The Nation Newspaper

Category: Barometer

  • Akeredolu, Oyegun and 2019 polls

    Akeredolu, Oyegun and 2019 polls

    GOVERNOR Rotimi Akeredolu caused a stir during a recent radio programme tagged ‘Meet the Governor’ when he declared that the Ahmed Bola Tinubu-led presidential reconciliation committee was not needed in Ondo State. It seemed to many commentators that the animus carried over from the November 2016 Ondo governorship poll had not ended, a bitterness that was reported to have reflected in the then governor-elect’s victory speech that November. In response to a question by his interviewers on the reconciliation effort directed by President Muhammadu Buhari, the governor controversially declared: “(Tinubu) has no business coming to Ondo State since there was no crisis…All is well with APC in Ondo State; we are waxing stronger. Olusola Oke (a rival claimant to the throne) has just returned to stay longer, so Asiwaju Tinubu has no reason to come here. Where there is peace, you don’t need a peacemaker so you don’t create more problems. The Presidential reconciliation committee is not needed here in Ondo State; there is peace in Ondo APC.”

    On Tuesday, however, Mr Akeredolu issued a clarification that suggested his statement was misinterpreted, not misquoted. Here is how he interpreted what he said on the radio, according to his spokesman: “He (Akeredolu) wishes to make it clear that the Asiwaju Tinubu-led reconciliation committee is welcome in Ondo State at any time. The committee will, however, find that it has no work to do in the state, as there is peace and stability in the Ondo State APC. The Governor never doubts the ability of Asiwaju Tinubu to successfully carry out this onerous task of uniting our great party and putting it in good stead for the task ahead. The Governor does not deny the legitimacy of Senator Ajayi Boroffice’s position as the senator representing Ondo North senatorial district. The point (the governor) made was that he knows of only two APC senators in the state, who are currently working with the state government for the upliftment of Ondo State.”

    How this clarification rebutted the original ‘twist’ he alleged was given his statement is not quite clear. Perhaps he meant to say that in suggesting that Asiwaju Tinubu did not need to come to Ondo to reconcile warring groups, he did not say it with a sneer. Well, if it was not said sneeringly — and the tenor of that statement is indeed open to many interpretations — the statement at least echoed elements of the gaffes idiosyncratic to him. The governor speaks candidly, sometimes offensively and even disparagingly. And it is clear that if he had been more reflective, he really should have been able to say what was on his mind in a more diplomatic and sensitive way without compromising his beloved candour.

    Hear Mr Akeredolu when he responded in 2016 to questions relating to his refusal to acknowledge the same Asiwaju Tinubu in his victory speech: “On the names that were mentioned in my speech when expressing gratitude, and that I didn’t specifically thank Bola Ahmed Tinubu: I thanked the President and the leader of our party profusely for the leadership which he showed leading to this election. I also thanked our indefatigable chairman for standing by the truth and for his position on this matter that led to this election…Party structure to the best of my knowledge is very clear. You have the leadership of the party and that is represented by Chief John Odigie-Oyegun. After the election, a chief executive emerges, he becomes a leader of the party, you don’t have to personalise and be looking for leaders all over the place. If we have to do that, then I will have to mention 36 or 37 leaders. So I believe the leadership as represented by the President covers all leaders and that tells me it would include Chief Bola Ahmed Tinubu, it would include even Baba Akande, Onu, and so many leaders. But President Buhari is the leader of the party.” After all, did the president himself not insist during a cocktail that the APC did not have two national leaders?

    Regardless of his offensive candour, the often impatient Mr Akeredolu is absolutely entitled to embrace or objurgate whomsoever he likes, and to play his politics to suit both his private philosophy and his person. Indeed, he has stretched this freedom liberally to now fully embrace, idolise and propagate the person and worldview of President Buhari. At a rally to mark his first year anniversary, and in the presence of the All Progressives Congress (APC) national chairman, John Odigie-Oyegun, the governor threw in his lot with the president with this fawningly insinuative statement: “Here in Ondo State, we are supporting Buhari for a second term, and nothing can change that. We are with Buhari and Oyegun. I have to commend members of the state House of Assembly for tolerating me. I also thank Ade Adetimehin, who is the only chairman of the APC in Ondo State. Any other one is a counterfeit. Anybody who wants to fight should fight. This is not a hidden support; we are declaring it openly. I am one of the governors that will give everything it takes for him (Buhari) to secure a second term in 2019. I am open and frontal about my support for his second term.” Mr Akeredolu obviously knows which side his bread is buttered.

