The Nation Newspaper

Category: Segun Ayobolu

  • Ogun: Continuity or change?

    Ogun: Continuity or change?

    Last week, I contended that the 2015 general elections will afford voters the opportunity to make a choice between continuity or change both at the centre and in the various states of the federation. I argued that a resounding case can be made for fundamental, even drastic, change at the centre. Nigeria totters on the brink of collapse. She is a crippled giant (apologies to Professor Eghosa Osagie). Insecurity pervades the land. Poverty stalks the streets. Unemployment aborts the future of millions of our youth. Corruption arrogantly inspects a guard of honour on our highways.  Most Nigerians are worse off today than they were before the inception of this democratic dispensation in 1999.

    Of course, I am aware of the partly valid argument that the overall state of the nation is a joint responsibility of the federal, state and local governments. However, the bulk of the country’s revenues are controlled by the centre. The 36 states of the federation get less than 1% each of nationally generated revenues. Yet, they are nearest to the people. Moreover, the Federal Government has the responsibility and powers to determine the general direction of the country including the economy. It has failed abysmally to utilise its enormous powers and resources to pursue the public good.

    The presidency is the centre of gravity of our presidential system of government. Effective and visionary presidential leadership is, therefore, critical for national progress and transformation. This has been sorely lacking since 1999. Each successive PDP president since Obasanjo has been weaker and more ineffective than his predecessor. The presidency has sunken to its nadir under Dr Goodluck Jonathan. Yet, the PDP continues to ridiculously dress him in borrowed, ill-fitting garbs of greatness. The people of Nigeria have the right to reject this delusion of grandeur and look elsewhere for genuinely transformational leadership.

    Is it that the PDP and President Jonathan have not chalked up some achievements that they can be proud of? Certainly not. Some progress has been recorded by the Federal Government in aviation, power supply, agriculture and rail transportation among others. But there is a vast gulf between the resources at its disposal and actual accomplishments. A country as endowed and blessed as Nigeria should be thoroughly embarrassed and ashamed of what are today celebrated as landmark achievements by the Jonathan administration. It will be tragic to entrust a party and leader with such a pedestrian standard of performance with another four years of the country’s life. National greatness is made of loftier and more ambitious stuff.  The case for change at the centre is unassailable.

    I argued last week that while some PDP and APC-controlled states deserve continuity on the basis of their exemplary performance, others of both parties should be shown out of power for famished vision and manifest mediocrity. The state elections will be a different kettle of fish from that of the centre. Ogun state, for instance, will offer an interesting study at the next polls.

    Even his most ardent critics cannot credibly claim that Governor Ibikunle Amosun is not one of the star performers of this dispensation. His spectacular road infrastructure revolution is clearly the flagship of his administration. It is an aggressive, path-breaking initiative that has seen the massive construction of a network of fully equipped modern roads, bridges and flyovers crisscrossing and transforming the landscape of substantial parts of the state. The positive implications of this kind of radical modernization of infrastructurefor job creation, foreign and local investment, as well as rapid industrialization are obvious.

    Even though the infrastructure revolution must surely task the financial ingenuity of the governor, a chartered accountant, and his team to the utmost, the administration has also been pursuing other aspects of its five cardinal programmes, which include Affordable Qualitative Education, Efficient Health Care Delivery, Agricultural Production/Industrialization as well as Affordable Housing/Urban Renewal.

    In education, for instance, the Amosun administration provides free education in all public primary and secondary schools, has consistently devoted not less than 22-23% of its annual budget to education in accordance with UNESCO standards and expended N1.8 billion on the provision of free text books to all primary and secondary school pupils and students in public schools.  While the sum of N415 million was expended on provision of instructional materials to public primary and secondary schools in 2011 and 2012, N120 million was disbursed as bursary, scholarship and grants to students of Ogun state origin while 15 of 28 proposed Model Schools with a capacity of 1000 students each are under construction across the state.

    To achieve its goal of consolidating the agricultural sector to enhance food production as well as serve as a basis for agro-allied industrialization, the Amosun administration has enumerated 43 hectares of land for corporate bodies to engage in agricultural production, enumerated 2526 potential beneficiaries of a N1 billion agricultural loan facility, allocated 3290 hectares of land to investors in the state and completed a Cassava Processing Cottage Industry at Okolemo Community in partnership with British American Tobacco under the state Fadama Project.

    Its massive investment in infrastructure and security has paid off with the creation of a conducive environment that has attracted major industrial concerns to invest in the state. Since the inception of the Amosun administration, 50 new firms and investment worth $10 billion have been attracted to the state. Ogun state is thus emerging as the country’s industrial hub, its economy is being diversified; opportunities for employment are being multiplied while the revenue base of the state is being strengthened to lessen dependence on centrally collected revenues.Of course, the administration is also pursuing policies to take maximum advantage of the state’s massive real estate potential, boost its housing stock and take economic advantage of the huge population of neighbouring Lagos.

    While a significant number of citizens will appreciate and fully support the Amosun administration’s development strategy, it also has its own risks and vulnerabilities. For one, the pressure on resources will mean there is less to accumulate by public office holders. Secondly, sections of the political class will be aggrieved that the emphasis is on development expenditure rather than political patronage. The administration will have to creatively and effectively respond to sustained attempts by the latter to mislead members of the public into believing that the administration’s massive investment in infrastructure is wasteful, fanciful and unproductive.

    Matters are compounded for Ogun and other states by the inept, opaque and incompetent management of the national economy by the federal government. The Edo State governor, Comrade Adams Oshiomhole recently lamented that the amounts received by states from the Federation Account had dwindled significantly because of the non-transparent management of the account by the Federal Government. The comrade governor wondered how oil theft and the attendant loss in revenue due the federation account had grown astronomically under the Jonathan administration even with the end of Niger Delta insurgency and the award of multibillion naira oil pipeline protection contracts to ex-militants.

    Painting a graphic picture of the unfortunate scenario, Oshiomhole said “What this means is that our budgets have not performed over the past three years, whereas the budgets have been based on an average of between $77 and $79 a barrel. The average price of Nigeria’s sweet crude has been around $108 per barrel. That gives a surplus of over $30. Ideally, we ought to be saving $36 per barrel and 2.3 million barrels a day over the past three years and if you look at these numbers, you will find that we have in our excess crude oil account should be over $30 billion but we have barely $3 billion in the Excess Crude Account”.

    The continuity we need is the financial acumen and developmental impetus exhibited by the Amosun government in Ogun and not the financial ineptness, incompetence and lack of transparency exposed so scathingly by Oshiomhole in the centre’s management of national oil revenues. Of course, it will be easier and more convenient for an Amosun to sit back complacently, collect monthly allocation from Abuja, distribute the largesse to political entrepreneurs and leave Ogun at the end of his tenure as financially dependent on Abuja as he met her. The path he has chosen is a more difficult one. It is one of laying a solid foundation today for the future financial independence of the state. It is the path that might involve temporary pain but will ensure enduring gain. It is the path of courage and statesmanship that can guarantee a lasting legacy.

  • 2015 elections: Continuity or change?

    2015 elections: Continuity or change?

    In approximately eight weeks, Nigerians will go to the polls to determine which party will run their affairs at the centre and most states of the federation between May 2015 and 2019. Before us is one of the most critical elections in the history of the country. The two major political parties have presented Nigerians with a clear choice.  It is one between continuity and change. For the People’s Democratic Party (PDP), President Goodluck Jonathan, assisted by the ‘loyal and tested’ Vice President Namadi Sambo should continue to steer the shape of state for another four years. As far as the PDP faithful are concerned, the duo has done so competently, faithfully and incomparably over the last six years. Continuity of the present order is thus in the best interest of the country.

    The PDP faithful contend that the party has facilitated the unbroken practice of democratic rule for the past 15 years of the country’s history. It does not matter to them that the opposition has often had to grimly fight the tyranny of central incumbency to attain its present formidable place in the country’s political space. Under the PDP’s watch, they contend, Nigeria’s economy has become the largest in Africa and its growth rate one of the highest in the world even at a time of global economic depression.

    Of course, the emergent alternate major political party, the All Progressives Congress (APC) does not agree with this depiction of the nation’s current realities. In the duo of General Muhammadu Buhari (Rtd) as its presidential candidate and the reputable lawyer, academic, administrator and committed reformer, Professor Yemi Osinbajo as his running mate, the APC presents the country with a ticket for change. The party believes that, like the Titanic, Nigeria’s ship of state is headed for irredeemable disaster unless there is a fundamental change of direction in the management of her affairs. It is left to the Nigerian electorate to make the decision at the polls next year on whether they want continuity or change.

