The Nation Newspaper

Category: Segun Ayobolu

  • Beyond emergency rule

    Should President Goodluck Jonathan have declared a state of emergency in Borno, Yobe and Adamawa states in response to the protracted and horrendously bloody Boko Haram insurgency that had practically paralysed the north? The debate rages on fiercely despite obvious overwhelming nationwide public support for the measure. Yet, it is an exchange that is largely theoretical and can only generate more heat than light. I really think that the President had little option. The situation had degenerated almost irredeemably in the north and decisive action was called for. Indeed, irritated by the President’s inconsistent vacillation between tough talk and pacifying the mindless terrorists through the offer of amnesty, many had queried Jonathan’s leadership competence.

    They saw him as irresolute, weak, ineffectual and seemingly clueless. To worsen matters, the Boko Haram naturally perceived the reticence of the Federal Government as a sign of weakness. The extremist sect was thus encouraged to step up the tempo of its violence – seizing women and children, escalating its attacks on security agents and increasing the venom of its mostly irrational rhetoric. It surely would come to a point when any state worth its salt as the legitimate custodian of the monopoly of instruments and methods of coercion within a given territorial jurisdiction would be forced to defend its integrity and authority.

    As the President rightly put it in his well- written even if intemperately delivered address to the nation, the insurgents had virtually declared war on the Nigerian state. He thus had the constitutional and moral responsibility to restore normalcy, protect lives and property and maintain the cohesion of the nation. It is, of course, plausible as has been argued with considerable force in some quarters that the President could have taken all the actions in the three states without formally proclaiming emergency rule. However, I guess his military strategists wanted to score a massive psychological advantage over the insurgents by maximum show of force.

    Again, by its very nature, the envisaged scale of military operations in the affected areas would necessarily involve the curtailment of some basic rights which would only be tenable under emergency rule- a departure from normality. It is also not impossible that in the run up to the 2015 election, and President Jonathan’s undisguised ambition for a second term, the strategy in opting for emergency rule in the three states was to seize the opportunity to emphatically assert his authority and showcase the immense powers of Nigeria’s imperial presidency to overawe potential opposition.This seems to be a throwback to the regressive era of the Obasanjo presidency and a sad commentary on the state of democratic development in contemporary Nigeria. However, this does not obviate the fact that deployment of massive force had become imperative to rein in the insurgents and restore normalcy in the North. There must first of all be peace and security before democratic structures and processes can function for the benefit of the people.

    However, to argue that the tough measures that President Jonathan has taken to contain the Boko Haram insurgency are necessary does not mean that this entire situation could not have been avoided if the country had been steered in a completely different direction over the last 14 years of civilian rule. In other words the degeneration to emergency rule in parts of the north is a culmination of the failure of the Peoples Democratic Party to guide Nigeria aright since 1999. This is not just a failure of the Jonathan presidency. It is a result of the incompetence and lack of vision of successive governments in control of power at the centre since the inception of this democratic dispensation. The inevitability of emergency rule almost one and a half decades after the exit of the military is clear evidence that Nigeria’s malformed federal structure has virtually broken down under the watch of the PDP and there is the urgent need for the country to try leaders and parties with alternative ideas at the centre in the next polls. In the last election, many Nigerians claimed that they voted for President Jonathan and not the PDP. Now, it is obvious that the difference between the two is that between six and half a dozen. Both have sorely failed the nation as the sheer anarchy across the country today demonstrates.

    Now the people of the North East are forced to live with all the negative consequences of emergency rule including abridgement of human rights, possible military excesses and the conversion of democratic structures into nothing but hollow shells in Borno, Yobe and Adamawa. The large scale military action attendant on emergency rule will further affect the economy of the region negatively. Innocent lives will almost inevitably be lost and thousands of people displaced. The situation in the north further reinforces Nigeria’s unflattering negative image as an insecure entity headed dangerously in the direction of state failure. Surely, those responsible for the deterioration of affairs in the country to this extent must be made to pay the electoral price for their incompetence and irresponsibility. They must not be allowed to beat their chests heroically and claim the imposition of emergency rule as an achievement when their actions and inactions are responsible, in the first place, for the deplorable security and socio-economic situation in the country that fuelled the insurgency.

    For instance, is there any excuse why we have maintained the archaic and ineffective security architecture that has rendered most of our communities vulnerable to sundry criminal elements including religious extremists, cultists, armed robbers and kidnappers? Why do we still maintain a system where state governors are Chief Security Officers only nominally and lack the capacity to effectively secure lives and property within their respective jurisdictions? If we had more effective, decentralised policing at state level, couldn’t many of these criminal gangs have been nipped in the bud before they became veritable monsters? Why haven’t we since 1999 been able to organize a national conference to enable the component parts of the country re-negotiate a more acceptable pact for our mutual and more harmonious co-existence? Why have we not fundamentally restructured a federal system that, for instance, prevents the northern states from developing their rich solid mineral endowment for the benefit of their people?

    Why have we continued to implement the same ineffectual economic policies that promote growth without development, under-develop agriculture, undermine manufacturing and breed the mass youth unemployment that fuels criminality? How do we explain our inability since 1999 to generate up to 5000MW of electricity despite the colossal amounts that have been hurled at the power sector and the negative implications of this for the economy? Of course we can go on and on raising pertinent questions about the total mismanagement of Nigeria that is at the root of insurgency and the current unfortunate but inevitable state of emergency in Borno, Yobe and Adamawa states. Emergency rule will most likely restore law, order and stability to the affected states in the North. The massive deployment of irresistible force may ‘persuade’ the terrorists to be more amenable to dialogue. However, emergency rule or all the force in the world cannot lead Nigeria in the direction of fundamental, positive change that can liberate her potentials and result in rapid development, peace and stability. If Nigeria continues to be run the way she is currently administered, we will only be postponing the evil day of a more virulent, more insidious insurgency that will be even more difficult to contain.

  • A distracted Presidency

    A distracted Presidency

    There is nothing but ‘darkness visible’ on the Nigerian horizon. The portents are ominous. The country descends deeper into anarchy daily under President Goodluck Jonathan’s watch. Like the ‘Titanic’, the fabled giant of Africa is moving swiftly towards a giant iceberg but the Chief Helmsman obviously has other things on his mind than offering effective leadership, averting imminent danger and steering the ship of state to safety. Commenting on the state of the nation, an exasperated Nobel Laureate, Professor Wole Soyinka, recently told Al Jazeera that “Nigeria is in a war situation and the entire population must consider itself as being in a war situation and that means the Boko Haram phenomenon should not be regarded as being limited to the Northern region alone or Borno and Yobe States”.

    This is certainly no exaggeration. The stories get scarier by the day. No wonder, Chief of Army Staff, Lt-General Azubuike Ihejerika last week complained at an army seminar that the increasing wave of ethno-religious violence in the country had severely strained the military’s resources. This is not surprising. The military are now performing police functions in virtually all states of the country. Joint Task Forces comprising the army, navy and air force operate in most states indicating the utter helplessness of the Nigeria Police Force to contain the situation. Surely, this is a situation of war. We are yet to get over the tragedy in Baga, the border town between Nigeria and Niger in Borno State where 185 people, mostly civilians, died in a reported battle between soldiers and Boko Haram insurgents.

    On Tuesday, members of the Boko Haram sect attacked Bama in Borno State leaving 55 people dead – 22 police officers, 14 prison officials, two soldiers, four civilians and 13 Boko Haram members. About 300 heavily armed Boko Haram members attacked the town razing the Bama Police Station, the prison and the military barracks in the town. The following day it was the turn of Alakyo, a town 10 kilometres from Lafia in Nassarawa State. A hitherto little known cult, the Ombase militants, opened fire on security agents deployed to arrest their leader killing at least 30 policemen. On the same day, Fulani herdsmen in Benue State attacked Agatu Local Government Area of the state leaving “high casualties including women and children” according to Governor Gabriel Suswan. “There are a lot of killings, a lot of property destroyed and I felt that I should come to brief the Vice President who is holding forth for the President” the Governor said.

