The Nation Newspaper

Category: Sunday

  • Our politics and geography of power

    Our politics and geography of power

    Certainly, there are political leaders in the country whose religious affiliations seem to have been eclipsed by their modern mindset and commitment to building a modern state.

    Our national politics took a new turn last week. Two of the country’s former heads of state, General Olusegun Obasanjo and General Mohammed Buhari, took turns to examine the religious topography of the country in relation to selection of presidential candidates for the forthcoming national elections. Buhari was reported to have said that there is nothing wrong with the top two candidates in the presidential ticket being Muslims or Christians, illustrating thatAbiola and Kingibe were both Muslims in the annulled presidential election of 1993.  In contrast, Obasanjo was quoted as saying everything is wrong with any presidential ticket that reserves the top two positions for Christians or Muslims, emphasising that the time is not ripe or right for any political party to make that kind of choice. The interest of today’s piece is to examine why both of the two former rulers may be, in Nigerian parlance, half-right and half-wrong.

    Ideally, religion should not be a matter of any importance in politics and distribution of power in a modern state, more so in a multicultural one. If religion were left at the level of spiritual interaction between individuals and whatever represents God for them, it should not matter to voters and candidates who are interested in solving social and mundane problems facing citizens. In particular, citizens in a mono-religious space would have no reason to think in terms of religion when choosing a candidate or when a candidate that subscribes to the territory’s only or dominant religion canvasses for votes.

    Focus on politics and power for the purpose of improving the quality of life of citizens would even be better assured were such a mono-religious society to proclaim the state a secular state rather than a theocracy. In such a context, citizens may not need to worry about the religion of those who govern them or represent them in legislative chambers. Emphasis in such a context is likely to be on candidates’ capacity to govern properly by solving citizens’ social and economic problems. For instance, the United Kingdom is a multicultural polity that is largely united by religion, a crown, and the book of common laws. Even though the country subscribes to the principle of freedom of association, it has not since 1707 had a non-Christian prime minister and no constituency seems to be bothered by this. It is just assumed that anyone wanting to serve as the country’s political leader would accept or tolerate the only or dominant religion in this multicultural society.

    Still on idealism, a plural society that houses multiple religious orientations: Animism, Christianity, and Islam has the potential to demand a supra-religious attitude to its politics and distribution of power, to avoid destabilising sectarian thoughts and activities. Regardless of claims by partisans of the dominance of one religion or the other in Nigeria, the country houses multiple religions, some of which appear to compete with each other. For a multi-religious society to avoid conflicts that can distract it from proper governance, it has two choices: declare itself a secular state or accept to reflect its religious diversity in the composition of its governing team in the fashion of the country’s principle of federal character.

    It is crucial to come to terms with the reality of Nigeria while hoping for ways to change such reality, more so if such is believed to strengthen the capacity to improve governance and enhance unity. Calling for a society in which the religious affiliation of political leaders should be of no consequence in seeking votes and post-election governance is not a bad thing. But anchoring supra-religious vision of the polity solely on readiness or capacity of individual candidates to act right to all regardless of their religious affiliation is not enough to guarantee peace and unity. The country needs a constitution that is unequivocal about secularity of the state as a means of welding together a country of multiple religions. Without a constitution that has adequate provisions to remove fear of domination of one religious group by another, or of one ethnic or linguistic group by another, asking citizens to discountenance the politics of identity and reflection of plurality (in terms of religion, ethnicity, or language) may be nothing more than wishful thinking.

    In a multicultural Nigeria where two of the three Abrahamic religions (or so-called universal religions) are themselves endangered by division into regular and radical Islam and Christianity, it is not advisable for any politician to push religion to the back burner in the choice of candidates, more so that the current constitution is not sufficiently secular in its vision and provisions. Even the amendments by the national assembly and recommendations from the national conference have chosen to ignore the confusion or inconsistency in the 1999 Constitution with respect to the difference between a secular state and a multi-religious state.

    Rising above the many factors that divide Nigerians into groups: language, ethnicity, and religion for the purpose of governance is not unachievable in the long run. But the rhetoric of transcending such divisions may not be capable of substituting for the wisdom of understanding such divisions and moderating them with a secular constitution that sets out to create and sustain a modern state. For example, with the current constitution that has a role for Sharia and Customary Court systems in the capital territory (the space of convergence of the country’s plurality) and a constitution that also has a role for the national assembly in regulating what should have been left solely to local governments and states that need such legal and judicial systems, citizens who do not share the religious beliefs of their Christian-Christian or Muslim-Muslim president and vice president may feel unrepresented or under-represented in the governing team.

