The Nation Newspaper

Category: Barometer

  • Police embrace brazen partisanship

    IT is not only the military that deems itself above the law, even the foremost law enforcement agency in the country, the Nigeria Police Force, now clearly operates above the law and sees the institution as dedicated to enforcing the law, no matter what it takes, constitutional or not, for the benefit of the ruling party and presidency. This unfortunate partisanship, long suspected by many Nigerians, was demonstrated again two Fridays ago when the police fired tear gas at protesting top opposition politicians, governors, former governors and lawmakers. The assemblage had marched on Abuja streets to protest the handling of Osun State governorship election by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC).

    The protest, which began at the INEC office in Abuja without incident, soon snaked its way to the police headquarters where the august assembly of opposition politicians hoped to register their disapproval of the police role in the poll. The protesters included Senate President Bukola Saraki; Governor Aminu Tambuwal of Sokoto State; Governor Darius Ishaku of Taraba State; Governor Ibrahim Dankwambo of Gombe State; ex-governor Sule Lamido of Jigawa State; Senator Ben Murray-Bruce (Bayelsa East); and PDP Chairman Uche Secondus. The police were more civilised in confronting a similar protest in 2015 when leaders of the then opposition All Progressives Congress (APC), including then candidate Muhammdu Buhari, protested against INEC and the police attitude to electoral conduct.

    What betrayed the partisanship and high-handedness of the police on October 5, 2018 was the invitation by the police to the protest leaders to report at the FCT police command to answer questions relating to the protest. Not only did the police treat the top politicians contemptuously, they shockingly followed up by sending a needless invitation to them to answer questions relating to the protest, thereby indicating clearly that the issue was being viewed from partisan lens. No lessons have obviously been learnt from Nigeria’s topsy-turvy politics, as many appointed security and law enforcement officials have simply ignored their rules of engagement, operated above the law, and cared little about the possibility and implications to themselves of the opposition winning office in 2019.

     

  • NLC, minimum wage and politico-economic illogic

    MORE than a week ago, the Nigerian Labour Congress (NLC) embarked on a seven-day warning strike to press home their demand for a fairer minimum wage for workers. The strike, however, lasted for only three days before it was suspended. No one can tell at the moment, not even the NLC, what would be a fair minimum wage. There was talk among the unionists of N65,000; then N56,000; and then, in the spirit of give and take, N35,000. Whatever is finally decided upon — and a decision will have to be taken anyway — is unlikely to satisfy everyone given the state of the economy. The current minimum wage is a paltry N18,000, so small that it not only cannot take care of basic needs, it really did not need any wage agitation for the government and the legislature to angrily take the initiative to raise it appreciably.

    But responding to accusations of foot-dragging on the minimum wage agitation, the government has alleged that states were in fact the foot-draggers, as they can’t seem to have the courage to come up with a harmonised position. If states are unable to reach an agreement, says the federal government championing the executive side of the negotiation, any deal will be futile because states have to bear the higher burden of paying the new minimum wage once a settlement is reached. States, on the other hand, have been deeply sceptical, if not quite adamant, of any new wage. The economy does not admit of any wage flexibility, they argue, considering that some 26 of them have been struggling unsuccessfully for some time to meet up with their wage obligations.

    In turn, recognising that states have stalled wage negotiations, the NLC has vowed to campaign against such states, political parties and governors that fail to pay salaries as and when due, and the new minimum wage once a decision is reached. Consequently, most governors who had been vociferous in arguing the impracticability of a new wage have out of fear begun to sing a new tune, regardless of the fact that no amount of miracle in their states or prioritisation of salary payment could make the difference. The states are cowed, the federal government is non-committal but desperate for industrial peace in an election year, and Labour is flush with enthusiasm based almost wholly on illogic.

    Notwithstanding what happens eventually at the negotiating table, the debate will almost invariably shift to the saner and more practical issue of which state can or cannot pay. About 30 of the country’s 36 states record miserable internally generated revenue (IGR) that is so low as to be practically useless for the purpose of meeting small and sundry basic state needs, let alone salary bills. The implication is that they all unreasonably depend on their portions from the federal allocation to meet salary and developmental needs. It is simply untenable in the short or long run.