    Over the last year, long before campaigns were legally permitted, the PDP, particularly through the ubiquitous ‘Transformation Ambassadors of Nigeria’ (TAN) had aggressively marketed Dr Goodluck Jonathan as the Moses of our time. They had likened him to such great historic leaders as Martin Luther King (Jnr), Nelson Mandela and President Barak Obama. An exuberant aide has gone further to liken Jonathan to Jesus Christ, the saviour of mankind. Fervent supporters of President Jonathan contend that his much advertised ‘Transformation Agenda’ is achieving wonders in diverse sectors including agriculture, aviation, rail transportation, power- supply, job creation and road infrastructure. Rosy and tantalising statistics are cited to buttress this position.

    Are the vast majority of the Nigerian people better off today than they were before the advent of the PDP government at the centre in 1999 and particularly since the emergence of the Jonathan administration? It is difficult to answer the question in the affirmative. There is an incredible and unbridgeable gulf between the tantalising statistics of progress peddled by the Jonathan administration and the experiential reality of millions of Nigerians.

    The great development economist, Professor Dudley Seers, posed three key questions to determine whether a country is developing or not: What is happening to poverty? What is happening to inequality? What is happening to unemployment? All three have worsened considerably in Nigeria under the PDP and the Jonathan administration. Let me quickly note that in continually making a distinction between the PDP and the Jonathan administration, I am informed by the fact that many voters in 2011 claimed they were voting for the humble former shoeless schoolboy from Otuoke and not necessarily his party. The difference now appears to be that between six and half a dozen.

    Ardent supporters of Dr Jonathan contend that his administration is working admirably to contain the challenge of insecurity, which they attribute to those who allegedly threatened to make the country ungovernable for him if he won the 2011 elections. But then, is this not an indictment of the Jonathan presidency? The implication is that President Jonathan had a forewarning of the security challenge long before his election and yet could not utilise the immense powers of his office to anticipate and thwart such threats as well as bring saboteurs of the country’s stability to book. The truth is that there can be no excuse for the appalling degree of insecurity and massive corruption witnessed under the Jonathan administration.

    The change promised by the APC is indeed appealing but the details and promises of this change must be rigorously interrogated. Why has Nigeria stagnated and even retrogressed in some areas during the last 15 years of civilian ‘democratic’ rule? Is it because there are no competent, incorruptible or visionary persons at the disposal of the PDP-controlled centre? I do not think so. The problem is fundamentally structural. Unless the structural impediments to rapid and revolutionary national transformation are urgently and vigorously addressed, a highly anticipated ‘Messianic’ Buhari/Osibanjo presidency will work no magic.

    Yes, an alternative to the current PDP/Jonathan presidency must work hard and fast to enhance the existential living conditions of the wretched of the Nigerian earth. However, enduring success in any such endeavour must be predicated on more fundamental structural changes. Firstly, is the necessity urgently demystify and detoxify Nigeria’s imperial presidency. The extensive, almost unlimited powers of Nigeria’s presidency constitute the greatest threat to good governance, the rule of law and the very survival of democracy in Nigeria.

    An alternate government at the centre, no matter the personal integrity and good intentions of the president will be as perverse as its predecessor within the present structural context. The security, electoral and anti-corruption agencies must be freed from the current suffocating presidential stranglehold and granted a sufficient degree of institutional autonomy in the interest of democracy and good governance.

    Secondly, an alternate Federal Government must urgently work towards substantial decentralisation of powers, responsibilities and resources to the state and local governments. Today’s excessive centralisation of governance can only deepen corruption, abuse of power and corruption no matter which party is in power. However, this suggested decentralisation is only one half of the challenge. The truth is that the states and local governments today, irrespective of which party controls them, are as tyrannical and imperial as the centre.

    Decentralisation of powers, resources and responsibilities in favour of imperial governors, who are miniature tyrannical ‘presidents’ of their jurisdictions will be nothing but the decentralisation of despotism. There is therefore the need for far reaching constitutional reforms to promote accountability, transparency and good governance at the sub-national (state and local) levels of government.

    Now, when we talk about continuity and change, must we be concerned with the national government alone? I do not think so. This column believes that an impregnable case can be made for drastic and fundamental change at the centre given 15 years of the PDP’s visionless and inept rule that has left the country prostrate and humiliated. However, the situation at the sub-national (state) level is more complicated and nuanced. While some PDP and APC state governments deserve to be allowed continuity on the basis of their performance and vision, others of both parties ought to be resoundingly rejected by the electorate for non-performance. The cause of the country’s political development will be significantly promoted by the emergence of an electorate that is sophisticated and enlightened enough to reward good governance and punish incompetent governance at the polls across party boundaries.

  • Femi Aribisala: A disturbed mind?

    Femi Aribisala: A disturbed mind?

    Femi Aribisala, who writes for the Vanguard newspaper on Tuesdays, is one of the most interesting, entertaining and amusing columnists in Nigeria today. Aribisala is a most curious and intriguing persona. He is a professor, a supposed intellectual, whose primary vocation ought to be the pursuit and advocacy of truth.  Yet, he often employs hefty bodyguards of lies to protect the falsehoods he so regularly parades as sacred truths. He audaciously dispenses with logic and common sense in his peddling of prejudice, petty sentiment and malicious bias.

    Aribisala is also a pastor of sorts. He maintains a Christian religious column with The Vanguard. This strange pastor desecrates the Bible, for instance, by describing the account of the historic encounter between David and Goliath as a complete and untrue fabrication. The only person that Femi Aribisala hates, attacks and insults more than Asiwaju Bola Ahmed Tinubu, the former governor of Lagos State and a national leader of  the  All Progressives Congress (APC) is the legendary and incomparable Saint Paul, the lawyer, scholar,  evangelist and unrepentant apostle of Christ who wrote over half of the new testament.

    Pastor Aribisala has variously described Saint Paul as a liar, incorrigible sinner, demented mind, anti-Christ and much worse. Yet, here is a man who is an intellectual, spiritual and moral Lilliputian compared to Saint Paul. In any case, can a man who has scant respect either  for God or one of his most revered servants such as Saint Paul be expected to show any regard for an object  of his obsessive hatred such as Tiinubu? What is becoming alarming,, however, is that Aribisala’s  admittedly once brilliant mind is beginning  to roam beyond the safe boundaries of rationality all because of his morbid hatred for one man.

    When the APC demystified and disgraced the dubious concepts of stomach infrastructure and invincible federal might with Ogbeni Raufu Aregbesola decisively winning the last  Osun governorship election, Aribisala’s response was a column titled ‘ How APC lost Osun’.  Before the last APC governorship primaries in Lagos State, there had been fears that the party would not survive the predicted cataclysm arising from the exercise. Against all expectations, the party held the most transparent, credible and rancour free primaries in the history of the state. This newspaper’s ace columnist, Professor Tunji Dare, last week wrote with characteristic linguistic felicity and cerebral clarity of ‘ The implosion that never was’.  Aribisala’s commentary on the event was a scandalously scurrilous column  titled ‘ Time to get rid of  Tinubu’s cronies in Lagos’.

    Of course Aribisala’s offering was the same stale salad of verbiage against Tinubu that has become the standard poisonous fare of his column week after week.  I will only examine here a few of the mendacious claims about Lagos politics and the APC primaries as contained in Aribisala’s column. Firstly, Aribisala accuses Tinubu of “commandeering  of the political processes”  of  Lagos for too long. For a professor of the social sciences, this kind of imprecise use of language and conceptual ambiguity is embarrassing.  As far as I know, Tinubu has been involved, directly or indirectly, in keenly contested elections in Lagos in 1999, 2003, 2007 and 2011. All of these elections were conducted by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), a federal agency. Security for the electoral process was always provided by federal agencies – the Nigeria Police Force (NPF), the military and security operatives. In what way then has Tinubu ‘commandeered the political process as alleged by our professor?

    During the Babangida regime’s aborted transition program of the Third Republic, Tinubu was elected Senator representing Lagos West Senatorial District with the highest number of votes in the country.  He played a critical role in the emergence of Chief MKO Abiola as presidential candidate of the defunct Social Democratic Party (SDP) and his victory in the June 12, 1993 election that was later annulled. Tinubu’s political stature in the South West  grew tremendously because of the selfless and front-line role he played in the protracted struggle against the annulment and military rule that resulted in today’s democratic dispensation.

    As governor of Lagos State between 1999 and 2007, Tinubu remained consistent and dogged in his defence of the rule of law, human rights, true federalism and the rights of states.  His government with the indefatigable Professor Yemi Osinbajo as Attorney General and Commissioner of Justice won at least 13 major court cases against Obasanjo’s imperious Federal government with significant implications for federalism in Nigeria. In 2003, when Obasaanjo launched his vicious electoral blitzkrieg against  the South West, it  was only Tinubu’s Lagos that remained an impregnable fortress for conservative ‘mainstreamers’. Even after leaving office in 2007, Tinubu has played a critical and incomparable role in the revitalization of progressive politics in the South West  and the emergence of a solid and viable national opposition to the PDP.  Of course, it is understandable that all these relevant factors cannot feature in an analysis ofTinubu’s politics by a mind as  jaundiced as Aribisala’s.

