Category: UnderTow

By UnderTow

Operation Amotekun, the nom de guerre of the Western Nigeria Security Network (WNSN), is assailed on all sides in desperate plots to neutralise or weaken it so that it is unable to meaningfully advance the regional plan to secure life and property in the Southwest.

The plots may not always be rational, but those who antagonise Amotekun are not discouraged by the inanity of their arguments from attempting to undo the little progress so far made by the security measure’s advocates, particularly governors of the six Southwest states of Ondo, Oyo, Osun, Ogun, Lagos and Ekiti. In order to survive, the security network must now fight on three fronts, to wit, ethnic, religious and legal. It has a herculean fight ahead of it, particularly in the coming months. The option of failure, it has become abundantly clear to every south-westerner, does not exist.

Shortly before the commissioning of Amotekun on January 9, 2020, the governors encountered their first opposition when Attorney General Abubakar Malami poured cold water on the security outfit by casting doubt on its legality. Shortly after the commissioning, Mr Malami, who is also the country’s Justice minister, declared Amotekun illegal. That declaration triggered such an uproar that it brought back the dark memories and debilitating politics of the June 12, 1993 annulment. And emboldened by Mr Malami’s opposition to Amotekun, a few key northern leaders, including the supposedly progressive former governor of Kaduna State, Balarabe Musa, began to rail against the security measure, describing it as a primer for secession. How they came to that hysterical conclusion remains baffling.

While Mr Malami’s legal arguments against Amotekun were still puzzling observers, the ethnic arguments, which were nothing but a pastiche of guesswork, bore no relation to reality. As Amotekun advocates were trying to grapple with the ethnic and legal booby traps being erected by its opponents, from unlikely quarters came another set of opponents cloaking themselves in religious robes.

Early this week, the vice president of the Supreme Council for Sharia in Nigeria, Abdur’rasheed Hadiyatullah, came up with the stupefying argument that since Amotekun, which is the Yoruba word for Leopard, was mentioned in the bible, then it must ipso facto be a Christian ploy to fight Southwest Muslims. Armed with that errant religious argument, he said it would be inadvisable for Muslims to lend support to the security measure, irrespective of its laudability.

Said Sheikh Hadiyatullah in Osogbo, Osun State: Amotekun is a subtle method of further Christianization of the Southwest by its promoters in their usual manner of having political and power dominance over the Muslims in the region. It is another elusive way of establishing a ‘Christian-dominated State Police Force whose affairs would be designed and determined from the Church at the expense of the Muslim majority in the region.

Amotekun is a coinage from Jeremiah Chapter 5: Verse 6 of the Holy Bible, which reads, ‘Wherefore a lion out of the forest shall slay them, and a wolf of the evenings shall spoil them, a leopard shall watch over their cities: every one that goeth out thence shall be torn in pieces: because their transgressions are many, and their backslidings are increased.’ It was once advertised that any applicant for the purpose of recruitment into the outfit should produce a birth certificate from a church as a precondition for qualification.”

Sheikh Hadiyatullah did not indicate how the mere mention of Amotekun should be equated with Christianisation, nor did he seem to appreciate the confusion he obviously created for himself and his audience when he narrowed Operation Amotekun, a Southwest initiative, to Osun State. By referencing the demographics of Osun State, he was unwittingly suggesting that his fear of Amotekun is limited essentially to Osun State and the protection of what he deems to be the Muslim majority of the state. Furthermore, he did not even attempt to substantiate the alleged advertisement for recruitment, which he said churches had put out to the public.

Sadly, Sheikh Hadiyatullah seemed unable to understand Operation Amotekun. It is strange how the sheikh appeared inured to the pains ramped up in recent years by the large scale insecurity overwhelming the formerly peaceful Southwest, a large-scale breakdown of law and order which the measure is designed to address. It is even more shocking that given the recent experiences of most Nigerians, in nearly all parts of the country, where banditry and insurgency have shown no religious colouration, anyone, not to say an enlightened cleric, could equate a measure designed to restore safety and security in the Southwest to one religion or the other, especially when such a measure was inspired by politicians and governors, not priests and clerics. Other than Boko Haram, there is no record of abductors differentiating the religion of victims before executing their nefarious deeds. And when herdsmen attack farmlands, there is no record of them finding out the religious beliefs of their victims before ravaging their farms.

But the Osun State governor, Adegboyega Oyetola, has given a fitting response to the desperate, concocted and illogical religionisation of Operation Amotekun. Speaking through his spokesman, Ismail Omipidan, and obviously bothered by the fallacies and discord being promoted by Sheikh Hadiyatullah, the governor argued: “If you sit down with those peddling the misinformation on Amotekun, they probably do not understand the basis of the argument they are making.

Apart from the social media misinformation about Amotekun being taken from the Bible or whatever, there was no time the Christian Association of Nigeria (CAN) was part of the meeting when most of these decisions were taken. And if CAN has never been part of the decision, how will you ascribe it to a particular religion? I think it is important to make that clear that there is no recruitment based on church birth certificate…I may not be able to speak for the people generally, but I’m speaking for Osun State because they (Sharia Council) have been addressing the press in the last three weeks from Osun, and I ask, why Osun? Is there any special interest in Osun? I’m not sure Osun is the headquarters of the Supreme Council for the Southwest. I am not sure of it. Why Osun?”

Mr Oyetola is not the only governor stepping in for Amotekun. The other five governors, PDP and APC alike, have been vociferous in standing up for the regional security measure. They will of course be mindful of all the arguments of naysayers, but if their statements so far are any guide into their minds, they appear determined to press forward with Operation Amotekun. Governor Rotimi Akeredolu has been unequivocal; Governor Kayode Fayemi has been persistent; Governor Seyi Makinde has been exuberant; Governor Oyetola has been sprightly; and the Ogun and Lagos governors have put their money where their mouths are. More encouragingly, the Southwest itself, Christians and Muslims alike, have been delirious with joy and enthusiastic in their support for the regional security measure.

