Category: Segun Ayobolu

In his trenchant yet characteristically brilliant critique of Professor Richard Joseph’s concept of prebendalism to explain the monumental corruption that ruined Nigeria’s second republic (1979-1983) and continues to hobble our country’s potentials, Professor EhieduIweriebor comes down heavily on what he describes as ‘Africanology’ – ‘the study of Africa for the domination of Africa’. According to the City University of New York based radical historian “In the first place, prebendalism is a concept derived from the sale and purchase of offices in feudal Europe. It is, therefore, an historically alien concept and its application to African politics is an intellectual imposition…Secondly, there is nothing uniquely African or Nigerian about the competition for and use of political office for the advancement of personal and reference group- ethnic, business or military- interests. This is a practice which occurs in capitalist societies in general and especially in the United States”.

Several other radical African scholars – Claude Ake, Okuwudiba Nnoli, Bala Usman, Bade Onimode etc – have also criticised what apparently appears as objective, scientific scholarship that in reality only insidiously and perniciously pursues the cause of western imperialism. Intellectual dependency and slavishness is obviously a key root of Africa’s persistent inferiority complex and underdevelopment. These thoughts roamed through my mind during the week as I read and re-read a most interesting paper recently delivered by Dr Dapo Thomas of the Department of History and International Relations, Lagos State University (LASU) on the last general elections.

The paper was delivered at a national conference on the 2015 general elections recently organised by The Electoral Institute, the intellectual arm of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) headed by the erudite political scientist, Professor Abubakar Momoh. Other eminent scholars who delivered papers at the conference include Professors Adele Jinadu, Harry Garuba, Eghosa Osaghae, Victor Adetula, Abolade Adeniji, Siyan Oyeweso, Adeoye Akinsanya and Nuhu Yakub among others. I hope the Institute will adequately publicise these papers to encourage rigorous public discourse and thus enrich and strengthen the country’s electoral process as well as democratic practice.

Of course, the antics and childish theatrics of former President Goodluck Jonathan’s electoral agent, Elder Godsday Orubebe, during the collation of the results of the 2015 presidential election is still fresh in our memories. For many, the incident was no more than the height of irresponsible tragi-comedy. Dr Thomas, who is a doctoral product of the renowned political scientist, Professor Adigun Agbaje, one of the 12 eminent aspirants for the Vice Chancellorship of the University of Ibadan, chose to undertake an intellectual dissection of a phenomenon I describe as ‘Orubebeism’. Sensing that his candidate was losing the electoral contest, the childish elder seized the microphone at the collation centre, threw tantrums, rained abuses and allegations against the inscrutable and unruffled INEC Chairman, Professor Attahiru Jega. He held up the process for approximately 30 minutes during which the nation was on tenterhooks.

Dr Thomas’s paper is titled ‘Electoral Process and The Dramatics of Beneclientilism: A Conceptual Analysis of Orubebe’s Grandstanding and Jega’s Stricture’. One would have thought that Thomas would undertake his analysis within the well-known framework of clientelism or patron client relations routinely used to explain African politics. Thus, Orubebe was no more than a client pursuing and protecting the interest of his ‘patron’, then incumbent President Goodluck Jonathan. According to Dr Thomas, “Professor Joseph contends that clientelism is a situation whereby an individual seeks the support and protection of an oga or a “godfather” while trying to acquire the basic social and material goods – loans, scholarships, licenses, plots of urban land, employment, promotion and the main resource of the patron in meeting these requests is quite literally a piece of the state”.

Dr Thomas considers the traditional patron-client notion as too personalised and restricted. It is in reality a more structured and expansive relationship and he thus prefers the concept of benefactor to patron. Thus he coins the term ‘beneclientelism’ to better capture the thesis he seeks to adumbrate. The relationship between Orubebe and Jonathan transcended both men even though they shared common geo-ethnic origins. Orubebe was certainly not acting alone in trying to subvert the electoral process. The service chiefs, for instance, had earlier tried to boost the floundering electoral fortune of their benefactor by forcing a six-week postponement of the polls. Again, the traditional usage of patron-client relations suggests that the client is entirely dependent on the patron. The patron dispenses all the benefits and exercises limitless power over the client.

Beneclientilism in Dr Thomas’s usage, however, indicates that the client plays a more powerful and influential role in the process than is normally assumed. In his words “Though President Goodluck Jonathan never saw the election as a do or die affair, his aides and party associates saw it differently. To them it was a matter of life and death. He was seen by most of his political aides and associates as their benefactor on whom their political and economic survival was placed…These associates known as clients are more desperate than even their benefactor”. This position is certainly vindicated by Dr Jonathan’s confession after he lost the election that he had been held hostage in office. It was a case of the benefactor being captive to the clients.

But then, the concept of beneclientilism also raises its own problems. The INEC Chairman, Professor Jega, was an appointee of President Jonathan. Why did he not see himself and behave as a client interested in skewing the process to ensure the continuation in office of his benefactor irrespective of the will of the people? Was the success of the 2015 election, which saw an incumbent president defeated for the first time in the country’s history, a triumph of structures and processes or simply a function of the moral integrity of the INEC leadership? If an individual of less moral fibre than Jega assumes the office, will we be back to the days of electoral impunity? In celebrating the outcome of the last election, are we overlooking the more critical task of institutionalizing electoral integrity irrespective of the personality of the occupant of the office of INEC Chairman at any point in time?

Contrary to the widespread commendation of Jega’s handling of Orubebe’s attempt to abort the electoral process, Dr Thomas finds the INEC Chairman’s response too sentimental, personalised and patronising. As Jega remonstrated with Orubebe at the time “Mr Orubebe, you are a former Minister of the Federal Republic; you are a statesman in your own right, and you must be careful about what you say and about the allegations or accusations that you make. And certainly you must be careful about your public conduct”. According to Dr Thomas, “This in a sense was more of a personal and emotive appeal to Orubebe not to desecrate the elite institution which they both represent. It was simply an ego-massaging vituperation that evoked more of social identification than political morality”.