    Secondly, Aribisala asserts that Tinubu has ‘enslaved’ all politicians in Lagos and  that as a result of his “godfatherism candidates for public office of his political party are not elected by popular vote but selected  from Tinubu’s bedroom on Bourdillon Road and  then imposed on the party.”  There is first the conceptual problem of understanding what Aribisala means by Tinubu ‘enslaving’ politicians. Is this through hypnotism or juju? If so, why was Tinubu’s preference for Babatunde  RajiFashola as his successor fiercely opposed by some of his closest associates within the then ACN in 2007?

    Even as Aribisala himself states, a key party officer and close confidante of Tinubu like Muiz Banire was openly critical of his political mentor in the run up to the last APC governorship primaries. It was alleged before the primaries that Tinubu preferred a Christian candidate from the Lagos East Senatorial District to succeed Fashola. Yet, this purported preference was not imposed on the party. Rather, the primaries were contested by 12 Christian and Muslim aspirants from the three Senatorial Districts.  What then do we make of Aribisala’s professorial hogwash of Tinubu imposing candidates from his bedroom?

    Thirdly and most absurdly, Aribisala insinuates that the APC primaries were manipulated and lacking in transparency. He contends that the delegates should have been chosen on the basis of 20 and not 57 Local Government Councils. Yet, the 37 Local Council Development Areas (LCDA) have had elected Chairmen, councillors and party executives since they came into being!  In Aribisala’s view, the APC should have held direct primaries in the different local government areas and not indirect primaries where delegates were allegedly “given voting instructions’.  The delegates, he alleged, were not known to the aspirants before the primaries.

     In the first place, Aribisala is not a member of the APC and may thus be unaware of the party’s constitutional provisions. His failure to undertake the requisite research in this regard confirms his antecedents as a lazy and unresourceful academic. Otherwise he would have known that the APC constitution provides for  5391 delegates comprising 12 members of the ward executives, local government party executives and clearly stipulated statutory delegates. In any case, would the knowledgeable and illustrious APC aspirants, most of them more accomplished than Aribisala, agree to participate in the kind of patently unconstitutional exercise he falsely depicts? Would the APC aspirants have campaigned  as vigorously as they did without knowing those whose votes they would need? This is kind of reasoning smacks of professorial absurdity.

    Fourthly, Aribisala contends that the APC candidate, Mr AkinwunmiAmbode “ is not a politician, and he is an unknown political quantity in Lagos”.  Ambode is one of the most accomplished Nigerians of his generation. He holds B.Sc and M.Sc degrees in Accounting from the University of Lagos. He is an alumnus of such illustrious world class institutions as CranfieldSchooll  of Management, Cranfield, England, the Institute of Management Development, Lausanne, Switzerland, the Harvard Kennedy School of Management and the Wharton Business School  Advance Management Programme. Apart from this, Ambode is a Fellow of the Institute of Chartered Accounts  of Nigeria (ICAN) as well as a Hubert Humphrey in Accounting and Finance from Boston University, Massachusetts, United States.

    This solid academic and professional background served as the foundation for Ambode’s 27 year meritorious career in the Lagos State public service, which saw him rising from the local government cadre to becoming the state Auditor General for Local Government, Permanent Secretary, Ministry of Finance and ultimately Accountant General of the state. The truth is that in terms of his interaction with and adding value to the Lagos State public space over the last three decades, no candidate matches Ambode’s pedigree.

    In any case, I look forward to reading Aribisala’s view on the Lagos PDP’s  indirect primaries that saw an admittedly credible Jinmi Agbaje emerge from an intra-party  process totally lacking  in credibility and integrity and which  is being  vigorously challenged by his main opponent, Senator Musliu Obanikoro.  In the magical PDP primaries, there were 806 accredited voters but 863 cast votes. Is it any wonder that guns boomed and blood flowed at the Oregun venue of the exercise?

  • An anatomy of Lagos Apc primaries

    Is Nigeria Democratising?’ That question is hardly original. It is an adaptation of the title    of a public lecture, ‘Is Africa Democratising?’ delivered by the late Professor Claude Ake shortly before his tragic demise in an air crash in November 1996. The famous political economist contended that dictators in Africa legitimising their rule through farcical elections or citizens voting without choosing in mechanical and barren electoral processes could not be described as ‘democratising’. He argued that the periodic rotation of a fundamentally undemocratic state structure among competing sets of rapacious and parasitic elite  that ape liberal democratic motions has disempowering implications for citizens.

    Today it is even more pertinent to wonder if Nigeria is indeed democratising almost 15 years after civilian authoritarianism replaced a decade and a half of military dictatorship in 1999. We remain burdened with the crushing weight of an arrogant imperial presidency with scant regard for the rule of law. We are collectively humiliated by having in office today one of the most fascistic and embarrassingly insensitive Inspectors General of Police, Suleiman Abba, in recent memory. Critical national institutions such as the legislature, civil service and the judiciary at all levels remain servile and supine. Civil society is comatose as we daily exhibit an ever increasing capacity to absorb the most debasing treatment from oppressive masters who masquerade as servant leaders.

    We have largely inchoate, incoherent and ideologically vacuous political parties. In the biblical account, the dithering prophet Jonah is swallowed by the whale. Here in Nigeria’s fabulous centre, the presidential Jonah has swallowed the PDP whale – a far more stupendous miracle. Helplessly imprisoned in the belly of the presidency, the PDP behemoth has virtually crowned Dr Goodluck Jonathan as its sole presidential candidate. Yet, all hell is let loose. First term PDP governors are also insisting on a ‘right of first refusal’. Second term governors of the party want to either pick their successors or be handed automatic senate seats. These are all symptoms of an underdeveloped political system with a democratic content that is being systematically devalued.

    But in spite of all these, there is still a glimmer of hope. One of such promising flashes of light at the end of the tunnel is from the emergent opposition, All Progressives Congress (APC). Please don’t get me wrong. The APC is not immune from the virus of opportunism and mindless quest for power at all cost that is the bane of Nigerian politics. Yet, as it strives to displace the PDP from its position of dominance at all levels of the Nigerian polity, the contending factions, caucuses and tendencies within the APC are being forced to make necessary compromises to achieve organisational cohesion. This has made for greater democratic activism within the party, a development that may rub off positively on a complacent PDP that may be forced to sharpen its competitive edge with the emergence of a more vigorous opposition within the context of an increasingly conscious and sophisticated electorate.

    It is against this background that the APC House of Assembly and governorship primaries across the country this week acquires added significance. This is particularly so in Lagos, the jewel of the Atlantic and the Nigerian economy’s pearl of inestimable value. It was only natural that the battle for the APC governorship ticket in Lagos would be fiercely fought. It was so in 1999, 2003, 2007 and 2011. While Nigeria has degenerated on diverse fronts within that time frame, Lagos has recorded tremendous progress under the foundational leadership of Asiwaju Bola Ahmed Tinubu (1999 – 2007) and the consolidating engineering of Mr Babatunde Raji Fashola (SAN) (2007 – 2015). It was thus not surprising that at least 12 worthy members of the party threw their hats in the ring in the epic battle to succeed the widely applauded performing Governor Fashola.

    At least two tendencies were discernible in the Lagos APC governorship primaries. First, was the tendency in the party which felt that with Tinubu contesting from Lagos West Senatorial district, and Fashola from Lagos Central, the governorship ticket should be conceded this time around to Lagos East Senatorial District for fairness, equity and balance. This tendency was equally of the view that since both Tinubu and Fashola are Muslims, a Christian candidate be given an opportunity in 2015 without compromising merit. However, a more radical tendency within the Lagos APC contended that the ticket should be thrown open to all qualified aspirants as the megacity has become too cosmopolitan and urbane to be constrained by restrictive primordial considerations.

    I think a key factor that will ultimately assist the Lagos APC to overcome the inevitable fissures and frictions arising from its governorship primaries and prepare seriously for the general election was the wisdom in allowing the spirit of democracy to prevail by allowing all interested governorship aspirants to contest irrespective of their Senatorial District or religious affiliation. Thus, the APC must be proud that it could boast of such aspirants as the doughty and astute Adeyemi Ikuforiji who had offered wise leadership as Speaker of the House for eight years, Ganiyu Olawale Solomon whose experience spans the local government through the House of Representatives to the Senate, Dr Obafemi Hamzat, a brilliant systems engineer with considerable experience as an executive council member, Dr Leke Pitan, a high performing commissioner for health in the Tinubu administration, Dr Tola Kasali, another accomplished medical doctor and member of Tinubu’s cabinet, Mr Supo Sasore (SAN), a brilliant and clinical legal mind and my friend, Mr Tayo Ayinde, a skilled security strategist and shrewd businessman whose time I think still lies in the future.