    Certainly, there are political leaders in the country whose religious affiliations seem to have been eclipsed by their modern mindset and commitment to building a modern state. As a voter, there are many of such persons that I would vote for even if the presidential ticket is Muslim-Muslim or Christian-Christian. But this could be because I and others who think like that see religion as something that is best left to the private realm. Most of our present crop of voters have had no reason or exposure in the way the country has been governed in the last fifty years to think that the religious affiliations of principal officers of the Nigerian State do not matter. But it’s possible, even probable, for most voters to think that religion is irrelevant to the common good in a multi-religious society, but we may be too optimistic if we disregard the principle of inclusiveness without ensuring proper institutional or constitutional guarantees, to enable the polity move from where it is at the moment to where it wishes to be.

    After almost half a century of lack of direction, it is conceivable that most voters would want a presidential ticket that is committed and capable of providing regular electricity, an enabling environment for the growth of sustainable refineries to reduce the cost of energy for citizens and governments; creating jobs for young Nigerians and empowering our women; providing an educational culture that can compete in the modern world; etc. But it is also imaginable that there are many Nigerians who would want a guarantee of inclusivity, reflection of all forms of plurality (call it federal character) in the room in which the national cake of job and other opportunities is shared. Such guarantee can come more assuredly from a secular constitution and modern religion-neutral institutions, than from good-hearted leaders who can proclaim that they are tolerant Christians, Muslims, or Animists.

  • Tambuwal’s ‘coup’

    The self-styled ‘largest political party in Africa’ turns to usual lawlessness as Speaker dumps the Humpty Dumpty

    Until the defection, last Tuesday, of the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Aminu Tambuwal, from the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) to the opposition All Progressives Congress (APC), many people had regarded the defection, in August, of the former presidential candidate of the Action Congress of Nigeria (ACN) in the 2011 presidential election, Mallam Nuhu Ribadu, as the defection to beat. And that was quite understandable. ACN and other political parties that are unhappy with the state of affairs in the country have now teamed up to form the APC which is now trying to take over power from the ruling PDP.

    So, those who regard Ribadu’s defection to the PDP as the biggest such carpet-crossing have every right to hold that opinion. What on earth could have made a party’s presidential candidate abandon the ship only to want to run for governor on another party’s ticket? Well, much as Ribadu is now recuperating from his failure to get what he thought he was going to get in the PDP that probably necessitated his defection, the APC too, hopefully, must have learnt its lessons. What was Ribadu’s antecedent that qualified him to hoist such an exalted flag?

    However, now that Speaker Tambuwal has dumped the PDP, that has become the talk of the town and made Ribadu’s defection pale into insignificance. Tambuwal’s defection is the ‘mother of all defections’, at least so far. I said so far because no one can tell, the president himself might decide to jump ship before Noah’s Ark is full! ”

    My dear colleagues, pursuant to the extant provisions of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, and having regards to the developments in my home state of Sokoto, I wish to hereby formally notify you of my membership of the All Progressives Congress (APC). Let me register my profound appreciation to all of you, my colleagues, for the unflinching support you have continued to extend to me and the great sacrifice you are making in the pursuit of the overall national interest and the development of constitutional democracy …”. Tambuwal crowned it with a prayer that God should continue to guide his colleagues as they exercise the people’s mandate entrusted to them.

    With these words he adjourned sitting in the House to December 3. Although Tambuwal’s defection had been in the air for so long, why it still took some of the PDP representatives by surprise, to the extent that some of them reportedly wept after the Speaker’s announcement, is difficult to comprehend.

    Of course, everyone who is conversant with our political developments could have predicted how the Goodluck Jonathan administration would react to the issue that should be a battle of wits and guts. But trust the PDP and its government; they have already turned it to roforofo fight. Even as the Speaker was yet to return the gavel with which he hit the table to declare proceedings of the House of Representatives closed on Tuesday after dropping the bombshell, some of the PDP members had started calling for Tambuwal’s resignation from the party.

    Indeed, the ‘punishment’ has started. National Vice-Chairman of the party in the South-South, Dr. Cairo Ojougboh, vowed to do everything within his powers to regain the speakership of the House from Tambuwal. “PDP is a very disciplined (disciplined?) party. If you come and steal in the PDP and use the PDP to elevate yourself and get into office, when the time comes, God will get you out like the issue of Tambuwal. You can see how God has exposed him”, he said. As if it is not common knowledge that the countless persons that God had truly exposed in the ruling party are the ones enjoying the fruits of the land!