Dr Thomas appears too harsh in his assessment of Jega’s response to Orubebe. If the INEC Chairman had reacted in accordance with the full powers of his office, could he have trusted the security agencies to cooperate with him? Couldn’t he have in fact fallen into what may have been a clever ploy to cause chaos and render the entire process inconclusive? Yet, I understand the point Thomas is making. If Orebebe had rejected Professor Jega’s moral suasion, what would have happened? If such an occurrence repeats itself in future, how should it be best handled procedurally and legally rather than sentimentally and through moral sermonising which may prove ineffectual? What can be done to ensure in future that the electoral umpire is able to exercise the necessary control over the security agencies without which it cannot effectively undertake its task of conducting free, fair and credible elections as well as ensuring that the results are respected by all?

Now that it is in power, the APC has a moral obligation as part of its promised change agenda to strengthen the electoral process by enhancing the autonomy of INEC and other institutions of state to insulate them from partisan influences. On a lighter note, I also believe that the monumental role of the former First Lady, Dame Patience Jonathan, during her husband’s tenure particularly as the wife of an ethnic minority president deserves intellectual attention. I suggest a tentative study titled “Ebullient First Ladyism As An Antidote to Geo-ethnic Majority Parapoism”!

It was impassioned. It was soul stirring. It was statesmanlike. It brimmed with moral fervour and patriotic ardour. It was the perfect speech clinically crafted to meet the demands of the moment. I call it Saint Bukola Saraki’s sermon on Mount Abuja. Senator Bukola Saraki had emerged Senate President on June 9 in controversial circumstances and against the preference of his party hierarchy. To achieve this feat, Saraki had swung the bloc opposition votes of 49 PDP Senators to his side by offering the minority party the deputy Senate Presidency. With nine rebellious APC Senators and in the absence of a majority of his party’s Senators, Saraki was elected Senate President in perhaps the hastiest leadership election in the history of Nigeria’s National Assembly. Some saw this as wily political pragmatism at its best. To others it was nothing but cynical Machiavellianism in which Saraki’s ends, no matter how ignoble and self- serving, justified any means no matter how foul or disreputable.

The Senate had adjourned abruptly on June 9 ostensibly to let tempers cool and allow some form of compromise and reconciliation before the resumption of plenary. To strengthen his hands and pre-empt the APC leadership, Saraki had immediately announced principal officers immediately after his election. Perhaps his most clever and strategic move in this regard was the naming of Senator Mohammed Ali Ndume, who had lost to Senator Ike Ekweremadu of the PDP in the contest for the position of Deputy Senate President, as Majority Leader. This not only broke the ranks of those opposed to him within the APC but was also calculated to shift the geo-ethnic balance of forces in his favour.

It was against this background that the Senate President gave his impressive welcome speech on resumption of the Senate on Tuesday, 28 July. The speech was wide ranging touching on the economy, the country’s dwindling revenue profile, crude oil theft and the challenges of security among others. For me, however, the most important aspect of the address was Saint Saraki’s sermon on the challenges and demands of leadership at this critical juncture in Nigeria. In his words “Distinguished colleagues, we have our work cut out for us, we cannot afford to frolic. Nigerians did not give us our mandate to come and pursue leadership; their mandate was for us to pursue governance and bring solutions to their burning issues…Leadership is secondary to our primary responsibility of good governance. As Senate President you have given me responsibility to ensure that our primary responsibility is placed on the table not under the table”.

What is remarkable about Senator Saraki’s pious admonitions to his colleagues on leadership is the wide gulf between his words and his actions in his burning, remorseless pursuit of the Senate Presidency. In his cynically single-minded pursuit of his ambition, nothing mattered to him – not the interest of his party, the sanctity of the Senate’s rules and conventions or the moral health of the National Assembly. Having attained his objective of leading the Senate at all costs, it is therefore quite convenient for Senator Saraki to advocate the virtues of placing service to the people above selfish personal quest for leadership positions.

Even more damaging is the fact that the rules under which Dr Bukola Saraki was elected as Senate President seemed to have emerged mysteriously from under the table rather than from on top of the table to adapt his own phrase. No amount of sweet sounding words can deodorise the lack of transparency and credibility that characterised the way he emerged as Senate President on June 9. The truth of the matter is that the Senate 2015 Standing Orders (as amended), under which Dr Saraki was elected Senate President is of doubtful provenance and illegitimate paternity. All the acts purportedly carried out under its purview on June 9, particularly the election of principal officers is akin to constructing a structure on a non-existing foundation.

How do we explain the magical leap from the 2007 Senate Standing Orders (as amended), which guided the 7th Senate between 2007 and 2011 and the 2015 variant, which is said to be the arbitrary contraption of some National Assembly bureaucrats in utter contravention of the extant rules of the Senate? Given the inexplicable haste with which the National Assembly bureaucracy conducted the Senate Presidency election in the absence of half of the Senators, they were obviously in partisan collusion with some forces to achieve a pre-determined outcome of the process. Can the leaders of such a bureaucracy be entrusted in future to carry out their duties in an objective and disinterested manner that will enable them enjoy the confidence of all partisan tendencies in the Senate?

Of course, given the nature of Nigerian politics with most actors being largely self-seeking, Senator Saraki’s hands have been considerably strengthened by his emergence as Senate President no matter how dubious and questionable the process. He now has considerable largesse, including juicy Committee memberships to dispense. Thus, the vote of confidence passed on him and other leaders of the Senate by a majority of Senators on July 28. The prevailing sentiment among the majority of Senators is that they should put the unsavoury events of the past behind and move forward in the national interest.