    Among this array of stars, I think four factors stand the emergent candidate, Mr Akinwunmi Ambode out as the best man for the job at this time. First, Lagos has achieved tremendous infrastructural transformation over the past 14 years at inevitably high financial cost. Ambode’s skills as a chartered accountant with nearly three decades experience of managing the state’s finances from the lowest rungs to the apex of the financial system will enable him navigate the ship of Lagos safely in a period of declining oil revenues and growing economic depression. Second, his vast experience in local government administration will enable Ambode re-engineer governance at that critical level and stimulate inclusive growth at the grassroots. Third, he has a thorough knowledge of and enjoys the confidence of the civil service, which will enable him to effectively mobilize that critical work force to contribute maximally to taking Lagos to the next level. Fourth, Ambode served at critical levels in both the Tinubu and Fashola administrations and can thus be an effective bridge linking the past, the present and the future.

    Another key factor that will work in the APC’s favour at this critical transition period in Lagos is the continued restraint and maturity of key leaders like Tinubu and Fashola. Yes, they will inevitably have their own interests and preferences. But so far they have been subtle and sober thus leaving analysts no option but to second guess them or try to read their body language. This period will task to the uttermost their capacity to make necessary sacrifices and compromises to demonstrate their commitment to the progress of Lagos and the growth of their party.

    Of course, the quality of the APC candidature will also force the PDP to seek to bring forth its best material. In Senator Musliu Obanikoro, the PDP will have a candidate with considerable experience at various levels who may, however, have an uphill task explaining how he has productively utilised these opportunities to add value to Lagos and Nigeria. And in Mr Jimi Agbaje, the PDP will have a likeable candidate with negligible public managerial experience who seeks to lead a complex mega city in a time of critical global economic challenges. Can Lagos be an experimental school for leadership development? Surely, there are interesting times ahead for Lagos.

  • Enter, the Boko Haram State?

    Enter, the Boko Haram State?

    They kill. They maim. They rape. They kidnap and forcefully marry off innocent school girls. They slaughter human beings in obeisance to an inexplicably blood thirsty deity. They explode bombs in church, mosque, market, Motor Park or entertainment spot with equal aplomb. These and other atrocities characterise the murderous Boko Haram sect.

    But what is the defining element underlying the Boko Haram’s serial criminalities? It is certainly not the innocent blood they shed, the valuable lives they so brutally terminate or the pain and loss they inflict on thousands of families. No, their central crime is that they are children of impunity. They are denizens of Thomas Hobbes’ state of nature where life is short, nasty, brutish and solitary.

    Boko Haram does not respect the boundaries set by the rule of law to protect the sanctity of human dignity and preserve the essence of civilised humanity. For them, might is right. They do not recognise and thus wage unrelenting war against all institutions established to create order, discipline, restraint and humane conduct in society.

    Does it not follow that a Nigerian state that purports to abhor Boko Haram’s antics and is fighting a fierce war against the sect should at least exhibit higher moral standards than the malevolent gang? But then, what do we have? Yes, Boko Haram kills and rapes. But what do we say of a governor-elect, Mr Ayodele Fayose, whose thugs invade the premises of a court hearing a case of non-eligibility to contest an election filed against him, and allegedly right in his presence, beat up the judge, tear his suit to shreds and destroy the court records?

    Is such conduct any different fundamentally from that of Boko Haram? Is that not a brazen kidnap of court processes and a rape of the judiciary? Can we blame the Boko Haram hierarchy if they conclude that they have a worthy comrade-in-impunity in the architect and founder of the philosophy of stomach infrastructure?

    Under Fayose’s short watch thus far, a minority of seven members of the state House of Assembly (allegedly along with three non- members of the House) sat under heavy security cover to approve a list of commissioners and Special Advisers for the governor. Emboldened by this ‘success’, the same minority has removed the speaker and other principal officers of the Ekiti House of Assembly from office and appointed new officers in brazen violation of the house rules, due process and the rule of law. Again, they had massive security cover to perpetrate their illegality.

    Earlier, Fayose had sealed the petrol station of the Speaker of the Ekiti State House of Assembly, Dr Adewale Omirin, for purported environmental purposes, sacked his aides, locked up his office, frozen the accounts of the legislature and reportedly demobilised the Speaker’s vehicles all in a bid to intimidate and cower the APC-dominated legislature into submission.

    As all of these have happened to the utter embarrassment of the nation, it has been mum from President Goodluck Jonathan’s Aso Rock even though he is the leader of Fayose’s party and supposedly the number one defender of the country’s constitution. Is it a case of birds of the same feather flocking together? I can only answer the question in the affirmative.

    Or how do we explain the peremptory and arbitrary withdrawal of the security detail of the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Honourable Aminu Tambuwal, by the Inspector General of Police, Mr Suleiman Abba, for decamping from the PDP to the APC? And this, despite the pendency in court of a suit to determine the status of legislators who defect from one party to another? This was a veritable terrorist attack on the judiciary. In the same vein, Thursday’s barricading of the National Assembly and firing of tear gas canisters into the hallowed legislative chambers by the Nigeria Police to prevent the House from sitting was akin to Boko Haram-type bombing of the National Assembly by the police.

    The virus of impunity and lawlessness characteristic of Boko Haram has clearly become contagious and the Nigerian state seems to have succumbed to the ultimately self-destructive ailment. It is unfortunate that under President Jonathan’s watch, the murderous Boko Haram sect and the Nigerian state now operate on the same ethical frequency of impunity, lawlessness and disdain for the rule of law.

    These thoughts came to my mind as I contemplated a paper titled ‘Development and Road Metaphor: An Extrapolative Theoretical Analysis of Nigeria’s Foreign Policy’, delivered by Dr Dapo Thomas of the Lagos State University (LASU) at a just concluded conference on ‘One hundred years of Nigerian nationhood’ at the Obafemi Awolowo University (OAU), Ile-Ife. Dr Thomas’s objective in the paper is to interrogate the nexus between Nigeria’s foreign policy over time and her developmental aspirations as a nation.

    Tracing the historical trajectory of Nigeria’s foreign policy, he alludes to the tentative conservatism of the Tafawa Balewa years, the cautious nationalism of the Yakubu Gowon years, the aggressive and patriotic pan-Africanism of the Murtala Mohammed era and the seeming cluelessness that has engulfed the country’s current foreign policy. In this regard, Thomas laments the fact that Nigeria’s attributes such as huge territorial size, large population, rich natural and human resources as well as a sizable military capacity have not translated into a viable and vigorous foreign policy that can earn the country the respect she craves in the comity of nations.

    He cites as an example the recent alleged humiliating treatment meted out to Nigeria by South Africa, when that country seized about $15 million allegedly taken into the country from Nigeria in violation of due process. Thomas is, however, quick to point out that Nigeria’s past contributions to the liberation of South Africa cannot be a justification for our violation of the country’s laws as regards foreign currency transactions. And this is precisely my point. A country that perpetrates impunity and disrespect for the rule of law at home will most likely do the same abroad as happened in South Africa thus devaluing its esteem in the eyes of the world.

    But then, what is Dr Thomas’ solution to a problem he has so clinically diagnosed? His central contention is that the problem with Nigeria’s foreign policy is that it is not driven by a non-partisan national agenda as well as an overarching vision that transcends parties and ephemeral regimes. According to him, “What drives Nigeria’s foreign policy is uncharacteristically not a national vision but the individual desires of its leaders”. He thus advocates a foreign policy hinged on a non-partisan agenda “to be powered and driven by the vision of the state and the nation’s collective zeal for progress”. This vision, he avers, must be one of excellence “that is supported and embraced by all citizens”.

    I consider Dr Thomas’ panacea for a vibrant foreign policy as being excessively idealistic. He offers no concrete methodology for getting from where we are to where he thinks we should be as regards foreign policy conceptualisation and implementation. A fractured political class cannot produce a coherent national vision. A political class consumed by the quest for power solely for material accumulation can neither mobilise the populace behind a national vision nor summon the discipline to implement one.

    As the world observes Nigeria, it is my view that they see two competing impunities. One is that of a Boko Haram that bombs and kills innocent citizens. The other is of a Nigerian state that literarily bombs, decimates and devalues critical national institutions such as the judiciary, the national legislature and even the security agencies. The difference between the two is like that between six and half a dozen.

    This may be the reason why the United States is reluctant to sell sophisticated military equipment to a Nigerian ruling class – military and civilian – it has every right to perceive as thoroughly irresponsible. Yet, Dr Thomas has raised fundamental issues that should spur the political parties to formulate concrete foreign policy options for the consideration of Nigerians in the countdown to the critical 2015 elections.

  • Re: Banire, Aregebsola and Osun Polls

    Re: Banire, Aregebsola and Osun Polls

    I have been eagerly awaiting a critique of  my paper of last week titled ‘Osun Election: A Pathway to Nigeria’s Democratic Growth’. At last, I got one in the reaction of my friend, Segun Ayobolu, on the last page of The Nation, Saturday, November 8, 2014 edition. As usual of such reactions (some patronage here and there before the slicing knife is applied), Segun introduced his discussions of my paper with some pejoratives and later took a descent into his opinion of what is right.

