Category: Barometer

IF anyone needed proof that the National Union of Road Transport Workers (NURTW) worked in league with some state governments, and had thus become very powerful, the recent invasion of the Ondo State House of Assembly should settle the doubt. On November 9, 2018, some members of the transport workers union invaded the House of Assembly, assaulted some lawmakers, and chased legislative support staff out of their offices. The attackers were unapologetic. In fact they relished the display of power and only showed remorse when they discovered that they had been conned by some faceless government officials who informed the unionists that the impeachment process afoot in the legislature was targeted at the governor, Rotimi Akeredolu. Unknown to the braggart and amoral union, however, the lawmakers had merely removed Bamidele Oleyelogun as Speaker and replaced him with Olumide George.

According to some newspaper reports, quoting an unnamed official of the union, though the invasion was allegedly inspired by a government official, the execution was left in the hands of the transport workers whose chairman took control of the counterattack. Said the anonymous union member: “We didn’t know what was going on in the House initially until when the chairman called us that he got a call that some lawmakers were sitting to impeach Governor Akeredolu. He said he was asked to send ‘his boys’ to chase out the lawmakers. So, the chairman ordered us to send everybody out of the House. He (chairman) said we should not allow the lawmakers to sit so that Akeredolu would not be impeached. But it was later that we discovered it was the speaker they impeached.”

By then the damage was already done. Would the public ever get to know the government official who allegedly spurred the union into the fateful attack? It is doubtful. In any case, it will be easily denied. Would the secret service investigate this atrocious attack? It is also unlikely. The state government has already denied involvement in the crisis. It will not lift a finger to do anything more. Very sadly, and more and more, democracy is being ridiculed and eroded in Nigeria, calling into question the competence or sanity of those in whose hands such an intricate and ennobling system has been placed.

DESPITE the strident criticisms that followed the Nigerian Army’s embrace of the coarse methods proposed (but later abandoned) by the United States president Donald Trump in dealing with the caravan of migrants said to be heading for the US borders, Defence Headquarters spokesman, John Agim, a brigadier-general, has stoked another round of controversy over the army’s cavalier projection of military might. Two Fridays ago, the army had directed Nigerians to their official Twitter account to view a video of President Trump berating a caravan of illegal migrants heading for US borders and threatening to authorise US soldiers to shoot any stone-throwing migrant. The Nigerian Army had hoped the indecent Trump video would put to rest any doubt that their use of force against protesting Shiites in Abuja in late October was either obscene or excessive. More than 40 Shiite members had died in the protest. But the army said only three protesters died.

Brig.-Gen. Agim’s second controversial statement is even more worrisome. According to a newspaper that reported his interview with Osasu Igbinedion on The Osasu Show, the Defence spokesman had made incendiary comments on the same Shiite crisis, comments that betrayed his lack of understanding of the Shiite matter and his even more frightening glorification of military might. Asked whether the army was not sent deliberately to deal with the Shiites, he had responded: “There are different narratives out there that are not correct. It is not true that the military is being used to stop the Shi’ites from their normal procession. Right from 2015, we have been hearing about the issue of Shi’ites and the military. It has never been that the military was sent to stop whatever thing they are doing. The problem emanates from the philosophy that guides the movement. The clash that you see, in fact three times now, is that the Shi’ites obstruct the military from doing their job. They are a law unto themselves. They do anything.”

He was also asked why the government disobeyed court orders on the Shiite leader, but wanted the Shiites to obey government’s orders unquestioningly. He also responded, this time mockingly and boastfully: “So they are attacking the military to show their dissatisfaction with the government, then they should be ready for the consequence. We don’t have rubber bullets when we are sent on assignments. So, if any organisation that is not happy with the government wants to take on the military, then they should be ready for the consequence. Whatever the problem of the Shi’ites with the federal government, let them take it constitutionally. You take on any military anywhere in the world and you will be taken down… Nobody can take on the military and they will not have casualties.”