    It seems, after all, that Ondo is actually in need of some reconciliation. But let that pass. If the pugnacious governor says he does not want to be reconciled with anybody, he is free to nurse his bellicosity and keep his daggers permanently drawn. Alas, since the exit of Obafemi Awolowo, the Southwest has apparently grown enamoured of trifling and mediocre politics. Their lodestar used to be their unmatched fondness for regicidal politics, even in Chief Awolowo’s time; now, it is obsession with enervating factionalism. One governor is building an estate named after the president; another reports his leading traditional ruler to the president; and yet another now swears to sink or swim with the same president. You would think the lionised president had propounded some earthshaking political philosophy or built an unparalleled administrative system such as the world has never known.

  • El-Rufai and the Kajuru debacle

    El-Rufai and the Kajuru debacle

    NIGERIA may be bathing in blood, but last week’s clash between Christian and Muslim youths in Kajuru Local Government, Kaduna State must really take the biscuit. By the last count, some 12 youths had been killed, and hundreds of houses burnt. The reason for the mayhem is believed to be anchored superficially on a dispute over girls, but more substantially over deepening societal and sectarian fissures that disallow, under any guise, the crossing of dividing lines. If the excuse for the clash seems silly, and no one wants to reconcile himself to the dangerous bifurcation of the Kaduna society, recognise at least that both the casus belli and the divisions speak morbidly to the intolerance taking root in the state, an intolerance enthusiastically given fillip by Governor Nasir el-Rufai’s own flagrant intolerance.

    The governor has sued for peace, and warned that perpetrators of the violence that shook Kajuru would be brought to book. How the irony did not strike him is baffling. The governor is himself a practitioner of political and other forms of intolerance, and yet he denounces and wants to prosecute the intolerant youths of Kajuru. Intolerance should be denounced and fought, and democracy desperately needs to be entrenched in these parts. But should the governor not first take the log out of his eyes before attending to the speck in the youths’ eyes, especially seeing that the ailment befuddling the feuding youths are not entirely dissimilar from his, if not even inspired by the temper and impatience of his government?

  • INEC, Gov Bello and rule of law

    INEC, Gov Bello and rule of law

    LAST Friday, the cantankerous and inconspicuous Governor of Kogi State, Yahaya Bello celebrated the transfer of his voter card from Abuja, the Federal Capital City, to Okene, his hometown in Kogi State. It had seemed impossible. He could neither be voted for nor voted for anyone during the state’s governorship poll late 2015. But by an abracadabra inspired and executed by a group of political and legal conspirators, Mr Bello, who was registered to vote only in Abuja, was elevated crudely and insanely into the office of governor of the state without a deputy. The issue of that bizarre transmutation came up before three courts — from the election tribunal to the Court of Appeal and eventually the Supreme Court. In a move that defied logic, morality and common sense, the courts paid no attention to the clear treason involved in the conspirators’ subversion of the constitution.

    To reset and right his electoral standing, Mr Bello childishly orchestrated a second voter card registration at the Government House in Lokoja last year, a move that was publicly celebrated by his aides. Responding to the affront, the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) waded in, queried its staff who deployed in Government House to register the governor where no registration centre was approved, punished the offending staff who masterminded the charade by dismissing them, and announced to the public that but for the immunity enjoyed by the governor, he would have been dragged before a competent court to answer for his criminal breach of the Electoral Act. The governor swore he committed no offence, but no one believed him.

    But rather than wait for him to prove his innocence before the courts after his tenure in 2020, the electoral commission apparently restarted Mr Bello’s voter card transfer process, ignored his double registration offence, and last Friday issued him a temporary voter card to indicate that the card transfer process was completed. In addition to Mr Bello himself, INEC also has a case to answer. It must be established why the electoral commission would stand the law on its head and shamefully subvert the rule of law and their own integrity and independence. Were they pressured from higher quarters? What becomes of their registration staff who were dismissed? Does Nigeria have two sets of law, one for the poor and disadvantaged, and another for the rich and connected? INEC and Mr Bello’s godfathers can bet their last kobo that the last has not been heard of this shameful and provocative subversion of electoral law and the constitution.