    His allegation that “Banire treads treacherous and slippery analytic terrain” (whatever that means!) was supported by what he thought did not make sense in making a distinction between a party and his candidate. I am sorry to say that while that assertion might appeal to ordinary consciousness, a good understanding of politics would prove otherwise. In any political clime where a party fields an unpopular candidate, there is no assurance that the electorate would gullibly buy into the party’s craze. A good understanding of Osun politics reveals that Aregbesola’s emergence in the first term was kindled by his political records in Lagos and the declining popularity of the government then in power whose policies the people were clamouring against.

    It is to that extent that the fate of a party and his candidate may roll into each other. If the Action Congress had produced a candidate of less public approval in 2007 in Osun, the story could have been different as the people would not see any difference between the government in power and our offer of redemption. There, I believe my friend did not get the purport of our analysis. If in 2014, we had presented in Osun a candidate not better than the candidate of the Peoples Democratic Party, the outcome would probably not worth the celebration of today. That emphasizes the need for our political party to be more pragmatic in its choice of candidature.

    Segun queried what would have been the incentive for the electorate to vote against our party in Osun. What was the incentive for the electorate when they voted against our party and candidate in Ekiti on June 21 (not August 9 mistakenly stated by Segun in his article)? Whether the party and its candidate are gnashing their teeth now is not the issue but that our party would have been out of power just as happened in Ekiti. The fact remains that popular programmes of Aregbesola largely retained political patronage from the masses in favour of our party and no emergency gospel of ‘stomach infrastructure’ recklessly flaunted by the PDP would have dissuaded the masses.

    Segun did not seem to follow the opinion poll conducted by some reputable organizations before the election which justified my assertion that the popularity of the candidate overwhelmed the rating of the party in Osun. The politics of today requires every candidate to organize direct grassroots interaction with the people which we did on the basis of door-to-door campaigns by which we distilled our facts and got better acquainted with the feelings of the people. It was a direct practical approach we adopted and not an armchair analysis of events. We practically learnt from the less-privileged who did not seek any political appointment and are not in any vantage position to seek political appointments. They are political followers of many aspirants at the grassroots level who felt disappointed by the pranks of such leaders and a fortiori, the party, but expressed great satisfaction about the policies of Ogbeni. Segun’s stance that probably those who condemned the party were political appointment seekers did not come out of reality but mere conjectures. Such conjectures would not align with the factual situation which we encountered during the preparations for the election.

    The reference to Chief Obafemi Awolowo and Alhaji Lateef Jakande is greatly misplaced. If those leaders had failed in their performances, they would not have secured the eminent and glorious positions they retained today in history.

    Segun also asserted that why Aregbesola was able to contest in the first term was because the party fielded him. This contention smirks of childish historical conclusion as the process by which the party fielded Aregbesola in the first term is what we are concerned with and not merely that the party fielded him. Is Segun suggesting that Aregbesola was imposed on the Osun people in his first term? Far from that! Aregbesola won the primaries of the party in 2007 fair and square. So many candidates came up and a credible primary election was organized in which he emerged winner. The same process was embarked upon in 2014 even when Aregbesola was the only one who purchased nomination form on the platform of All Progressives Congress. He was not imposed on the people and nobody hid the form from any other aspirant and neither was anybody prevented from aspiring for the job. The party still ensured that a primary election was organized in line with the Constitution in which Aregbesola was given the party’s banner following a popular affirmation process.

    The reference to Babatunde Fashola is grossly misplaced. The fact that the party gave a credible candidate an opportunity to run in the first place does not mean that where the party is engaging in political suicide, we must all remain complacent or coldly indifferent. Such attitude would only be a mark of sycophancy or political indolence. This we eschew, as we are loyalists of the party and not sycophants.

    Interestingly my friend said that “it is difficult for one to scientifically determine the meaning of imposition in a situation in which, for instance, over 20 aspirants are gunning for a given position and each believes that if he does not win, it is because the winning candidate has been imposed on the party!” this is a completely naïve appraisal of our paper and the political situation in our party. One would not expect such a political conclusion from Segun since we both served in Asiwaju and Fashola’s governments. I recall that Segun was press secretary to Asiwaju Bola Tinubu and he ought to know better notwithstanding that he would claim livelihood in journalism and not politics.

    The allegation of imposition in our party is not as jejune in nature as Segun tried to paint same. Our understanding and definition of imposition is more scientifically determined than Segun’s understanding of it. Where in a primary election, an aspirant scored the majority votes and the loser was rather imposed by an overlord, can Segun give us a worse instance of scientific imposition than that? As a leader of the party, I received petitions against imposition on a daily basis during any electioneering process and yet some people would prefer that we must keep quiet. What is the usefulness of featuring candidates rejected by the members of the party only to satisfy the political gusto of some few individuals? This menace has wiped away the needed sense of political responsibility among our office holders and now people have been comparing us negatively with our political opponents.

    The need to project the party in favourable light to the people has made some us compulsory advocates of the truth. If Segun’s analysis of what transpired between Awolowo and Akintola in the First Republic is actually correct, must we still promote the politics of self interest at all costs which Segun has pretended not to see its negative impacts? If, as argued by Segun, that development brought the crisis that engulfed the West and reverberated all over Nigeria leading to catastrophic consequences, must we now perpetuate same simply because it is not the same characters of the past that are in the saddle today?

    It is this kind of attitude among followers that destroys leaders and glorious institutions they profess to build but which over time they tried to pattern along their personal ego. How on earth can Segun justify zoning and religious considerations above merit? Reference to federal character in the Constitution does not justify Segun’s argument as the approach we condemn in Lagos State does not fall in line with theories that dictate progress in plural societies. If such balancing as argued by Segun is a necessity, then today our party must not be celebrating Tambuwal whom we identify as a great asset and align with against the zoning arrangement. Would Segun rather have preferred the PDP-sponsored Speaker? Why must we give fillip to negative sentiments by quoting redundant political theories rather than project the best interest of the people?

    Pandering to suggestions such as made by Segun would only justify the negative aspects of our living. We all must endeavour to save our party and even our political overlord from self-destruction as we are loyalists and not sycophants.

    By the volatile nature of this issue, I expect further discussions, dissensions and distended dissertations. If telling the truth could be regarded as treachery, then I admit otherwise as always said, truth is bitter and change is usually resisted but constant. The earlier we jettison the unfashionable practices in our party, the better for us.

    Dr. Muiz Adeyemi Banire

    Principal and Founding Partner,

    M. A. Banire & Associates and

    National Legal Adviser, APC.

  • Banire, Aregbesola and Osun polls

    Banire, Aregbesola and Osun polls

    His diminutive physique masks a razor- sharp intellect and wit. Dr Muiz Banire, lawyer, commissioner first of transportation and then the environment for 12 years under the Tinubu and Fashola administrations and now National Legal Adviser to the APC, was the guest speaker at a colloquium in Lagos in honour of Ogbeni Raufu Aregbesola. The colloquium was obviously spurred by Aregbesola’s outstanding re-election for a second term in the bitterly contested August 9th governorship election in Osun state.

    There is much to agree with in Banire’s presentation on the occasion titled ‘Osun’s Election: A Pathway to Nigeria’s Democratic Growth’. For example, he paints a vivid and harrowing picture of the security siege on Osun before and during the election. He exposes the many behind the scene bids to manipulate the poll and rig the elections and how these were thwarted through vigilance and proactive action. Among the more sensible of Banire’s recommendation is his admonition that a political party should always monitor closely officials elected in its platform. This is in order to ensure adherence to the party’s manifesto as well as prevent the alienation of the government and the party from the people due to unpopular policies.

    However, Banire treads treacherous and slippery analytic terrain when he makes a distinction between a party and the candidate seeking election on its platform. He contends that it was Aregbesola that won the election in Osun and not the All Progressives Congress (APC). The APC, according to Banire, has become unpopular because of imposition of candidates such that the people may have voted for the opposition but for Aregbesola’s charisma, grassroots appeal and superlative performance.

    Let us admit without conceding that Banire is right. What would be the incentive for the average voter or APC supporter to vote for the PDP, for instance, when its own candidate for the Osun election emerged through a violence-infested process where a former governor of Osun was savagely manhandled by a serving Minister all because he aspired to fly the party’s flag in the election!

    Again, could it be that most of those Banire claimed to have visited on door-to-door campaigns and who reportedly expressed disenchantment with the APC, sought elective or appointive positions and were unjustly denied the opportunity? That would be strange. I would wager that in most polities, those who actively seek elective office constitute less than one per cent of the population. Osun certainly cannot be an exception.

