bloc, the opposition will surely, once again, play a fast one on the APC as regards the emergent 9th leadership.

    From the Machiavellian perspective on politics, the PDP should indeed pursue and indeed relish the possibility of outmaneuvering the APC and preventing candidates of the majority party’s choice from emerging as leaders of the legislature on June 11. After all, does the end not just the means? And did the defunct Action Congress of Nigeria (ACN) not also strategically align with a colluding faction of the majority PDP to ensure the emergence of a Speaker and Deputy Speaker of the House of Representatives that was not the choice of the PDP leadership in 2011? But that is precisely the point. Today the ACN is a key partner in the APC that is suffering the discomfiture of being at the mercy of a minority party that has sufficient number of members to prevent the emergence of legislative leaders of the majority party’s choice once significant numbers of the majority party defy their party.

    The PDP can take a higher path and respect the right of the majority party to determine the leadership of each House. That way it would demonstrate its confidence that there is every possibility of its becoming the majority party once again in the near future especially given its remarkable resurgence in the last election. And should it one day command the majority in the National Assembly again, the PDP would have laid a morally impregnable precedent that a future minority party will breach to widespread opprobrium.

    In any case, the strained relationship between the legislative leadership of the 8th Assembly who belonged to the minority party and the presidency cost the country so much in terms of policy paralysis and a replication of the same situation this time around could have even more severe consequences. But then, this does not mean that a legislative leadership from the majority party should then make the law making arm of government subservient to the executive. That would ultimately have negative implications both for democracy and development.

    A key deciding factor of how the legislative leadership election of June 11 will go will be the House Rules to be used for the exercise. Both the PDP members and dissenting APC members who intend to defy their party will prefer the 2015 rules, which were adopted in controversial circumstances, and provides for secret ballot mode of voting. Those APC members who are toeing the party line will want rules that make for open ballot.

    Should a legislator elected on the platform of a party seek to vote in secret if he has nothing to hide from the platform through which he became a legislator? Should the rules of a preceding legislative assembly be binding on its successors? Can newly elected legislators amend the House Rules that will determine the process through which the legislative leaders will be elected before they are sworn in? It will surely be a battle of wits as these issues are decided on June 11.

    Of course, the PDP also has its own challenges as regards its choice of minority leader in the Senate. By far the most ranking, qualified and deserving candidate for the position is Senator Ike Ekweramadu, the current Deputy Senate President. But Senators Dino Melaye and Ayo Akinyelure are said to be interested in contesting. This is improper.

  • el Rufai’s thoughts and non-thoughts on godfatherism

    From my reading of the media reports of the ‘lecture’ delivered by Kaduna State governor, Mallam  Nasir-El-Rufai to members of The Bridge Club in Lagos recently, it was hardly a structured or intellectually rigorous affair despite the quality of the audience.  el-Rufai’s random musings on the occasion during which he largely entertained himself and massaged his own ego was of negligible analytic value because he failed to at the very least clearly define his central subject, godfatherism, which seems to be the main reason for the event.  This is perhaps because he was asked the question on godfatherism in Lagos seemingly off the cuff. But was the question by Dr Muiz Banire just an accidental one? It is unlikely. The event was evidently well choreographed. Thus, he should have examined the phenomenon of godfatherism both historically and empirically in Nigeria and given a justification for his zeroing in on Lagos when there are powerful and influential politicians in practically every state in the country.

    To worsen matters, when answering questions on the lecture later in Abuja, el-Rufai denied making reference to one of the National Leaders of the All Progressives Congress (APC), Asiwaju Bola Ahmed Tinubu, who is also reputed to be the chief architect and pathfinder of the developmental renaissance witnessed in Lagos over the last two decades. Yet he petulantly maintained that he stood by his position at the lecture although also saying that he did not know whether or not Tinubu was a godfather of Lagos politics.

    Well then, let us try to deconstruct the notion of godfatherism as best as we can. The concept of godfatherism can be articulated in perjoorative  terms as El-rufai has done or in a more positive sense, which he appeared to be completely oblivious of. When the Kaduna State governor insinuates that every influential, powerful and electorally successful politician is a godfather who must be pulled down, then his sense of the term would encompass great, charismatic and astute Nigerian politicians like Dr. Nnmadi Azikwe, Chief Obafemi Awolowo, Alhaji Ahmadu Bello, Mallam Aminu Kano, Dr Michael Okpara, Dr Joseph Tarka, Chief Anthony Enahoro, General Samuel Ogbemudia,  Alhaji Tafawa Balewa, Alhaji Balarabe Musa, Alhaji Aminu Kano, Alhaji Lateef Jakande, Chief Bola Ige and most of the other second republic governors to cite just a random sampling. These were mercurial politicians who were greatly beloved of their people and retained tremendous political admiration and respect in respective parts of the country throughout their lives.

    el-Rufai would be conflating these illustrious Nigerian politicians and statesmen with the likes of the late Alhaji Lamidi Adedibu, fabled strong man of Ibadan politics where he was once famously described as a veritable garrison commander of the ebullient arena of Oyo state politics by no other than el-Rufai’s former godfather and benefactor, former President Olusegun Obasanjo. That genius of ‘Amala politics’ once publicly wondered why a state governor, Alhaji Rasheed Ladoja, could not allocate to him his own share of the state’s federal allocation and the heavens did not fall. Indeed, he got the governor impeached through a riotous mob, which invaded and took over the Oyo State House of Assembly until a court of law upturned the purported impeachment.