    It is itself illustrative of the seriousness of the security breaches in their states that Governors Tanko al-Makura and Gabriel Suswan of Nassarawa and Benue states, respectively, rushed to Abuja to seek help. This again is an indictment of our dysfunctional, over-centralized security system that Governors who are supposedly Chief Security Officers of their states, could be so helpless to protect the lives and property of their residents without having to rush to Abuja.

    In the South East, the Movement for the Actualization of the Sovereign State of Biafra (MASSOB) has declared that the 8th of June will be sit-at-home day in the entire region. This the organization announced is to protest “the killings of Ndigbo in Nigeria, mostly in the Northern region, extra-judicial killing of our people in Biafra land, the wanton destruction of our people’s properties and the insensitive murder of six Igbo traders on June 8, 2004, at Apo Village, Federal Capital Territory, Abuja”. The group contended that only the ultimate actualization of Biafra could properly avenge these deaths. One can continue to itemise all kinds of security challenges across the country including the Niger Delta where President Jonathan comes from.

    Of course, the President deserves full marks for cutting short his trip to South Africa where he was attending the World Economic Forum on Africa as well as cancelling his state visit to Namibia to rush home in response to what his spokesman, Dr. Reuben Abati, described as “fresh challenges to national security which has emerged this week in Borno, Plateau and Nassarawa states”. But there is certainly nothing fresh or recent about these security challenges. They have been a recurrent decimal in diverse parts of the country for the last two years. This is easily the most precarious period in the existence of Nigeria since the civil war.

    Indeed, the current conflicts and insurgencies are potentially more dangerous than the civil war precisely because the world has become a very changed place. Weapons of violence have become more numerous, sophisticated, mobile and available to rogue groups who challenge the monopoly of these instruments by organized states. It is much easier now for fragile federations like Nigeria to disintegrate under the weight of centrifugal conflicts fuelled by external influences. At times like this only the most critical and unavoidable foreign trips should be undertaken by the President. Surely, the country would have lost nothing if he had been represented in South Africa by the appropriate Ministers. But then, that is not even the crucial issue.

    Nigeria today can only be saved by the most focussed, determined, creative, imaginative, selfless, industrious and patriotic leadership at the highest levels. It is thus astonishing that while the country increasingly becomes a veritable wasteland of sorrow, blood and tears all around him; a time when the people that have entrusted him with their sacred mandate deserve that he serves with all his physical, mental, psychological and mental energies, the Jonathan presidency can afford to dissipate time, energy and concentration on petty squabbles and avoidable power shows. A good example is the show of shame currently going on in Rivers state. Following speculations that Governor RotimiAmaechi has presidential ambitions, the full weight of higher state powers has been unleashed to castrate and demolish him politically.

    All of a sudden, desperate attempts are being made to prevent his re-election as Chairman of the Nigerian Governors Forum (NGF) despite the will of majority of his colleagues. A PDP Governors Forum has been formed to destabilize the apparently recalcitrant NGF. The Aviation authorities are suddenly fishing for all kinds of reasons to justify the grounding of the state’s aircraft. A curious Abuja court judgement has dislodged the duly elected Rivers State PDP executive loyal to Amaechi and installed one favourably disposed to the anti-Amaechi forces in Abuja. The stage is currently being set in Rivers for recourse to the kind of shameful impunity that saw state governors illegally impeached by a minority of legislators in the past. Shouldn’t all these energies be channelled to confront the serious tribulations that threaten the existence of Nigeria? Is Rotimi Amaechi a security threat to Nigeria? Do the powers that be at the centre want to add a crisis in Rivers State to the multifarious crises they have been incompetent to effectively tackle across Nigeria?

    Even though President Jonathan has claimed that he has not made up his mind on 2015, it is obvious that his presidency has become terribly distracted by an obsession to secure a second term at all costs. Amaechi’s only crime is that he is rumoured to have ambition for a higher office; an aspiration that may jeopardise Jonathan’s chances. But does the governor not have the same constitutional rights as Jonathan? Now, the worst forms of impunity are being perpetrated to cut Amaechi to size. State institutions are being undermined to subvert the legitimately elected government of Rivers State. Let the men of today in Abuja know that the kind of impunity being brazenly perpetrated today in Rivers State is as immoral and unacceptable as that exhibited by Boko Haram in killing innocent citizens. Those who perpetrate a form of impunity that violates due process and the rule of law in the selfish pursuit of power are as guilty of crimes against the polity as those who perpetrate violence against innocent citizens with impunity. They both belong to the same degenerate moral category.

  • Neither Obj nor Gej

    Neither Obj nor Gej

    I have said it before. You must give it to him. Former President Olusegun Obasanjo is a wily tactician. The Ota farmer and old soldier is a formidable and dangerous foe to have. Ask the late Dr.Chuba Okadigbo. Ask the unassumingly cerebral Chief Audu Ogbeh. When the vengeful schemer decides to eat pounded yam and egusi soup with his perceived enemies, the latter must dine with utmost caution. Even after his initial tiffs with incumbent President Goodluck Ebele Jonathan over the handling of the Boko Haram insurgency, OBJ was recently a surprise visitor at Aso Rock. He not only prayed passionately for GEJ at the Aso Rock Villla, he later enjoyed a sumptuous lunch with his host at the presidential residence. Was all forgiven? Was all forgotten? Had godfather graciously forgiven godson? Not on your life. The Owu chief has a long and capacious memory. You do not prick his giant sized ego and go scot free.

    He was thus on hand last Sunday at the 50th birthday ceremony of his former aide, Mrs ObyEzekwesili, to aim damaging darts at his protégé’s administration. He heaped high praise on Ezekwesili and his other former aides. He claimed that they served Nigeria selflessly and meritoriously. “When I look at you, I thank God for making you available to serve my administration, to serve Nigeria and to serve God at the time you did”, OBJ told an obviously elated Ezekwesili. We will recall that the latter recently generated uproar when she accused the Jonathan administration of mismanaging the country’s foreign reserves. Obviously that was the voice of Jacob but the hands of Esau. Enraged presidency officials did not contradict her statistics. They rather accused Ezekwesili without substantiation of corruption when she was in government. OBJ rose in stout defence of his administration’s integrity. He not only boasted that he was not afraid of being probed; he pointedly accused the incumbent administration of perpetrating corruption through the proposed pipeline protection agency. What then are the police and other security agencies existing for, the former President rightly wondered?

    But will the GEJ administration respond gallantly to OBJ’s challenge? Will they dare sanction the probe of the ex- Lord of Aso Rock? It is unlikely. And the reason is simple. An incumbent who permits the probe of his predecessor will be open to the same treatment when he leaves office and dogs in Nigerian politics do not eat dogs. Otherwise the OBJ administration has so many questions to answer. Have we forgotten the misbegotten Transcorp venture and the ex-President’s reported procurement of massive shares in the project while in office? Have we forgotten the unethical donations to his presidential library project? Have we forgotten the controversies over the Petroleum Trust Development Fund? Have we forgotten the questionable and hardly transparent sale of public assets like the refineries to cronies – a decision reversed by the late President Umaru Yar’Adua? Have we forgotten the over $16 billion that went down the drain we hardly an impact on the power sector? Have we forgotten the virtual ‘Boko Haramisation’ of the 2003 and 2007 elections; presidentially sanctioned ‘do or die’ polls in which several states were practically ‘kidnapped’ by the PDP until they were eventually salvaged by the judiciary? Have we forgotten the massive political corruption attendant on the ill-fated third term agenda? But the sad fact is that the incumbent administration equally has serious questions to answer: massive pension funds fraud; the gargantuan oil subsidy scam; questionable pipeline security contracts; the rot at the Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation; presidential pardon for convicted corrupt officials and much more. So dogs will not eat dogs. Give it to him. OBJ is a smart man.