    Expectedly, even if gratuitously, the Acting Inspector-General of Police (IGP), Suleiman Abba, has joined the fray by withdrawing Tambuwal’s security men. By so doing, the acting IGP assumed the role of the judiciary which he has absolutely no power to assume. Moreover, there are many cases pending in courts concerning the Section 68(1) (g) that he cited as the basis for his action. At any rate, at whose behest did the IGP take the action? And how does that become a pressing matter for his attention and action? If the police boss could promptly react to the crimes plaguing the country the way he reacted to Tambuwal’s defection, a purely political affair, the country would be a better place to live in. Again, not only did the courts say that there was not only division in the party but faction, which later merged with the APC. So, on what legal plank did the IGP stand to carry out his clearly partisan action?

    It is obvious the PDP would even take more misguided and desperate actions in the coming days and weeks. For now, it appears the police force is enough. At the appropriate time, other security forces – army, navy and air force – may be involved. When the ruling party fights, it does so with all its fury and might, forgetting that the era of brute force is gone forever. Ideas rule today’s world. The PDP should however be well guided by Nigeria’s political history, and particularly by what  happened in Burkina Faso, where soldiers joined demonstrators in protesting the plan by that country’s parliament to extend (now former) President Blaise Compaore’s nearly three-decade rule. It comes to a point when even security forces become embarrassed by the unholy use to which lawless governments put them, particularly when the parliament that should do the needful fail in that responsibility.

    Another thing that should be expected is that, rather than the ruling party lament that it had lost a big fish (that is obvious because the country’s Number Four Citizen cannot be anything but a big fish), the party would, in its arrogance and ignorance (or both) suddenly realise that the Speaker is nothing but a political Lilliputian; someone whose kernel was cracked for him by the party only for him to turn round to bite the finger that made him politically relevant. The PDP said that when it lost Bukola Saraki, the former governor of Kwara State. When Saraki was in the ruling party, he was an issue, but the moment he defected, he became an inconsequential politician; the same was said of Rotimi Amaechi, the Rivers State governor. So, no one should be surprised if the ruling party now says Tambuwal’s exit from the party is good riddance to bad rubbish. Indeed, Ojougboh suggested that much in his reaction to the issue.

    Another likely fallout of Tambuwal’s defection is that he would suddenly become a corrupt person; (sorry, the PDP would now suddenly realise he is corrupt). So, he is likely to be ferociously hounded by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), as if even if the allegation is true, he is the only corrupt person in the land; or, as if we do not see very corrupt persons around the corridors of power on a daily basis. As a matter of fact, the party would have forgotten while accusing Tambuwal of being corrupt that the president had said there is nothing like corruption in Nigeria and that what many of us call corruption is mere stealing! Tambuwal’s sins (if any) that would have been overlooked if he had not left the ruling party would suddenly be remembered and visited. The ruling party would now desperately start fishing for excuses to rubbish him. To them, it used to be unthinkable that anyone of substance could ever dump the PDP. No matter what we might say of Alhaji Atiku Abubakar, he is one of the first big fishes to dump the Humpty Dumpty, even if he returned, only to quit again. But he made the point that there is nothing sacrosanct in or about the PDP. Tambuwal has revalidated that point, even if with bolder relief.

    From these reactions it is obvious the PDP and its government do not seem to appreciate the enormity of the damage they have done to this country in the last 15 years. Only people without conscience would still see the party as having something good to offer Nigerians. The party can only go more brutal and commit serial illegalities in its bid to rid Tambuwal of the speakership, further alienating itself in the process. The ideal thing to do, if indeed the ruling party is disciplined as Ojougboh wants us to believe, is to go to court to challenge Tambuwal’s defection rather than embark on self-help. If the PDP and its government are not comfortable seeking redress in the law court because of the slow pace at which justice travels in the country, they are partly to blame for that tragedy. They have had all the time in the world to reform the judiciary to make it more functional. Now that they see themselves as likely candidates or victims of that slow pace of justice, they resorted to self-help, thereby worsening their case. One may not know the party that would succeed the PDP; it is at least getting clear by the day that the ruling party has since lost whatever its allure was.