    Again, Chris Uba was another example of these nefarious kinds of godfathers in Anambra state during the tenure of Dr. Chris Ngige as governor of the state. The governor was abducted in broad daylight and could have been forced to resign but for the intervention of fate and luck. His crime? : He allegedly was not abiding by the terms of oaths he had taken before the Okija shrine to materially compensate Uba financially for installing him as governor. In Edo State, comrade governor Adams Oshiomhole had to fight suffocating godfathers to a standstill, which then enabled him to lay a strong developmental foundation for the state. So El-Rufai’s use of the term godfatherism is loose, careless and imprecise.

    Now, what are the roots of Tinubu’s enduring resilience in the politics of a highly sophisticated state like Lagos? During the third republic between 1991 and 1993, he joined forces with progressive elements to foster internal democracy within the defunct Social Democratic Party in Lagos State. Those were the days of the famous Professor Femi Agbalajobi versus Chief Dapo Sarumi ultimately mutually self-cancelling tussle for the governorship of Lagos State. It was in that era that Tinubu was elected to the Senate from the Lagos West Senatorial District with the highest number of votes in the country. During Chief MKO Abiola’s campaign for the presidency of Nigeria in 1993, Tinubu was not only one of his closest confidantes, he also was at the forefront of the struggle to regain Abiola’s mandate when the military annulled the election staking even his life and fortune in the process. All these endeared him to a substantial number of people not only in Lagos but across the South West. His emergence as governor of Lagos State in 1999 was thus a near fait accompli.

    El-Rufai completely misses the point when he strives to portray Tinubu as the godfather with a negative and overbearing strangle hold on the politics of Lagos State. That was the line pushed by both the PDP governorship candidate in Lagos State, Mr. Jimi Agbaje and proponents of the Kwara type ‘O to gee’ revolution In Lagos in the last election. They failed woefully. APC’s Mr. Jide Sanwo-Olu and Dr Obafemi Hamzat won an even more emphatic victory in Lagos than was the case in 2015. El-Rufai also forgets that he was part of the Obasanjo administration when federal might including the military was deployed to Lagos in a bid to ‘capture’ the state in the 2003 and 2007 elections. They failed again woefully.

    Now what are the sources of Tinubu’s continuing and even growing influence not just in Lagos but in Nigerian politics even though he formally left public office 12 years ago? It is precisely because his tactics, methods and strategies are not those of a power thirsty godfather. What do I mean? As governor, Tinubu assembled the best and brightest professionals and brains into his cabinet. These were people who could hold their own in their areas of professional competence and whose opinions the governor had no choice but to respect. That is not the way of godfatherism. Power thirsty godfathers surround themselves with professional and mental Lilliputians who are too lily-livered to debate them because they want to completely dominate their environment and have no tolerance for dissenting and intelligent opinions.

    Tinubu conceived of the Governors Advisory Council (GAC) when he was governor. These are individuals with wide experience in both the private and public sectors including governance who act as another layer of checks and restraints on the governor and his executive. Again, these are respected, accomplished and highly regarded politicians and statesmen whose views cannot be dismissed lightly. I am not sure that any other state has such a body. That is not the way of godfatherism. Power thirsty godfathers want as little hindrances as possible to their exercise of maximum power.

    More than any other politician in this era, Tinubu has identified and discovered

    talents and given them ample opportunity to develop themselves and flourish as leaders in their own right. These individuals, scores of them, are doing well today in diverse spheres of governance at all levels. That is not the way of godfatherism. Ruthless godfathers hardly develop other leaders because of the fear of being subsequently overshadowed by their former mentees. In the same vein, Tinubu has facilitated and allowed the financial empowerment of many of his subordinates to become financially independent today. That is not the way of godfatherism, where the godfather wants his subordinates to remain perpetually financially dependent on him so he will remain the only star in the firmament.

    el-Rufai talks with effusive glibness about good governance and qualitative leadership. He is not qualified to do so. He has no sterling record in that regard. At least we can all recall his abysmal performance at the Bureau of Public Enterprises as well as his intemperate, divisive and megalomaniac governance style in Kaduna State which overshadow whatever achievements he can claim. Luckily for him, he has profited from President Muhammadu Buhari’s cult following in the north, which has enabled him secure a second term in office.  This is unlike Tinubu who not only exhibited balanced, fair and restrained leadership in a complex, plural megacity like Lagos, laid a solid foundation for the financial viability,  infrastructural rejuvenation as well as governance efficacy of Lagos State but also exhibited the perspicacity to identify and support competent successors who have built admirably on his legacy and elevating Lagos continually to higher heights.

    If el-Rufai and many other APC governors had their way, the John Odigie Oyegun-led National Executive of the APC would have continued in office through tenure extension without allowing party members to exercise their right to pick their leaders. This would have paved the way for elected officers on the platform of the party to also have automatic tickets to contest elections without primaries. That would have been the height of internal party dictatorship which is akin to cabalistic godfatherism. Tinubu was one of those who fought hard to enthrone intraparty democracy and empower all party members to pick party candidates for elections through direct primaries. That surely is not the way of godfatherism.