    While many states do in fact demonstrate no understanding of how to meet the needs of their workers, nor why those needs ought to be met, the NLC itself has been indifferent to arguments that seek a better understanding of state economies and the structures that would make regular and decent wage payment sustainable. The unions appear to have forgotten that negotiations raised minimum wage to its present unsustainable level, and that a raise, when it is coaxed from the government, does not necessarily make wage payment foolproof, as everyone now knows. Even if an agreement can be reached on what is fair, there is nothing in the states to indicate that it can be paid on a sustainable basis.

    It is tragic how the NLC, states and the federal government miss the point that the current structure of the country makes it difficult if not impossible for a decent wage to be paid sustainably. It won’t happen. Raising wages will only lead to more crisis. Oil, the main revenue earner of the country, is subject to price volatility and, increasingly, low or at best fluctuating demand due to technological advances in alternative energy sources. If the country is not restructured in such a way as to run efficiently and sustainably in line with the true practice of federalism, states will depend unreasonably on federal allocation, structure their administrations and costs unwieldily since someone else is picking their bills, and embark on irrational and wasteful projects they have no business delving into in the first instance.

    The country is tilting at windmills to imagine that by prioritising salary payment it can pay the new fair wage despite struggling unsuccessfully with the paltry old wage. Without restructuring the country, possibly merging or regionalising states, and matching its costs with its revenues, it will be futile to expect industrial peace now or in the future. Sadly, restructuring is unattractive to the country’s leaders, as they hope for the foolish miracle of having their cake and eating it. They are in short creating a paradox no mathematician can solve, not ever.

  • Osinbajo’s new tribe

    LAST Monday, while declaring open a five-day photo exhibition tagged ANISZA, in Abuja, Vice-President Yemi Osinbajo spoke of the need to create a new tribe of Nigerians to help drive its unity and development. Here is what he said: “It is my respected view that to build a new Nigeria, we need a new tribe; one tribe of men and women of all faiths, of all tribes, of all ethnicities committed to a country run on high values; high values of integrity, of hard work, of justice and of love of country. A tribe of men and women who are prepared to make the sacrifices and exercise the self-constraint that is crucial for building a healthy society and who are prepared to stick together to fight injustice; to fight corruption; to insist on the rule of law; even when our friends are at the receiving end.  A tribe consisting of professionals, of businessmen, of politicians, of students, of religious leaders and all who believe that a new Nigeria is possible.”

    These are fine words; but like the British say, “fine words butter no parsnips.” On the surface, Prof Osinbajo can’t be more accurate in his observation of the country’s weaknesses and needs. But all the things he said are mere platitudes. What the country actually needs is to shift emphasis away from persons to structure. No building is so well maintained by persons, no matter how brilliant, if that building is not first made structurally sound. Nigerians must first restructure their country in line with sound political and economic principles before it can hope to unleash the people’s energies and talents. The major problem with Nigeria is first of all structural before it is people or tribe. The country must stop putting the cart before the horse.

  • Presidential aspirants pour libations

    SOMETIME last week, presidential aspirants David Mark and Bukola Saraki visited former military president Ibrahim Badamasi Babangida in furtherance of their quests for high office. The former military leader is the chief priest of one of the political shrines aspirants of all shades visit to pour the libation of their ambitions. Senator Mark, a former senate president, visited General Babangida two Saturdays ago; and Sen Saraki, the current but embattled senate president, visited on Sunday. Another contender, ex-vice president Atiku Abubakar, had earlier gone to the same shrine to pour his own libation. Gen Babangida, as is his custom, is not averse to holding regal court and speaking dissemblingly royal. He did both in spectacular fashion two weekends ago in a manner that evoked images of his past splendour.

    The other shrine, though exuding false and immoderate potency, is the power reliquary superintended by, this time, High Priest Olusegun Obasanjo, former military head of state and two-term (1999-2007) president. There is hardly any contender for the main Nigerian power prize who does not venture into this second shrine to pour libation, asking for endorsement, and perhaps willing to pay any price. With the exception of Alhaji Atiku, nearly all presidential aspirants have visited the Obasanjo shrine. They have, however, not explained what they would do with his endorsement if it came, nor answered what it is still worth after many years of the old warhorse vacating office. Nobody, let alone an aspirant, makes the mistake of seeking Chief Obasanjo’s empowerment. He endorses, for whatever it is worth; but he does not empower.