     

  • Buhari, SGF and coflicting re-election signals

    Buhari, SGF and coflicting re-election signals

    THE continuing uncertainty over whether President Muhammadu Buhari will seek re-election in 2019 is not about to end soon. Even though the uncertainty is largely abstract, especially since many commentators believe that the president will almost certainly seek a second term, no conclusion can be drawn as long as the president remains silent on the matter. On February 15, at the Unity Fountain in Abuja, the Secretary to the Government of the Federation (SGF), Boss Mustapha, all but indicated to the Democratic Youth Congress, a group of Buhari supporters, that the president would be asking for a second term. Newspapers celebrated the news, probably to end speculations about the president’s second term intentions.

    In the opinion of Mr Mustapha, who was represented by the Senior Special Assistant to the President on Political Matters, Honourable Gideon Sammani, “We do not have an alternative to President Muhammadu Buhari for now. I am glad you have named some of the aspirants who are interested in leading this nation. If you give them the ticket they will do nothing with it. They have nothing to offer to this nation. You and I are here because we believe in President Muhammadu Buhari and we know he has the capability to lead this nation. Buhari is a man with several qualities of leadership, God sent; his coming is divine, so that he will rescue this nation from the total collapse due to the destruction that has been done to the economy by the past administration. We all know that Buhari is transparent and honest…”

    However, barely one week later, the story changed somewhat minutely. This time, the story came from the president himself, according to Imo State governor Rochas Okorocha who has turned himself into the imperial mouthpiece of the president. Mr Okorocha had met with the president in company with other All Progressives Congress (APC) governors at the presidential villa last Thursday. Said Mr Okorocha after the meeting: “We discussed so many issues that affect the nation, our party and Mr. President’s ambition to run for the 2019 presidential election. It is the desire of the governors that Mr. President should run for this exalted office given his performance in the last two years.  We believe that if he continues, Nigeria will be better for it. Anyhow, Mr. President, in his usual manner, has requested that we give him time and that he will address the nation and the caucus of the party very soon. So, we should be full of expectations that Mr. President will make officially known to Nigerians his intentions but we hope that his response will be in line with what the governors are thinking.” Did Mr Okorcha think any governor at that meeting would advise the president to perish his ambition?

    There may be conflicting signals from the presidency, but the president’s intention to seek a second term has never been clearer. If there is any hedging at all on the part of the president and his crowd of eager supporters, it is simply to allow for the acid fog generated by ex-president Olusegun Obasanjo to be substantially dissipated by massive favourable public pressure and clement political weather. Dr Obasanjo had issued a public statement he described as special, blaming the president for being generally incompetent, polarising, sectional and nepotistic. The former president ended his public censure of President Buhari by suggesting to him the inadvisability of seeking re-election, obviously because more years in office would not in any way make him give what he has not shown himself to possess now. That counsel cum censure is unlikely to be heeded. For though the president has sensibly refrained from joining issues with Dr Obasano, apparently learning from Goodluck Jonathan’s 2014 mistakes, he and his men have done everything possible to engineer and seed a favourable political cloud.

    The undeniable fact today is that President Buhari has the intention to seek a second term. If he had no such intention, it would have been obvious before now. He will press on with his ambition if he can guarantee that his wobbling party will not implode. That party, for now, is fit for the knacker’s yard. To get it rejuvenated, an impossible task the party’s national leader, Bola Ahmed Tinubu, has just been saddled with, will require a gargantuan and superhuman effort. That effort, it is reported, is already being complicated by the party’s scheming grey hairs. Worse, the president himself has neither responded to Dr Obasanjo’s criticisms nor taken any step to remedy the grave damage he himself has done to both governance and party unity. Somehow, President Buhari and his men are hoping to circumvent the critical issues surrounding Poll 2019 by resting their ambition on the electorate’s emotional and abstract appeal. They will find it tough going as they inch towards the momentous day.

  • Herdsmen, open minds and Osinbajo

    Herdsmen, open minds and Osinbajo

    DAVID Umahi, Governor of Ebonyi State, is head of the sub-committee empanelled to dialogue with the Miyetti Allah Cattle Breeders Association of Nigeria (MACBAN) and other groups of cattle herders as part of a larger committee set up by the National Economic Council (NEC) to find solutions to the herdsmen/farmers conflict. Last Monday, during a fact-finding trip to Benue State, Mr Umahi, representing Vice President Yemi Osinbajo, advised Nigerians to be objective about the crisis so that a lasting solution could be found. The advise is sensible.