    In the first republic, Chief Obafemi  Awolowo’s Action Group (AG) was the cynosure of all eyes due to its spectacular developmental achievements in the South-West. Even though he was enormously gifted as a leader, thinker and astute manager of men and resources, Awolowo never sought to personally appropriate the party’s collective success to himself. It was the same case in the second republic when Alhaji Jakande was easily the most distinguished governor. Again, he never claimed or sought personal glory. He knew that in a progressive party, both successes and failures must be collectively borne.

    I am sure that Banire’s thoughts at the colloquium are his and do not necessarily represent the views of Aregbesola. For, being a product of collective struggle himself right from his student days, I think that Aregbesola is too philosophically deep, intellectually sound, historically conscious, and organisationally disciplined to identify with the kind of hubris espoused by Banire.

    It is pertinent to ask, ‘Why was Aregbesola able to seek re-election for a second term?’ It is because he had won election for a first term and performed creditably. Why was he able to contest for the first term? It was because he was fielded by the defunct Action Congress of Nigeria (ACN) as its governorship candidate. Here is where I think Banire misses the critical point. The relationship between a party and a candidate is a dialectical one. The party can offer a candidate its platform but it cannot do the candidate’s job for him/her.

    If we apply Banire’s logic to Ekiti, then we can surmise that the outcome of the polls there was a vote against Fayemi and not the APC. That would be nothing but sterile intellectual masturbation. Even if it were so, the reality is that both Fayemi and the APC in Ekiti are out of power – at least for now. The APC must gnash its teeth and bemoan the calamity that befell it in the August 9th election. The grief is not that of Fayemi alone. In the same way, the APC is entitled to rejoice at the triumph of the party in Osun while basking with Aregbesola in the euphoria of victory.

    If the candidate performs exemplarily, the success belongs both to him and the platform that gave him the opportunity to develop and exhibit his leadership skills. On the other hand, if an elected official performs poorly and is defeated at the polls, both the party and the candidate bear the consequences.

    Let us take governor Babatunde Raji Fashola (SAN) as an example. By 2007, he came to power relying solely on the machinery and structure of the party as he did not have any structure at the time. By 2011, however, his impressive performance had turned him into a formidable brand. The party gave him an opportunity to run for governor on its platform. He grabbed the opportunity and through industry, competence and vision, endeared himself and his party to the electorate. At the end of the day, both the party and the governor enjoy a mutually beneficial and reinforcing relationship.

    Banire rightly stressed the need for internal democracy within parties to allow the best and most popular candidates emerge in free and fair intra-party processes. He argues that imposition of candidates is one of the greatest banes of the APC. Well, it is difficult for one to scientifically determine the meaning of imposition in a situation in which, for instance, over 20 aspirants are gunning for a given position and each believes that if he does not win, it is because the winning candidate has been imposed on the party!

    The eminent political scientist, Professor Richard Sklar, is quoted by Banire as describing the defunct AG of the first republic as “the best organised, the best financed and the most efficiently run party in Nigeria”. But nothing in this quote suggests that the AG was a model of internal democracy. In fact, I think Banire should read Sklar more extensively. I would recommend in particular his collection of essays titled ‘African politics in Post-Imperial Times’. He has at least two chapters in this book, which offer a rigorous discourse of the contradictions of Nigeria’s political system as well as the travails of Obafemi Awolowo in Nigerian politics.

    When Awolowo, following the failure of his party in the 1959 parliamentary election, went to the centre as Leader of Opposition, he tried to re-fashion the party as a vote harvesting machine capable of winning elections outside the South West. To do that he had to retain a firm grip both on the party as well as the machinery of government in the western region even as he sought ethnic minorities in the North and the East to ally with the AG. This led to a head on collision with Chief SLA Akintola, who had succeeded him in office as Premier of the region. His espousal of the new ideology of democratic socialism further alienated Awolowo from the business interests that formed a formidable pillar of support for the AG as well as many of the elders and traditional rulers who flocked to Akintola’s side. Awolowo’s attempt to have his way against all odds was partly responsible for the crack within the AG that ignited a chain of events that led to the collapse of Nigeria’s democracy in the first republic.

    No matter what anybody may think about Tinubu and Fashola, they have managed their relationship with maturity and mutual respect such that we have not witnessed in Lagos, the kind of intra-party implosion that destroyed the Action Group in the first republic and nearly brought the entire country to ruin or the godfather versus godson skirmishes prevalent in different parts of the country in this dispensation.

    A third critical issue raised by Banire in his lecture is that of the place of zoning and religion in the country’s politics particularly Lagos State. He is opposed to any form of zoning or concession of positions to accommodate divergent interests in the political process. He declares: “For God’s sake, Lagosians are only interested in good and qualitative governance and no-one cares whether you are a Christian or Muslim”. To put it mildly, this is simplistic and overly idealistic.

    I recommend Professor Arendt Lijphart’s ‘Democracy in Plural Societies’ for Dr Banire’s perusal. Lijphart examines the various strategies, including institutional strictures and processes put in place in ethno-culturally plural societies like Nigeria to achieve political inclusiveness and promote political stability and national cohesiveness. Yes, merit must never be sacrificed on the altar of zoning. But the truth is that there are capable and competent candidates for public office cutting across all nooks and crannies of the country? Would Banire, for instance, want the federal character provision, which is a deliberate balancing device in the 1999 constitution abrogated?

  • Who casts the first stone?

    Who casts the first stone?

    On the 27th of August, the widely read syndicated columnist, Mallam Mohammed Haruna, published an article on the public exchange of emails by two of Nigeria’s eminent intellectuals, Professor G.G Darah and Professor ChinweizuIbekwe (simply known more popularly as simply Chinweizu). The subject of their exchange was the then on-going Jonathan National Conference and the structure of the Nigerian federation. The tone and tenor of the exchange between the two men was particularly frightening bitterness against the far north and their advocacy for the polarisation of the country along North-South ethno-regional and religious fault lines.

    Chinweizu in particular urged Darah, who was a delegate at the conference, to help work towards a new alliance between the Christian South and Middle belt against the far north which he referred to rather derisively as ‘Shariya-land’. In his uncompromisingly incendiary words as quoted by Haruna “The main point is that we can’t afford to prolong our agony under Caliphate Colonialism. Our liberation requires that they leave Nigeria earlier and the sooner the better. If they are allowed to remain on any terms, even by return to 1960 federalism or Aburi, we’ll still have them polluting our polity”.

    If the iconoclastic and polyvalent Chinweizu – Africanist, teacher, author, journalist and devastating polemicist – has his way, he unrepentantly advocates the excision of the far north from Nigeria as attempted by the misguided Major Gideon Orkar-led coupists in 1992. Going by his logic, the north is the problem of Nigeria. Remove the north from the country’s geographical space and all the problems of Nigeria will presumably vanish.

    Professor Darah, the former Marxist and foremost theorist of oral African literature, apparently supports this position. No wonder the Urhobo-born professor is an ardent supporter of hisIjaw Niger –Delta kinsman, Dr Goodluck Jonathan, quest for a second term in office, notwithstanding the widespread perception of the administration’s lack lustre performance in diverse sectors. When some of our best brains can indulge in this kind of highly reductionist, overly ethno-centric and substantially misleading analyses of Nigerian politics, then what can we expect from those who do not endowed with their level of reasoning and rigorous intellection?

    In a certain way, Professors Chinweizu and Darah symbolise the new found political amity between the South-East and South-South. The South-East is one of the strongest support bases of President Jonathan today. Yet the relationship between the dominant political elites of the two geo-political zones is an unequal one. There was a time when the late eminent political scientist, Professor Billy Dudley, analysed Nigerian politics in terms of game-analytic permutations among three dominant power blocs – the Igbo, Yoruba and Hausa-Fulani power blocs. The truth, however, is that the hegemonic Igbo political elite no more constitutes a coherent or effective power bloc in Nigerian politics. It has strangely opted to play junior partner to a new, emergent Ijaw power-bloc.

    The Igbo political class appears to have reached a strategic impasse. With the staunch support of leading Igbo politicians for Dr Jonathan’s second term, the once popular and emotive idea of a possible Igbo President is clearly in abeyance for the foreseeable future. Yes, many distinguished sons and daughters of Igbo land hold key strategic positions in the Jonathan presidency. But given the limited vision and competence demonstrated by the administration so far, this is unlikely to translate meaningfully into the radical transformation of the region or the revolutionary liberation of the unrivalled technological potentials of the Igbo people. Yet, most members of the Igbo political elite do not see the strategic sense of having a substantial presence in both major parties – the PDP and APC in order to more maximally take advantage of whatever opportunities may be thrown up for the political advancement of the region.

    However, like Chinweizu and Darah, many Nigerian intellectuals and other members of the political elite tend to create the impression that their respective ethnic groups or geo-political zones constitute some kind of super or superior groups, which would have made far more progress but for the constricting effects of a deformed Nigerian political structure. But then nobody is born a Nigerian. We are all first and foremost members of our respective ethnic groups before we are members of the more ‘artificial’ Nigerian house in which we are all accommodated. If the Nigerian house is in perilous danger of falling (apologies to Karl Meir), it is a collective responsibility of the country’s multi-dimensional elite that cut across all ethno-regional and cultural groups.