    It is not controversial or futile to seek endorsement. What is controversial are the nature of the endorsements and their value. Endorsement by top leaders and politicians with name recognition often enlivens and gives fillip to campaigns. Presidential aspirants have, however, so far been unable to persuade the electorate that the shrines that have become their mecca are not monuments to dead or dying gods. It is hard to see the electoral value of Gen Babangida, more than 25 years after his exit from power. And barely 11 years after leaving office, the more controversial Chief Obasanjo has seemed to deplete politically even more rapidly than the Minna-based general. Indeed, after cautiously endorsing then candidate Buhari for the 2015 presidential poll, the Abeokuta-based former president has seemed to gradually and relentlessly mummify. He will of course still go on to endorse someone, after the debacle of endorsing the African Democratic Congress (ADC), for he is not aware that ‘anointing’ has left him, but he will shrewdly wait to see which way the cat jumps before placing his bets.

    Why the endorsements by Chief Obasanjo and Gen Babangida have become the objects of derision is not hard to explain. They are endorsements triggered by habit rather than by reason, products of habit rather than practicality. Elsewhere, endorsements are often actuated by ideological affinity or philosophical objectives. But not only are the rubrics of the two aforesaid shrines ambiguous and amorphous, their chief priests are also ideologically and philosophically vacuous. What is even more damning is that the aspirants have aligned themselves wholly to the ethnic and geopolitical dynamics of their ambitions rather than any set of coherent and systematic beliefs. It is a case of vacuum (aspirants) chasing vacuum (endorsers), a sort of Magdeburg hemispheres powerfully clenched shut, encasing nothing.

    But regardless of their lack of real power, both Chief Obasanjo and Gen Babangida may still pride themselves in their ability to attract political attention, particularly from presidential contenders. They will see themselves as infinitely better than other past heads of state and presidents who mummified decades ago, ex-leaders whom no one regards or pays more than a casual, reluctant visit. They exult that even the immediate past president, Goodluck Jonathan, is unable to attract as much attention as they have consistently attracted over the years. They view the near reclusiveness of ex-president Shehu Shagari with alarm, and are petrified by both the mystifying anonimity in which interim head of state Ernest Shonekan dwells and the contrived ecclesiastical activity of ex-head of state Yakubu Gowon.

    Indeed, what really haunts both Chief Obasanjo and Gen Babangida is their fear of being ignored, after so many giddy years in office, many of those years truly epical and magical on the scale of experimentation, vainglory, and sheer improbity. They do not mind being skewered, their families added for full measure if they cannot help it; but they fear being ignored. They are not used to being ignored, and they will do everything in their power to shore up the value of the bilge water they dispense from their shrines, assured that the emptiness of their political customers cum aspirants make them the perfect dupes it has been the great and unending misfortune of Nigeria to produce.

  • E.K. Clark and police raid

    FORMER Information minister and South-South leader, Edwin Kiagbodo Clark, is sensible enough not to believe that the four or so policemen who raided his Abuja residence on Tuesday acted independently. Though the police have apologised for the raid, insisting that the raid was not ordered by the police boss, Ibrahim Idris, not many Nigerians will believe that a raid carried out by the Inspector-General of Police Tactical Squad, complete with a search warrant, could be executed without very senior officers authorising it. The police, which claimed they got a tip-off that the elder statesman was amassing arms in his residence, have apologised, sacked three of the four men who carried out the raid, suspended the fourth, while Chief Clark himself has accepted the apology. But the damage is already done.