No one knows exactly how Operation Amotekun will eventually look like when it begins operation, both in terms of its composition and its legal framework, whether it will in fact be much fatter than originally conceived or, in view of the strident federal, ethnic, and religious opposition to it, it will be much thinner than required for its survival. But whatever shape it eventually manifests, its advocates hope that Operation Amotekun will do a yeoman’s job in making the Southwest the safest region in the country. Herdsmen and other parochial regionalists fear it, and government officials and their paid agents cast sheep’s eyes at it, but it will survive and hopefully not disappoint the region, regardless of the not-so-clever attempt by the government to subsume it under the police establishment. In fact its survivability seems more assured now than ever, partly and ironically on account of the strident, ethnic and religious opposition to it.

By Undertow

The pressure to justify a parliamentary seat can sometimes impel lawmakers to extravagant displays of legislative fecundity. House of Representatives member Sergius Ogun (PDP-Esan Southeast/Esan Northeast), a lawyer, is one such member. Representing his constituency a second time, after obviously serving with some noticeable distinction in his first term, Hon Ogun has sure-footedly proposed a legislation to bar public officers from overseas medical treatment without first securing the approval of the courts. It is not clear how he hopes to make it work, but he fully expects it to work once the bill has been passed. The public officers targeted by the bill include the president and governors.

In his opinion, without imposing such strictures on medical treatment abroad, Nigeria’s healthcare facilities would remain undeveloped or obsolete. By the careful wording of the bill, an indication of his legal profundity, Hon Ogun ensures that the obstacles public officers would surmount in securing approval would be high and almost impossible to scale. His arguments are plain and easy to appreciate. Said he: “If those of us who can afford, all go abroad for treatment, what will our constituents who cannot afford treatment in Nigeria or do not have access to quality medication, do?  You can see it on AIT(a private television station) every time, how our constituents are always pleading for support to attend to one ailment or the other; that’s AIT CSR (Corporate Social Responsibility), but  what are we (public office holders) doing for our people in terms of quality health care?  The purpose of the Bill, is to help upgrade our hospitals to international standards, so that the billions we waste on medical tourism, will be saved and jobs can also be provided back in Nigeria.”

It is impossible to fault his rationale. Not only have public officers abused overseas medical treatment, they have often carried on as if Nigeria’s healthcare facilities do not exist, nor are they worth any serious attention. For such a critical problem, could Hon Ogun’s legislation hope to address the matter, let alone curb it significantly? If passed, would that piece of legislation not violate one of the cardinal principles of federalism, one that enables each state to order its affairs as it deems fit and in accordance with state laws?

Entitled “Public Officers International Medical Treatment Trips Regulation Bill, 2019”, the proposed bill states among other provisions that: *A public officer who desires to travel abroad for medical treatment, shall apply to the Federal High Court for leave to travel abroad for medical treatment, showing cause why he/she must embark on the medical trip abroad.

*The court shall grant the public officer leave to travel abroad for medical treatment, when it is satisfied that the treatment being sought by the public officer is one which cannot be gotten within Nigeria and that from the showing of the public officer he/she has the legitimate means to undergo the treatment abroad.

*A public officer applying for leave to travel abroad for medical treatment, shall file a motion ex-parte, before the Federal High Court, supported by an affidavit of legitimate means, deposed to by him/her with the following exhibits: (a) A duly signed medical report (certified true copy thereof) from a public hospital recommending further treatment abroad for the applicant. (b) A duly signed referral form, showing the name of the indigenous hospital visited and the applicant’s treatment history. (c) Results of laboratory investigations/tests conducted on the applicant, a copy of the applicant’s letter of appointment, a copy of the applicant’s last promotion letter (if any), a copy of applicant’s bank statement of account, a copy of applicant’s current salary pay slip and a copy of applicant’s Asset Declaration Form submitted to the Code of Conduct Bureau.

As far as technical efficiency is concerned, the bill is nearly unimpeachable. Its motive and clarity of purpose are also beyond cavil. The problem, however, is its practicability in Nigeria’s murky and convoluted political environment. Bills that are even more precise and worthier of support have fallen on the many and monstrous guillotines erected, often deliberately and cynically, by politicians and elected parliamentarians and government officials. Even if it escapes censure, Hon Ogun’s sponsored bill is unlikely to escape the said ubiquitous guillotines. The bill can be circumvented, and in any case the rich and powerful will always find a way to take advantage of its loopholes, as hard as lawmakers may work to plug them. The Edo federal lawmaker surely knows that Nigeria’s problem is not its laws, of which there is a plethora, but the discipline to obey and respect them, and the weakness and littleness of sanctions for those who breach them. And try telling someone on his deathbed that he could not make a recourse to the best medical treatment available in any part of the world. Matters like that could be easily emotionalise, even among the poor who should benefit from the elite’s full compliance.

The bill, according to a newspaper report, has just been slated for second reading. Will it eventually pass? The chances are slim, though not impossible. But whatever happens to the bill, it is unlikely to pass as it is currently worded. Sadly, like virtually all other issues, conflicts and disagreements in Nigeria, the bill envisions the courts as the final arbiters. A huge number of elections end up in the courts for final decision, sometimes precluding even the voters from being the final determinant of who wins and who loses. Indeed, nobody loses election fairly, partly because Nigerians have shown little administrative acumen or moral uprightness in organising their polls. With many elections ending in the courts, lawmakers should find ways of inspiring laws that do not further empower or implicate the courts in resolving simple but admittedly important matters.

What is even more damning is that, given recent events and court decisions, the courts themselves have scandalously proved not to be immune to either corruption or incompetence, or both. Hon Ogun’s bill proposes the courts as the sole and final determinant of who qualifies for overseas medical treatment, and when. But in recent years, the executive has spectacularly suborned the judiciary to its bidding, and the courts themselves have been eagerly and embarrassingly subornative. The executive branch is of course not alone in spooking justice; the political class, almost entirely, and the rich with their benumbing sarcasm against the courts, have also found or pushed for a common ground to thwart and contort the wheels of justice. How Hon Ogun expects his bill to navigate such an adamantly hostile environment to enthrone his noble objective of rebuilding Nigeria’s decrepit healthcare system is hard to say.