    Approaching the crisis with a closed mind would undoubtedly complicate the crisis. However, the impression many Nigerians have is not that the people have been closed-minded about the crisis, but that in recent months, and particularly in the past two years or so, the government itself has been embarrassingly closed-minded. It has been unable to make up its mind what factors are responsible for the crisis. And worse, its solutions have caused shock and discomfort in many circles. If indeed anyone needs to be open-minded, if anyone needs to be clear about the solutions to the crisis, if anyone needs to show courage in tackling the crisis, it is the government, not the victims. The vice president and Mr Umahi have asked for objective consideration of the crisis. They have done well. But let them first profit from their own counsel.

  • From Benue to Zamfara

    From Benue to Zamfara

    IT is tempting to describe the horrendous killings in Zamfara last week as poetic justice, considering how many state governors quibbled over herdsmen killings, including the Nigeria Governor’s Forum delegation that visited Benue after the New Year’s Day attack that led to the killing of some 73 people in parts of the state. But it really is not justice of any kind. Instead the Zamfara killings that led to the death of about 40 persons last week represent something much more sinister, more worrisome, and more threatening to national stability. Though Governor Abdulaziz Yari, who is also chairman of the Nigeria Governor’s Forum (NGF), argued on February 1 that herdsmen/farmers clashes had been going on since 2007 in Zamfara, he seemed to have downplayed the significance of the killings by suggesting that criminal elements had hijacked the clashes and turned it into a money-making venture.

    But quite clearly, whether criminals were making money out of people’s misery or not, the threat of destabilisation the killings constitute to the country should propel the government into taking very firm and intelligent measures to stop the flow of blood in many parts of Nigeria. For whether the government wants to hear it or not, the country is in turmoil, and that turmoil is quite bloody and deeply unnerving. The turmoil obviously predated the assumption of office of President Muhammadu Buhari, but by a combination of weak policies, misapplied panaceas, and appointment of officials whose ideas and competence have been repeatedly called into question, the problem has been left to fester very badly and dangerously.

    There is hardly any part of Nigeria that is not threatened by one militia or the other or plain criminal groups, whether cattle rustlers, kidnappers or even armed robbers. Compounding the problem is the disturbing lack of responsiveness by law enforcement agencies. When they do not misinterpret the criminal phenomenon unfolding before their eyes, they lack either the personnel or the logistics to combat the problems. Hear Gov Yari’s plaintive cry: “Whatever was humanly possible that needed to be done, we as a government have done to mitigate this disaster. But it does appear that security agencies are failing in their responsibilities. I feel let down facing the people of this state whenever I remember the promise I made to them that if they elected President Muhammadu Buhari into power, these killings would end. But unfortunately, things are now getting worse. As such, I urge security agencies to up the ante so as not to lose this war. If you let us put the matter in our hands, anarchy will reign, which is not what we hope for. On this particular incident, we had intelligence reports 24 hours before it happened, that the bandits were grouping and ready to attack. I alerted the security agencies but unfortunately, they sent inadequate personnel to confront these people.”

    When the Benue crisis began many years ago, there were warnings that it needed to be nipped in the bud before it ballooned out of control. Some 73 people were massacred on New Year’s Day, and both the killings and burial assumed very dramatic colourations. However, in the same Benue, more than 300 people were killed in early 2016  in Agatu local government and environs, with both the police and the government disputing the casualty figure rather than be gingered into taking concrete actions to forestall future occurrences. Now, Benue is delicately poised on the tip of a disaster, pinning down thousands of security agencies, including the army, and with allegations of official collusion or connivance.