    But why are OBJ and many of his former aides so critical of the GEJ administration? It is not necessarily that they love Nigeria better. It is not necessarily that they hate the corruption they are shouting so loudly from the rooftops about. After all, it is unlikely that some of them would still be walking the streets free today but for the inefficacy of the anti-corruption agencies in the current inept dispensation. Many of them are only exhibiting frustration at their loss of influence with the exit of their benefactor, OBJ, from power and their failure to continue to rule Nigeria from the back door even while out of office. When many of these ex-officials criticise the non- performance of the GEJ administration, they forget that the government they served never laid a firm foundation for its successors. With the possible exception of the telecommunication sector, virtually every sphere of our national life – electricity, roads, agriculture, refineries, aviation, rail transportation, education, health, employment creation etc – was in a decrepit condition after eight years of their being in power.

    It was quite annoying hearing Ezekwesili pontificating so eloquently on good governance, transparency, corruption and democracy given the glaring failings of the government she served in all these areas. Given its own intellectual poverty and the ideological vacuity of the PDP, the OBJ administration relied on over rated ‘technocrats’ and ‘experts’ who may have been individually brilliant but lacked original and intelligent ideas for the transformation of Nigeria. As a result of their failed neo-liberal policies, the National Bureau of Statistics reports that “As of 2010, more than 60% of the population of Africa’s largest oil producer and most populous nation lived on less than $1 a day, up from 51.6% in 2004”. In other words poverty steadily worsened in Nigeria throughout the OBJ years and the trend continues today. They performed the dubious miracle of the economy reportedly recording accelerated statistical growth while the majority of the people accelerated faster into misery and penury.

    Amazingly, the GEJ administration continues to pursue the same neo-liberal policies that have compounded Nigeria’s underdevelopment over the last two decades while purporting to be pursuing a nebulous transformation agenda. Their chief economic guru, Dr.NgoziOkonjo-Iweala, continues to trumpet rosy growth statistics that are completely divorced from our existential realities. It is what I can only describe as the spectacular mediocrity and superlative ineptness of the GEJ administration that has given OBJ and his team the temerity to try to portray themselves as superstars after squandering a golden opportunity to salvage the country. A country that hands over its fate to accidental public servants may be disastrously heading for a tragic national accident. Presidential media aide, Reuben Abati, recently derisively described Ezekwesili and her co-travellers as ‘yesterday’s men”. Yes, he was right. But he forgot that sooner or later all public officers are fated to become history. In particular, it is of utmost importance that come 2015, GEJ and his team are confined to history so that new men and women of vision and ideas can lead Nigeria in a new direction. Ladies and Gentlemen, in the ongoing tussle, I vote neither for OBJ nor GEJ.

  • Curing Doyin Okupe’s ignorance

    Curing Doyin Okupe’s ignorance

    As a trained medical doctor, Dr. DoyinOkupe, Senior Special Assistant to President Goodluck Jonathan on public affairs, ought ordinarily to be in the business of curing people of their various ailments. But the good doctor has abandoned his stethoscope for so long that he may be a potent danger to any patient who dares consult him for his professional services. But more importantly, Dr. Okupe himself is in urgent need of intensive medication for wilful ignorance in the discharge of his current public duties. When he assumed office as Senior Special Assistant to President Jonathan, Dr.Okupe was quick to assure Nigerians that his mission was not to be an attack dog for the president. In fact, he emphatically stated that he could not play such a role at his age. Okupe is over 60. Yet, he has not conducted himself in his present position with the restraint, caution and wisdom that both his high office and his advanced age demand. Dr.Okupe is clearly a loose cannon. He is a huge liability to the Goodluck Jonathan administration. His views are often jaundiced and utterly lacking in credibility. When Dr.Oby Ezekwesili recently questioned the management of the country’s foreign reserves by the Jonathan administration, Okupe along with Information Minister, Labaran Maku went for the messenger rather than address the message. Instead of simply providing the requisite statistics to the public, they insinuated, mischievously that Ezekwesile corruptly enriched herself in office as Minister of Education while steadfastly refusing her challenge to a public debate.

    Dr. Okupe was once again at his mischievous best when reacting to the recent convention of the Action Congress of Nigeria (ACN) where the party resolved to merge into the new All Progressives Congress (APC). Of course, the good doctor must earn his pay. But he must not seek to do this at the expense of truth, fairness and the public interest. For one, Dr.Okupe ought to realise that a vibrant and virile opposition is a necessary condition for democratic sustainability. This is a necessity not only at the federal but at the state and local government levels. When he thus describes General MuhammedBuhari and Asiwaju Bola Ahmed Tinubu, arrow heads of the emergent APC as ‘political liabilities’ Okupe does our political system a great disservice. Would he, therefore, want all leading political personalities to ally with the ruling party perhaps for obvious pecuniary benefits? Do those who decide to form a viable opposition against all odds not deserve some respect and encouragement even from members of the ruling party? Can Dr.Okupe not learn some appropriate lessons from Governor Babangida Aliyu, the Chief Servant of Niger State, who has hailed the on-going merger process by the opposition as healthy for Nigeria’s democracy?

    Incidentally, the Niger State Governor was the Chairman at the launch last Thursday of the new book, ‘Witness to history’ written by Alhaji Lai Mohammed, National Publicity Secretary of the ACN. The Niger State governor did not hide his commitment to the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) even as he demonstrated the highest respect and regard for the opposition. Incidentally, the foreword to the book was written by no other than Chief Ebenezer Babatope, a chieftain of Okupe’s party. One would wish that Dr.Okupe learns the appropriate lesson from such political decency. Unfortunately, Okupe did not go into details to explain what he meant by describing Buhari and Tinubu as political liabilities. But can there be any greater liability to the Nigerian nation than a President, Doyin Okupe’s boss, who is the most divisive leader in Nigeria’s history; a man whose tenure has spurned sectarian violence only on a scale surpassed during the civil war?

    In his ill- advised press conference, the medical doctor/ politician turned attack dog narrowed down on the person of Asiwaju Bola Tinubu saying “The leader of the opposition, Chief Bola Tinubu, who spoke disparagingly about the Federal Government on a number of issues, was once a governor of Nigeria’s richest state for eight years all have a record of what he made of that position.” Again, Okupe does not specify details. All residents of Lagos know that the state was virtually a failed one when Tinubu assumed office in 1999. The internally generated revenue of the state was barely N900 million in 1999. Through Tinubu’s ingenious financial engineering the monthly internally generated revenue was approximately N8 billion by the time he left office in 2007.

    According to Okupe, “Bola Tinubu who spoke about poor budget implementation at the federal level never attained 60 per cent budget implementation while he presided over the affairs of Lagos State…”. Of course, the facts are there for verification if Dr.Okupe cares to check. The average percentage budgetary performance of the Lagos State government under Tinubu’s leadership was 71.5%.The expenditure performance of the administration was 81% for 1999, 61% for 2000, 66% for 2001, 71% for 2002, 63% for 2003, 81% for 2004, 75% for 2005 and 74% for 2006. This is why the state witnessed massive infrastructural modernization and expansion across diverse sectors including roads, education, health, the judiciary, the environment, public transportation and water supply among others. Most of the roads constructed by the Tinubu administration over a decade ago are still solid and motorable. They include KudiratAbiola road, Oregun; Awolowo road, Ikoyi; Akin Adesola road, Victoria Island; Adeola Odeku road, Victoria Island; Agege Motor road; Ikotun-Igando road; Yaba-Itire-Lawanson-Ojuelegba road; LASU-Iba road, Ojo; Ajah-Badore road, Eti-Osa; Oba Sekumade Road, Ikorodu; Adetokunbo Ademola Road; Victoria Island and the ongoing modernisation of the Lagos-Epe Expressway as the largest concessioneering project of its size and complexity in Africa. In any case, has the National Assembly not been perpetually at war with the Jonathan administration over abysmally poor budgetary performance?