    The Kaduna State governor boasted that he had defeated and retired four godfathers in Kaduna State in the last election. This is in itself an exhibition of immaturity and needless arrogance.  But then that is not worth commenting on since he did not name these ghost godfathers so we can independently ascertain their political weight and worth. But when el-Rufai imperiously claims to have permanently retired these unknown  four godfathers from politics, does it mean he has substituted himself for the electorate in Kaduna State in future elections? Is El-Rufai then not the newest godfather in town?

    el-Rufai is amazingly simplistic in his thinking when he assumes that if the opposition is able to increase the voter turnout in Lagos to double the present number, then that will automatically guarantee victory in future elections. So he assumes that the ruling party will not also have a fair share of the support of the envisaged emergent new voters  apart from embarking its own voter registration drive?  He also thinks that if an opposition party can raise at least N2 billion, it will easily dislodge the godfather he appears to fear so much in Lagos. So the ruling party will not raise funds of its own to contest elections?

    Perhaps the highpoint of the event was Dr Muiz Banire’s question to el-Rufai on how godfatherism could be curbed in Lagos. I thought it was Banire who should be lecturing el-Rufai on politics and not vice versa. In politics, the Kaduna governor is simply  unfit to untie the lace of Banire’s shoes. And when el-Rufai insinuated that godfathers collect money to appoint or sponsor people to offices I expected Banire to have regaled the audience with juicy tales of how much he was worth in 1999 to have been able to procure the headship of two of the largest ministries in Lagos State – transportation and environment – for an unbroken period of 12 years!

     

    • Next week: PDP and 9th Assembly leadership.

  • But why Ahmed Lawan and Femi Gbajabiamila?

    On what basis did President Muhammadu Buhari and the leadership of the All Progressives Congress (APC) arrive at the decision to adopt Senator Ahmed Lawan and Honourable Femi Gbajabiamila for the positions of Senate President and Speaker, House of Representatives, respectively, in the 9th National Assembly? Is this not a necessarily arbitrary decision since any number of reasons can be given to justify whatever zoning formula opted for by the party? Would it indeed not have been preferable for the party simply to have zoned the offices and allowed intra-party dynamics on the floor of the respective chambers to determine which legislators for these and other offices emerge?

    Of course, the danger here would be that if a party cannot summon the will and discipline to enforce its right to determine which of its legislators occupy what offices in the National Assembly, what is the guarantee that things would not get out of hand on the floor during the legislative election especially when you have a minority opposition party ever so eager to turn the tables on the majority party and grab key legislative offices in collusion with unprincipled members of the dominant party?

    There is a school of thought, which contends that the business of electing the leadership of the two chambers of the National Assembly is entirely that of the legislators voting on the floor with no extraneous interference.  Section 50(1) of the 1999 constitution is cited to support this position. It states that “There shall be (a) a President and a Deputy President of the Senate, who shall be elected by the members of that House from among themselves; and (b) a Speaker and a Deputy Speaker of the House of Representatives, who shall be elected by the members of that House from among themselves”. From this perspective, there is absolutely no place for political parties in the election of the legislative leadership.

    But then, did the legislators emerge from outer space to contest for the positions they occupy in the National Assembly? Would that not be tantamount to something standing on nothing? Let us consider Section 65 of the 1999 constitution, which states the qualifications for membership of the National Assembly and right of attendance. Subsection 2(b) of this section states that “A person shall be qualified for election under subsection (1) of this section if (b) he is a member of a political party and is sponsored by that party”.

    This is reinforced by Section 68(1) subsection b of the constitution, which states that “A member of the Senate or House of Representatives shall vacate his seat in the House of which he is a member if being a person whose election was sponsored by a political party, he becomes a member of another political party before the expiration of the period for which he was elected: Provided that his membership of the latter political party is not a result as a result of a division in the political party of which he was previously a member or of a merger of two or more political parties or factions by one of which he was previously sponsored”.

    There is thus an inextricable link between the legislator and his political party. If so, it is impossible for a serious political party with a majority of members in the legislature to be indifferent as regards those who emerge as the leaders in the law making chambers. Political parties sponsor candidates for elective office both in the executive and legislative arms of government to implement specific party programmes and manifestoes that constitute its social contract with the electorate.

    The principle of separation of powers among the three arms of government is designed to ensure that they check and balance each other in order to enhance accountable, transparent and responsible government. However, this is not expected to be to the detriment of cooperative and harmonious relationship between the executive and legislature in order to ensure the achievement as much as possible of the policies and programmes of the party in power at any level of government.

    It is obviously due to the experience of the APC in the last four years, during which smooth implementation of the party’s programme was partly impeded by an adversarial legislative leadership, that the party is determined this time around to ensure that the opposition does not determine those who occupy key legislative offices as happened in 2015. Thus, right from President Muhammadu Buhari through the various leadership structures and organs of the party, all hands appear to be on deck towards the emergence of legislative leaders of the party’s choice particularly the offices of Senate President and Speaker.