    Even if the police do not want to hear it, the damage done by the raid is indeed incalculable. If the search was truly not authorised, it is an indication that the Nigeria Police Force harbours rogue elements in their  midst who constitute a nightmare for service discipline and cohesion. The search lasted for about two hours, enough time to alert the police authorities to the illegal presence of their men in the house. Chief Clark alleged that he indeed alerted some senior police officers, but the search continued regardless. It would be far better for the peace of mind of Nigerians and the cause of democracy that the police should acknowledge their mistake in searching the house than to suggest that four of their officers acted on their own. Until an inquiry is carried out, and incontrovertible proof is presented to confirm that the four offending officers were nothing but rogue elements, few would believe that far more senior officers did not authorise the raid. It seems more likely that more senior officers connived at the disaster. Parading the alleged informant before the public, therefore, serves no useful purpose. It only further compounds the confusion and inefficiency in the Force, and suggests that they have no foolproof method of assessing their informants.

    The raid, if any other proof is needed, also emblematises the terrible assault constantly authored by the police against civil liberties of Nigerians. The assaults are often unchecked, and they result sometimes in extrajudicial killings, detention, torture and imprisonment of innocent citizens without regard for their human rights. A culture of impunity has taken firm roots in the police, and that abysmal culture needlessly promotes extortion and overcrowding of cells and prisons. Yet, senior officers are by service rules expected to authorise the actions of junior officers. Someone ought always to be held to account. But since no one calls the officers to account except in a few flagrant and well publicised cases, the terrible culture rampant in the Nigeria Police Force has given them a global reputation for impunity and brutality. Until the federal government decides to do something about the police, including decentralising its operations to enable states run their own police establishments, no meaningful changes will be accomplished.

    But what is even worse is the conspiratorial involvement of the judiciary in the abridgement of the rights of citizens, a conspiracy that has given fillip to impunity in law enforcement operations. Nigeria’s judicial authorities must reappraise the procedures involved in the issuance of search warrants and remand of suspects. Just like the case of the illegal search executed on the residence of Chief Clark, it is important to find out who issued the warrant and what preliminary evidence was brought before him. Just as it is not enough to discipline the police officers involved in the dubious saga, it is also important to establish the connection between the police and the judicial officer who issued the warrant. The overcrowding of prisons and police cells and the torture of detainees are encouraged by the negligence or incompetence of judicial officers. It is time the madness was halted.

    Do Nigerians hope that the authorities would get to the bottom of the raid on Chief Clark’s residence? No; they doubt the government’s sincerity. If the government could not get to the bottom of the Department of State Service (DSS) blockade of the National Assembly, considering the inquest’s shambolic end, there is nothing the police or the government has done or said that gives confidence that the Chief Clark matter will not peter out into similar emptiness. The government and its agencies lack the understanding and vision to run many state institutions with the circumspection and brilliance expected of them. That is why the image of Nigeria is poor everywhere. Nothing suggests anyone in government truly cares about effecting the kind of change needed to propel Nigeria into the best run black nation on earth.

  • Merkel extracts rule of law promise from Buhari

    LESS than one week after President Muhammadu Buhari controversially declared before legal experts in Abuja that the rule of law must be subordinated to national security, he gave a promise to visiting German Chancellor, Angela Merkel, that he would in fact respect the rule of law. In a statement issued by one of his spokesmen, Garba Shehu, the president hinged the preservation of societal unity and harmony upon the rule of law. The president, according to the statement, further suggested that the rule of law contained all the relevant mechanisms for conflict resolution. Hearing the president speak that way, his audience might be tempted to think he was walking back on his earlier controversial statement.

    But given his attitude since he made that declaration before members of the Nigerian Bar Association at their annual meeting, there is nothing to indicate that the president’s opinion of the rule of law has changed either superficially or fundamentally between when he spoke at the NBA meeting and when he received the German chancellor. The attitude of the Buhari presidency, as embodied in the president’s own statement and his Justice minister’s July declaration that the rule of law could not be applied at certain moments, is that the executive branch had the prerogative to determine when the rule of law should be constrained and when it should not.