Some of the pro-Saraki Senators, obviously referring to the on-going investigation into allegations of forgery of the Senate rules; a crime that allegedly aided his emergence as Senate President contend that the affairs of the Senate should not be externalised. This they argue will amount to threatening the legislative immunity of the Senate. Indeed Senator Samuel Anyanwu urged “The Nigeria Police Force and all other security agencies in Nigeria not to allow themselves to be used by any person or persons to harass, intimidate or blackmail the Senate, Senators and/or their spouses”.

Of course, the crime of alleged forgery of Senate rules is not an internal affair of the Senate. It is a crime against the laws of Nigeria for which there is no legislative immunity. Since the investigation into the alleged crime has commenced and has even become a subject of litigation, the process cannot now be aborted without doing grave damage to the APC and President Muhammadu Buhari’s promise of change.

Senator Bukola Saraki concludes his sermon on Mount Abuja with the stirring declaration: “My distinguished colleagues, the job of changing our corporate destiny starts today. Though the challenges are huge, they are not insurmountable. Let these challenges inspire us as leaders to show courage, statesmanship and valour”. I agree entirely with Saint Saraki’s submission. But that process of change cannot preclude pursuing the alleged forgery of Senate rules to its logical conclusion and bringing to book all those implicated in the odious infraction.

…still on the Unibadan vice chancellorship race

Dear Segun,
I read with keen interest your reference last week to the on-going race to fill the Vice Chancellorship seat of the University of Ibadan, which will become vacant in November. I am elated that our alma mater is taking steps to infuse greater transparency and credibility into the process. Perhaps because of space constraint, you were unable to write extensively on all the 12 candidates in the race. Like you said, however, I am convinced that only the best and brightest can be among those qualified to occupy this critical office at UI. Professor Adigun Agbaje whom you mentioned is surely a sterling example in this regard. I was not in his Department (political science) but as Dean of the Faculty of Social Sciences (2003-2005), Professor Agbaje’s indelible imprints of academic and managerial excellence are still there. Many of those who graduated after me also speak with fondness of his outstanding contributions as Deputy Vice –Chancellor (Academic) between 2006 and 2010. I wish my Professor and all other distinguished aspirants for the exalted position the best of luck because only the best is good enough for UI. Please consider this as my own humble contribution to the process.

Yours,

Iyiola Falodun Agbo
Isijiola Street, Ilupeju, Lagos.

There is something serene, calm, unflappable, almost other worldly about him. Like Mahatma Ghandi or to a lesser extemt, Obafemi Awolowo, he cuts the figure of a secular saint – ascetic, disciplined, self-sacrificial. I refer to none other than President Muhammadu Buhari, who on March 28th was emphatically elected by Nigerians to clear up the mess of a decade and a half of PDP misrule and lead the country in a new direction through positive change.  Of course, it is great to have saints in politics. But the sad truth is that there are more non-saints in the vocation – political actors whose intellectual patron saint is Machiavelli and their cynical motto: the end justifies the means. This is probably why Winston Churchill once famously remarked that in politics, the truth is often protected by a body guard of lies. The starry eyed idealist is unlikely to make much impact in the cloak and dagger terrain of politics.

This is why by his taciturnity and seeming inattentiveness to partisan political issues, President Buhari is allowing another serene looking and cherubic but far more tricky, manipulative and amoral politician, Senator Abubakar Bukola Saraki, current torch bearer of the Saraki dynasty and former governor of Kwara State for two terms to run rings round him and begin to place himself in a vantage position for the 2019 presidential election.  In a desperate pursuit of his limitless personal political ambition, Senator Saraki defied his party and connived with the minority PDP and some APC renegade Senators to emerge as Senate President.

Saraki’s legislative coup against his party was reportedly executed with the support of another key party chieftain, former Vice President AtikuAbubakar. It is surely an interesting tag team. Both men are hugely ambitious. In his quest to occupy Nigeria’s apex political position at all costs, the peripatetic Atiku has traversed diverse political parties including the PDP, Action Congress (AC), Action Congress of Nigeria (ACN) back to the PDP until he finally landed in the All Progressives Congress (APC). If tomorrow the PDP offers him a platform to run for President, Atiku will dump the APC like a hot potato. In that sense he and Saraki are Siamese twins. All that matters is their personal interest, their acquisition of power no matter how and irrespective of the character or moral integrity of the platform.

For now, between Atiku and Saraki it is a blissful marriage of convenience. If they succeed in ultimately outwitting those tendencies and individuals within the APC that they consider common enemy today, it is so obvious that the duo will turn on each other with unprecedented fury. The smell of blood flows in the lavender mist of the afternoon to quote the poet, Christopher Okigbo.

When Saraki announced shortly before the APC presidential primaries that he was withdrawing from the race in the larger interest of the party, I thought I was seeing and listening to a new Bukola Saraki. Party cohesion, fidelity to principle, a commitment to the consolidation of the APC as a formidable political party – all these I thought weighed on his mind. This was not certainly the Saraki who so ruthlessly confronted his late father, the illustrious Dr Olusola Saraki, on the issue of his successor resulting in a shock from which the senior Saraki reportedly never fully recovered until his demise.

But Bukola Saraki has shown his true colours. He has not changed one bit. Bukola has not batted an eye lid even as he stabbed his party so viciously in the back in the Senate Presidency election. It was the same way he was completely emotionally detached from the agonies caused his father by the handling of the 2011 succession in Kwara. Like electricity, Bukola apparently has no feelings. Of course, no one is saying the elder Saraki was right in wanting his daughter, Gbemi, to succeed Bukola. But the issue could have been handled more subtly, deftly and delicately to minimise the psychological trauma of the great Oloye.