Brig.-Gen. Agim’s responses are stunningly revelatory. They prove the army has the wrong mindset about intervening in civilian and democratic issues. Clearly, no amount of re-education will change that focus as long as the presidency itself still suffers from a military hangover. And as the killings in Zaria in 2015 and the repeat in Abuja two Fridays ago illustrate, it is clear the army is not worried by the mounting body count. They are blissfully unaware of the medium to long-term implications of the militarisation of Nigerian democracy and the utter disrespect for human life. Have they by any chance studied why nations fail? They should. And let them start with Somalia.

THE media reported it as the first time President Muhammadu Buhari would be meeting Lawal Daura, the Director-General of the Department of State Service (DSS) sacked by the then Acting President Yemi Osinbajo on August 8, 2018. The president is of course at liberty to meet anyone he pleases, and to discuss any subject under the sun. But the meeting two weekends ago, according to this newspaper’s report, seems to indicate that, much more than the issues that emanated from the August 7, 2018 invasion of the National Assembly by hooded DSS operatives, it is the matter of Mr Daura’s relevance to the country’s security apparatus that the presidency appeared yet to live down. It seems clear to sources which this newspaper drew upon for its report that the lobby for Mr Daura’s reinstatement, in one form or another, has not lost steam.

While he remained DSS boss, Mr Daura wielded enormous power and influence over security issues and other matters somewhat tangential to the safety of the country. So huge was his influence that his tentacles probed far deeper into legislative and judicial matters. Public support for his unprecedented invasion of the homes of some senior judges, and perhaps the connivance or indifference of the presidency, prevented him from being sanctioned. Yet, that October 2016 invasion was very controversial. But rather than lead him to some form of introspection and perhaps a deeper study and better understanding of the doctrine of separation of powers, the controversy surrounding the invasion of judges’ homes emboldened him to mastermind the far riskier but fateful invasion of the National Assembly.

The president is reported to have discussed the report of the supposedly unauthorised invasion with Mr Daura. It is not certain what they really discussed, or what the purpose of the meeting was. But the meeting itself, rather than the details of the meeting, suggests that the decision to sack the DSS D-G’s was not quite as unanimous in the presidency as reports suggested at the time. Indeed, this column as well as others in this newspaper had argued that the decision to sack Mr Dura, which was taken by the vice president, actually presented the president a fait accompli. The president was in no position to turn down the decision, given the mood of the moment during and after the invasion, and the disgust felt globally. The fact that the sack, which followed hard on the heels of the invasion, was received with enthusiasm, and it helped to defuse a potentially disruptive political situation, simply disarmed anyone tempted to oppose the measure.

There are, however, a number of theories being bandied about the meeting between the president and Mr Daura. One theory suggests that the exit of the former DSS D-G from service is being felt in the fight against Boko Haram and the efforts to rescue the abducted Chibok and Dapchi schoolgirls. Mr Daura was said to be particularly effective in past negotiations to free some of the abducted girls, and should be re-engaged at a higher level to take on new but related responsibilities. Since his exit, it is argued, no spectacular progress has been made in furtherance of the two objectives, especially the rescue efforts. A second theory relates to the role he allegedly played in the invasion. Here it is suggested that the president probably wished to get Mr Daura’s own side of the story in order to be able to make up his mind, perhaps, about the former D-G’s culpability. It is not clear what side of the story of Mr Daura is not included in the final report of the invasion.

Until the presidency clears the air on why the president really met with Mr Daura two weekends ago, the public will take the liberty of speculating wildly. The president has of course never liked to be constrained by people’s speculations, let alone their grudges and complaints, but he needs to proceed cautiously in an election year in exhuming the dead and vivifying actions and issues long forgotten but fortuitously resolved in such a manner as to do credit to his image and the image of his government. If the president met with Mr Daura in order to explore ways of reintegrating him into the government’s security architecture, that would unquestioningly be provocative and deeply distressing. The invasion of the National Assembly was an egregious action deserving of prosecution. That Mr Daura seems to be escaping his day in court already indicates how indulgent the government has become.