    Let us then go back to our initial question: Was the adoption of Senator Ahmed Lawan and Honourable Femi Gbajabiamila for these prime legislative positions not essentially arbitrary and thus falling short of expected democratic standards? If the principle of zoning had been the criterion for settling for the two, I would have answered this question in the affirmative. And I think it is unfortunate that the misleading impression has been widely created that Lawan and Gbajabiamila’s choices for these positions is because the offices have been zoned to the North-East and South-West respectively.

    This is why the APC Vice Chairman for the North Central zone, Ahmed Suleiman Wambi, sounded a refreshingly different note in explaining the rationale for his zone’s support for the party leadership’s choice of Lawan and Gbajabiamila. In his words: “We have not given Ahmad Lawan the position of Senate President because he is from North East or Gbajabiamila Speaker because he is from the South West but based on their contribution and loyalty to the party…We are not saying that there is nobody in the North Central that is qualified. No. But there are certain considerations. We fought for the zone to get Deputy Speaker in the House of Representatives and also Majority Leader in the Senate”.

    In principle, all legislators are equal and none is more equal than others. All legislators are thus entitled to contest for legislative leadership positions. To simplify matters, it has become the tradition in legislative assemblies across diverse polities to grant ranking legislators priority in contesting key positions based on wealth of experience and proven quality of representation. This ensures that these positions can be filled without other qualified legislators feeling a sense of injustice or alienation. In this regard as Majority Leaders of the Senate and House of Representatives respectively Lawan and Gbajabiamila are the two most senior and highest ranking APC legislators in both chambers.

    Of course, it is not for nothing that Lawan and Gbajabiamila occupy these prestigious offices. A doctorate degree holder in remote sensing and distinguished educationist, Lawan has rich legislative experience having been elected to the House of Representatives in 1999 on the platform of the All Nigeria Peoples Party (ANPP) and serving at various times as Chairman of the House Committees on education and culture. Elected to the Senate in 2007 still on the platform of the ANPP, Lawan was a member of the Senate Committee on constitution review in 2008 and became Chairman of the Senate Public Accounts Committee in 2009. He was re-elected to the Senate again on the platform of the ANPP in 2011 and emerged as majority leader in 2017 after being re-elected on the platform of the APC in 2015. It says something of his character that contrary to the fair-weather nature of Nigeria’s political elite, Lawan has been consistently in opposition till he won re-election on the platform of the new ruling party in 2015.

    On his part, Gbajabiamila’s brilliance is widely acknowledged. With an exemplary legal education, he was in private practice both abroad and in Nigeria before opting for politics. Like Lawan, Gbajabiamila has been consistently in opposition since being elected to the House of Representatives on the platform of the Alliance for Democracy (AD) in 2003. By the end of his second tenure in 2007, Gbajabiamila had sponsored the highest number of bills in the House. In 2011, Gbajabiamila was nominated for the award of Officer of the Federal Republic (OFR). Surprisingly, he turned down the offer on the ground that he did not deserve it at the time. Rather, he sponsored an amendment to the requisite law to give stringent guidelines for selection of National Award nominees. Here surely is a man of character and principle.

    True, those ranking APC legislators who also legitimately aspire to these offices have rich resumes in terms of education as well as political and legislative experience. But Lawan and Gbajabiamiula have an edge as the highest ranking APC legislators in both Houses. But for the fact that he was removed from office as Majority Leader of the Senate by his colleagues in 2017, for instance, and replaced with Lawan, I don’t how anyone could have rationally and justifiably faulted Senator Ali Ndume’s aspiration for the Senate Presidency.

    Next week: PDP AND LEADERSHIP OF THE 9TH ASSEMBLY.

  • Lai Mohammed, Modibbo Kawu, Dele Alake and the Pinnacle Conundrum

    Even though the progress of its anticorruption war has been slow and tortuous sometimes because of the cumbersome legal process and partly because of the alleged collusion of a number of powerful administration insiders with corrupt elements, the battle is still alive and well. Surely, the fear of Buhari’s war against graft is the beginning of wisdom for public office holders in the country today. And sometimes the long hands of the law reach up to officials in high places thus strengthening the anti-graft war and enhancing its credibility. Nowhere is the administration’s stance against corruption as visible and relevant as the ongoing investigation by the Independent Corrupt Practices Commission (ICPC) of certain humongous payments by the National Broadcasting Commission (NBC) of the sum of N2.5 billion to Pinnacle Communication Limited, a payment that spurred a petition to the ICPC moving the anti-graft body into action.

    The N2.5 billion was part of the N10 billion seized from the NBC by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) in 2016 for being banked in contravention of the Treasury Single Account (TSA) policy. On assumption of office as Director General of NBC, Mr Moddibo Kawu had reviewed the relationship between the NBC and Pinnacle Communication Limited getting the latter to withdraw a suit against the former in court as regards the appointment of a Signal Distributor for the Abuja Switch over. Kawu appointed the communication outfit as the Signal Distributor for the Abuja Switch over partly on the ground that “The Pinnacle Communications Limited Chairman, Lucky Omoluwa had supported the Buhari campaign and had thought the change of administration would offer an opportunity to rectify the injustice they faced under the former NBC DG, Emeka Mba”.