    If indeed the president was walking back on his controversial assault on the rule of law, he would have long since taken steps to remedy the instances when he wilfully and whimsically subordinated the rule of law to his government’s uncertain and unreliable definition of national security. Two of these instances are his government’s disobedience of court orders in the trials of former National Security Adviser, Sambo Dasuki, a retired colonel, and Ibrahim El-Zakzaky and his wife, both of the Islamic Movement in Nigeria (IMN), aka Shiites. At bottom, the Buhari government has never felt comfortable with the rule of law. It is uncertain that his statement to the contrary before Mrs Merkel would be sufficient to prove that he had become born again on the matter of the rule of law. Worse, until he satisfies himself, he is unlikely to feel constrained by the law and the constitution to do what is morally and legally right.

  • *Dasuki and presidency’s legal obfuscations(Subverting the rule of law)

    WHILE claiming to defend the constitution as well as asserting its irrevocable commitment to the rule of law, the Muhammadu Buhari presidency has repeatedly encouraged Nigerians not to resort to self-help but to let the courts settle their disputes. As a result, many Nigerians, despite their misgivings about the rule of law and the judiciary entirely, particularly the slow pace and high cost of justice, have little choice but to go to court to get redress. Five times the former National Security Adviser (NSA), Col Sambo Dasuki (retd.), asked the courts for bail; five times he was admitted to bail with stiff conditions; and one time he got redress from the largely perfunctory ECOWAS Court. But the government has refused to obey all court orders on the Dasuki case, effectively elevating the presidency above the law.

    The crimes alleged against the former NSA are undoubtedly egregious, crimes estimated by the government to have cost thousands of lives. However, despite the suspicions of the people, the crimes remain unproved. The Attorney General of the Federation (AGF) and Justice minister, Abubakar Malami, actually put the human cost at 100,000 lives. But the crime is bailable, and all the six courts which examined the arguments of the government still admitted the accused to bail. On what legal grounds, therefore, is the Buhari presidency ignoring the judgements? The AGF, according to a Premium Times report, finally provided the grounds for the government’s impunity. Hear him at length in an interview with the Hausa Service of the Voice of America (VOA): “What I want you to know is that issues concerning law and order under Muhammadu Buhari are sacrosanct and obeying court order is compulsory. However you should also know that there is a general consensus world over that where the dispute is only between individuals, then you can consider the issue based on the instant situation. But if the dispute is about an issue that affects an entire nation, then you have to remember that government is about the people not for only an individual.

    “So you have to look at it from this perspective. If the issue about an individual coincides with that which affects the people of a nation and you are now saying the government did not obey a court order that infringes on a single person’s rights. Remember we are talking about a person who was instrumental to the deaths of over one hundred thousand people. Are you saying that the rights of one person is more important than that of 100,000 who lost their lives?

    “Reports have shown that there was massive mismanagement of funds meant for military hardware which the military could not access and that led to the death of many, embezzlement of the fund and because of that many people have lost their lives. Obeying the court is not the issue per se. Are we going to take the issue of an individual more important than that of the people? The government’s main responsibility is for and about the people. The essence of governance is to better the lives of its people. So you have to weigh it based on that; the rights of an individual or the rights of the people.”

    It does not matter to the eminent Justice minister that when it comes to the issue of law, the government is in no position to arbitrarily determine what is right or wrong. It does not bother him that the president was, on the Dasuki matter, appropriating powers the constitution does not give the executive branch in terms of the final say on the freedoms of an accused. The AGF simply does not care that all the government’s arguments to deny Col Dasuki bail failed at the courts. All he cares about are assailing the public with frightening casualty figures entirely produced by the government, elevating the presidency’s preferences above the law and constitution, subjectively determining what is in the national interest or private interest, and lying about the government’s obedience of court orders.

    Mallam Malami is not just a Justice minister, he is a senior lawyer of many years’ standing, and will, it is expected, continue to be a lawyer after he leaves office. How his tendentious arguments about the government’s atrocious subversion of the rule of law do not offend him must speak to his innate inscrutability and short-sightedness. He abominably justifies what no legal mind of modest qualifications, let alone a senior advocate, should ever try to justify. And he has forgotten, apparently, that his statements and the judicial policies of the government he serves will outlast their time in office. If the presidency cannot comprehend the law, nor appreciate the implications of subverting the law, surely Mallam Malami would be expected to educate his employers, if he has the courage and character.