But if the meeting was about establishing what role the former DSS D-G played in the infamous invasion, with a view to determining the appropriate action to be taken against him, then the president deserves support, regardless of the disturbing length of time it has taken the presidency to make up its mind. Nigerians hope that the president will take the right steps in this sad and controversial matter and justify the confidence the people have long reposed in his famed impartiality, a virtue that now seems gravely threatened by his dissemblance and insufficient reflections.

FORMER president Olusegun Obasanjo is unlikely to be bothered by the unusual politics of one of his sons, Olujonwo, who has openly endorsed the candidacy of President Muhammadu Buhari. The younger Obasanjo, himself a colourful personality, is probably a chip off the old block. Marrying in spectacular fashion in 2017, he fell out of marriage with equal aplomb less than a year later. Aware that his father resents the second term ambition of the president, he has cosied up to the president, visited him in Aso Villa, and damned his father’s political preferences.

Obasanjo the elder is stoical, irreverent and completely unperturbed by issues, remarks and forces that would singe the reputation of any other human. He will probably be amused by the antics of his son whose electoral weight he knows to be virtually zero. The younger Obasanjo himself knows that he has no electoral weight, and the presidency is not fooled to think he has any weight at all, whether electoral or otherwise. But both the president and his endorser are probably indulging in the farcical show to hurt the feelings of the former president.

A more reflective politician would have spurned the younger Obasanjo’s endorsement, especially knowing that the former president is so completely unflappable. But somehow and strangely President Buhari opened his doors to the young rebel. Chief Obasanjo is trying to hurt President Buhari, and the president, apparently using the former president’s son, is also trying to hurt the feelings of Chief Obasanjo. The younger Obasanjo is not caught in the middle; he actually positioned himself in that graceless middle to hurt the feelings of his father for reasons he has not quite disclosed.

Whatever the games the three gentlemen are playing, and notwithstanding the meddlesomeness of Chief Obasanjo and the anger of his son, the president should have excused himself from the farcical display. Alas, he didn’t. He will, however, gain no political capital from the exercise. As for Chief Obasanjo, after analysing his son’s colourful rebellion, he must hope that in his dotage, he will still have a few of his children to rally round him as a person and father, but certainly one without a legacy they can hope to be inspired by.

FINALLY, the federal government is designing a policy initiative to help Nigeria control its ballooning population. Nigeria’s population is currently estimated to be between 190m-195m, with another estimation putting that figure at some 230m by 2022, and almost 400m by 2050. Nigeria is thus projected to be the third most populous country in the world in about 30 years. The consequences of such huge increases and a fertility rate estimated to be about 5.6 percent are truly unfathomable, especially given the population pressures on arable land, disputes over water resources, and fraying inter-ethnic relations. The Finance minister, Zainab Ahmed, told the Nigerian Economic Summit (NES) last Tuesday in Abuja that the new policy would determine how many children a woman should have. This is illogical. Though she said the government was already consulting religious and traditional leaders, and hopefully an uncontroversial policy could be agreed, nothing indicates that the right questions will be asked or the right assumptions made.

A population policy is desperately and undoubtedly needed given the mismatch between an economy that grows at about 0.8-1.5 percent and a GDP of less than 400bn US dollars on one hand and a fast growing population on the other hand. But to make a fundamental assumption that such a policy should have women as its fulcrum is both unscientific and misguided, if not entirely chauvinistic. Unlike the developed societies where family units are anchored on monogamous marriages, Nigeria is still significantly polygamous. To design a population control programme and rest it on women would do nothing to arrest population growth. This is because a woman could technically be limited by law to have two or three children; but if a man is not similarly restrained, he would be free to have, say, more than two or three wives and thus produce two or three times the number of children a woman is limited by law to have.