    If Dr. Doyin Okupe cares to educate himself, he will discover that the Tinubu administration constructed over 6000 housing units. These include the Abraham Adesanya Estate, Ajah; Ibeshe low-income housing scheme; Oba Adeyinka Oyekan Estate, Lekki; Ayangburen Estate, Phase 2, Ikorodu; Gbagada Medium Housing Scheme; Amuwo-Odofin Housing Scheme; Abraham Adesanya Estate, Phase 2; Ojokoro Millenium Housing Scheme; Alaagba Low-income Housing Scheme, OkeEletu and Oko Oba Low-Income Housing Schemes. The administration built new General Hospitals at Mushin, Shomolu, Ibeju-Lekki and Isheri-Iba as well as upgrading existing health centres to full-fledged hospitals at Ijede, Ketu, Agbowa and Agege. This was in addition to upgrading the buildings and facilities at the Lagos State University Teaching Hospital (LASUTH) to international standard as well as rehabilitating and expanding old General Hospitals in Lagos, Gbagada, Epe, Isolo, Ikorodu, Badagry, Agege and the Island Maternity Hospital.

    Only recently, Okupe’s boss, President Goodluck Jonathan, was the special guest of honour at the inauguration of the Eko Atlantic City project. He heaped high praise on the venture – a brainchild of the Tinubu administration. The Bus Rapid Transit System (BRT) is another outstanding success story. It continues to convey millions of commuters from one point to the other daily. That was another conception of the Tinubu administration. Of course, we do not have sufficient space here to detail other achievements of the Tinubu administration. But I think I have said enough to cure Okupe of his wilful ignorance. If a solid foundation like that in Lagos had been laid at the federal level between 1999 and 2007, Nigeria would not be in today’s rot. On his exit in 2007, Tinubu identified a capable successor, Babatunde Raji Fashola, who has elevated Lagos to new levels of developmental excellence. What have we had at the federal level? The Ota soldier-farmer-politician handed over to a physically incapacitated successor and with his passing a former “shoeless” school boy who is completely clueless about handling the affairs of a complex polity like Nigeria. Lagos offers a sterling example of Nigeria’s transformative possibilities. A thousand Okupes cannot hide that fact.

  • Farewell to ‘Tina’

    Farewell to ‘Tina’

    ‘There is no alternative’. That was the constant refrain of the recently deceased former Prime Minister of Great Britain, Baroness Margaret Thatcher, to vehement protests against the punitive effects for millions of her vicious brand of neo-liberal capitalism. That is why she was nicknamed TINA. In a way Thatcher has been proved right by her demise on April 8. There is indeed no alternative to death. It must sooner or later be the fate of all human beings – mere mortals who, oftentimes, play God. But Thatcher’s inflexible and insensitive policies reduced millions to a living death before their physical transition even as a microscopic minority luxuriated in obscene opulence. The lesson of Thatcher’s leadership and legacy is that there must always be alternatives to socio-economic policies that promote human misery on an industrial scale. Many analysts have commented with approbation on the late Prime Minister’s strong, charismatic, aggressive and bold leadership. Surely, that cannot be denied. She was one of the dominant figures of our contemporary era. But strong leadership should not mean the absence of compassion especially for the weak, underprivileged and infirm. Compassion was a word that could not be found in Thatcher’s iron dictionary. She was aptly called the iron lady and compassion is not one of the attributes of steel.

    Like electricity, Margaret Thatcher had no feeling. I have a feeling that if you cut her skin, acid rather than blood would come gushing out. I have no doubt that the world is a poorer, harsher more hostile place because of the policies associated with Thatcher and her ideological soul mate President Ronald Reagan of the United States for over two decades. The current global economic crisis that has plunged millions into ruination is largely a fall out of the extremist neo-liberalism aggressively pursued by Thatcher, Reagan and their policy collaborators. In his book, ‘Towards An Inclusive Democracy’, the political economist, Takis Fotopoulos gives an extensive background into the emergence and character of Thatcherism as a dominant economic paradigm. Between the 1940s and 1970s, the dominant policy paradigm in industrial capitalist states was what he calls the ‘social democratic consensus’ i.e. the Keynesian interventionist state that sought to promote full employment through state manipulation of the market. It sought to bring the market under social and political control and envisioned a compassionate society. Its primary objective was the provision of social security, including education and health, for all from the cradle to the grave. Ironically, Britain was the cradle of this extensive welfarist agenda and it was inaugurated by a conservative dominated coalition government.

    Under the ‘social democratic consensus’, the state’s central role in the management of the economy was recognised. Such state intervention kept unemployment unprecedentedly low, promoted relative job security, ensured sustained enlargement of the labour market and engendered faith in continuous economic growth and expansion of the welfare state. How then did this ‘progressive’ consensus collapse leading to the emergence and triumph of the crude conservatism of the Thatcher years? Takis Fotopoulos attributes this to the economic crisis of the 1970s, the collapse of the Bretton Woods system of international finance and the growing internationalization of the global economy among other factors. The unsustainability of the welfare state thus resulted in the wild swing from the excesses of statist welfarism to the extremes of free market fetishism as symbolized principally by Thatcher and Reagan.

    Given neo-liberalism’s disdain for what was perceived as “excess democracy” associated with the ‘social democratic consensus’, Thatcher in particular took on the trade unions with a vengeance. She broke the spine of the powerful mine workers union. She undertook an aggressive deregulation of labour and capital markets resulting in massive unemployment and underemployment. Her frenzied privatisation of public enterprises resulted in the concentration of capital in fewer hands while she waged a sustained war against the welfare state and also redistributed taxes in favour of high income groups. No wonder Professor Noam Chomsky of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) noted that under Reagan and Thatcher-type neo-liberalism, “the rich industrial societies increasingly acquired a Third World outlook with islands of extreme wealth and privilege amidst a rising sea of poverty and despair”.

    Margaret Thatcher was a social Darwinist to the core. She believed in the survival of the fittest; the poor, weak and infirm could go to blazes. Society owed them no obligation. Indeed, she starkly declared that “There is no such thing as society. There are individual men and women and there are families”. Of this terrible atomistic view of human community, Jonathan Sacks notes in his book ‘The Politics of Hope’ avers that “It has given rise to a social order – or more precisely, to a social disorder- more bleak than any within living memory. Today, many parts of Britain and America are marked by vandalism, violent crime and a loss of civility; by the breakdown of the family and the widespread neglect of children; by an erosion of trust and a general loss of faith in the power of governments to cure some of our most deep-seated problems; and by a widespread sense that matters crucial to our future welfare are slipping out of control”. That is the legacy of Thatcher’s extreme neo-liberalism.

    Some commentators credit Thatcher and Reagan for the collapse of the communist block. That would appear to me to be a simplistic reading of history. Yes, the duo may have played a role. But communism actually imploded from within when, as Marx would put it the extant social relations of production in communist states had become an obstacle to the further development of the productive forces. In any case, whatever their faults, let us never forget the supportive role of the communist states in the liberation of Africa from colonialism including racist apartheid in South Africa. On her part, Thatcher was a staunch supporter of the racist regimes in South Africa and Zimbabwe. If she had her way, Apartheid would still be alive and well in Africa today. Let us also remember that the Structural Adjustment Programmes (SAP) that virtually destroyed Africa’s economies and made the 1980s a lost decade for the continent were products of the dominant brand of global neo-liberalism championed by Thatcher and Reagan. The cerebral columnist, Professor Ayo Olukotun has rightly wondered why our policy makers remain glued to these failed neo-liberal policies even when they have been thoroughly discredited in those countries that sold them to us. As we bid Thatcher good bye, let us also say farewell to the untenable doctrine of TINA.