    Kawu claims that Pinnacle Communications Limited delivered on its mandate as Signal Distributor thus necessitating the payment of the said N2.5 billion to the company five months after its appointment. Some of the items delivered by Pinnacle Communications within 90 days were the airfreighting of nine tons of weapons to Abuja, provision of facilities commissioned by Vice President Yemi Osinbajo on 22nd of December, 2017 and commissioning of their Kaduna Centre a year later by Governor Nasir El-Rufai.

    In an article in defence of Kawu published by Abubakar Maahmood Ahmed in an online medium, Daily Nigerian on April 19, and titled “Facts behind Modibbo Kawu’s ICPC travails” the writer delved into a number of issues which he believes are the real reasons why the ICPC is uncompromising and adamant in the prosecution of Kawu for the Pinnacle transaction, which the ICPC considers unethical and contravening due process. Most of the reasons adduced for Kawu’s travails smack of spurious conspiracy theories and unverified or even unverifiable rumours and hear say.

    For instance, in taking on Alhaji Lai Mohammed in the piece, the writer avers that “When President Buhari announced the DGs to head media parastatals and the NBC, he caused the first level of shock. The announcement of Modibbo Kawu as the DG of NBC shocked the political team from the Southwest that had primed the position for Dele Alake, the former Commissioner for Information and Strategy in Lagos State. Lai Mohammed as Minister of Information was said to have shouted in his office, that “This is unacceptable. Modibbo Kawu is not one of us”. This kind of outrageous nonsense, which has no basis in facts, was dished out by the writer as gospel truth.

    Those who know Alhaji Lai Mohammed very well can readily testify that he is not one to indulge in the kind of intemperate outburst portrayed in the piece. And the assertion that Mr. Alake was ever primed to be DG of NBC is unadulterated falsehood. Yes, Mr. Alake is more than qualified to hold any office. But there is simply no truth in the allegation that Lai Mohammed ever proposed him to be DG of NBC or even made any attempt to do so. I make bold to say that Alake has not been to any minister’s office in the Buhari administration for any purpose at all not talk about going to hustle for positions or contracts. He has been too busy with his consultancy work both within and outside the country to engage in any such unproductive ventures.

    In any case, if it is true that Lai Mohamed had opposed Kawu’s appointment and preferred Alake as DG Of NBC, why did he then as Minister of Information approve the Pinnacle Communication contract and even authorized the release of the N2.5 billion as requested by Kawu? It was only after the ICPC presented the facts in its possession to the minister that Lai Mohammed claimed that he was misled into giving approval for the release of the fund by the DG. A source with the ICPC familiar with the case, told the respected Online medium, Premium Times, that “Lai Mohamed has admitted that he did not do due diligence before signing off on a controversial N2.5 billion payment to a private digital distributor. Mohammed told the ICPC that he only approved the payment based on the recommendation of the DG of the NBC in May, 2017”.

    Continuing the story reads: “Rasheedat Okodua, the ICPC spokesperson told Premium Times on Monday that Lai Mohammed was not charged because he said he was deceived into signing the document. Documents seen by Premium Times showed that Mr. Mohammed played more role than just signing documents. He signed several documents and also took part in discussions with Pinnacle Communications and embarked on foreign trips to inspect equipment for Nigeria’s digital switch over. Mr Kawu told Premium Times that he did no wrong in recommending the payment to Mr. Mohammed but did not assume responsibility for the minister’s approval”.

    It is thus misleading for the impression to be created that Lai Mohammed had always opposed Kawu’s appointment and was thus determined from the onset to ‘make life difficult for him as DG of NBC’. If so, how did Kawu obtain the necessary ministerial approvals that gave him and Pinnacle Communication access to the funds requested? Surely, Mr Mohammed must have later on seen something wrong in the process for releasing the funds that made him distance himself from the NBC DG in his interactions with the ICPC.

    In his writing in defence of Kawu, Abubakar Ahmed, does not spare his readers the most scurrilous attempts at stirring up ethnic and religious sentiments. For instance, he writes that “To make things even better, the new ICPC Board is headed by another VP sidekick, Bolaji Owasanoye who also belongs to the Redeemed Church. The plan is to bring into the NBC, after they might have removed Moddibo Kawu, their original candidate, Dele Alake, who also belongs to the Redeemed Church”. Surely, this is journalism at its very worst, which seeks to excite the base instincts of decent people on utterly unfounded assumptions and presuppositions.

    Rallying his supposed ‘northern constituency’ to rise to Modibbo’s support, the writer makes statements that are really very damaging for Kawu, who first made his name as a progressive, radical and patriotic intellectual rather than ethno-regional jingoist. According to Abubakar Ahmed, “In the last elections, most NBC staff were reported to have voted for PDP because they wanted President Buhari to lose since that would mean that Modibbo Kawu would be removed as DG. One of the most entrenched cabals inside the NBC is the licensing cabal. It was the ruling mantra that Southerners that can, and must always be given licenses in the North, but Northerners are ALWAYS denied licenses in the South, especially the lucrative Lagos market. Well, Modibbo Kawu ensured that for the first time in the 25-year history of the NBC, Northerners got several licenses in Lagos”. So is this an acceptable defence for the infractions of collusion and fraud for which Kawu is facing serious court charges? What determines the issuance of license by the NBC? Are this based on states or region of origin or are there specific technical and specialist or capital base requirements for licensees to qualify?