    Again, one thing no one can take away from the Speaker is that he has managed the affairs of the house well in his time. Even if the PDP now ‘exhumes’ some phantom sins against him, Nigerians would see through the shenanigans: why now? What the ruling party does not seem to realise is that more surprises could be in the offing. Given the government’s and PDP’s frenetic reactions to the incident so far, one may deduce that they both do not seem to appreciate the unfolding political drama in the country.  Suppose it turns out that Tambuwal’s defection was only the ‘champion’? Suppose ‘knockout’ is on the way?

  • Short Takes

    Short Takes

    While some said my choice – Buhari/Amaechi – cannot hurt the president, most of those who reacted said that will be the very last nail on the coffin of impunity, insecurity and corruption, otherwise known as the PDP.

    I received tonnes of reactions on the 4-part article: Periscoping APC’s Ideal Presidential Candidate. While some said my choice – Buhari/Amaechi – cannot hurt the president, most of those who reacted said that will be the very last nail on the coffin of impunity, insecurity and corruption, otherwise known as the PDP.

    Today’s SHORT TAKES, therefore, parade eloquent testimonies as to why the latter opinion will prevail, come February, 2015.

    PRESIDENT GOODLUCK                        JONATHAN

    . “Without security, there is no government. So it is not debatable, it is something we have to address and we are working towards that with vigour. But if I’m voted into power within the next four years, the issue of power will become a thing of the past. Four years is enough for anyone in power to make significant improvement and if I can’t improve on power within this period, it then means I cannot do anything even if I am there for the next four years.” – Jonathan to Nigerian diplomats at UNECA, Addis-Ababa, 2011.

    The only improvement I can see is public money being splashed on private companies called Gencos, Discos, whatever.

    DR REUBEN ABATI ON THE                 FIRST LADY.

    “The sober truth is that democracy is about rights and responsibilities, a democratic dispensation therefore cannot be a licence for disagreeable conduct as a norm; just as the possession of power in any form does not guarantee the right to be reckless or to ignore the etiquette required of office holders. Anyone in the corridors of power, either by chance or right, or appointment, is expected to behave decorously.

    Dame Patience Jonathan, our president’s wife, failed the test this week in Okrika, Rivers State. It is trite knowledge that there is a critical difference between Yenagoa and Abuja, and a world of difference between being the wife of a Deputy Governor/Governor/Vice president and being the wife of Nigeria’s No 1 citizen. When people suddenly find themselves in such latter position, prepared or unprepared, anywhere in the world, they are taken through a crash programme in finishing and poise and made to realise that being the wife of an important man comes with serious responsibilities. If Dame Patience went through such re-orientation, the course was incomplete. -The Guardian, Thursday, 27 August, 2010.

    SOME KEY  NIGERIANS ON                 GEN. BUHARI

    PRESIDENT SHAGARI -“After the Army  toppled our democratic regime it has option but to install Buhari as head of state so as to avoid credibility problems, especially in the sight of the international community because of his being an epitome of integrity.”

    -.PRESIDENT OBASANJO -“There are only two honest and reliable Nigerians – myself and Buhari. All what the PDP is saying of Buhari being a fundamentalist is mere hot

    lies. They just fear him. He is as reliable as he is hardworking, honest and incorruptible.”

    .GEN. ABDUSALAMI – “Buhari was honest and sincere in all his conduct that perhaps, only very few Nigerians could match him in integrity.”

    PRESIDENT JONATHAN – “Gen. Muhammadu Buhari was a true patriot, respected former head of state, elder statesman and a nationalist.”

    -.LATE GEN. ABACHA (PTF INAUGURAL SPEECH).-“I have realised our collective mistake in over-throwing you. I have seen the terrible damage which our action caused to the Nigerian psyche. I am most sorry. Please, come and do what is best known about you. Patriotic service to the nation.”

    – PRESIDENT IBRAHIM BABANGIDA -“If Buhari quits PTF job as he promises, and as we knew him to mean his words all along, I will  support the idea of scrapping PTF as no one else can do the job like him. I respect Buhari. He was my boss. He was an honourable man. And I can say this anywhere.”

    .ALH. ISIYAKU IBRAHIM –  “As a member of PDP BOT, I decided personally to donate  N5,000,000 to Buhari’s campaign organisation because of my firm belief  in his ability to right all the nation’s wrongs-.

    ALHAJI ISIAKU IBRAHIM -MEMBER, PDP BOT MEMBER (at a Book launch in Kaduna) – “Buhari is as clean as the book I am holding.”

    -SEN. MAKARFI  (a former Kaduna State governor)- “If the truth must be said, Buhari remains the only real threat to PDP whether he runs for the presidency or not due to his wider followership among the masses that now hate the elite circle.”