    Kehinde Bamigbetan: Hope Alive

    As at the time of writing this, there was still  no news of the release of the kidnapped Chairman of Ejigbo Local Council Development (LCDA), Mr Kehinde Bamigbetan. Yet, there are high hopes that his captors are set to let him go. The outpouring of emotion following the shocking incident shows how much impact ‘Korky’ as his friends call him, has made in the polity within such a short period. His house in Ejigbo has become a Mecca of sorts with people from all walks of life trooping in to empathise with his distraught wife. The house itself is a symbol of modesty and simplicity, not noticeably different from any middle class structure in the area. That is a reflection of the radical, humanistic ideology that has always informed Bamigbetan’s politics over the years as a student unionist, labour activist and now progressive politician. For those who have worked closely with him, a keen intellect and remarkable coolness under pressure are Kehinde’s key strengths. Surely, by God’s grace ‘Korky’ will soon be back on the beat doing what he knows best – offering selfless public service. But then, this is a wake- up call for Lagos. The Centre of Excellence must not be allowed to become another kidnapper’s paradise. This is another sad reminder of looming state failure in Nigeria. God have mercy.

  • Boko Haram: The problem with amnesty

    Boko Haram: The problem with amnesty

    Uneasy lies the head that wears the crown. At moments like this I do not envy President Goodluck Jonathan. Leadership demands tough decisions and choices. And the buck stops on his table particularly in our presidential system of government. There have been persistent calls in recent times across partisan and sectional divides that the Boko Haram insurgents that have killed thousands, maimed thousands more and spread blood, tears and sorrow across the North and beyond over the last two years be pardoned or granted amnesty. Many of those making the case for amnesty mean well. They contend that the military offensive against the terrorist group is not working. Rather, the Joint Task Force is alienating host communities by killing and molesting innocent civilians whenever soldiers are killed. Advocates of amnesty want peace and restoration of normalcy at all costs. It is difficult to blame them. The economy of the North has virtually been paralysed. Poverty has deepened. Fear reigns supreme. Furthermore, the precedence of the Niger Delta is cited. There, militant insurgents that waged war against oil installations and almost crippled the Nigerian economy were granted a general amnesty by the late President Umaru Yar’Adua. If peace could be bought in the Niger Delta, why not in the North?

    Unfortunately, President Jonathan seems unable to make up his mind on how to handle the Boko Haram challenge. He angered many Nigerians, especially Christians, when he suggested last year that Boko Haram members are our fellow brothers and dialogue with the sect should not be ruled out. Many people felt they could do without such murderous brothers. During his last visit to Borno and Yobe states, the President talked tough by declaring that his government could not negotiate with ghosts. Yet, so shortly after, it has been reported that the same President has now set up a committee to consider the possibility and modality of granting a general amnesty to the Boko Haram sect. President Jonathan does not appear to be showing leadership on this matter. He is simply bowing to whatever is the latest conventional wisdom. The President ought to be aware that the primary constitutional responsibility of the state is to maintain the security and promote the welfare of its citizens. People must first be alive before they can work, worship, pursue leisure or do any other thing.

    Those who predicate amnesty for Boko Haram on the Niger Delta precedent make a serious error. The so-called Niger Delta amnesty has not solved the fundamental problems of the region. It has only postponed the evil day. Yes, a few ex-militants have become emergency billionaires. Thousands of ex-militants are practically being bribed to maintain peace in the region so that the country can continue to exploit and export the crude oil without which she cannot survive. The Niger Delta amnesty has become a huge scam spawning the political economy of primitive accumulation – massive corruption. The arrangement is clearly unsustainable. Recurrent violent demonstrations by other militants left out of the deal make this so clear. The problems of environmental despoliation and desperate poverty remain as glaring as ever in the Niger Delta even if certain Ijaw elite that form part of Jonathan’s inner circle are enjoying the time of their lives.

    In any case, as many analysts have rightly pointed out, the Niger Delta insurgency was qualitatively different from the ongoing Boko Haram carnage. The Niger Delta struggle was about the damage done to the environment due to oil exploration as well as the unacceptable level of poverty in the region. Oil facilities and workers in oil companies were the prime targets of attack. There were no generalized, indiscriminate massacres like that being perpetrated by Boko Haram. This then is the basic problem with any proposition of amnesty for Boko Haram. What exactly is the fundamental grievance of the group? To the best of my knowledge, their objective is the Islamisation of northern Nigeria. Now, Nigeria is a multi-religious society. The constitutionally guaranteed secularity of the state is a necessary condition for peaceful co-existence in any such society. Nigeria’s secularity is thus non-negotiable. How then do you even begin to negotiate with a group whose primary objective is the erosion of that very secularity?

    Beyond this, members of Boko Haram have shown no remorse for the thousands of innocent lives they have wasted. A splinter group that hinted that it was prepared to negotiate some time ago gave no intimations of regret at the mindless killings perpetrated by the group. Is it thus any wonder that the leader of the group, AbubakarShekau, has been quoted in an audio recording as pointedly saying that “Surprisingly, the Nigerian government is talking about granting us amnesty? What wrong have we done? On the contrary, it is we that should grant you a pardon.” Really, can you fault his logic? Boko Haram has not conceded to doing any wrong. In fact its misguided members believe they are fighting a righteous cause. How then can you pardon a group that believes it is the wronged party?

    There is no doubt that the Niger Delta amnesty emboldened Boko Haram to believe that it could forcefully wrest concessions from the Nigerian state through terror. Let us not forget that the defining essence of any state is its legitimate monopoly of the techniques and instruments of violence within a given jurisdiction. Once this monopoly can be successfully challenged by rival groups the “stateness” of the state is irreparably devalued. Many of those who make the case for amnesty contend that the military option is not working. This implies that the Nigerian state must negotiate with Boko Haram from a position of weakness because of a perceived imminent military defeat. What this will do is only to encourage other groups to adopt violent methods in dealing with a Nigerian state perceived as lacking in efficacy to secure its territory.

    Of course, I agree that individual members of Boko Haram who overcome their delusions and voluntarily give up their ways of terror should be pardoned. This could encourage more members of the group to come out of the shadows and live decently among civilized communities. However, the entire Boko Haram tragedy only illustrates the urgency for more drastically addressing the fundamental problems of the Nigerian state. For instance, the need to convene a national conference has become imperative. If at such a conference, for instance, the majority of the people in any state or region opt for sharia law, they should be allowed to have their way. Those whose religious beliefs are incompatible with such a law should simply relocate to areas where they can practice their faiths without hindrance. Again, it is obvious that the present over centralized, unitary security structure is ill-suited to a federal society like ours. It is time to decentralize the Nigerian police force through the creation of state police. If states have their own police outfits comprising officers and men from the local communities, they will be in a better position to detect and prevent criminal activities including terrorism. For, contrary to President Jonathan’s claims, Boko Haram members are not ghosts. They live among human communities. Ghosts do not detonate bombs and crush innocent lives.

    Ironically, it is the elite of the north, the region which is most negatively affected by the current malformed structure of Nigeria, that are most vehemently opposed to these necessary measures! Currently, a huge chunk of the country’s budgetary resources is being expended on security with little positive impact on effectively protecting lives and property. The prevalent insecurity across the country has obviously only become another ready source of corrupt capital accumulation by unscrupulous officials. With fundamental decentralization of powers, resources and responsibilities to the component parts of the country, there will be more money available at the grassroots to address the poverty and inequality that, in the final analysis, lies at the root of the Boko Haram menace.

  • Why political parties matter

    Why political parties matter

    One of the disturbing weaknesses of the current dispensation of civilian rule, which commenced in 1999, has been the relegation of political parties to the background of near irrelevance. Once they assume office, elected office holders especially the executive arm of government simply carry on according to their whims and caprices with scant regard for the party. This is the most unfortunate trend that transcends partisan boundaries and is evident at all levels of government. Yet, the party is one of the most important and critical institutions in our own variant of the presidential system of government. The political party aggregates interests from a broad cross section of the population. It articulates those interests, values and desires into a broad policy framework known as its manifesto. The party sponsors candidates for public office who, if elected, are expected to govern on its behalf and on the basis of the party’s philosophy and programmes that is its binding social contract with the electorate. If the party’s role is so critical, why is it run in a most lackadaisical and informal manner across the polity? Why should our political parties be often subjected to the dictatorial control of the wielders of executive power? Why is it so difficult to find, in many instances, any meaningful nexus between a party’s manifesto and the actual policies being implemented by many governments across the land?