    Kawu was billed to appear in an Abuja High Court last Wednesday along with the GM of Pinnacle Communication, Mr Lucky Omoluwa. The case was, however, forced to adjourn till May 4th for hearing since Omoluwa was not in court. His counsel claimed that Omoluwa was still on his way to Abuja from Kaduna that morning. It will surely be a most interesting case when the hearing gets underway. It is unlikely that instigating ethnic, religious and partisan sentiments will avail much for Kawu in the final analysis. He is a brilliant man. Kawu should just prove to the court that he did not mislead the minister to approve fraudulent payments to Pinnacle Communication Limited. That is the crux of the matter.

  • Re: APC’s growing ideological clarity

    “It is truly very difficult to differentiate between the APC and PDP due basically because of the same set of people constituting the members and political leaders of both parties- at one time or the other. There is indeed still not much difference between the two parties in the true sense of it except for some important infrastructural constructions and a few investments on poverty alleviation by APC this time, which were made possible because of Buhari’s sincere desires to make a difference. And of course the people expect a lot more from him. In one of the presidential elections he lost before his 2015 victory, Nigerians could see Buhari openly weeping for the country, which was an indication of how much he loved the nation and could have made the needed difference was he allowed the opportunity. Of course, it is quite unfortunate that the opportunity he sought came when he was no longer young and at a time when the 16 years of PDP predatory rule had left the nation’s economy severely in ruins, making his genuine efforts at moving the country forward look like nothing is happening.

    “Yet concerned Nigerians and those interested in the advancement of the country are all too happy that he was after all voted in for the second tenure in the hope that with him on the saddle there is still left so much to hope for with good administration, caution and self censorship. Now there is this much talked about invisible government of the nation that must always influence the direction any government of the day must follow. Buhari should know that if anything goes wrong in the country under his watch, it is his name that will be entered on the wrong side of the nation’s history not the names of those who would counsel him to go against the will of the people and the nation. With the not too young to rule law now in place, Buhari may turn to be the last old face to mount the saddle. Mere making a difference between his APC and PDP may not just be enough this time. It is what he actually does or fails to do on the whole that will really determine his place in history.

    “While Nigerians are certainly not interested in restructuring the country in a way that the separatist agitators will cash in to split the nation, there are some essential tinkering that just need be done to devolve some powers to the federating units – the states of the country – for the better. With the elections now over and his second tenure deservedly secured, Buhari as part of the measures to take the nation to the next level, can now call for the recommendations of the 2014 confab and constitute a committee to study its content towards urgent implementation of what should be generally acceptable. If no other thing, he should be able to reconstruct the nation in such a way that it will be practically impossible for one man or a few of them to be the ones determining the leadership and political direction of the country against what should be the collective will of the people. And having promised going tougher in his war against corruption this second tenure, he should launch out fully to drive home the assertion that if Nigeria doesn’t kill corruption, corruption will kill Nigeria. During his just concluded 67th birthday colloquium, the national leader of APC, Asiwaju Tinubu outlined what he believes should be the ideological framework of the party. I think Buhari can simply kick start from here, at least to lay a progressive foundation those coming after him could build on should there be no time enough for him to take us to the promised land”, Emmanuel Egwu, Unwana, Afikpo North LGA, Ebonyi State.

     

    “Great analysis as usual, sir. My fear, however, is that the much touted APC ideological evolvement must first and foremost reflect solid institutional features before it could be celebrated. Sir, from your analysis, it seems as what’s being seen as ideology is more a reflection of the ideological leanings of top current power actors in the party than what the party actually stands for. By the time President Muhammadu Buhari, Professor Yemi Osinbajo, Oshiomhole and the likes cease to be part of the party’s top power players, then the true ideological leaning of the party could thoroughly be assessed”, Tayo Ogunbiyi, Lagos State Ministry of Information & Strategy.

     

    ILLUMINATIONS: “Very pertinent point Mr. Ogunbiyi. I think the seeds of progressive politics in Nigeria were sown through the efforts of the progressive tendencies that led the nationalist struggle for independence particularly the Zikists and the radical trade union movement led by the likes of Michael Imoudu. The seeds of progressivism were further nurtured in diverse spheres by Obafemi Awolowo and Aminu Kano’s AG/UPN, NEPU/PRP in the first and second republic respectively. The glowing but brief flowering of the Murtala/Obasanjo military regime’s radical and patriotic African –centred foreign policy can also not be discounted in the evolution of progressive ideology in Nigeria. In this dispensation, the flame of progressive ideology has been kept aglow no matter how tremulous by the succession of the defunct AD/AC/ACD/ ACN and now being consolidated by the APC. A recognizable, distinct and increasingly coherent body of ideas, value dispositions, philosophical orientations and policy prescriptions that constitute Nigeria’s variant of progressive ideology is slowly crystallizing and this, in my view, transcends the arbitrary whims or fleeting fancies of current APC leaders. If APC does not summon the discipline and vision to give this emerging systematically related body of ideas enduring institutional expression, other more purposeful and focused parties will emerge to do so. Nature abhors a vacuum. Thanks for your always thoughtful interventions.