But for whatever it is worth, let the bill make its tortuous way through the labyrinthine gridlock of the National Assembly. Far less noble and relevant bills, such as the ones on hate speech and social media regulation, are also already elbowing their way through Nigeria’s slow legislative mill. The international medical treatment bill is, alas, in noticeably bad company, but it should do far better than its discredited wayfaring companions. It will ultimately fail of course, despite whatever good it might do to the body politic, but it will at least be worth both the effort and public money for lawmakers to sculpt what many sceptics have dismissed as a piece of nonsensical legislation than waste public time and money pandering to the obnoxious twin bills designed to castrate public speech and social media life.

By UnderTow

It is difficult to gauge just how sincerely Nigerians have conducted their annual talk festival on the lessons learnt from the civil war that began in 1967 and ended in 1970. But 50 years of such reflections, and despite an avalanche of organised symposia and intervening ethnic and religious skirmishes presaging danger, nothing concrete has been done to come to terms with the past, let alone understand the present or prepare for the future. The emphasis has always, it seems, been on economic development, almost as if the problems that led to the war could be framed wholly as an economic issue, or that once development occurs and is guaranteed, disagreements and misunderstandings would pale into insignificance.

In the circumstance, neither development, at least on a level that satisfies the ambiguous criteria of peace, nor concrete and sensible steps have been taken to resolve the issues that divide the country and predispose it to instability. In early January 1967, after about six tumultuous months of fierce disagreement between the country’s ruling military elite, a conference was agreed for Aburi, Ghana, to tackle the misunderstanding between ethnic groups and find a way to restore peace that was lost after the coup and countercoup of 1966. The two coups were in turn followed by a severe ethnic-fuelled disturbance that led to pogrom directed against the Igbo, particularly in the northern part of the country.

Though three key elements, among many peripheral others, were agreed in the course of the two-day Aburi conference, neither side to the dispute appeared satisfied with the outcome of the negotiations and the capacity of the agreement to resolve the logjam and broken trust that lingered after the coups.

But despite the misgivings, the Yakubu Gowon regime still promulgated Decree 8 of 1967 to enact a far-reaching accommodation and resolution of the grievances enunciated by Emeka Ojukwu, the then Military Governor of the Eastern Region and eventual leader of the Biafra secessionist bid. It was reasoned at the time that as short-sighted as Decree 8 was, it actually largely satisfied the Igbo demands for the restoration of peace. But Col Ojukwu and his men thought otherwise.

However, regardless of the failure of both the Aburi Accord and Decree 8 to restore peace and realign the country for stability and development, it was expected that after exhausting themselves in a needless war between 1967 and 1970, the country’s leaders would find ways of coming to terms with the causes and lessons of the civil war, and more crucially find a closure.

Sadly, not only was that conciliatory spirit lacking in the 1960s in the heat of the upheavals that shook the republic, it was also lacking in the 1970s after the war, and is now even more lacking five decades later. The country, today, has seemed to be restored to the acrimonious default setting of the 1960s, and the disagreements between ethnic groups and religions, not to say the lack of real enthusiasm to talk peace and find solutions, have become exacerbated.

Since 1970 and about five military regimes later, and an interim government and four elected presidents soon after, the culture of imposition and aversion to real democratic fundamentals have been embarrassingly evident. Worse, there is an abiding failure to understand the nature and content of the issues that predispose the country to paroxysms of rage and disagreements.

Both failings are capped by a lack of leadership imagination and vision regarding what should be done to arrest the continuous drift to the precipice, and how urgent the problems confronting the country are. Consequently, and as a barometer of the intensity of the problems facing the nation, worried members of the leadership elite have warned darkly of war and the impossibility of surviving a second civil war. No one seems to pay heed.

Indeed, in the past few years, the problems have worsened. Not only do the Igbo still consider themselves alienated, whether they brought it upon themselves or not, the bitterness they still nurse is seething and acidic. In addition, the power struggle that engendered animosity and deadly display of violence between ethnic groups in the 1960s is still a poignant reminder to the intractability of today’s politics.

Its resilience as a factor in destabilising the national ethos calls for intensive engagements between the groups and between classes. It meant that the country was yet to find a solution to its complex challenges, and the solution, as it is becoming more evident by the day, is partly or even essentially structural. In any case, it calls for discussions, for understanding, for patience — anything but living in denial and assuming incomprehensibly that the country could conceivably be cajoled into peace. If 50 years could not engender peace, why would the elite imagine that they need more time, or that they have not already run out of time?

There have been debates in recent years over which political system between the Westminster model and presidential system would best serve the interest of a multiethnic and multireligious society like Nigeria. There have also been passionate discussions about whether the country could be restructured without jeopardising unity and peace. Such debates will continue until Nigerian leaders summon the courage to convoke a realistic forum to frontally tackle the issues that divide and weaken the country. The independence constitution was not perfect, but it is even harder to surmise, in light of recent experience, that constitutions since then have met the yearnings and aspirations of Nigerians.

The country’s leaders must summon the courage and wisdom to honestly examine the system they think they are running, whether it is a federal system or a unitary system. They must then proceed to determine whether it is not possible to find a constitutional and structural balance, or even an entirely new system, to void the feeling of alienation by any part of the country.

Maintaining the status quo is absolutely not an option. The Northeast has erupted in insurgency and widespread banditry; the Southeast is in ferment; and by deliberate provocation, the government at the centre is nudging the Southwest into revolt. It is much better to acknowledge that things are not working than to be forced to find answers to the destabilisation erupting in different parts of the country. Once the government loses the initiative, it will be difficult to regain it.

But it seems that the government is proceeding from the flawed premise that the bloodletting and sufferings that accompanied the civil war do not constitute enough deterrence to another conflagration. It does not, unhappily. As recent events have shown in all parts of the country, the dire and unstable situation is not being ameliorated; it is getting worse. There is no way the government can restore peace in both the rural and urban spaces of Nigeria; the problem is too deep and the fracture too unstable to answer to the leadership elite’s despairing palliatives.

Few among the youths are deterred by the bloodletting of the past, a fact the government may just be starting to appreciate, despite its hubris. What the government may, however, not quite appreciate is that the kind of unanimity that preceded the last war and enabled the government of the day to prosecute it does not exist anymore. Nor, if a war were to break out, could any section of the country hope in this day and age to win it, given the strategic and tactical options available to potential rebels. These national shortcomings impose a great obligation upon the leaders to find and nurture the basis of Nigerian unity, rather than unwisely assume that it cannot or must not be questioned or challenged.