    I ask these questions at a critical moment in the evolution of Nigeria’s party system. The old order is dying but struggling desperately to remain afloat. A new order is struggling to be born. The institutional electoral mid-wife, the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), seems to be in a dilemma. Should it aid the perpetuation of an old order that has impoverished the vast majority of our people or should the commission help bring about a new electoral system that will be more competitive and help meaningfully to promote development through democracy? No matter how we look at it, the country is at a critical cross road. The battle for the soul of Nigeria over the next two years will be fiercely and bitterly fought. The emergence of the All Progressive Congress (APC), a merger of the Action Congress of Nigeria (ACN), the Congress for Progressive Change (CPC), the All Nigeria Peoples Party (ANPP) and a faction of the All Progressives Grand Alliance (APGA) sends strong signals of the possibilities of change come 2015.

    Of course, the People’s Democratic Party (PDP), which has held on firmly to control of the centre since 1999 will not be expected to fold its arms and welcome the emergence of a formidable force capable of dislodging it from its current privileged position at the centre. Yes, the party’s National Chairman, Alhaji Bamanga Tukur, had boasted that on the field of Nigerian politics, his party can be likened to the mercurial Argentine soccer star, Lionel Messi with the opposition having no chance at all in an electoral contest. But the attempt to undermine and ambush the APC by getting shadowy elements to hurriedly register two parties with INEC and with the same acronym; a project that allegedly has the imprint of the ruling party shows that the PDP is taking nothing for granted. INEC Chairman, Professor Attahiru Jega has courageously declined the registration of the African People’s Congress (APC) because of its not satisfying section 222A of the constitution, which requires that the names and addresses of national executives of an aspiring party must be made available to the commission. As for the other shadowy party, the All Patriotic Congress (APC), it has reportedly agreed to adopt a new name to avoid controversy.

    It is important for the INEC Chairman to know that Nigerians are more politically sophisticated than ever before. They know which group first announced the name APC as its identity. They know which group can legitimately claim the acronym as its intellectual property. They know who the shadowy impostors trying to hijack a party name they were too lazy to think up in the first place are. Professor Jega’s handling of this issue will go a long way in determining how much trust the people will repose in his credibility and integrity to conduct satisfactory elections in future.In any case, Professor Jega’s INEC only recently de-registered a myriad of unviable political parties that existed practically only on paper. It would be a contradiction in terms for the same INEC to now register shadowy organizations hurriedly formed to thwart the emergence of a stronger, healthier party system in the country’s interest.

    But the APC leaders will be living in a world of illusion if they think that everything will be smooth sailing for the emergence of the new party. They should expect more surprises, even betrayals from right within their ranks. But those are unavoidable birth pangs of an emergent new dispensation. If the salvation of Nigeria is truly their aim, then they should put the nation above personal ambitions and work assiduously to overcome all the land mines that will most surely be put in the way of the new party. The prime objective of the new party must not be simply to replace the PDP as the behemoth in control of the centre. Rather, it must present the electorate with concrete alternative programmes in diverse spheres including national security, education, power and water supply, a modern rail system, reconstruction of our highways, agriculture, a transparent and efficient oil sector, job creation, poverty alleviation and a workable federal constitution among others. What the APC leaders are doing is indeed the first time in the history of Nigeria to form a genuine merger of parties. What we had in the first and second republics were two broad based alliances of parties that agreed to work together but retained their separate identities. In both instances such alliances proved electorally ineffective to dislodge the party at the centre.

    Even as the APC leaders continue with the arduous challenges of forging a merger, the PDP is embroiled in a deep seated crisis that may well lead to its implosion if not carefully managed. But not even the most implacable foe of the PDP must pray for its disintegration into anarchic fragments. Yes, it would do the polity a lot of good if the PDP’s overweening influence is significantly diluted. But the party must continue to exist as a cohesive entity to confront another equally viable party, the APC, in an emergent two-party dominant system that will make electoral choices easier for the electorate as well as encourage voting across primordial ethnic, regional or religious fault lines. But the APC would do well to learn the relevant lessons from the PDP crisis. At the root of the party’s current raging inferno is the over concentration of power in the hands of whoever is the incumbent President to the detriment of the party. This started with Chief Olusegun Obasanjo who assumed the role of national leader of the party. In that capacity he appointed and removed Chairmen and other national officers of the party at will. Now, President Goodluck Jonathan is following in the same steps and Obasanjo and his acolytes are on the receiving end! What goes around comes around. Due to the personalization of power within the party by the President, the PDP’s zoning formula was recklessly abandoned to favour President Jonathan in 2011. That sacrifice of principle on the altar of expediency continues to haunt the party and the entire country till date.

    No elected officer, no matter how exalted his position, must be above party discipline, guidance and control. This is true not just of Nigeria but also even of the United States from where we copied our presidential system. In his book titled ‘Running Alone: Presidential Leadership – JFK to Bush 11’, the American political scientist, James MacGreggor Burns, made precisely this point. He traces the decline in the quality of presidential leadership from John Kennedy through to George Bush 11 to the tendency for Presidents to run for office and govern alone with little input from their parties. In his words “America needs better leaders. Since Thomas Jefferson, great leadership has emerged from strong parties, from leaders who have run with such parties and presented Americans with genuine alternatives”. Professor Burns’ conclusion is equally poignant “In the past, political parties have been the vehicle for the empowerment of workers, farmers, African Americans, immigrants. Do they empower large masses of people today? Only to a modest degree. But given the challenges that confront any effort to achieve real change, they are the only institutional recourse if tens of millions of the unequal and the un-empowered are to run together and ultimately to govern together”. That is why parties matter.

  • Alamieyeseigha’s pardon : Beyond emotions

    Alamieyeseigha’s pardon : Beyond emotions

    The fashionable thing would be for this column to join the bandwagon of those who have been castigating President Goodluck Jonathan for recently exercising his power to forgive some persons found guilty and convicted of gross crimes against the Nigerian state and people. Thanks to the presidential prerogative of mercy, these persons now have a clean bill of health. They are born again and can enjoy the full benefits of Nigerian citizenship. Most of the critics have no grouse with the pardon of those military officers implicated and convicted in the phantom coup plots against the regime of the late General Sani Abacha. They had always been perceived anyway as victims of a sinister power game and the allegations against them pure fiction.

    The main point of contention has been the pardon granted Chief Diepreye Alamieyeseigha, former Governor of Bayelsa State, President Jonathan’s former boss and the self-styled Governor-General of the Ijaw nation. Alamieyeseigha had been found culpable and convicted of massive corruption, money laundering and stealing. As Governor, he acquired property across the world on an obscene scale at the expense of the poverty-stricken people of Bayelsa State. In 2005, he jumped bail in Britain, mysteriously found his way back to Nigeria, was subsequently impeached by the Bayelsa State House of Assembly, tried in a court of law and duly convicted.

    Those who support the President’s action in pardoning his former boss and continuing mentor contend that Alamieyeseigha had made sufficient atonement for his sins. He had suffered considerable psychological torture. He had worn the stigma of a convict. He had forfeited considerable sums of money and sizable property to the state. In any case, no one has argued that the President lacked the legal powers to exercise the right of pardon the way he did. And to further strengthen the President’s hand, he had acted in concert with the National Council of State (NCS), the highest advisory body in the land. Rather than joining in crying over spilt milk, this column considers it more useful to reflect on what the Alamieyeseigha pardon tells us about state, society, power and politics in contemporary Nigeria. We will dwell on our existential realities as they are and not as we think they ought to be.