Some analysts have argued that the APC has no right to complain about the emergence of Bukola Saraki and Yakubu Dogara as Senate President and House Speaker respectively against the choices of the party leadership. After all, they contend, was it not the opposition ACN that enabled Aminu Tambuwal to become Speaker of the House against the wish of his own political party? There may be some merit in that argument. But the important thing is that the two national assembly leadership positions as well as all other key offices of the two legislative chambers were occupied by members of the ruling party. What do you make of a situation in which Bukola Saraki sold out the critical position of Deputy Senate President to Senator Ike Ekweremadu of the PDP just to secure his own ambition at the expense of his party?

Apparently accepting Saraki’s emergence as Senate President as a fait accompli, the party leadership sent its approved list of candidates for other principal offices of the legislature to both the Senate and the House of Representatives. Not only did Saraki refuse to read the letter from his own party chairman, Chief Odigie Oyegun, in the Senate chambers, he unilaterally announced his list of occupants of the various offices – a list at variance with that of his party leadership. This is the height of irresponsibility. It reinforces the position I took last week that Saraki is obviously through with the APC. He is either fully back in the PDP or he is now running a one man political party.

So confident has Saraki become that he has even turned a deaf ear to the APC governors’ forum, which called on him to respect the supremacy of the party. As Edo State governor, Comrade Adams Oshiomhole convincingly put it, “Basically, what we are saying is that the senators should adopt the position of the party. We were all elected on the platform of the party. We are not just a collection of individuals. We are a political party and when the party has spoken we must listen. Otherwise, if it was a game of individuals like golf, then individuals can go their ways. I think it is very clear at this point that the party has the responsibility to keep the system going…We as governors, we listen to the party and we also expect our Senators to listen to the party.” It is clear that such homilies cut no ice with Saraki. His haughtiness is so evident in his carriage, conduct and demeanor. In a chamber in which the Senate President is only the first among equals, Saraki’s unbridled arrogance may end up being his banana peel.

The ascension of governors of average or even below average performance to the Senate is one indication of the country’s continuing political underdevelopment. Saraki was not in any way outstanding as governor of Kwara State for eight years.  His so-called agricultural revolution through the attraction of white farmers from Zimbabwe to farm in Kwara State has turned out to be unsustainable and a veritable waste of funds. It was under his watch that the Societe General Bank was run aground with thousands of depositors becoming impoverished for life. Before the advent of Saraki as Kwara state governor, the state owned Trade Bank was one of the most profitable and viable in the country. The Saraki administration killed the bank.

In 2009, the Saraki administration in Kwara state obtained a N17 billion bond from the capital market. Among others, the money was to build an International Truck Plaza, construct a brand new state secretariat, embark on phase 2 of its commercial agriculture programme, uplift the Asa Dam as well as establish a cement facility.  To the best of my knowledge, none of these has been implemented. Where then has all the money gone? Senator BukolaSaraki is yet to convincingly explain his role in the acquisition and ultimate liquidation of Erastus Akingbola’s Intercontinental Bank. Is it true that a N39 billion debt owed the bank by Saraki was written off in connivance with certain key elements of the Central Bank after Akingbola’s forced exit as the Bank’s Managing Director? It will be quite interesting to see how President MuhammaduBuhari’s promised anti-corruption war will fly with a Senate President like Saraki as head of the National Assembly.

Even as he openly defies and despises the leadership of his party at the national level, Saraki maintains a tight grip on the party structure in Kwara state.  For instance, he has just allegedly instigated the suspension of 22 members of the party in Kwara state including a former Secretary to the State government for purported anti-party activities allegedly including being rude to Saraki! Let Saraki be careful how he manages this victory of the moment. For, if humpty dumpty has a great fall, who will put humpty dumpty together again?

Arnold Toynbee. Regular readers of this column must have come across the name once or twice. He was the British historian who did monumental work on the rise and fall of civilisations. Human progress he contended is always a product of response to challenges. For some inexplicable reason, I am told that his intellectual influence as a historian has waned. Yet, I find his fundamental thesis ever so relevant to the analysis of Nigerian politics. Let us take the annulment of the June 12, 1993 presidential election for instance. For many, it remains a crisis of monumental dimensions. It claimed the life of the undisputed winner of the election, Chief MKO Abiola. It plunged the country into prolonged crisis verging on the abyss of disintegration. Yet, it also broke the back of military dictatorship and set the stage for the current democratic dispensation despite all its imperfections. The modest progress we have recorded was a response to the challenge of military impunity.

It is a similar attitude I take to the outcome of the just concluded National Assembly leadership elections. For many, it was an unmitigated calamity for the All Progressives Congress (APC). Beyond this, it marked, for some,the beginning of a signal reversal of the slogan of change on which the APC anchored its opposition to the PDP and its victory in the last election. I choose a different view. Rather than recriminating unproductively over the outcome of the National Assembly leadership results, we should more positively seek to learn what lessons possible from the development and make necessary amends.

For example, how viable is our political party system? What role should party discipline play in our political process? Was the defunct Action Congress of Nigeria (ACN) morally right in backing the emergence of AminuTambuwal as Speaker of the House of Representatives against the decision and zoning formula of his party? How can we strengthen party structures and formally institutional party discipline in Nigeria?