Disturbingly, the contradictions in the country, like the dispute over the legality of Operation Amotekun, a Southwest instrument to tackle banditry and criminality in the region, are beginning to rear their heads. If the federal government glosses over the problems and continues to portray itself as a defender and promoter of sectional interest, a fresh misunderstanding as to the interpretation of the constitution may not be far-fetched.

Inch by inch, and step by step, the government could start to lose credibility as well as the neutrality it sorely needs to mediate disagreements within the polity. And, who knows, apocalypse might just be around the corner, indeed much nearer than imagined. The time to talk and do something about the differences in the country is now. It is strange that 50 unstable and boisterous years after the war is not nearly a long time enough to encourage Nigerian leaders to lose all their inhibitions and take firm remedial measures to restructure and realign the country for great achievements. Is it just fear or foolishness? Or both?

By UnderTow

Until the All Progressives Congress (APC) chairman, Adams Oshiomhole, battles his enemies openly and finally, and a winner emerges, he must expect that they will continue to distract him and snap at his heels. Fortunately for him, he has no illusion about peace in the party, or for that matter peace for himself. He knows his opponents are implacable, and are unlikely to sheathe their swords until they have terminated his leadership. Mr Oshiomhole has in fact begun to sense that whether they will succeed or not will depend on just how dogged he remains and how nimble of feet he is. Does his enemies’ implacability trouble him? No one is sure. He gives the impression he is unfazed by their vigorous opposition; but whether he is really troubled by their unearthly fervour is a matter he has managed to conceal expertly.

Here is how he paints the shape of the battle foisted on him by his enemies: “You hardly see people throwing stones at a dry palm tree. But if you see a mango tree when it is in season, people throw stones at it when passing. I think that is my lot. You, my comrades (media), should also help in interrogating the process, how a performance of a National Working Committee of a political party should be evaluated. So, in every aspect of life, you will have supporters, you will have opponents. Even God our creator, even those that He created in heaven and earth, haven’t you seen people lamenting that how can God give us this little and give this man so much even as we are encouraged not to be jealous. There are people who (advocated) those views and there are also those who think that yes, APC has not done badly.  You must have also read ironically, people saying that under the chairmanship of my brother, Mr Secondus, the PDP appeared to have been missing every election and that they want him out.”

Not done beating his chest in defiance, the APC chairman continues: “I think there was somebody who wrote something in Kano that while APC gave financial support to our candidate (we gave financial support from our own resources) the PDP didn’t give a kobo to any of their candidates. But we did it for the first time. We didn’t do it in 2015. I can point to a lot of innovations that we have brought on board.  But as they say, the reward for hard work is even more work. Those who are determined to criticize you, don’t ever deceive yourself that because you have done well, they will stop. I am very confident that our party is stronger today than it was before I became the chairman”.

Mr Oshiomhole is bemused by the paradox of being besieged by his party despite putting it in a better position electorally in contrast to his Peoples Democratic Party opposite, Uche Secondus, who is being gradually diminished by his party for yielding grounds to his opposite number in the APC. However, it is not clear who the APC chairman is trying to impress. Neither the presidency nor his enemies within the party, particularly the governors who are unlikely to ever see eye to eye with him, will pay any attention to his records as such, whether the records are stellar or not. His traducers are obsessed with what he stands for, his style, even his rising profile, and what and whom they think he represents.

His opponents in the party want a chairman who is malleable, agreeable and generally submissive. But Mr Oshiomhole calls his soul his own, displays an inimitable stoutheartedness that is in complete contrast to his size, and takes on any fight, no matter how vicious. He is embroiled in a life and death struggle in Edo State, a struggle being waged by the increasingly animated Governor Godwin Obaseki. Another chairman would have foregone the Edo battle thereby constricting the frontlines along which he was expected to set the various battles in array. But not Mr Oshiomhole. He meets every challenge with a ferocity that is unmatched even in real shooting war involving the most sanguinary guerrilla warriors, and he is never one to shirk a battle, including one in which he is deliberately and mischievously provoked to draw him out into the open and weaken both his hold on the party and his appeal to the party’s leadership.

But perhaps it makes sense, as Mr Oshiomhole has philosophically postured and argued, to let the enemy know that the APC chairman is a formidable enemy willing and even eager to fight to the death, and one who is as difficult to bring down as an aurochs. Perhaps it meets the purpose of the chairman that virtually all his life he has sold himself as a relentless and courageous fighter who is as willing to meet force with force just as he is eager to provoke a battle himself. He demonstrated that resolve months before the last general election during which he instigated pitched battles against some governors and pressed home the advantage he seized at the beginning of the jousting. One after another, the targeted governors fell to Mr Oshiomhole’s superior tactics and firepower. Having being made to look foolish, not to say vanquished, the defeated governors have sworn life-long enmity. Suddenly, the party’s National Working Committee (NWC) and the National Executive Committee (NEC) have not seemed as formidably solid as they appeared before the polls. The party did well at the polls, and even came out better organised, despite the trauma of internal rejiggering, and more formidable. But the opposition has also grown in ferocity, and Mr Oshiomhole is not at peace anymore.

Overall, Mr Oshiomhole is hated for what his enemies think he stands for, both now and in the near future. They have not spelt out what constitutes that stand, and are even willing to throw a few red herrings along the path in order not to play their jokers too early. However, the APC chairman himself has refused to indulge his enemies by spelling out what he stands for. But in the jumbled hieroglyphics of the party, the chairman and his chief enemies have manoeuvred and fired cannons pretending to decipher where the combatants are coming from and what their contrasting ideologies are. If anybody is likely to shift position, the offended governors and their sympathetic recruits from among the party’s leadership, rank and file and even other state governors seem to think they would not blink first.

Would Mr Oshiomhole blink first, especially one so adept at fighting wars and looking his enemies bravely and coldly in the face? Perhaps the president, Muhammadu Buhari, would be the main determinant. But perhaps also the party chairman will stand bravely pat to the very end, regardless of how far that end would be. He knows that if he blinks first, he would still be destroyed anyway, considering that though he took the battle to the said governors before the last elections, his actions merely responded to their provocations. Blinking first, when he has more to lose than his enemies, may in the final analysis, be less attractive as an option. But if only political soothsaying were so simple.