     

    Re: Ideology and pdp’s electoral resurgence

    “Much as the nation needs a viable opposition party to keep the ruling party on its feet and make it always accountable to the people, there is nothing in practical terms in what you christened the ideology of Atiku to merit the eulogies you seem to be heaping on him and the PDP in this piece, objective though the write up is. Those we even know how much they had looted our economy, and who in developed climes should have been languishing in prison shouldn’t be given such image laundering as you would Atiku as projected in that article. Whatever is said to be Atiku’s ideological clarity or invented PDP value orientation was never responsible for the impressive PDP performance in the last general election. The vast majority of Nigerian electorate hasn’t developed to the level of making their electoral choice based on aspirants’ or party ideological rhetoric such as free-market policy prescriptions at least for now.

    “By the impressive outing of the PDP during the last election, the party was merely trying to reap bountifully from where it had actually sowed ruins and emptiness. The disaster PDP foisted on our economy and inherited by Buhari was such that things needed to get worse first before getting better with PMB’s adopted method of turning things around for the better. It was that getting ‘worse’ situation process which was actually very hard on Nigerians, that people had really reacted to in that election by voting for Atiku to the extent they did, unaware that things would be worse were the same PDP still in p0wer to date. That’s the reason for the impressive performance of the PDP in the election and not the clarity of any kind of paper ideological pontification, that many Nigerian voters may neither read nor understand the content”, Emmanuel Egwu, Ebonyi State.

     

    ILLUMINATIONS: “Thanks Mr. Egwu. Did I even remotely insinuate that the emerging ideological coloration of the APC and PDP was responsible for voter behavior in the last election? Not even a neophyte in political analysis would resort to such crude mono-causal determinism in discourse. Ideology cannot be a key factor in electoral outcomes when the dominant parties are only just gradually crystallizing around distinct ideological positions and widespread poverty and poor political consciousness reinforce primordial proclivities. My point is that there is a gradual ideological awakening and this is a good thing. If I found things to commend in Atiku’s politics or policy package, I am absolutely unapologetic apout it. Those who believe that PDP is populated wholly of devils and APC of saints are free to continue to luxuriate in their illusory world. Anybody who is blind to the dizzying cross migration of an assortment of morally tainted characters across the two dominant parties can remain blissfully impervious to reality. If the APC does not feel the need to critically interrogate the reasons for the electoral resurgence of a badly morally damaged PDP in the 2019 polls, particularly the unforced errors of the Buhari administration, there is pretty little this column can do about that”.

  • Ideology and PDP’s electoral resurgence

    Its spectacular loss in the 2015 presidential election was a devastating blow to the solar plexus of the then ruling Peoples Democratic Party (PDP). And despite its organizational fragility and lack of cohesion having been hurriedly cobbled together for the polls as an election-winning machine, the new APC administration moved with speed to put a seal of finality on PDP’s coffin of electoral mummification. The party found most handy in this regard the reckless looting of humongous amounts of public funds by assorted leaders of the PDP;  salacious evidence of which it regaled the public with understandable relish.

    In the titillating saga of the $2.1 billion arms procurement bazaar for which former National Security Adviser, Colonel Sambo Dasuki (rtd) has been in seemingly indefinite detention, for instance, top members of the military high command under Jonathan and chieftains of the PDP simply shared the money among themselves even as our ill-equipped and demoralized troops perished unaccountably on the Boko Haram battlefront. Many of them have refunded the loot even as their trials for corrupt enrichment proceed at snails speed through Nigeria’s ponderous judicial process.

    But that was only the tip of the iceberg. At a press conference late last year, Acting Chairman of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), Mr. Ibrahim Magu, for the umpteenth time reveled how much the ravenous vultures had feasted on Nigeria’s commonwealth during the PDP years of the locusts. In his words, “Following court orders which granted our prayers for interim and final forfeiture of looted funds, the recoveries under my watch between November, 2015, and today are as follows: Over N794 billion recovered. Over $261 million recovered. The pounds sterling recovered stands at 1, 115, 930.47 pounds. The Euros recovered in the period is 8,168,871.13 Euros. There is also the sum of 86,500 CFA”. He went on to list other looted physical assets recovered both within and outside the country.

    There is no doubt that when he dared to name those PDP chieftains associated with these recovery of looted assets, Minster for Information and Culture, Alhaji Lai Mohammed, believed that he was permanently sealing the fate of the PDP, which seemed incapable of recovering from the seemingly fatal damage to its morale and image especially by the incurably corrupt toga foisted on it so mercilessly by the APC.

    That is exactly why the performance of the PDP in the last general elections of February 23rd and March 9th is nothing short of a miraculous resurrection from the dead. In the presidential election, the PDP candidate, Alhaji Atiku Abubakar, polled 11,262, 978 votes representing 41.2% of votes cast to victorious President Muhammadu Buhari’s 15, 191, 847 votes scored constituting a 55.6% share of total votes cast. While Buhari won in 19 states, Atiku actually carried the day in 17 states. PDP’s outing in the governorship election was even more remarkable. The PDP won 13 governorship seats to the ruling party’s 15 and with the opposition party gaining grounds in Benue, Adamawa, Bauchi, Sokoto, Oyo and Imo states while only barely losing in Kano.