As a result of the annulment of the June 12, 1993, presidential election, many analysts are wont to Dismiss General Ibrahim Babangida’s admittedly convoluted political transition programme wholesale. Yet, is there anything we can learn and retain from the institutionalisation and unprecedented strengthening of the two government-created political parties – the National Republican Convention (NRC) and Social Democratic Party (SDP)? Of course, a related key issue thrown up by the outcome of the National Assembly leadership election is the relationship and delicate balance between the autonomy of the legislative arm of government and party discipline. In that sense, the defunct ACN contributed significantly to the deepening of democracy in Nigeria by supporting the emergence in 2011 of a Speaker independent of the influence and intimidation of the executive arm of government. If a Tambuwal had been of the same moral and political temperament of a David Mark, it is not impossible that the country’s current fragile democracy would have degenerated to full scale civilian dictatorship.

But then, must legislative autonomy negate and override executive authority and assertiveness? Does the emergent scenario not portray President MuhammaduBuhari as weak and indecisive? Yes, this column has consistently argued that presidential authority must be subordinate to party supremacy. The undermining of the autonomy of the PDP under General Obasanjo’s military style presidency was the beginning of the erosion of the party’s credibility and effectiveness that culminated in the party’s calamitous outing in the last election.

It is my view that President Buhari ought not to have been indifferent to the calibre and moral integrity of the leadership of the National Assembly. His strongest credential in the last election campaigns was his anti-corruption antecedents. How then can he effectively champion this most crucial of his personal and party change agenda if any of the leadership of a key arm of government like the National Assembly is morally tainted? Yes, some would argue that there are other allegedly tainted persons close to the President. That is beside the point. The critical thing is that he has not supported or appointed any such person for any key office or appointment.

Another positive outcome of the National Assembly leadership election is that it will enable the APC as a party to have a more restrained and tempered view both of its ideological character as a party and the implication of its victory in the last election. The party strategists must now begin to think seriously if there is no fundamental difference between their perception and understanding of ‘change’ and that of the vast majority of Nigerians. Did the Nigerian electorate vote for a mere change in party personnel or presidential personality or a complete transformation in the political, economic and moral direction of the country?

The APC will hopefully realize that it is, ideologically, a work in progress. It is not enough for the party to have dislodged the PDP from power. Even more critical is the need to forge itself into a philosophically distinct entity from the PDP. It is unfortunate that most of those who now constitute the think tank of the party share the same economic philosophy and direction that have led the country to disaster over the last three decades. They have nothing to offer but vacuous World Bank/IMF bullet points that only serve to deepen the country’s underdevelopment.  This means that there are serious internal ideological battles ahead of the party. But the opposite side of the coin is that the PDP’s outfoxing of the APC in the battle for the National Assembly leadership means that the latter cannot afford the luxury of complacency. This is good for democracy and development. Even then, there is a baffling puzzle. If there is no fundamental difference between the APC and PDP to the extent that the latter, despite being the minority in the National Assembly, could determine the leadership of that critical institution, are we not effectively in a one party state? It is very disturbing.

Another germane issue thrown up by the National Assembly leadership election results is how viable political parties are as presently conceived as national entities. A national and essentially unitary political party appears to me to be a contradiction in a culturally federal polity like Nigeria. Nigerian political parties are over centralized.  Yes, an alliance of at least three or four regions is necessary to win a national election in Nigeria. That is good for national stability and cohesion. Yet, it is high time that parties are decentralized to reflect the country’s federal realities and only form temporary alliances for the purpose of winning elections.

Watching him intently from a respectable distance at the venue of his parley with media executives this week, I could not but feel that a change had come over the new Governor of Lagos State, Mr Akinwunmi Ambode. There is something tangible, yet ineffable about power. Power can have a transcendental quality. It can also endow its new votary with a transformational aura.

Sometimes it is a new found air of hubris. Power is mistaken as substituting for superior knowledge. The charisma it exudes intoxicates. The inevitable orchestra of the ever present army of sycophants distorts mental perception and affects the quality of judgement. But to the deep, philosophical and introspective mind, the attainment of power can also be profoundly humbling.

It was this deepened sense of humility and modesty borne out of a new sense of heightened responsibility that I saw or sensed in the face, demeanour, carriage and candour of Ambode. Particularly striking was the amity and chemistry among the governor, his deputy, Dr (Mrs) Idiat Oluranti Adebule and the Secretary to the Government, Mr Tunji Bello, himself a veteran journalist, within such a short time. This is not to leave out the linguistic felicity and relational fluidity of the new Chief Press Secretary to the governor, Mr Habib Haruna, both with his boss and the government team as well as his media constituency where he has built solid support and fraternity over the years.

From my observatory, it appears that Mr Ambode does not intend to be just a boss. He desires to be a team leader. He described himself as the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of Lagos as an on-going business concern. Of course, as we all know, the best CEOs are not slave drivers but team leaders.  Although he did not say so, he came across as someone who, through his varied and rich experience over the years has cultivated the habits and attitudes of a servant leader. He does not want to strike the pose of a giant among intellectual and psychological Lilliputians – the leader who revels in and basks in all the glory of successes while others take the blame for failure and lapses.  He suffers from no inferiority complex to necessitate the adoption of such a supercilious posture.

It struck me that right from his inaugural speech on being sworn in as governor, Mr Ambode has shown a deep sense of gratitude both to those who campaigned for or voted for or even against him. As he spoke to us that evening, he even found the graciousness to thank his main opponent, the highly regarded Mr Jimi Agbaje of the PDP for joining him in achieving a paradigm shift in the tone and tenor of campaigns in the state. Yes, there were a number of inevitable heated moments generated largely by overzealous supporters. Yet, the 2015 governorship campaigns in Lagos State focussed more on issues and were largely devoid of insults and mudslinging.