Except Mr Oshiomhole is living in denial, he must know that the outcome of the battle he is immersed in with his enemies in the party is not certain. Despite the vacillations of the president and the rising number of his enemies within the party, he could depend on the X factor to come out of the bruising war victorious. He could also theoretically be exterminated. He sensibly alluded to the battles his opposite number in the PDP is fighting, in the process acknowledging that he is also fighting the battle of his life. It would be strange indeed, even a cruel irony, if Mr Secondus were to prevail and Mr Oshiomhole were to lose. Mr Oshiomhole’s predecessor, John Odigie-Oyegun, lost the battle to remain in office less than a year before the last general election. Apprehensions towards 2023 may as a matter of fact be shaping the war within the APC. However, the country is still more than three years to the next elections, giving enough room for the party to seethe with plots and plans, but making it more difficult to determine who will triumph at the end.

The APC chairman may sing panegyrics to himself, but he knows that for now his fate is as uncertain as his party’s fate is unpredictable, perhaps even more so. His only assurance is that he is not a quitter. He may yield some grounds and hanker after one compromise or the other; but there is always a method to his madness, and his enemies will underestimate his resilience to their own peril, especially when there is little nobility in their own interminable struggle for dominance in the party.

By UnderTow

Almost casually, former Senate Leader (7th Senate), Victor Ndoma-Egba, suggested in a recent interview with Sunday Sun that the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), was fatigued and burning out. The senator, who is also the immediate past chairman of the Niger Delta Development Commission (NDDC), made this statement when he was asked about the electoral upset the All Progressives Congress (APC) pulled in the November 16, 2019 Bayelsa State governorship election. Assessing the march of the APC in the Niger Delta, he concluded that the APC had become a credible and viable alternative in the region. It is hard to fault him. Not only is the APC now a viable alternative, if the PDP’s decline should continue along its present trajectory, the APC will either become the only choice or reduce the PDP to nothing more than a viable alternative.

Such prospects are galling to the PDP. Having dominated the Niger Delta so implacably for years, and having in addition mastered Nigeria for about 16 years, even managing to mould Nigeria in its image, culture and language, it must be humiliating that it lost the 2015 elections so severely, and seems too traumatised to plot its way out of the hellhole it has found itself after many years of hubris. Senator Ndoma-Egba, a senior advocate of Nigeria, does not offer suggestions on what the PDP might do to claw its way out of oblivion, considering that the focus of his interview with the Sunday Sun was something totally different. But it is doubtful whether he can even offer viable suggestions to an opposition party that has proved spectacularly incapable of both self-scrutiny and self-admonition.

All over the country, and going by its performance in recent elections, the APC is fairly confident that it can keep replicating the electoral triumphs it has inspired in the past months, especially following its massive but controversial general election win early this year. The Ondo and Edo polls are many months away; but the APC has dogmatically asserted its fairy-tale electoral story and composed dithyrambs about its invincibility. The PDP could have done better in both the Kogi and Bayelsa polls, but it took an eerily long time to get its act together and to attempt uniting the many combatants that dissipated the party’s strength and goodwill. In the face of bitter and sometimes unconscionably violent enemies, any whiff of disunity was bound to spell death knell for the party’s chances, especially because its chief opponent frequently pays scant attention to electoral ethics.

Defeated in both the Bayelsa and Kogi elections, and demoralised by the manner of its loss that involved unscrupulous deployment of security agencies, the PDP has fretted and sighed uncontrollably, unsure what else to do and where to go for succour and inspiration. Is this the fatigue Sen Ndoma-Egba talked about, or is it plain, spaced-out ennui? Whatever is afflicting the PDP, it is undoubtedly fatigued. But burnt out? That is still debatable. Its enemies know it is fatigued, and probably wished the party was also burnt out. The question is what does the PDP think of itself, and does it have any will left to fight its way out of the cul-de-sac it has foolishly sauntered into? Indeed, is any fight still left in the former behemoth, a party that once reigned supreme for 16 years but had feet of clay?

Read Also: PDP not destined to win in Lagos, says Balogun

When APC, the PDP’s chief nemesis, was formed, the fledgling party hoped hubris and incompetence would weaken the old behemoth from within, while carefully delivered blows to the then ruling party’s solar plexus would overthrow the heedless giant. The PDP, loquacious and indiscriminate as ever, exposed its soft underbelly and helped the then upstart APC to aim its poisoned darts. Familiar with that battle tactics, and unable to inspire itself, let alone reform its decadent ways and structures, the PDP has been left clutching at straws, hoping that the APC, in less than eight years, would by a combination of hubris and incompetence expose its soft underbelly for the fatigued and dying behemoth to aim its last-ditch arrows. Whether lightning will strike twice in the same place remains to be seen.

UnderTow

In the space of just two weeks, First Lady Aisha Buhari has spoken out unequivocally on a few knotty issues she feels strongly about. Her views have, however, been controversial. In one, two Fridays ago, she berated governors who were expected to ameliorate the conditions of the people but had seemed to abandon their states to squalor and poverty.

Her husband alone, she continued sensibly, could not solve the country’s developmental problems without the complementary actions of other state actors. Her opinion was instantly interpreted as a condemnatory analysis of the ineffectiveness of governors, to which the spokesman of the Nigerian Governors’ Forum (NGF), Abdulrazaque Barkindo, replied that the first lady’s barbs were actually meant for everyone, not just the governors.

The first lady had remarked at a Nigerian Supreme Council for Islamic Affairs (NSCIA) General Assembly and National Executive Council (NEC) meeting that “We should either fasten our seatbelts and do the needfu,l or we will all regret it very soon because, at the rate things are going, things are getting completely out of hand.” She continued: “The VP (Yemi Osinbajo) is here, some ministers are here, they are supposed to do justice to the situation. People cannot afford potable water in this country while we have governors. Since this is the highest decision-making body of Islamic affairs, for those that are listening, we should fear God, and we should know that one day, we will return to God and account for our deeds here on earth.” The jury is out on whether governors were her main target. But her argument was caustic enough to elicit a comprehensive rejoinder from the NGF’s spokesman.