    – BALARABE MUSA (a former Kaduna State governor) – Punch January 21, 2011 – “General Buhari rose from the rank of a Lieutenant in the army to a General. At one time, he was a GOC. He was later appointed Military Administrator of the old North-East. He was in the Petroleum Ministry as minister. In December 1983 he became Head of State via a coup. During the late General Sani Abacha’s regime, he headed the Petroleum Trust Fund (PTF) before former President Obasanjo scrapped it. But I read in the papers where the General himself said after obtaining his CPC presidential form, which cost him over N5 million, he is now left with less than a million naira in his account. Now, my task is to challenge all of us to ensure this man becomes president. General Buhari deserves to be given a chance. When he became Head of State after the 1983 coup, thousands of Second Republic politicians, including me, were picked and locked up by the junta. But even in Kirikiri I discovered that the NPN elements among us were giving bribe to prison officials to ensure they got a double ration of food. It dawned on me that people who can offer bribes even in Kirikiri have no reason to be our leaders. Buhari was vindicated.”

    ON SPEAKER TAMBUWAL’S              RESIGNATION

    “Concerning calls for Mr. Speaker to step down from the position to which his colleagues freely elected him on June 6, 2011, we wish to reaffirm that the Speakership of the House of Representatives, or any other national elective position, belongs to the generality of Nigerians, not the political platforms upon which such leaders emerge. While the case of Alhaji Atiku Abubakar, who as a sitting vice president moved to another political party – and did not get judicial reprobation for the act – is still fresh in our memories and the clear provisions of Section 50(1) (b) of the Nigerian Constitution easily settles the worries regarding the continued Speakership of Rt. Hon. Tambuwal. It says: ‘There shall be a Speaker and Deputy Speaker of the House of Representatives who shall be elected by the members of that House from among themselves.” It would, therefore, amount to an affront on members’ privilege to question their constitutionally-guaranteed right to freely elect their leaders. “Additionally, Order 1, Rule 1 (2) of the Standing Orders of the House of Representatives states: ‘In all cases not provided for hereinafter, or by sectional or other orders, precedents or practices of the House, the House shall by resolution regulate its procedure’. “It is in the light of the foregoing that the House wishes to appeal to those who seek to ‘regulate its procedure’ from outside its hallowed chambers to have a rethink, as the nation’s Constitution, the Standing Orders of the House and precedent – as in the Speakership of the late Rt. Hon. Edwin Ume-Ezeoke in the Second Republic on a minority platform – have all provided answers to what may have otherwise been a knotty political issue.” -Hon Victor Afam Ogene (Deputy Chairman, Media and Public Affairs.)

    When I heard the government has withdrawn the Speaker’s security details, my reaction was: very good; there goes the 2015 budget in flames!

  • Who is fooling who?

    Most politicians are notorious for making false promises and claims. To get elected, they usually make promises which they cannot fulfil. They promise their supporters and voters heaven on earth even when it is very clear that they do not have the capacity to be true to their words.

    When they fail to live up to their promises, they are not usually honest enough to admit their failure. They make false claims and brag about what they claim to have achieved to justify asking for another term or seeking another position.

    They can be very disingenuous in their desperate bid to hang on to power like we are currently witnessing in the race for 2015.

    Even when it is apparent that not much transformation has taken place in the lives of Nigerians across the country, some incumbent political office holders have come up with laughable claims of not only being endorsed by their supporters, but financial contributions to buy/purchase nomination forms.

    Last Thursday, President Goodluck Jonathan joined the list of aspirants who reportedly enjoy so much support that their supporters decided to contribute money for them to buy forms.

    According to his Special Adviser on Media, Dr Reuben Abati, over N98million was contributed by a cross section of Nigerians for President Jonathan to buy the Peoples Democratic Party’s (PDP) N22m Presidential nomination form.

    Before President Jonathan, Akwa Ibom State Governor,  Godswill Akpabio, now seeking Senatorial seat after two terms as Governor;  Senate President, David Mark who has served three terms as Senator; and Borno State Governor, Kashim Shettima have made similar claims of having their nomination forms paid for.

    Before now, supporters have always been known to contribute to campaign funds, but this new wave of claims of supporters buying forms is vintage Nigerian politicians who can be trusted to do anything to  back their claims of being the ‘people’s candidate’.