    The first thing that comes to mind, an issue frequently raised in this space are the phenomenal powers of the Nigerian presidency. Patterned after the American presidential system, Nigeria’s presidency wields enormous powers and privileges without the institutional, moral and societal restraints that largely circumscribe the conduct of his American counterpart. This is probably why the NCS simply acted as a rubber stamp on the Alamieyeseigha issue. Some critics have accused Jonathan of being largely motivated by self-interest, particularly considerations of the 2015 elections in pardoning his former boss. The calculation, it is suggested, is that Alamieyeseigha may be offered a powerful ministerial post, possibly the Niger Delta Ministry, that will enable him warehouse substantial funds and act as the President’s ‘Mr Fix-it’ in the South-South come the critical 2015 elections. Well, all this still lies within the realm of conjecture.

    However, I find it difficult to fault Jonathan who has already clearly begun his permutations to stay in office beyond 2015. This is simply the norm in Nigerian politics. Anyone who, in these climes, opts for the famous ‘Mandela option’ of staying just one term in office would be considered a mad man. Here, calculations for a second term begin almost immediately after the swearing in for the first term. This seems to be an iron law of Nigerian politics. It applies at all levels from the local governments to the presidency. Not even General Olusegun Obasanjo could defy this iron law of perpetuation in office. During his first coming as military Head of State, OBJ won worldwide plaudits for voluntarily quitting office and handing over to an elected civilian government in 1979. In his second coming as elected President, OBJ had grown much ‘wiser’. He tried in futility to have the constitution amended to enable him enjoy a third term in office.

    But then, there is something baffling about the way Jonathan is going about his ambitions for 2015. Here is a man who rode to power on the wings of a much trumpeted ‘Transformation Agenda’. Yet, midway into his tenure, there is little to show on ground in terms of concrete performance. Can the expected electoral abracadabra of the likes of Tony Anenih and Alamieyeseigha make up for this deficiency in terms of measurable achievements especially in the face of a determined opposition? Time will tell. However, a more serious question is why would Jonathan consider a man convicted of massive corruption like Alamieyeseigha a veritable political asset towards 2015? Should he not in a normal society be a grave liability that an incumbent President would want to keep at arms-length? And this is where we must transcend emotions in analysing this issue. Alamieyeseigha may have been a criminal in the eyes of the Nigerian state. But to his beloved people in the Niger Delta, he remains a hero and role model. This is the same thing with James Ibori who is currently serving a jail term in Britain for corrupt practices. If Ibori returns home tomorrow, he will definitely be accorded a hero’s welcome by ‘his people’.

    The huge outcry against Alamieyeseigha’s pardon has come really from a small band of social critics, human rights activists, radical academics and Non-Governmental organizations supported by the international community particularly the United States. Does this outcry represent the Nigerian society’s sense of moral outrage at the gargantuan scale of corruption that hobbles the land? I do not think so. Most Nigerians are simply going about their businesses absolutely unperturbed about the pardon and its implications. In other climes, the people would be out in their numbers protesting this kind of moral outrage on the streets. Why then must outsiders cry louder than the bereaved on this matter? Just think about it. Alamieyeseigha did not still money belonging to the United States.

    The money he stole did not even belong to the totality of the Nigerian people. It was the money allocated to Bayelsa state from the Federation Account during his tenure as Governor that he criminally privatised. Yet, what was the reaction in Bayelsa State at the announcement of his pardon? There was widespread jubilation! Who then are you and I to question Jonathan’s judgement on a pardon that the people of Bayelsa State- the victims of the massive corruption – have enthusiastically and wholeheartedly endorsed?

    This is not a matter on which we can afford to be emotional. We should face the facts realistically in order to be able to come up with effective guide posts towards a corruption-free Nigeria. For the majority of Nigerians, the Nigerian state at all levels remains an alien entity whose resources can be legitimately plundered at will. Those who have access to state resources and maintain a saintly, ‘holier than thou’ attitude are held in utter derision. Those ‘wise’ ones who utilise state power to ‘eat’ ravenously on behalf of their people are held in the highest esteem. They are offered chieftaincy titles and the most prominent places in churches and mosques. In other words, Alamieyeseigha may have acted illegally in the eyes of the law, but he remained morally untainted by the ethical canons of his local milieu. That is a major obstacle to scale before we can fight any meaningful anti-corruption war in Nigeria.

  • Between Jonathan and Borno elders

    The highlight of the just concluded presi dential visit to Yobe and Borno states was the open altercation between the august visitor and elder statesmen of Borno State at a town hall meeting in Maiduguri. Of course, it was obvious from his grave mien and unsmiling visage that, if he had his way, President Goodluck Jonathan would keep a good distance from the two embattled states in the North-East zone of the country. Only the naïve would believe the assertion by the Special Adviser to the President on public affairs, Dr.Doyin Okupe, that Jonathan had long planned to visit the heartland of Boko Haram’s activities and was only pre-empted by the governors of the emergent All Progressives Congress (APC). With characteristic bellicosity, Okupe described the governors as ‘power mongers’ and their visit a mere circus show. Well, rave as much as he likes, Okupe’s vituperations could not obliterate the fact that his principal, Jonathan, was spurred into action to visit Borno and Yobe by the initiative of the governors. The presidency was no doubt riled by Governor Rauf Aregbesola’s affirmation that for a patriotic and courageous leadership, no part of the country should be a no-go area. Before the initiative of the ten opposition governors, President Gooodluck Jonathan had exhibited an inexplicable paralysis of the will as far as the Boko Haram insurgency was concerned. For two consecutive years, he had presided over the national day parade within the safe confines of Aso Villa rather than the Eagle Square in Abuja as had always been the practice. For President Jonathan, the fear of Boko Haram appeared to be the beginning of wisdom. It was this image of cowardice and timidity that he tried to shake off through his visit to Yobe and Borno states.

    Of course, there was a qualitative difference between the visit of the governors and that of the President to the troubled North-East. The visit of the governors was spontaneous and hence more natural. They not only held their private meeting behind closed doors but went ahead to walk through the biggest and busiest market in Maiduguri as well as visiting a secondary school. Their action sent a positive signal to the world that the situation in Maiduguri is not as grim as being depicted and that life is indeed going on normally in most parts of the state capital. President Jonathan’s visit was another kettle of fish altogether. The two states were practically shut down during the duration of his visit. Public holidays were declared so that people could remain indoors. An armada of security personnel including 3000 policemen led by the Inspector General of Police himself was deployed to ensure the President’s safety. After the symbolic gesture of commissioning a few projects, the President then held town hall meetings with elder statesmen of the two states at the respective government houses. The Maiduguri Town Hall meeting turned out to be quite dramatic with the open disagreement between the President and the elders. This in itself is an indication that the visit was not thoroughly and meticulously planned as Okupe would want us to believe. In a carefully choreographed visit, grievances would have been ventilated and addressed privately while the main event would simply have been a public relations show for the benefit of the public.

    The major point of disagreement between President Jonathan and Borno State elders centres around the activities of the military Joint Task Force (JTF) sent to combat the Boko Haram menace in the state. The elders complained about the human rights atrocities being committed by members of the JTF stressing the arbitrary mass retaliatory killings that always accompanied the killing of even one soldier by the Boko Haram insurgents. They complained about the virtual militarization of Borno State with sand bags mounted on practically every street of the state capital as in a theatre of war. Did President Jonathan have any words of comfort for them? No, his reaction was rash and brash. According to the President “We are not happy to be spending so much money keeping the JTF in Borno State and other places. Definitely, we are not. In fact, if the elders agree now to come and sign agreement with me that I should move out all the JTF, but if anybody dies in Borno State, I will hold them responsible…If somebody dies, yes, I will take you. I am going to remove the JTF, but come and sign and I will remove the JTF and you guarantee the safety of life and property of individuals.” In the first place, it is strange in African tradition for elders to be addressed the way the President spoke in Maiduguri. Again, the President seemed to be abdicating his constitutional responsibility of protecting lives and property and seeking to place such responsibility on the shoulders of the elders. Do the elders control the police, army, navy, air force, secret service and other coercive instruments available to the President? Is the President suggesting that the JTF cannot do its job effectively without violating the rights and dignity of ordinary citizens? Would it have been out of place for the President to summon the leadership of the JTF and in the presence of the elders warn that he would not tolerate any continued violation of the rights of innocent citizens; that he is as concerned about the lives of ordinary citizens as he is about members of the JTF?