    I do not subscribe to the simplistic and misleading notion of amonolithic ethno-regional elite that is in dominant control of political power at any time just because one of its members occupies the apex of political authority. It is utterly delusional, for instance, to assume that there is any significant re-configuration of Nigeria’s power matrix in favour of the Ijaw or Niger Delta simply because an Ijaw man is president. The more things seem to change the more they actually remain the same. It was also this kind of reasoning which made the Yoruba political class across party lines to flock behind a non-performing President OlusegunObasanjo in 2003 with ultimately nothing to show for it.

    Power domination is a far more complex phenomenon to track. To discover its concrete content may involve a rigorous and scientific investigation of the actual ethno-regional composition of the various factions of the elite including the political elite, bureaucratic and professional elite, business and commercial elite among others. It may in fact be the case that actual and meaningful power is wielded by less visible but strategically placed operatives who are not in the public glare.

    Can any faction of Nigeria’s multi-dimensional elite summon the moral right to cast the first stone, lay the blame for our national perils at the feet of others and proclaim its innocence? I do not think so. For instance, northern leaders such as Dr Junaid Mohammed, Professor AngoAbdullahi or AlhajiAdamuCiroma sound offensive and haughty when they assert the right of the north to produce the president after Jonathan because of the 1999 zoning arrangement that was truncated by President UmaruYar’Adua’s unanticipated demise.

    But they cannot easily or persuasively discount the argument that the north has produced the country’s apex political leadership – civil and military – for the better part of Nigeria’s post-independence history and cannot dodge part responsibility for her present pitiable plight. Thus, rather than claim a right to the presidency, the north should be more subtle, humble and emphasise the positive values of its candidates.

    On its part, the Igbo political class still understandably smart from the tragic experience of the civil war particularly the genocide that precipitated the conflagration. They no doubt suffered a great historic injustice. But any sober analysis will situate the genocide in the north within the context of the ethnically skewed composition of the arrowheads of the January 1966 coup, the no less suspicious pattern in the killing of military and civilian leaders during the coup and the perceived ethno-regional predilections of theAguiyiIronsi regime.

    Professor Billy Dudley, who was teaching at the Ahmadu Bello University (ABU), Zaria at the time noted in his definitive study of political instability in Nigeria, that “Outside the university, the practice of Ibo men holding up Northerners to ridicule had become a common enough experience. Pictures of Nzeogu with one foot over the corpse of the slain premier of the North, Sir Ahmadu Bello, symbolic of the ascendancy of the East and the Ibo, were to be found on sale in the markets of the north”. That was one of the indiscretions of the Igbos resident in the north that created so much resentment from their hosts in the region.

    And those Yoruba elite who cite the annulment of the June 12, 1993, presidential election won by Chief MKO Abiola as a historic injustice are right. But a more nuanced reading of history shows that the annulment of the June 12 polls came after the earlier cancellation of the SDP and NRC primaries. The late General Shehu Musa Yar’Adua had won a clear cut victory in the SDP while UmaruShinkafi and AdamuCiroma were headed for a run off in the SDP. The cancellation of the primaries and subsequent banning of the leading aspirants received enthusiastic support in the south and the wily Babangida had thus undertaken a successful dress rehearsal for the future annulment aimed at self-perpetuation in office.

    The point is that mistakes have always been made on all sides in the evolution of our political history and this reality should spur the various ethno-regional factions of our political class to discard self-righteousness and adopt a more accommodative spirit in the quest for political power.

  • Ekiti: A political economy of stomach infrastructure

    Ekiti: A political economy of stomach infrastructure

    If I am not mistaken, the term, ‘stomach infrastructure’, was first popularised, at least in the media, by the Lagos State University (LASU) based academic and journalist, Dr Dapo Thomas. After a visit to Ekiti state, Dapo Thomas had written about Governor Fayemi’s superlative performance in terms of provision of physical and social infrastructure but noted, rather light-heartedly, that some disgruntled elements would prefer Fayemi to cater for what they called ‘stomach infrastructure’ than his frenetic construction of roads, schools, medical facilities and other legacy projects.

    After the June 21 Ekiti state governorship election, in which the tempestuous and excitable Mr Ayo Fayose of the PDP unexpectedly recorded a landslide victory, the issue of stomach infrastructure was no more a laughing matter. It had become the focal point of myriads of analyses on the outcome of the polls. Fayose’s electoral triumph and fairy tale return to an office he was disgraced out of six years earlier was attributed by many commentators to stomach infrastructure. The Ekiti electorate reportedly preferred a morally tainted and ideologically vacuous Fayose to an urbane, brilliant, visionary and performing Fayemi simply because the former inundated them with bags of rice and fresh mint wad of Naira notes.

    Of course, this column has refused to identify with such superficial and utterly misleading analyses of Ekiti politics. Stomach infrastructure does not adequately explain either the outcome of the last Ekiti state governorship election or the political sociology of the Ekiti people. For one, the use of money or material goods to seek to entice voters was not limited to any political party. No one can claim sainthood in that regard.

    Again, it is all too easy for people to collect money or other forms of bribe from unscrupulous politicians and yet still vote for a party of their choice no matter how impoverished the latter. Thus, the late MKO Abiola’s massive injection of funds into the South-west in the second republic never translated into electoral success for his party in the region even though the people unhesitatingly partook of his financial largesse.

    In any case, the PDP was effectively in control of Ekiti in 2007. This was in addition to the party’s control of Nigeria’s resource-laden centre. The PDP was doubly in a position to deploy ‘stomach infrastructure’ to retain control of the state as it so desperately desired. Yet, a Fayemi who was not in office and had negligible means to compete with a sitting government in terms of ‘stomach infrastructure’ triumphed at the polls.

    It was certainly not because of stomach infrastructure that the people of Ekiti stood resolutely by Fayemi throughout his epic struggle in court to reclaim his stolen mandate. It was not stomach infrastructure that informed the massive support of the Ekiti electorate for the APC in the state and national assembly election in 2011. Even the resurgentAyodeleFayose who sought to be elected Senator on the platform of the Labour Party suffered ignominious defeat in the election.

    Yes, I agree with the Nobel laureate, Professor Wole Soyinka that Fayemi’s defeat in the governorship election remains a mystery. However, the mystery, for me is not Fayose’s victory. Rather, it is the APC’s inexplicable squandering of its goodwill in Ekiti such that the party lost in all 16 local government areas of the state without the slightest whimper from an electorate purportedly robbed of their votes through a certain mysterious creature christened ‘photochromic ballot’.

    I have no doubt in my mind that Fayose is a very vulnerable incumbent. He does not appear to have learnt any lessons from his past misadventure in office. Thus, his continuing rambunctiousness and combustible spontaneity make him prone to political self- demystification. However, the APC can only maximally exploit and take advantage of Fayose’s ingrained weaknesses if the party urgently undertakes a sober analysis as regards its severe setback in Ekiti,engages in a thorough soul searching and faces the future on the basis of reality and not illusions.

    Even then, can we situate the emergent phenomenon of stomach infrastructure within the framework of the political economy of Nigeria? I think so. Stomach infrastructure refers to the tendency to place excessive emphasis on satisfying one’s physical and material appetites even to the detriment of upholding more ennobling and elevating values. It refers to a penchant for instant gratification of one’s desires in the immediate even at the cost of more enduring long term benefits. In this sense, stomach infrastructure is likely to thrive within a context of deepening and pervasive poverty, ever widening inequality and the widespread perception of political actors across party lines as greedy, grasping, mindlessly corrupt and self- seeking.

    Despite the pejorative sense in which the term stomach infrastructure is used, the reality is that satisfying the need of the stomach, the imperative of daily sustenance is the very foundation of human existence. Although he never used the term, I am sure the late political economist, Claude Ake, must have something like stomach infrastructure in mind when he declared in his magnum opus, ‘A Political Economy of Africa’ that “To begin with, economic need is man’s most fundamental need. Unless man is able to meet this need he cannot exist in the first place. Man must eat before he can do anything else – before he can worship, pursue culture or become an economist”.

    However, Ake is quick to clarify what he means when he states further that “Just as economic need is the primary need, so economic activity is man’s primary activity. The primacy of work, that is economic activity, is the corollary of the primacy of economic need…In short, man must eat to live but he must work in order to eat…It is true that man does not live by bread alone. But it is a more fundamental truth that man cannot live without bread”. (By the way, I think Ake’s jibe at Jesus here is misguided. When Jesus says ‘man shall not live by bread alone’, he already implies that bread is a necessary condition for human existence but insists that satisfying the physical appetite is not a sufficient condition for a fulfilling life.)