In a polygamous society, any law that does not factor men into the equation, indeed make men the fulcrum of that policy, would be like tilting at windmills. The new population policy being explored by the government should be primarily man-focused, and only to a secondary extent woman-focused. In any case, the policy is not expected to be a simple, straight-forward case of simply limiting the number of children a man or woman should have. It is expected to be a little complex, taking into account whether the woman is a single mother, is in a polygamous marriage, is remarrying, etc. The policy must also make provisions for laws that would compel parents, whether single or married, to cater for and educate their children. Adult men and women have taken advantage of Nigeria’s largely unregulated family environments to overindulge themselves irresponsibly in procreating liberally without fulfilling the more onerous obligations concomitant with that exercise.

The surprise is that it has taken Nigeria so long to attempt a binding and realistic population policy. Religious institutions likely to question a population policy must be made to understand that the current rate of growth in Nigeria is a recipe for disaster, indeed conflagration. Neither the country’s land space, especially when cognisance is taken of limited and shrinking arable land, nor the economy can support uncontrolled population growth. Even if the economy can be grown at a spectacularly high rate of say six, eight or even 10 percent, it would still be courting disaster to embrace unregulated population growth rate. It simply does not make sense if Nigerians are to have a high quality of life.

A cursory examination of global population and economic statistics suggests that countries which enjoy political and demographic stability tend to more adeptly control their population figures, matching them to their countries’ carrying capacity in all ramifications. Rising economic growth rates may mock Malthusian doomsday projections, but in less than a 1000 years from now the world would be unable to find room for all humans, except something apocalyptic happens. The rate of population increase in undeveloped societies puts them at risk. Nigeria is not an exception. If the problems concomitant with unregulated population increases are not correctly anticipated and proactively tackled now, regardless of cultural and religious doubts, societies like Nigeria whose fault lines are so sensitive and volatile could become grossly unstable, if not completely untenable.

THE next polls are around the corner, and this time, the contestants are going to be dead serious because what is at stake is simply imponderable. So far, according to the electoral umpire, INEC, more than 70 candidates have signified their intention to vie for the presidency. Only one person will, however, take the diadem. Out of the 70, perhaps not more than three or four are serious, and maybe only two are hopeful of breasting the tape. Few among the contestants show any capability of raising the funds needed to operationalise their campaigns.

President Muhammadu Buhari, the incumbent, naturally has much more to lose than any other candidate. He will fight tooth and nail to keep his job despite popular impression of his inattentiveness to issues, lack of inventiveness, and unconscious mixture of military and civilian styles into a discordant and ineffective whole. His main challenger, Atiku Abubakar, a former vice president (1999-2007), wants the job so badly that he had to cross political carpets about four times in a conscious and deliberate display of ideological and partisan freewheeling. As the candidate of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), he becomes automatically the number one challenger.

The campaigns will begin sometime in November. The two parties will try to outdo, outspend and outtalk each other. They will split the society in almost two equal halves, balkanise the media, burrow into the secret recesses of religious establishments, and court foreign powers on a scale that embarrasses nationalists and pan-Africanists. Foreign envoys will visit the candidates and talk down to them on the need to campaign decently and endure electoral reverses. The candidates themselves will grovel before the United States, Britain and the European Union, nearly in that descending order, reluctant to cause offence of any kind.

By the end of next month, punditry will start in earnest once again, and pollsters, soothsayers, essayists, and sundry analysts will claim divine revelations to predict the winner. Already, the Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU), a subsidiary of The Economist magazine, has suggested with glacial calmness that President Buhari would lose to Alhaji Atiku. Two months earlier, before the former vice president became the PDP candidate, the same magazine had predicted that PDP would win, even before President Buhari’s main challenger was known. Now, the magazine has reiterated its prediction, leading many to wonder whether the paper was not following its wish.

The country must brace up to colourful and outrageous punditry in the weeks ahead. In less than five months from now, after furious campaigns and anxious balloting, the winner will stand gleefully before the country to confirm or put the lie to all the punditry.