    It seems to me that in both Yobe and Borno states, President Jonathan wanted to sound tough and uncompromising to make up for his belated visit to the two states and also disprove the contention that he is a weak leader. It is my view that he could have spoken with greater wisdom and compassion without compromising the need to be bold and firm. However, despite their public altercation, the Borno elders and Jonathan share essentially the same philosophy and world view about the structure of the Nigerian federation. They both believe in the current excessively centralized structure that has become so obviously dysfunctional in meeting contemporary challenges. For instance, Jonathan and the broader Northern political elite do not see anything wrong in the prevalent centralized policing system that has failed so abysmally. They continue to live in denial of the need to completely overhaul the country’s security apparatus, particularly the need for some form of state police. Yet, it as a result of the failings of the police as currently constituted that military Joint Task Forces are operating in several parts of the country today. Not only are soldiers being drafted to undertake tasks they are not professionally trained for, their participation in peace keeping operations outside the barracks, makes them susceptible to unhealthy partisan political influences. If Borno and Yobe had state police formations of their own made up of personnel drawn from the local environment, the Boko Haram menace would most probably have been better contained. It is time to begin thinking outside the box and seek radical solutions to our deep-seated problems in a rapidly changing world.

  • Poverty of the marginalisation discourse

    Poverty of the marginalisation discourse

    There are two aspects to the issue of the alleged marginalisation of the Yoruba in the country’s contemporary political economy by the President Goodluck Jonathan administration – a matter of topical discourse in recent times. First is that raised by the reform-minded Afenifere Renewal Group (ARG) and has to do with the perceived persecution or bias against the South-West states in recruitment into different arms of the public service including the alleged mass retrenchment of officers from the region in certain ministries, departments and agencies of the Federal Government. This perceived marginalisation is of an essentially purely constitutional and legal nature as it revolves around the Federal Character principle provided for in the constitution. The imperative of reflecting the country’s federal character in appointments and recruitment into public agencies is meant to meet the criteria of fairness and balance in an ethno-culturally plural polity like ours without negating the critical factor of merit. To demonstrate this allegation of marginalisation of the South West, the ARG cited the example of 792 cadet officers recently recruited for training at the Customs Training College, Kano, with 263 from the North West, 168 from the North Central, 157 from the North East, 91 from the South-South, 68 from the South East and 45 from the South West. It would, of course, be important to know the total number of applicants from the various geo-political zones involved in this particular exercise as well as the criteria for recruitment before an objective and informed conclusion can be reached. There will also be the need for more detailed information on the recruitment, elevation and attrition statistics across a wider cross section of the service for a scientifically rigorous position to be taken. However, this form of marginalisation depicted by the ARG can be challenged legally as it involves constitutional issues and the Federal Character Commission can be taken to task on the discharge of its responsibilities. In the same vein, anyone unjustly dismissed from the public service simply for reasons of alleged ‘ethnic cleansing’ can seek legal redress.

    However, the second form of marginalisation complained of by the Yoruba Unity Forum (YUF) is largely political and far more controversial. The YUF is largely made up of progressive politicians of the older generation, mostly identified with the late Chief Obafemi Awolowo’s political thought and practice. They include respected elder statesmen such as Chief Reuben Fasoranti, Chief Ayo Adebanjo and Chief Olu Falae. Speaking on behalf of the group recently, Chief Olu Falae lamented that the pattern of political appointments by the Jonathan administration “is an attempt to excise the zone out of the federation.” He specifically contended that the interest of the South West had been negatively affected by the “side-tracking” of the Yoruba from such key positions as President, Vice-President, Senate President, Speaker of the House of Representatives, Deputy Speaker of the House, Acting President, Court of Appeal, Secretary to the Government of the Federation, Chief of Staff to the President, Office of the National Security Adviser and the Head of Service of the Federation. I personally do not see what the millions of ordinary people in Yoruba land are missing because a member of their ethnic group is in none of these so-called key positions to “eat” on their behalf. After all, there are several illustrious Yoruba indigenes in the Federal Executive Council even if some would complain they are not in the so-called ‘juicy’ ministries (whatever that means).

    It is indeed not difficult to demonstrate the poverty of the kind of marginalisation discourse pursued by the YUF and Chief Olu Falae. A Yoruba man occupied the most important office in the land between 1999 and 2007. Did that improve the fortunes of Yoruba land? Did it reduce the level of unemployment and abject poverty in the region? Did it help in upgrading infrastructure? Despite Obasanjo’s dismal first term performance, the ‘progressive’ leaders of the region urged support for him in 2003 simply because he “is our son”. Of course, the wily soldier-farmer exploited the opportunity to rout the opposition and install PDP ‘mainstream’ governors in five of the six South West states excluding Lagos. The fortunes of the region continued to nosedive abysmally until the progressive resurgence that has resulted in the current developmental renaissance across the ACN states. The poverty-stricken state of most of the north today, despite the dominance of power at the centre of the region’s power elite for most of our post-independence history, makes nonsense of the notion that having your kinsmen occupying ‘juicy positions’ is a guarantee of development. It is equally as fallacious to contend that because Jonathan, an Ijaw man, is President today, means that the Niger Delta is any less marginalised than before he got into office.

    The truth of the matter is that the vast majority of Nigerians, irrespective of ethno-regional origins or religious faith, will continue to be marginalised from prosperity, excellent health care, qualitative and affordable education, effective security, first class infrastructure and jobs for as long as we maintain this monstrous structure that enables a few parasitic and ravenous elite to congregate at the centre through “key appointments” to engage in a feeding orgy ostensibly on behalf of “their people”. I identify fully with the view that we must substantially restructure this deformed federation to ensure substantial decentralisation of powers, responsibilities and resources to the lower levels of government to stimulate development from bottom up and not the other way round. Chief Falae argues that the South West supported Jonathan massively in the 2011 elections and that the President “got the endorsement of many Yoruba progressives, especially the leadership of the Yoruba Unity Forum”. Now, was this support given to Jonathan because the Yoruba voters wanted their kinsmen given “key appointments” or because they believed Jonathan could offer the nation effective and transformational leadership? Similarly, the argument has been made that Yoruba activists were prominent in the Save Nigeria Group (SNG) that insisted that Jonathan assume office as President in accordance with the constitution following the late President Jonathan’s incapacitation. Again, was this advocacy that the constitution should be adhered to borne out of principle or to secure future appointment favours?

    I see absolutely no reason why a Mrs.Mulikat Adeola-Akande should be preferable as Speaker of the House to an Aminu Tambuwal. All that matters is that the dynamics of the political process was allowed to play itself out in accordance with the constitution and stipulated rules. It does not matter one bit to the welfare of the vast majority of the people in the South West if a Yoruba is Senate President, Chief Justice of Nigeria, Head of Service or any of those other positions. What matters is that all positions be filled on merit, fair play and due process. In any case all this distracting marginalisation discourse does little credit to the amazing competitive developmental strides being undertaken today across the South-West including Edo State. That matters more to me than some parasitic “come and eat” appointments at the centre. Let us end with the following extract from a message sent to the Western Regional Conference of the Action Group in Ibadan on 6th July, 1963, by Chief Obafemi Awolowo who said “It has been suggested with unabashed falsity, that the Yorubas are being relegated to the background in the affairs of the Federal Government, partly because the Yorubas are not united, and partly because the Action Group has not participated in the affairs of the Federal Government like the NCNC and NPC…whilst the Action Group does not participate in the Federal Government since January 1960, some outstanding Yorubas have been in the Council of Ministers since the last Federal elections…It must be recalled that the Action Group did participate in the Federal Government from 1957 to 1959; and it would be interesting to know what the Yorubas gained especially because of this participation”.