As the questions rained down hard and fast as expected in a gathering of journalists, Mr Ambode demonstrated that he is in tip top shape mentally and psychologically.  The questions ranged from the proposed fourth mainland bridge, problems with the Lekki-Epe Expressway, the Apapa traffic gridlock, massive youth employment, decrepit inner city roads, the state’s humongous debt profile and much more. Ambode did not strike the pose of a magician with solutions to all problems. He promised an inclusive government in which all stakeholders would jointly contribute to finding solutions to the intractable problems of Lagos as Africa’s emergent model mega city.  Is this stance an abdication of leadership? Most certainly, no; it is rather the all-knowing ‘strongman’ perception and practice of leadership in Africa that has been the major cause of the continent’s stagnation in virtually all spheres.

Mr Ambode anchors the key goals of his administration on two principal pillars: Making life simpler for the people and making life happier for the people. This is without doubt informed by the timeless utilitarian values of the necessity of government pursuing the greatest happiness of the greatest number of the people. Towards these goals, the new governor has already effected some institutional changes. These include establishing a new Ministry of Wealth Creation and Employment Generation while eliminating the extant Ministry of Rural Development and devolving its responsibilities to other relevant agencies of government. Similarly, he has upgraded the Office of Civic Engagement in the office of the governor to more fully tap the potentials of civil society in governance while also up-scaling the Office of Global Investment, which will now be a key responsibility of the Office of the Deputy Governor. The objective, clearly, is to enhance the quality and impact of governance while reducing the associated administrative costs.

It is equally instructive that within the very short period since being sworn-in, Governor Ambode has met with key publics including civil servants, members of the Lagos State Traffic Management Agency (LASTMA) as well as the staff of the Kick Against Indiscipline (KAI). The administration’s aim is thus not just structural administrative adjustments to elevate the quality of governance but also attitudinal re-orientation of public officers for more positive engagement with the populace. It was indeed in this spirit that the engagement with the media was organised. Stressing the constitutional oversight role of the media, Mr Ambode described the press as the ‘control valve’, which has a responsibility of speaking truth to power and pointing out where government is going wrong.

Mr Ambode has been in the business of serving the public for at least 27 years of an eventful professional life. He comes better prepared than anybody in recent memory to steer the affairs of Lagos to new heights. Yet, in his inaugural address, Ambode paid fulsome tribute to his predecessors such as Brigadier Mobolaji Johnson, whose historic mission was to lay the foundation of the new state, Alhaji Lateef Jakande, the first civilian governor of Lagos State, who opened new vistas in the development of the state, Asiwaju Bola Ahmed Tinubu, who drew up and planted the seeds of the resurrection of Lagos from the ruins of years of military depredation as well as Mr Babatunde Raji Fashola (SAN), the ‘skilled mechanic’ who tied the nuts and bolts necessary towards actualizing Tinubu’s grand vision for Lagos State. Governor Ambode obviously realizes that he stands on the shoulders of giants in his bold bid to expand the frontiers of human possibilities in Nigeria’s Centre of Excellence and commercial nerve centre.

During his campaigns, Mr Ambode consistently pledged to return governance in Lagos to the people. As someone who began his public service career at the local government level and rose to the peak of the Local Government Service, he certainly knew what he was talking about. As Mwalimu Julius Nyerere once said, it is only a given people that can develop themselves. Development cannot be imposed on people by an all knowing monarch from the top. Development is nothing if it is not self- development.

Here then lies the challenge for Mr Ambode as the next governor of Lagos State. It is to return governance to the people and make them the be-all and end-all of development. It is to make the people take control and be the prime drivers of the development process through effective, functional, productive, efficient and accountable Local Government Councils. This calls for nothing short of a revolutionary devolution of governance from ‘super star’ imperial governors to the grassroots governments at the local level in accordance with the spirit of developmental federalism. This surely is Ambode’s historic mission. His utterances and body language that evening demonstrated that he understands this.

Yesterday must been one of the lowest, loneliest and most haunting days for former President Goodluck Jonathan.  He had the not too pleasant duty of handing over power to his democratically elected successor, President Muhammadu Buhari. Only God almighty must have known went through his mind as Dr Jonathan made his final exit from the Aso Rock presidential villa, the luxurious abode that had been his residence for the past six years. Could he wish he had done more things differently? Did he think he should have chosen his inner circle of friends with greater care and circumspection? For a man who rode to power on the crest of a pan –Nigerian sympathy, the lonely trip back to his native Otuoke must have been not a lit bit painful.

This column will not join those who have vehemently excoriated and criticised Dr Jonathan for the excesses of impunity, disrespect for the law and sheer mediocrity as well as monumental corruption that characterised his administration and was largely responsible for the resounding trouncing of the PDP at the last general elections. I think it would be uncharitable to hit a man when he is already down.

Yes, under the presidential system of government, the buck stops at the presidency’s table. His office and its phenomenal powers constitute the centre of gravity around which government revolves. Where the President is weak, vacillating, lacking attention to detail and deficient in stellar intellect, the government will tend to drift and the society will inevitably descend to the Hobbesian state of nature where life is nasty, brutish, solitary and short. The point here is that Dr Jonathan’s lacklustre approach to governance, his tendency for dilatoriness resulted in a paralysis of will in his administration that gave an assortment of criminals – Boko Haram jihadists, armed robbers, kidnappers, ritual killers etc. a field day to operate with impunity as if the Nigerian state had suddenly disappeared.

However, it will be unfair and unrealistic to blame solely Goodluck Jonathan for the myriad of ills that led to his ignominious defeat in the March 28 election. Yes, the framers of the Nigerian constitution deliberately designed the Nigerian presidency to be all powerful and totally symbolic and representative of the country’s authority. One of the reasons for this was to ensure the emergence of a President who enjoys a national mandate and is thus is a cohesive, uniting force in the nation.  This was meant to correct perceived lapses in the First Republic, where the Prime Minster only had the mandate of his immediate constituency although he emerged as Prime Minister on the basis of is being the leader of the party with a majority of seats in parliament.