In the view of the governors, assuming their spokesman’s rejoinder fully represented their collective position, the first lady’s censure was directed at everyone, including the federal authorities, involved in the country’s developmental efforts. But whether the governors like it or not, they seemed to be the cynosure of the first lady’s criticism, even if they were realistically not the only ones responsible for the despondency.

Furthermore, almost like a double take, Mrs Buhari went on to offer another caustic opinion on the controversial bid to regulate the social media because of what she and many in the Muhammadu Buhari presidency and the 9th National Assembly regard as its disruptive and even destructive influence. Said Mrs Buhari: “On this issue of social media, you cannot just sit in the comfort of your house and tweet that the vice president has resigned, it is a serious issue. If China can control over 1.3bn people on social media, I see no reason why Nigeria cannot attempt controlling only 180m people.”

Reiterating and amplifying her takes on the two controversial issues during a phone-in on a live television (TVC) programme, she doubled down and vociferously defended her views, particularly responding to insinuations that she should be less forward in weighing in on public issues. Mrs Buhari is right to indicate that she has a mind of her own, and will always be willing to express it, no matter how controversial the topic. But she must also acknowledge that expressing such views is fraught with a lot of dangers, particularly the danger of misinterpretation on the one hand, and the risk of public attribution of her views to the presidency. She groaned that presidential aides and appointees were not doing enough to defend her husband’s government, insisting that if they did their job, she would not have to periodically wade in. Her position is nevertheless as risky as her resort to comparative population statistics is inexplicable.

For instance, on the pauperisation of the masses, in which she blamed others for not joining her husband in ameliorating the conditions of Nigerians, it is hardly an issue in which she is adequately informed. Her observations of the objective conditions of the people are of course true, but it is doubtful whether she was both factual and tactful in apportioning blame. As the governors indicated through the response of their spokesman, states are also involved in ameliorating poverty. However, it is not clear whether corruption and mismanagement at levels other than the federal level, which the first lady insinuated, are the only or even main cause of poverty in Nigeria. Indeed,  a significant cause of poverty may not be unconnected with the country’s religious, economic and political structures. Without boldness and ingenuity in rearranging the country, it is not exactly clear to what extent poverty can really be addressed.

By all means let the first lady air her views — on social, political and economic matters. But she must understand that given the antecedents of her husband’s presidency, especially because it succeeded another deeply controversial president and first lady, she owes herself and the Buhari presidency to be more circumspect in criticising anyone or declaiming on any subject in which the experts in her husband’s government have not first offered a first, second and even third opinion. She must be keenly aware that the Buhari presidency was first blamed for pushing the economy into recession and then frittering away resources, time and energy in clawing the country back out of it. Even now, the presidency is still blamed for implementing wrong or inappropriate economic policies thereby sinking the country deeper into poverty, not to talk of lacking the courage to rework the country’s articles of association without which the people’s potentials cannot be unleashed.

Since the first lady’s speeches could not hope to comprehensively address these issues on the occasions when she broached the topics, it would undoubtedly be wise for her to be less forward and more restrained. This point must be made clear to her. Yes, she has a mind of her own, and that mind is often quite made up. But she has a duty to guarantee that her mind is frequently made up in the right directions on the salient issues of the day if she is not to draw flak upon herself and, by implication, her husband’s struggling government. Indeed, if care is not taken, she will find herself embracing causes that are potentially very explosive and capable of damaging her reputation and the image of the Buhari presidency. No issue brings out this need for a delicate balance as crucially as the attempt to regulate the social media.

Mrs Buhari has courageously waded into the social media regulation controversy. In her circumlocutory opinion, anchored on her personal experience in the heat of her husband’s presumed second marriage, if the social media is not regulated they could go on to do irreparable damage. In her incomparable view: “On this issue of social media, you cannot just sit in the comfort of your house and tweet that the vice president has resigned, it is a serious issue. If China can control over 1.3bn people on social media, I see no reason why Nigeria cannot attempt controlling only 180m people.” Given the suppositions that informed her conclusions, it is doubtful whether what was needed was courage on her part as much as circumspection. This is why she needs more caution. Not only was it wrong to wade into an issue that is still fermenting, and fermenting very badly indeed, it was also wrong to equate Nigeria with China, an equation that has become very fascinating to the many ideological voyeurs in the Buhari presidency, prompting many analysts to wonder whether anyone in the presidency takes the pain to read books at all.

The first lady may be privy to some information on the direction the Buhari presidency is surreptitiously taking Nigeria, probably away from the canonised template underscored by the 1999 Constitution. For, given the assiduity with which the Buhari presidency is courting diarchy and dictatorship, in contrast to the democratic fundamentals fought for and won by Nigerians in 1999, there is suspicion that the China appeal is not without reason. However, despite all the appeal, China is inappropriately deployed in their arguments for entirely the wrong reasons. China is not a democracy in the contrasting sense evinced by the Nigerian constitution, and despite its laudable developmental feats, is also not heterogeneous and sentimentally religious like Nigeria. There is no way to foist its standards, culture, politics and law on a country as undisciplined and fairly chaotic  as Nigeria. Is the first lady hoping that Nigeria can have its cake and eat it?

Nigeria is going through a testy time, much of it instigated and compounded by the government’s intransigent and authoritarian predilections. The economy is not enjoying robust debate as to its direction, and the political space is fouled, constricted and stultified. Such conditions do not make it easy for a first lady to give her mind as candidly as Mrs Buhari has liberally done. She has her staff, and hopefully they are much deeper, franker and independently minded than those who advise the president himself. If that is the case, before she ventures on some of her strident and controversial interventions, she should avail herself of their services, hoping that they can put a leash on her explosive views and even help steer her in the direction of restraining the authoritarians who surround and prey upon the seat of power.

UnderTow

On November 17, the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), declared the second Kogi West senatorial election rerun between mainly Dino Melaye and Smart Adeyemi inconclusive. The courts had earlier voided Sen Melaye’s victory in last February’s senatorial race, and ordered a rerun. It is this rerun that has crashed into a ditch, leading to a court order for a second rerun. There will probably not be a third rerun ordered by INEC, for the second rerun, which was conducted at the same time as the November 16 governorship poll, witnessed unprecedented projection of violence and shocking display of lawlessness that virtually indicated what and who the votes were meant to deliver. A third rerun would be scandalous, except ordered again by the courts.