    It was Zamfara last week. Who knows which state will be next on the blood line? It speaks to the country’s sense of inurement against bloodshed and the government’s indefensible apathy that little attention is paid to crises where less than four or five people are killed. The media and the government tend to weigh the nuisance value of the crisis by the casualty figure. This is awfully wrong. Every militia-related killing, whether by herdsmen or farmers, or even by kidnappers and armed robbers and cattle rustlers, must be denounced and must attract government’s full attention and objectivity. The proper way to begin is for the government to re-examine its security architecture, not simply by tinkering with a panicky resort to state police, as desirable and appropriate as this is, but by a measured and sincere calibration and redistribution of its law enforcement assets. Nigeria’s security architecture is today obsolete, inefficient, deliberately not inclusive, and seemed designed to fail. If real change is not introduced to rejig the country’s security system, the situation can become really uncontrollable. And for Nigeria, where there is hardly any state at peace, the prospect can be truly frightening. The government must stop pretending not to appreciate the disaster ahead.

  • Mixed signals from the presidency

    Mixed signals from the presidency

    HARD as they may try, it is impossible for the Buhari presidency to pull wool over the people’s faces concerning the herdsmen/farmers crisis. In his remarks to the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of Nigeria on Thursday, the president only spoke of cattle colonies to debunk any attempt by the government he leads to help the Fulani colonise any part of Nigeria. He went on to describe the government’s intentions concerning the herdsmen as setting up grazing locations. He attributed this policy to the outcome of meetings by stakeholders to firm up a solution to the herdsmen/farmers conflicts.

    That was not the impression the Agriculture minister, Audu Ogbeh, gave. The minister clearly spoke of stakeholders meetings and government discussions producing what he termed cattle colonies spread over 5,000 hectares each in states that willingly embrace the policy. Even though he produced no evidence of when the federal cabinet discussed such a sensitive policy, he even went on, before the press and before the Benue governor, Samuel Ortom, to identify the differences between grazing reserves and cattle colonies.

    And when Vice President Yemi Osinbajo addressed the national security summit in Abuja last Thursday, he also studiously avoided mentioning cattle colonies as a federal government policy. He spoke instead of grazing reserves or cattle ranches, and added that herdsmen would pay for such lands willingly transacted with them by states interested in that business. It is clear the idea of cattle colonies, or anything resembling that in name, will be disfavoured by top presidency officials. Watch Chief Ogbeh when he speaks next. He is unlikely to talk very confidently of cattle colonies, regardless of his asseverations, and notwithstanding the buffoonery of Kogi governor, Yahaya Bello, who has offered 15,000 hectares of land to the federal government before agreeing to, and paying compensation to landowners. Someone will sue Mr Bello, for he has no right even under the colony bugaboo to allocate public money to pay compensation for a transaction the herdsmen did not initiate and are clearly not interested in paying for. And to think the governor is all the while defaulting in paying salaries.

    The Buhari presidency may have retreated a bit from the colony concept, but that stand does not however deflect from the fact that they attempted to sell a policy to Nigerians that had not been, contrary to what the president said, well thought out. Nigerians need to be watchful of a government that seems adept at taking things for granted and are clearly unable to do its homework well.

  • The ordeal of Kassim Afegbua

    The ordeal of Kassim Afegbua

    KASSIM Afegbua is no stranger to controversy. The long-standing spokesman of former military president Ibrahim Babangida has, however, this time, met his match in the umbrage curiously taken by the security agencies on behalf of President Muhammadu Buhari. Mr Afegbua had authored a strongly worded and damning statement in the name of Gen Babangida against the president, suggesting that Nigeria needed a new breed leader, not analogue one, competent to tackle the exigencies of a complex and modern nation. He entitled the statement “Towards a National Rebirth”. Almost immediately, however, a counter statement was issued by persons close to the general’s household and rendered in tones that were more conciliating and inoffensive. It was this second statement, on which the general’s name was appended but not signed, that the security agencies seized upon to accuse Mr Afegbua of defamation. It was not clear who was defamed, the subject of the statement, President Buhari, or the general whom Mr Afegbua was falsely accused of representing.

    First to pummel the general’s spokesman were the police who promptly ordered him to report at the Force Headquarters, and later summarily declared him a wanted man. The police statement accused Mr Afegbua of “making false statements, defamation of character, and for an act capable of instigating public disturbance throughout the country”. Neither Mr Afegbua nor any commentator was sure whether the police advised themselves before they drew a red line in the sand against free speech, nor why they should cry more than the bereaved. If the wily Minna-based general did not think it fit to question the integrity or motives of Mr Afegbua, it was uncertain why the police should think that that responsibility devolved upon them. In any case, they obviously and imperiously assumed responsibility for getting to the root of the conflicting statements emanating from Gen Babangida’s household and staff.