Now, the big question is this: The framers of the constitution gave the Nigerian presidency immense powers but they also hemmed in that powerful institution with a number of checks and balances obviously aware of Lord Acton’s famous dictum that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Among the formal and non –formal checks on the uses and abuses of presidential power were a vibrant, vigilant civil society, a vigorous media speaking truth to power, a powerful National Assembly and a judiciary with unblemished moral integrity. In the absence of any of these countervailing forces, anybody who occupies the Nigerian presidency, no matter how well intentioned, will end up being power drunk and an utter stooge in the hands of expert manipulators of the system.

In the run up to the last general elections, Dr Jonathan was likened in several newspaper adverts and commercials to such world-historic leaders as Barack Obama, Nelson Mandela Chairman Mao or George Washington. It would have been understandable if these media outfits had collected the adverts, benefited from the abundant revenue but remained firmly committed in their advertorials and opinion pages to the truth. Unfortunately, in the print and electronic media prior to the elections, truth became indistinguishable from falsehood. Now, if the media fails to rise above clannish, ethno-regional as well as pecuniary considerations, how can anyone in good conscience place all responsibility for the country current malaise solely at the footsteps of Dr Jonathan?

The same argument  can be made as regards the National Assembly, which most times in playing its oversight role only engaged in elaborate grandstanding in order to feather its own nest without caring a hoot about the public good.  Perhaps the only saving grace we have had in this disposition is the judiciary which, in spite of its own fair share of bad eggs, has tried to interpret the laws fairly and dispassionately as well as adjudicate issues between parties without fear or favour.

My fear is that if the powers of of the Nigerian presidency are not severely curtailed it has the tendency to turn every occupant of that office into a monster. Let us take Goodluck Jonathan. When he told us most humbly before the 2011 election, that he had no shoes as a child, millions believed him. They saw him as belonging to a background they could associate with – poverty stricken and modest. They were all too willing to cast their votes for one of their kind believing that if Jonathan could achieve the feat, their own children could also in future.

Jonathan must also have spoken from the heart when he once declared that he would not like to rule as Nebuchadnezzar or a Pharaoh.  He would not like to be identified with any of the tyrants of the past. Again, his seeming humility and modesty connected with millions of his countrymen and women. In the final analysis, many would contend that GEJ ended up in many ways worse than Nebuchadnezzar or Pharaoh. They refer to his infamous intervention in the Nigerian Governors’ Forum internal affairs that ended up in breaking the body into factions.

Another point was his refusal to reinstate the former Justice of the Court of Appeal, Justice Ayo Salami, even on the recommendation of the Nigerian Judicial Council (NJC), which found him guilty of no offences. Until Jonathan’s final day in office, he continued to retain Mr Abba Moro in office despite the tardiness of his Ministry in conducting aptitude tests for applicants for jobs in the National Immigration Service (NIS) at which thousands of applicants cramped into stadia across the country were either killed or wounded. Up till now, no account has been given of the over N1000 each collected from aspirants in what has turned out to be an expensive fraud.

Perhaps the greatest culprits in the utter failure that the GEJ administration became, was the civil society. A civil society that played such a crucial role in helping to achieve the democracy we enjoy today simply went into coma with the attainment of civilian rule in 1999. But for he concerted efforts that forced a cabal around late President Yar’Adua  to pave way for the emergence of Dr Jonathan as President, in accordance with the constitution as well as the nationwide mass mobilisation against the 2012 fuel price hike, civil society remain practically paralysed.

Thus, one scandal was succeeded by an even more audacious one but life continued as usual.  Twenty billion dollars was allegedly missing from the nation’s coffers.  Life continued as if did not matter. A Minister was alleged to have spent N10 billion on chartered private jets for official and unofficial engagements.  Another Minister was given a gracious farewell from the Federal Executive Council when it could no longer contain pressures for her removal for authorising the purchase of bullet proof jeeps for her use without due appropriation.

The inordinate powers of the Nigerian presidency can transform the most well -meaning leaders into absolute monsters. It is an institution that by its sheer power, authority and influence can bring out the worst in the best of men. The change President Buhari must begin with is that of the presidency itself. Its resources, power and responsibilities must be deliberately decentralized so that the institution of presidency must become a hand maiden rather than the obstacle to development it currently is.

I join millions of Nigerians in wishing former President Goodluck Jonathan a safe and fulfilling trip back to Otuoke. He came, he saw, but was conquered by the all too powerful Nigerian presidency.

I start with a confession. The title of this column is not original to me. It is borrowed from the monumental fact book on every American President from George Washington to Barak Obama compiled by Roger Matuz and masterfully edited by Bill Harris. Matuz reserves the phrase for George Washington who is referred to as the father of the country and was the first of America’s 44 Presidents thus far.

According to Matuz, “Washington was extremely careful to establish precedents for the behaviour of future presidents. In most instances, he acted with authority as the highest elected official of the land, but he did not attempt to influence Congress. Having presided over the constitutional convention, he was well aware of various opinions about the presidency. He was also conscious of different views about the relationship between the states and the federal government”. In appointing key officers to help him in running government such as Attorney General, Secretary of State, Secretary of war, Secretary of State, Secretary of the Treasury and a postmaster general, “Washington carefully chose men with varying views of government for these positions”.

It is my view that by his emphatic triumph in the March 28 presidential election, President-elect MuhammaduBuhari stands a very good chance to become Nigeria’s president of precedents. But why should this be so? Haven’t there been other occupants of the prestigious office before the austere retired General from Daura in the 16 years of this democratic dispensation? Of course, there have been but the March 28 presidential election stands out in bold relief in Nigeria’s continuing evolution as a presidential democracy.