    By his admission, the Justice minister is saying that the Dasuki matter is no longer a question of the constitution or the law; it is a personal, probably vindictive, thing. He has indicated that the Buhari presidency reserves the right to determine what is a question of the law, and what is not. Worse, he is suggesting that whatever the government he serves does, regardless of the unlawfulness of their actions, must not be questioned by anyone, not even the courts. Mallam Malami and his employers, Nigerians must now know, are officially not just above the law, they are the law.

     

    *First published July 22, 2018, as a short treatise on the Justice minister’s disingenuous and untenable arguments to destroy the basis of the rule of law. Weeks later, President Buhari appropriated the same weak arguments before the country’s association of lawyers

  • Leah Sharibu and presidential fatalism

    WHEN he was asked how much longer the last abducted Dapchi schoolgirl, Leah Sharibu, would remain in captivity, presidential spokesman, Femi Adesina, offered a theological answer. “For how much longer?, Mr Adesina asked rhetorically, “I think that question can only be answered by God, but I believe God is interested in that young girl and will ensure that she is preserved and at least by the time that clip is verified, one will be sure that it is her actually, and once that is determined, we should all be glad that she is alive. When will she return? By the grace of God, the government is working on it and we believe she will be back.”

    The question no one has really asked, and for which the government would be hard put to give an answer, is why Miss Sharibu was left behind. About six months ago, a faction of Boko Haram, abducted some 105 schoolgirls from Government Girls Secondary School, Dapchi. About a month later, the federal government negotiated their release from captivity, leaving Miss Sharibu behind. There was no indication the government negotiators knew a girl was left behind, presumably on account of her Christian confession, until after the dramatic return of the rest by a cavalcade of insurgents. But even if it is suggested that the government knew, it is even more inexplicable that they did not recognise the immorality of leaving, perhaps abandoning, Miss Sharibu. If the government knew but chose to accept Boko Haram terms, it was indefensible; if they didn’t know, it was indefensible still and, much more, unforgivably negligent.

    Of course God knows everything. This is unquestionable. But for Mr Adesina to put everything about the rescue of Miss Sharibu at the doorstep of God in the typical and almost offensive religiosity of Nigerians and their leaders is to embrace the abrasive fatalism that dogs religions in these parts and is often deployed as an extenuating factor to explain poor leadership.

  • Onslaught on Ortom, Benue

    WHETHER by design or coincidence, the federal government has given the impression it is persecuting both Governor Samuel Ortom and his state, Benue. When the state groaned under the onslaught of rampaging and murderous herdsmen, it was difficult selling the idea that it was orchestrated by a complicit government. The government was negligent, even conniving, but it could hardly be accused of orchestrating murder against its own people. But moments, not even months, after a hesitant and generally beleaguered Mr Ortom defected from the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC), the federal government let loose upon him the genius of apocalypse. First at the gates, like the Barbarians attacking Rome, were the police who gave protection to some eight rebel lawmakers in their futile and fanatical attempt to usurp the authority of the legislative majority and impeach the governor. However, not only were the usurpation and impeachment efforts resisted, they were demolished.

    Second, and more perniciously, APC officials began an onslaught of verbal abuse and intimidation on the governor and his person. Beginning with the party’s chairman, the irrepressible and sometimes flighty Adams Oshiomhole, party leaders did not spare any effort in hurling withering insults at Mr Ortom. He is described as treacherous, incompetent, variable, and insatiable and pugnacious. Mr Oshiomhole was particularly unsparing, dismissing the governor as good riddance to bad rubbish. Few defended the governor. He in fact does not seem as if he has any friend left in Nigeria. Apart from Nobel Laureate Wole Soyinka, and a few whispers from the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) to which Mr Ortom migrated, no one else of substance defended the governor without sounding like a disgruntled anti-Buhari politician and critic.