    Wisely, however, the police took no serious step in making an arrest or going beyond declaring the general’s spokesman wanted. But even more wisely, Mr Afegbua, in company with his lawyer, presented himself before the police on Wednesday. He later told newsmen that his interaction with the police went very well and cordially. It was no arrest, he said he was told, and the police even apologised for hastily declaring him wanted. Whether the police still doubted the authorship and inspiration of the statement issued by Mr Afegbua on behalf of Gen Babangida is uncertain. But after a two-hour interaction with a designated officer at the Force Headquarters, he was let go.

    Almost immediately, however, as if the government was incapable of learning anything, the Department of State Service (DSS) invited Mr Afegbua for discussions on the same subject. Surely, by that Wednesday, it was no longer in doubt who issued the said statement, and on whose behalf. What else did the authorities wish to know? If they were unsure of the identity of the person who authorised the statement, they could easily have placed a call to the former military president, or seek an audience with him. If they go ahead to place that call, they would doubtless then find themselves in a quandary over when a disagreement with the president became a criminal offence. The police quickly realised the folly of pressing the matter, and they let sleeping dogs lie. The DSS, accustomed to sailing near the wind, and giddy with stretching the frontiers of the powers  conferred on them by the constitution, preferred to get their fingers burnt. They interacted with Mr Afegbua on Thursday and asked him to come for a second interview on Friday. Nothing will come out of the interactions but vexation.

    Mr Afegbua not only has the right to issue statements of his own or on other people’s behalf, he has the right, from the same constitution the DSS relies on to unlawfully circumscribe free speech, to disagree vehemently with the president. It may not be easily perceptible to both the DSS and the police, but the Afegbua ordeal has given the impression that both security agencies feel more inspired acting in favour of and in defence of the president contrary to the roles assigned them by the constitution. It is deeply regrettable that both security agencies could fritter away public funds in chasing shadows when more serious and threatening challenges to national security flourish elsewhere and sometimes even under their noses. Worse, and gradually, an atmosphere of fear, censorship and intimidation is taking root. That inimical culture will become aggravated as the elections draw near.

  • Buhari/Ortom: The problem of measurement in Benue State

    Buhari/Ortom: The problem of measurement in Benue State

    IN his response to the Senate’s accusation that he had not done enough to resolve the spinoffs from the New Year’s Day killings in Benue State, President Muhammadu Buhari insisted he had indeed taken concrete, measurable steps. He enumerated the steps in a revelatory letter he wrote to the Senate, dated January 25. Senate President Bukola Saraki read the letter on the floor of the Senate on January 31. So far, neither the Senate nor the Benue State governor, Samuel Ortom, seems convinced that anything of substance has been done. While the Senate is tentative in its assessment of the presidency’s response, Benue State has been predictably cynical and dismissive.

    The problem between the presidency on the one hand and both the Senate and Benue State on the other hand is either one of miscomprehension between the parties or a problem of measurement. Nothing indicates that a meeting point is anywhere near. The Senate appears truly mystified by what many suspect to be the government’s foot-dragging, while on the other hand Benue State appears almost permanently poised to exhibit its cynicism, considering how angered they are by the presidency’s ineffective, if not insulting, claim of altruism. On the whole, the country is baffled, not so much by the government’s lack of definitive response, but by its hollow claim of doing something that apparently can’t be measured.

    Here are the president’s claims. “One, on Thursday 4th January, I sent the Minister of Interior and the Deputy Inspector-General of Police in charge of Operations for an on-the-spot assessment of the situation.” How this amounts to something concrete is beyond comprehension. This step, if that is what it really is, is so routine and elementary that it does not need presidential intervention to trigger. Were the police to be run not with the servile spirit that suffuses its operations but with the responsiveness and effectiveness that are denotative of its constitutional responsibility, their officers would have met instantly when the crisis broke, deployed their men to gather information and intelligence, and make immediate and preliminary arrests.

    “Two, on Friday 5th January, the Inspector-General of Police briefed me verbally on the latest situation, calm had then been restored.” This, of course, is no action, nor even a response. It is more indicative of everything that is amiss with both the policing system of Nigeria and the structural malformation that has rendered the country incapable of responding promptly and intelligently to crisis. It is also indicative of the fact that the president was merely fishing for items to lengthen his letter to the Senate.