October 1, 1960 marked another eventful date in Nigeria’s political evolution. It marked the termination of external colonialism but only replaced it with diverse forms of internal colonialism. But for the relatively brief periods of 1960 to 1966 and 1979 to 1983, the military as an institution was in full charge of the country’s political and socio-economic affairs for the best part of the country’s post-colonial history. The back bone of military suzerainty over Nigeria’s affairs was effectively broken with the (divinely ordained?) miscalculation of the Babangida administration in annulling the June 12, 1993, presidential election widely regarded as the freest and fairest in the country’s history up till that time.

The protracted and sustained struggle to validate the people’s truncated mandate and send the military back to the barracks yielded fruit as the men in uniform were forced to retreat from the commanding heights of the country’s political economy on May 29, 1999. Even then, it was not yet Uhuru. The military had left the political scene but the country’s political culture, values and disposition were still draped in the military’s psychological colours. Not only did the retreating military hand over to one of its own, General OlusegunObasanjo, sprung straight from SaniAbacha’s gulag, power was entrusted in the hands of a PDP fashioned psychologically and organisationally in the image of the military. It was a return to civilian rule but not to democracy in any meaningful sense.

Thus, PDP top shots openly and brazenly boasted that the party would rule the country for 60 unbroken years. This excess of optimism was predicated neither on superior performance or higher moral values but simply on the calculus of crude power. Consequently, the more dismal the performance of the PDP at all levels, the more emphatically and mysteriously it won elections in 2003, 2007 and 2011. The saving grace was the judiciary, which helped retrieve stolen mandates in states like Edo, Ondo, Ekiti and Osun. March 28 broke the jinx. It marked the transition from mere civil rule to genuine democracy. The beneficiary of that victory, President-elect Buhari, working with his party, the All Progressives Congress (APC), thus has a unique opportunity, like George Washington, to become a President of precedents.

Obasanjo could easily have become a President of precedents as the first democratically elected leader of the nation in this dispensation. A combination of factors made this impossible, chief being his personal disposition to overweening hubris and a sense of self -righteousness. Perhaps this attitude was unavoidable given the roles history had thrust upon him at various times in the life of the nation. For instance, it was his luck to receive the instrument of surrender from the subdued Biafrans at the end of the civil war even if others had done the hard, back breaking work of winning the war. Again, he had received worldwide accolade for voluntarily handing over power back to civilians in 1979 even though the accomplishment was the collective feat of a triumvirate including General T.Y. Danjuma and the late General Shehu Musa Yar’Adua.  Furthermore, he had risen to the presidency in 1999 straight from prison in what looked like a divinely supervised ordination.

It was thus not surprising that Obasanjo, perhaps unconsciously, perceived and conceived of himself in supernatural terms. He saw his presidential powers as flowing from his own personal qualities and moral integrity rather than the constitution and the rule of law. He regarded himself as the first among a minuscule of incorruptible Nigerians. He could easily override the constitution in the pursuit of the greater good of the nation as defined by him. Impunity culminating in the aborted humiliating Third Term Agenda was thus his main historical legacy.

The late President UmaruYar’Adua after Obasanjo was a gentleman of the finest breed. But for ill health and untimely death, he would have made an excellent president of precedents. He admitted that the elections which brought him to power were severely flawed and set in motion a process of electoral reforms. He publicly declared his assets – the first by any elected official in Nigeria. President Goodluck Jonathan who succeeded Yar’Adua is of a naturally humble, modest and unassuming disposition. Alas, the immense, monstrous powers of the Nigerian presidency transformed his administration into one even more imperious than that of Obasanjo. His legacy is thus also one of impunity, high handedness and utter disdain for the rule of law.

How then can President-elect, MuhammaduBuhari, turn the tide and lead Nigeria in a new direction in terms of leadership style, orientation and content? How can he, like Washington, become a President of precedents? I think he can start right away even before his formal assumption of office on May 29. For starters, I think the crowd of courtesy call tourists trooping to Daura, Kaduna and Abuja to pay him obeisance must be drastically cut down. It is simply time wasting, energy sapping and distracting. The President-elect needs all the time he can muster to get ready for the herculean challenge ahead of confronting and mending a badly broken nation.

Secondly, the President-elect and his lieutenants must declare their assets if not publicly at least before a competent court where interested members of the public can ask for and obtain the requisite information as regards these assets. Thirdly, the President-elect must be resolute in having a truly lean Cabinet. He has set the right tone by suggesting he may do away with the office of Minister of State. The country has at least 19 key ministries. Together with the President, Vice President, Secretary to the Government, Head of Service and Chief of Staff, Nigeria does not need a Federal Executive Council of more than 25 persons. Each Minister should be capable enough to be the special adviser to the President in his or her area of jurisdiction especially as the Ministers also have Permanent Secretaries and other supportive bureaucratic technocrats to rely upon. The tradition of having a plethora of Cabinet rank Special Advisers must go.

Thirdly, under the presidential system, the presidency can be a bully pulpit of sorts. The President-elect must, by his personal example as well as those of his lieutenants set a model of modest and reasonable remuneration that public officers at all levels will be forced to follow.  An end must be brought to the current scandalous and unsustainable salaries and allowances of appointed and elected public officers.

Fourthly, Buhari must subordinate his presidency to the rule of law, constitutionalism, respect for the separation of powers, as well as the supremacy of the party without sacrificing or unnecessarily diluting the authority of his office. This will call for the highest degree of wisdom, restraint and dexterity in balancing interests. Buhari has a very bright chance of going down in history as a President of positive precedents. If he does not, the gains of March 28 would have been an utter waste and the quest for Uhuru will have to begin all over again.