Federal authorities gave indication before the November 16 governorship and senatorial polls that the elections would be policed by some 35,000 policemen, in addition to an indeterminate number of other security agents. In the end, as attested by amateur video recordings and nearly all election monitoring groups, the thousands of policemen deployed in the state were unable to guarantee free and fair polls. Indeed, the Inspector General of Police (IGP), Mohammed Adamu, plaintively declared that armed thugs and fake policemen had a field day during the polls. Some observers insist regular policemen were a part of the racket that led to the election being universally condemned and declared as scandalous. Mr Adamu gave no explanation why his men, in their thousands, could not rein in the armed thugs and so-called fake policemen who shamefully and brazenly subverted the polls.

Today is the second rerun. The police have been more careful in disclosing how many policemen would be deployed to safeguard the polls. Kogites themselves have wondered whether there is any reason to doubt the outcome of the second expected to favour Senator Adeyemi, given the fact that the arithmetic of the outstanding votes should make Senator Melaye grimace rather than grin or smile. After the intense violence of November 16, would anyone still have the appetite to give or receive more of such violence? In declaring the senatorial poll inconclusive, INEC announced that the difference in votes between Senators Melaye and Adeyemi (20,570) was less than the number of cancelled votes (43,127) in 53 poling units and 20 registration zones. There was no indication of how many PVCs were collected in those polling units to enable the public know whether the rerun is nothing but an academic exercise.

Obviously, regardless of the PVCs collected and the difference in votes established between the two candidates, the November 16 violence and the fatalities that accompanied balloting are unlikely to encourage a high voter turnout. Worse, having witnessed the manner in which ballot boxes were snatched and votes returned in places where violence barred elections, it is unlikely that the electorate would still entertain hope that whatever they did could still matter in determining the winner. They are not after all inured to that overwhelming sense of fait accompli imposed by the Yahaya Bello government whose supporters shamelessly celebrated electoral violence and endorsed impunity in the classical hate speech mode.

But perhaps before today’s poll the police would deem it necessary to avail the public their preparations, including the number of men they hope to deploy in the affected zones, and what plans they have to deter fake policemen and armed thugs. There will probably be no helicopter to fire live bullets and tear gas at supposedly unruly voters, a means of crowd control during elections that is both arbitrary and unjustifiable. If law enforcement agents will take sides again, as many feared they did on November 16, observers and critics suspect that they will be less flagrant, perhaps believing that the damage had been done, and the election already ‘won’ and ‘lost’.

The senatorial rerun and the concluded governorship election have raised quite a number of worrisome ethical dilemmas for the government and INEC. First is the ethical confusion created by the federal government itself. By immediately endorsing the governorship election through a congratulatory statement to Mr Bello, without indicating any abhorrence of the violence that led to loss of lives or indicating any resolve to probe the violence and bring suspected murderers to book, the Muhammadu Buhari presidency seemed to downplay the significance of the subversion of the will of the electorate. It took nearly a week for the president to condemn the November 18 gruesome murder of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) women leader, Salome Abuh, with the condemnation coming almost as an afterthought. It is even more shocking that in clumsily responding to popular outrage, the presidency forgot to give the same stentorian order in respect of the about a dozen other victims murdered during the election. Significantly, barely 24 hours after the presidential order, six suspects were arrested and are undergoing interrogation.

The second ethical problem that proceeds from the election is why the police, which had given series of unsatisfactory statements to explain their impotence in the face of armed electoral thugs, needed to be prodded by the presidency to professionally respond to the violence and the murder that unhinged the Kogi polls. The police are constitutionally empowered to deal with breakdown of law and order and to routinely solve crimes. They need no extra orders from anywhere. By making light of the violence that compromised the Kogi polls of November 16, the police managed to give the impression that they were not impartial, and that they were tragically subservient to certain vested interests and incapable of independent judgement.

A third and even more distressing ethical problem came out of the violent Kogi polls — the complete inurement of Mr Bello’s supporters to his cruelty, incompetence and maladministration. That those supporters composed musical ditties and embarked on raucous celebration to entrench a dubious electoral outcome gave the impression that a disturbingly high number of Nigerians may already be viewing political issues through ethnic colourations and warped ethical prisms. That Mr Bello’s supporters ululated over the use of guns to coerce votes is a natural progression from the federal government’s own disinterestedness in the violent manner Mr Bello himself conducted his campaign by ostracising his opponents, creating electoral and campaign no-go areas, and threatening to use all means to deliver votes to his party — all this without a whimper from the law enforcement agencies. This was truly cataclysmic.

The Kogi polls did not pass muster, not even the smallest litmus test. All the relevant agencies and governments which should have safeguarded a free and fair election on November 16 failed woefully. Many critics think this is a terrible retrogression. Others think that what happened in Kogi is unprecedented. But whether it is a retrogression or it is unprecedented, the failed election in Kogi is not just the responsibility of Mr Bello, as ruthless and unethical as he is, and INEC, as weak as they have become, it is in fact more legally the responsibility of the federal government which had the means to safeguard the process but chose connivance instead of impartiality.

The chickens will eventually come home to roost, considering that the next general election is just round the corner. Given the horrible erosion of electoral and governmental ethics in Nigeria, and the increasing lack of willingness by the civil populace to challenge and resist all the political and bureaucratic malfeasances undermining good governance and law and order, less hope is being reposed in the sanctity of polls as a means of regulating power struggle and mediating political conflict. Between 1999 and up to last month, some achievements had been recorded in the country’s electoral process. Now, especially consequent upon the latest electoral misadventure in Kogi, which will likely be reinforced in the Kogi West second rerun today, and the electoral dubieties that smeared the Bayelsa poll also of November 16, hope is fast receding that a better tomorrow exists for the country’s electoral process.

UnderTow

Due to the vivid impressions they created in the November 16 governorship election, which the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) judged were convincing enough to enable them be declared elected, both Yahaya Bello of Kogi State and David Lyon of Bayelsa State have underscored and energised the quaint new politics and ethics of the All Progressives Congress (APC).