    Then, finally, weighed in the ponderous and immoderate Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), the anti-graft agency that is increasingly confusing its role as an independent arbiter and national cleanser with the odoriferous role of a partisan fixer and enforcer. The agency fired the first shot shortly after the governor defected by launching an investigation against him for alleged economic crimes. And it did it with fanfare. The timing was so suspicious that Prof Soyinka in disgust queried what manner of democracy the country was operating. “Suddenly,” said the eminent professor in a letter to the besieged governor, “we see the beginning of a heavy-handed campaign, reprisal and unruly circles over your political decision. This goes beyond any immediately-affected state, and alert us all to the threat against uncommon democratic definition and the basic right of free choice of political powers towards its attainment. I can only urge you to remain resilient, unbowed and undeterred… Due to the crisis in the country, someone defected and then the EFCC started chasing him. Does that look like a coincidence or what?”

    Indifferent to national queries over its partisan actions, the EFCC then ramped up its assault on Benue by freezing the state’s accounts, thereby raising the ire of many Nigerians and Benue indigenes who concluded that the EFCC action was nothing short of persecution. Though it later unfroze the state’s accounts, it has substituted that unpopular measure with a new set of invidious actions designed to paralyse the state. Benue State government officials, wailed the governor’s spokesman, were routinely invited to Abuja to be interrogated, thus effectively reducing the state to a hostile department of the federal government. Unitary rule could not be more vile. Now, the anti-graft agency is asking for the minutes of the state’s security meetings, and it is defending that clearly indefensible position on the grounds that it has the law on its side. There is, however, no doubt that the EFCC has been both impolitic in its statements and indiscrete in its actions. It has managed in the process to be numbered among state institutions undermining democracy.

    Both the ruling party and the EFCC must exercise restraint in their actions and statements, particularly against the opposition. The APC will not always be in power, regardless of its best efforts. If it does not join hands with other democrats to institute a liberal democracy which the entire country will repose confidence in, it will one day be hoisted with its own petard. Likewise, the EFCC must recognise that its chairmen have the obligation to guard the independence of the agency and protect its founding principles so that its future can be guaranteed. The EFCC has done very little so far to give confidence that it has not become a willing and savage tool in the hands of the ruling party. This is unfortunate.

  • 2019: Buhari assures on non-interference. Really?

    IN a speech read on his behalf at the 2018 annual political summit organised by the Nigeria Institute for Policy and Strategic Studies (NIPSS) in Abuja, President Muhammadu Buhari promised not to interfere in the electoral process in 2019 in order to guarantee free, fair and credible elections. Hear him: “Today, I pledge to Nigeria, my country to promote free fair and credible election devoid of any form of interference in the activities of INEC, to ensure security and promote a violence free election devoid of animosity and hate speeches, to abide by the extant laws governing political parties and adhere strictly to the code of conduct of political parties in Nigeria. So help me God…What has brought us together is our strong desire to build a budding democracy through a peaceful 2019 general election. No matter the nature and level of our political influences, we do not have another nation than Nigeria. These differences should not divide us but should make us stronger. With commitment and perseverance, we will triumph.”

    He was not done promising. “On our part,” he added, “I want to reassure the nation that this administration is committed to a democratic process characterized by free, fair and credible election. We are committed to providing an enabling environment and a level playing ground for all political parties in the electioneering process without hindrance.”

    The problem with the president’s promises is not that they are not believable or that his seriousness and genuineness are not infectious. They are. What ails his promises in fact is that once he gives his word, he moves on, far away from the theatre of conflict. Not being a details man, he frequently leaves the nitty-gritty to be tackled by his aides and subordinates, most of whom are brimful with their own schemes and stratagems. He gave his word on democracy and the rule of law after he was sworn in, but his aides have managed to concoct their own unique interpretation of what democracy is and what the rule of law constitutes. Predictably, their interpretations are often at variance with the understanding the country has of the president’s promises.

    Now, the president has given his word on non-interference with the electoral process of the 2019 elections. He will as usual move on and leave the unpleasant task of implementing his promises to his aides to wrestle with. As they are accustomed to, however, they will define what non-interference means and proceed to restrict its boundaries. If experience is any guide, those aides can be trusted to dispense with niceties and embark on strong-arm tactics to win the coming polls. They are demonstrating it in the Bukola Saraki senate presidency affair, and in muscling defectors from the ruling party. No one should expect convergence between the president’s promise and the actions of his aides. They have an election to win; the president can, in their opinion, afford the leisure of theorising.