    With the benefit of Ake’s insight, we can see the fundamental difference between Fayemi and Fayose’s approach to stomach infrastructure. Fayemi knows that man must eat to live but also realises that man must work in order to eat. He thus concentrated on aggressive and radical modernisation of infrastructure that can liberate the potentials of the economy, create jobs and boost prosperity through self-reliance.

    If he were of a more contemplative cast, Fayose would realize that there is really no viable alternative to Fayemi’s developmental vision for Ekiti. Rather than a wholesale repudiation of his predecessor’s legacy, he would continue with Fayemi’s legacy structures while taking steps to more concretely link the implementation of these projects with the local Ekiti economy.

    Unfortunately, Fayose creates the impression that he has the magic wand to provide food for the people ofEkiti without the necessity of work. He has thus promised his delirious supporters free rice and chicken at Christmas. He has appointed a personal assistant on stomach infrastructure for this very unproductive function of free food distribution. This is very insulting. The industrious people of Ekiti certainly do not want to be treated like children by a paternalistic state. They want a state that will create the environment for them to be productive and self -reliant.

    Fayose does severe violence to the image and psyche of the Ekiti people when he says the governor of their imagination is one who eats boli and drinks ‘agbojedi’ on the streets with them. No, Fayose should seek to measure his success as governor by how many of his supporters he is able to rescue from the drudgery, misery, indignity and dangers of selling boli and ‘paraga’ on streets, motor parks and highways.

    True, one can question Fayemi’s prioritisation of projects. But Fayose should realize that he stands on shaky moral ground to do so. For, the truth is that a N3 billion state house that belongs to Ekiti and is visible for all to see is infinitely preferable to a billion Naira fictional Integrated Poultry project that did not produce even one chicken with the money gone down the drain!

    Fayose has been given a rare chance for self- redemption. Time is of the essence. He cannot make progress piloting the affairs of Ekiti state with his gaze fixated on the rear view mirror.

  • Apc: Buhari or Kwankwaso?

    Apc: Buhari or Kwankwaso?

    Last week, I examined the aspirations of General Muhammadu Buhari, former Vice President Atiku Abubakar and Kano State Governor, Dr RabiuKwankwaso, for the presidential candidature of the opposition of All Progressives Congress (APC). Does the title of today’s column suggest that Atiku is no more in reckoning for the coveted ticket? No one can credibly make any such claim. Atikuhas formidable political presence. He has an expansive political network mostly inherited from the late General Musa Yar’Adua’s Progressive Democratic Movement (PDM) political machinery. And he has an intimidating war chest that will always make him a strong contender in any race.

    However, in the course of his eventful political career, Atiku has in my view made key strategic errors that have stacked the odds heavily against him in his thirst for the country’s presidency, a position which should ordinarily have been his for the asking. On his emergence as PDP presidential candidate in 1999, General OlusegunObasanjo had opted for Atiku as his running mate in honour of the memory of his late loyal subordinate in the military and political ally, General Shehu Musa Yar’Adua. Atiku was a powerful and influential vice president. Trusted by his boss, who once described their relationship as akin to that between husband and wife, he was practically given a free hand to oversee the running of the economy.

    For some inexplicable reason, Atiku did not have the patience to wait for the expiration of Obasanjo’s two terms in office before seeking the number one position. It apparently got to Obasanjo that Atiku’s aides and associates were behind a subtle campaign for him to adopt the ‘Mandela option’ and quit office after one term. This appeared to have been confirmed when in 2003 Atiku openly sought to challenge OBJ for the PDP’s presidential ticket.

    Having thrown his hat into the ring and enjoying the support of most PDP governors, Atiku should have pursued his ambition to its logical conclusion. Rather, he was persuaded by a reportedly pleading and tearful Obasanjo to back down and support the latter’s second term ambition. That was a key tactical error. Of course, a characteristically vindictive Obasanjo spent the better part of his second term hounding and persecuting his deputy who was rendered completely redundant in office.

    In 2007, Atiku sought to fulfil his presidential ambition on the platform of the defunct Action Congress of Nigeria (ACN). Of course, he could have won only over Obasanjo’s dead body. Claiming that he could only function within a national party, Atiku was later to abandon the ACN and return to the PDP. That was another major blunder. If he had exhibited political consistency and remained in the ACN, he would probably have no rival for the APC ticket today. Now, on what moral grounds does he seek the ticket of a party that has been nurtured into a viable national platform by the patience, sweat and hard work of others? If he had been offered the presidential ticket of the PDP that he sought in 2011, would Atiku be vying for the APC ticket today?

    Beyond this, one of Atiku’s greatest assets, his financial power, is also a major liability for him. Perhaps because of his career at the much derided Nigeria Customs, persistent unsavoury insinuations continue to be made about the source and magnitude of his wealth that could overshadow his positive attributes as a candidate. Furthermore, despite his affluence and his having served as vice president for eight years, there is little indication that an Atiku candidacy can generate the kind of popular grassroots support in the North that a Kwakwanso or Buhari can. That is why he is a more risky candidate for the APC to take a chance on than the other two.

    Even though he has expressed support for the emergence of a consensus presidential candidate for the APC as the party’s constitution provides for, there is yet no indication that Governor Rabiu Musa Kwankwaso will not pursue his ambition to its logical conclusion at the presidential primaries. There is no doubt that he is eminently qualified to be president of Nigeria. His supporters have pointed to his youthfulness relative to Buhari suggesting that the latter step down in his favour for this reason. But then, age is not a determinant of competence or integrity even though Kwankwaso has shown that he has both qualities in abundance.

    Kwankwaso has rich political and managerial experience. He has served creditably at various times as Deputy Speaker, House of Representatives, a two term governor of Kano state, Minister of Defence, a board member of the Niger Delta Development Commission (NNDC) and Presidential Special Envoy to Somalia and Darfur. Even more remarkably, his integrity has never been questioned in all the public offices he has held. Not even when he left the PDP and has since become one of the most vocal and incisive critics of President Goodluck Jonathan has the ruling party been able to threaten Kwankwanso with the EFCC as it is normally wont to do.

    As I said last week, however, the key to victory in next year’s election will be for both parties to record maximum turn out of voters in their respective strongholds while registering a respectable electoral presence outside their strongholds. Thus, the APC should seek to maximise its electoral advantage  in the North-East, North-West, parts of the North-Central and the South-West and try to make as much impact as it can in the South-South, South-East and those areas of the North-Central where the PDP has a strong electoral base.

    In that case, Buhari has a decisive edge over Kwankwaso in terms broad, grassroots voter appeal across the North. This was demonstrated in 2011, where his CPC garnered close to 12 million votes in the North despite its relative structural and financial weakness. The spontaneous enthusiasm of the massive crowd at his presidential declaration in Abuja this week shows that the ascetic General retains his charismatic magnetic pull, which is second to none in the north. That certainly was not a rented crowd.

    Again, it will be much easier for the PDP to campaign against Kwankwaso than a Buhari. Faced with a Kwankwaso as opponent, the PDP will contend that he was part and parcel of them until very recently. They will argue that he shares in the credit for their successes during the several years he was in the party and must also share in bearing the blame for the failures of the party during the period. The already fragile distinction between both parties will be further blurred by a Kwankwaso or Atiku candidacy. This is not so with Buhari who has steadfastly distanced himself from the PDP since 1999 even though it is unfashionable for Nigerian politicians to remain in opposition since identification with the centre is the easiest route to personal material accumulation.

    In terms of integrity and incorruptibility, Buhari stands second to none. He was at various times General Officer Commanding (GOC), Third Division of the Nigerian Army, Militay Governor of the states that today comprise the North-East zone, Minister of Petroleum, Chairman of the Nigeria National Petroleum Commission (NNPC), Chairman of the Petroleum Trust Fund (PTF) and Head of State. Yet, Buhari does not own any oil bloc. He does not own any property in Abuja, Lagos or outside the country. His only houses are in his native Daura and Kaduna. This is truly remarkable and underscores why he is best placed to tackle the scourge of corruption in the country, which is at the root of most of our other national ills including insecurity. Of course, Buhari is not infallible. He has his own weak points including arbitrariness and disrespect for the rule of law when he was military Head of State. But then, he is from all indications wiser and mellower now and will, in any case, be operating in a democratic milieu.

    If the criterion of vote maximisation is also to be applied to the APC vice presidential slot, then the South-South and South-East should not be in contention for the position. The average South-South voter will prefer the region having the presidency to vice president while the South-East is unlikely to go with the APC even if the party fields an Igbo presidential candidate! I have argued in the past that competence rather than religious sentiment should determine the APC’s presidential ticket. However, given the Jonathan presidency’s divisive manipulation of religious sentiments, the safest bet for the APC will be a Christian vice presidential candidate from the South-West who enjoys the support of key leaders of the party in the region. This is particularly so because a section of the Yoruba political elite has aligned with Jonathan and must not be given a propaganda ammunition against the party in the region.