    When he emerged as the presidential candidate of the PDP at the party’s Port Harcourt National Convention, his critics alleged that Atiku had procured the opposition party’s ticket through a stupefying deluge of Naira rain. This perception seems to have compounded the moral baggage of corruption, with which he had been tarred particularly by his erstwhile boss, General Olusegun Obasanjo even though no court had ever found the Turaki Adamawa guilty of any crime.

    Rather than force Obasanjo to prove the truly damaging allegations against him in court, a task which would have proven quite daunting in my view, Atiku chose to beg and grovel before the vindictive old soldier who affected to have forgiven his former deputy on behalf of Nigerians even as he has steadfastly refused to withdraw the book in which he maligned Atiku’s character and integrity from circulation. Even then, the APC certainly has cause to ponder on the opposition party’s impressive outing at the polls despite the perceived wide gap between the integrity credentials of its candidate and that of the PDP.

    Atiku most certainly brought some sharp ideological clarity to the PDP campaign in the 2019 elections. Hitherto, hardly anybody in the PDP hierarchy had ever discussed the party’s value orientation and policy agenda in any detailed, coherent or serious manner. Atiku changed that. His policy overview document running into nearly 200 carefully researched and well articulated pages touches on virtually every aspect of Nigeria’s social, political and economic problems providing detailed diagnoses of the problems and the candidate’s policy prescriptions. Of course, the document is rendered in largely technocratic terms with the ideological coloration only coming out vividly in snippets of policy prescriptions.

    One thing that is clear is that, in contrast to the current substantially state-driven infrastructure provision and social inclusion welfare policies of the APC, Atiku commits the PDP to an essentially free market-led approach to economic recovery and ultimately sustainable development. He pointedly promises to “reduce the size of government and make it leaner and more efficient in service delivery”. This appears to tally with the neo-liberal perception of the state as an essentially necessary evil that must only be tolerated and its reach continuously curtailed. In contrast, the APC’s policies indicate its belief in the inevitable imperative of the extensive developmental state that actively intervenes with the processes of the market especially when these are likely to deepen inequalities and injustices in society.

    The Atiku plan pledges a “firm commitment to the promotion of a private sector-driven, competitive and open economy supported by efficiently run public institutions”. It promises to lift at least 50 million people out of extreme poverty by 2025. Atiku intends to do this through the “provision of skill acquisition opportunities and enterprise development for job and wealth creation, rather than direct cash distribution”.  But even if people are empowered with skills, can the operations of the free market as envisaged by the PDP candidate provide them with readily accessible credit on the scale being currently undertaken by the APC? It is doubtful.

    Thus, the Atiku plan envisages “working with existing Micro Finance Banks (MFBs) in each local government area to administer a new N15.48 billion Community Micro Enterprise Fund (CMEF) to stimulate community enterprise development”. In the same vein, it promises that a PDP government will “work more closely with Non Governmental Organizations, the private sector and other developmental partners to mobilize resources for the effective implementation of our empowerment strategy”. And still with its focus on a private sector led economic recovery as well as poverty amelioration policies, the Atiku plan intends to “encourage bank expansion services to rural areas, providing easy banking with simple processes easily completed by people with low literacy”.

    True, the APC also accords robust private sector partnership with the public sector a central place in the articulation and implementation of its economic agenda. Yet, it recognizes that the private sector in Nigeria is simply incapable of mobilizing resources on the same scale that government is able to do as demonstrated in its current intervention schemes targeted at reaching millions of vulnerable Nigerians that the free market is simply not designed to care about.

    The Atiku market-led plan appears to assume that private sector actors including Non- Governmental Organizations and Micro Finance Banks are philanthropic outfits which can be persuaded to offer succor to the weak and poor segments of society. Nothing could be further from the truth. The free market model has the primary objective of enabling those individuals and groups in society capable of competing to maximize profit. It has no place for the weak and feeble as the Atiku plan assumes.

    Atiku himself is a hard- nosed capitalist. He should know. Can he afford to play the philanthropist with his investment in the American University in Yola with its reportedly state of the art facilities and high quality staff that rank among the best globally? The answer is obvious. That is why the state must lead the drive to radically modernize infrastructure and alleviate poverty in parlous economies like Nigeria.

    During the campaign, Atiku espoused neo-liberal right wing policy options such as privatizing the NNPC as the answer to its current undesirable opacity or floating the exchange rate and leaving the Naira at the mercy of market forces as advocated by some international financial institutions. But this kind of ideological dogmatism should ponder the words of the world renowned intellectual at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Professor Noam Chomsky who argues that “How did Europe and those who escaped its control succeed in developing? Part of the answer again seems clear: by radically violating free market doctrine. That conclusion holds from England to the East Asian growth area today, surely including the United States, the leader in protectionism from its origins. Standard economic history recognizes that state intervention has played a central role in economic development”.

    Whatever one thinks of Atiku’s politics, he has helped to redefine and refocus the PDP ideologically. Surely, the PDP is alive, well and kicking as an opposition party and this is certainly good for Nigerian politics.