Mr Bello, according to INEC, beat all rivals, including and especially his closest rival, Musa Wada of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP); and David Lyon also defeated, among other candidates, Duoye Diri of the PDP. APC leaders — from the president downwards — are ecstatic about the electoral feats attributed to the duo by the electoral commission. Both governors-elect are themselves thrilled that they had been declared victorious, in the case of Mr Bello, for another four years, and in the case of Mr Lyon for a first term as governor. They will be sworn in early next year.

If the APC is disturbed by the victories they grabbed in Kogi and Bayelsa, they have not given any indication to that effect. The governors-elect and party leaders have suggested that their victories are a call to the party to entrench itself. In particular, in the case of Mr Lyon, Bayelsa party leaders suggest that winning the state would give their party a foothold (which they misrepresent as a footprint) in the oil-rich state. They see the state as a cash cow, not a prospective developmental lodestar. Though the same APC leaders have been less strident in celebrating their candidate’s victory in Kogi, they have nevertheless acted and spoke self-assuredly and confidently about the future of their party.

Speaking on Channels Television, Kogi’s Mr Bello dismissed insinuations of a contrived victory or of his non-performance in his first term. He indicated very clearly what his second term would look like and what it would portend for the future of the APC. Sneering at sceptics, he argued: “All these reports of me owing salaries are lies. Past governors of Kogi State were owing salaries starting from Audu to my immediate predecessor.

Kogi state is not owing any dime at the state level; what is left is the ten percent from the previous government.” He had done well, he said, in his first term, and therefore deserved re-election. He poured scorn on the import of Kaduna State governor kneeling to beg Kogites before the election, facetiously declaring, “As for El-Rufai kneeling, he was begging that Kogi people should forgive Bello for ensuring security and ensuring the state was peaceful and not because he could not pay salaries.” The governor’s logic may be warped and risible, but he has never dissuaded himself from proudly dishing out stuffs like that to the incredulous public.

Continuing, and in particular referencing the violence that attended the poll, he argued:  “After I was declared winner, a PDP thug stabbed somebody and ran into the house of their women leader, but he was caught and dealt with. My deputy governor-elect’s wife was shot at but thank God she didn’t die, the police are looking into it and would bring the culprits to book.” Here he was defensive rather than remorseful and empathetic. On the whole, here is how he summed up the poll that has returned him to office: “The conduct of the election was quite very credible, a level-playing field was provided and it was free and fair.

In every election, there is bound to be one issue or the other and you can’t take a pocket of issues to judge the general conduct of the election. Regarding the comment of the civil society organisation, they are entitled to their own opinion but let us know the parameters with which they are judging this election. How many polling units did they visit out of 2,548 polling units, 239 wards and 21 local governments across the difficult terrains of this state? How many people have they reached out to? Have they interviewed the electorate? So what are their yardsticks?”

Indeed, more telling is the APC chairman’s opinion of the Kogi victory. Mincing words, without appearing to do so, Mr Adams Oshiomhole declared: “I think that for analysts and keen observers of Nigeria’s politics, particularly the geo-political politics, (whatever that means) you will agree that the victory of Yahaya Bello in Kogi State represents many things for those who truly believe that Nigerian politics should move away from sentiments, to dealing with people for who they are rather than where they come from. So, for us in the APC, we are very proud and we presented him to the president.

The president was very proud, of course he congratulated him; he was happy to see his certificate and he has encouraged us to recognize that the reward for hard work as they say is more work. And I am sure that governor Yahaya Bello having passed through the learning curve is going to approach the second term with all the vigour with eye on posterity and legacy marks in the development of Kogi state.” It is engaging to see how Mr Oshiomhole said so much so little. Put differently, it is clear how he restrained himself nearly so expertly by asserting and defending the victory they have claimed in the Kogi State poll in terms that saw him admitting very little. Even for so uppity and definitive a chairman, the last may not have been heard from him on the Kogi and Bayelsa polls.

Somewhat differently, the less cocky Mr Lyon considers his victory as dynamically incontrovertible. Said the governor-elect, his statement very likely edited for finesse by reporters: “I thank INEC for its commitment towards the election in spite of pressure to do otherwise. To all the people of Bayelsa, this is the time to come together to build our dear state; my victory at the poll is for the people and I am assuring you, my people, that I will not fail you. The APC led administration will be for a total change which Bayelsa is going to be witnessing in the next few months; my belief in this context is that everyone is a winner. Let us come together and ensure that the state is developed and there will be security for investors.” Buttressing the governor-elect’s enthusiasm, party chairman, Mr Oshiomhole raucously declared the APC victory in the Bayelsa governorship poll as deserving and indisputable.

Minister of State for Petroleum and former Bayelsa governor, Timipre Sylva, was philosophical in assigning  meanings and values to the Bayelsa poll victory, a least as far as the APC is concerned. With flourish he describes it as a watershed. According to him: “We are happy with this victory because for us it is very significant. This gives our party a footprint (he probably means a toehold or foothold) in the Niger Delta, which is very key to us. It gives us more of a national outlook; we have always been a national party but this gives us even a bigger national outlook.

I have always said that if our party doesn’t have this much of a footprint in the breadbasket of the country, it was not too good for us. But now we have it and I want to assure you that from a small seed, the biggest tree will grow. From here we will gradually grow the party in the south-south and the southeast. APC is a good product just like our governor and we intend to sell that good product in the whole of the south-south and the southeast.” Many of his claims and assignations are of course contentious, but in the flush of victory, who is to deny him his extraordinary flights of fancy?

Whether anyone likes it or not, going forward, the APC may have already recognised how easy it is to secure electoral victory by any means possible. Bayelsa and Kogi may become, for the party, the new political totems, one which clears the way for future aggrandising politics, one devoid of scruples and laced with ethical booby traps. As President Muhammadu Buhari himself said in reference to the controversies he believed festooned his party’s poll victories, the losers must channel their grievances democratically by petitioning the courts. But he doubtless saw any effort in that direction as futile or superfluous.

The Bayelsa and Kogi polls were the hardest for the party to win in recent times. The way the party sees it now, future polls will present a far lesser challenge to their uncanny expertise and effortless propaganda. The APC may not be as popular as they hope, and their candidates in the last polls probably not as spectacular as they had set out to get, but they now know how to get water out of a rock. Soon, they will be walking on water.