    “Three, on Monday 8th, the Minister of Interior met with the following: Governors of Adamawa, Kaduna, Niger, Benue Taraba and Nasarawa together with the DG of the State Security Services, Inspector-General of Police, CG Civil Defence, Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development and Police Commissioner of the six aforementioned states. After the meeting, I instructed the Minister of Interior to brief you on the information gathered so far and steps taken.” This meeting is absolutely no response whatsoever. What would have amounted to some action were concrete steps flowing from the meeting, steps Nigerians and Benue people in particular can verify as yielding results. The Benue State governor attended the meeting, and he tells the press that he cannot point to anything concrete that the government has done through the Interior ministry initiative.

    “On Tuesday, 9th of January, I had a long session with Governor Samuel Ortom of Benue State during which I informed him of police arrest of some suspects with Kalashnikovs. In addition, I told him that I have instructed IGP to speed up trial and prosecution of the suspects and give wide publicity of the police efforts.” It is again baffling that this should be itemised by the president as a concrete action. It is not, and it has no pretext to be regarded as a response or initiative by the federal government to a crisis that its inaction and insensitive interpretations have indirectly fuelled.

    “At the request of the Governor, a meeting was held in the Presidential Villa on 15th January with a wide cross-section of Benue personages where frank and open discussions were held and everybody in the meeting appreciated the complexity and difficulties of this farmers-herders strife. I assured all and sundry of my commitment to ensure that justice is expeditiously done.” No, Mr President, this was an initiative of the Benue governor, not an action by the federal government. If the president had asked to meet with the governor immediately the crisis flared, he would have been partially commended. The better action would, however, have been to visit the crisis epicentre, empathise with victims, whoever they were, meet with the state’s opinion leaders and traditional chiefs, interact with the herdsmen, and mobilise concrete federal response, including law enforcement and relief materials.

    Then, this conclusion. “To infer therefore that nothing has been done is incorrect. The police are strenuously working to apprehend the rest of the culprits of these heartless killings. Furthermore, I have instructed the IGP to relocate to Benue State and redeploy forces to the most sensitive towns.” This was perhaps the only real step the government took. But its efficacy remains to be seen, for as the governor said, “the killings have continued.”

    More appropriately, however, it is sad that the presidency missed the nuanced import of the Senate’s letter. The Senate was not asking what mundane and feeble steps the federal government had taken; it was asking what the government’s own understanding of the issues involved was, what policy initiatives it believed were best placed to tackle the menace and restore peace, and, going forward, what long-term steps and policies needed to be put in place to resolve the crisis once and for all, not only in Benue, but also in other states where similar clashes predominate. It is embarrassing that the government’s response to the Senate query contained such tepid and ineffectual measures. It is not surprising that the more perceptive Benue State governor last Wednesday concluded that the federal government had not done enough. He was charitable. It is disputable whether the government has really done anything worth the trouble of anyone remembering.

  • Between Nigeria and Cameroon

    SOME 12 so-called Ambasonian separatist leaders from Cameroon taking refuge in Abuja were reportedly deported by Nigerian authorities two Fridays ago straight to the stranglehold of Cameroonian authorities itching to put them on trial for terrorist-related activities. Nigeria had arrested the 12 in early January and detained them. Cameroon is apparently battling the separatist group from the English-speaking part of that country. Some 39 other separatist leaders deported from Taraba State, according to some reports, are also detained in Cameroon.

    It is obvious that Nigeria, which by its inexpert handling of its domestic affairs is sitting on a tinderbox, is anxious not to get involved in any separatist struggle anywhere, let alone in a neighbouring country. It perhaps reserves the right to be conservative, in contrast to past progressive Nigerian leaders who were more sympathetic to liberation movements in the 1960s and 1970s. But even in Nigeria’s present foreign policy conservatism, which some will argue is closer to being a reactionary foreign policy than anything else, Nigeria ought to observe some minimum standards of offering protection to those who seek its help, regardless of their country, creed or ideology.

    Even if the separatist leaders from Cameroon must be deported, could Nigeria not find a neutral country to take them in? Deporting the Ambasonian leaders to Cameroon is so cold-hearted and cruel that there is no word to qualify it. Nigeria has not only lost its founding vision, as tenuous and controversial as that remains, it has now also lost its heart and direction.