    If only the Presidential aspirant of the All Progressive Congress (APC), General Mohammed Buhari knew better, like other politicians, he would have sought the financial support of his supporters to pay for his nomination form to test their loyalty instead of getting a loan to pay for his form as he claimed.

    President Jonathan and others can deceive themselves about the contributions to pay for their forms, but only those who don’t know the ways of politicians will believe them. This false claim, like many others is to give the false impression of how popular their candidature is.

    If indeed some supporters paid for the forms, it must have been from what they have benefited from the aspirants or what they hope to get. The incumbent aspirants have more than enough to pay for their forms and should have spared us the joke about the financial contributions.

    Apart from the financial support claim/Aside the claim of financial support, aspirants should also stop claiming that they are contesting based on the call by their ‘people’. If they don’t have enough personal conviction to run or don’t have the capacity for any office, they should not (contest).

    Nigerians are tired of having (reluctant)? candidates who don’t have any clear agenda about what to do to improve on the level of governance in the country. What we need are candidates with clear vision of how to genuinely transform the country and reverse the decline in virtually every sector in the country.

    .

  • Some serious thinking needs to be done on this Okada riding business

    For the sake of the rest of us who do not use Okada, let us all sit down at this here round table and shake fists on the matter

    First there was talk of the federal government banning Okada riding throughout Nigeria. At that, my heart did a somersault; you know, like it does when you get the news that your wife has been delivered of a set of quadruplets. Gbam! You say that’s good news? Well, I’m sure you know that depends on where you’re standing. Then there was a definite and suspiciously resounding denial of any intention by the government to ban Okada riding. At that, my heart took a dip. Wham! And I thought, ‘hmmm, I smell a rat!’ Before you hang me, though, please let me first have my say, even if you won’t give me my way.

    For the sake of the rest of us who do not use Okada, let us all sit down at this here round table and shake fists on the matter. I know many Okada riders. Some of them are my relatives, friends, neighbours and family artisans, and some of them are even friendly with me, when we are not on the road. I think that gives me a vantage position to be objective about the situation.

    Yes sir, I know; many reasons have been given on why many riders have taken to the road: failed infrastructures like electricity, bad economy, low clientele, etc. These, say the experts, account for why over half of the riders are not practicing their primary professions. These people are on the roads because they need to feed their families.

    Well, to that I can only say that I am also experiencing those failed infrastructures too but you have not seen me take to the road riding Okada. But don’t mind me; it’s just my cowardice controlling me as usual. True, I have seen some women on those things (and how I have hated them out of envy), but I always think, if I can get from point A to point B without endangering my limbs unnecessarily, why do I need to prove that what a man can do, a woman can do much worse?

    As a matter of fact, I remember riding one of the things just once very many years ago and that was because the city I had gone to visit had no taxis. I believe the rider is still telling anyone who cares to listen how he once picked a fare who held his neck from behind to keep herself from falling. I am sure you cannot blame me. Have you taken a good look at a typical rider? He is often wearing black-rimmed and thick glasses through which he sees the road and all of us rather darkly, a dress ensemble consisting of sokoto, buba and a well insulated sports jacket. He completes this dressing with a pair of flip-flop slip-ons and a helmet that hangs on the mirror for protection (of the mirror, that is, not the head). Now, you understand my fear.

    Again, the argument has been advanced that these riders are contributing to the economy of the country by helping to increase the employment figure in Nigeria. Honestly I cannot argue either side of this. The only problem is that a very good number of them are liable to end up in orthopedic hospitals with crushed or broken legs, arms or heads. Yes, I guess you are right, they are contributing to giving doctors, nurses, pharmaceutical companies, etc., a great deal of trade. I also have it on good authority that even doctors and nurses are getting weary of the steady stream of people who go out of their house of a day to crush their bones. I do remember stopping somewhere to purchase some item, only to hear the women around there wailing on the death of a young rider who had passed in front of their shop only a few minutes before then.

    One evening not too long ago, a somewhat inebriated young man known to me got on the motorcycle he used for Okada business, and ran headlong into a parked car, damaging the car, of course, and irreparably damaging his own neck, turning him into a quadriplegic. Not long after, his elder brother got on another motorcycle and ran headlong into another motorcyclist at top speed, killing both of them.

    Honestly, have you seen how unsteady and thin those motorcycles are? They surely belong in the category of the ‘now you see them, now you don’t’. Truly, many of them disappear into thin air while you are looking at them. Sometimes, the riders also disappear with them, especially under trucks and trailers; that is, when they are not causing mayhem on the road. So, if any figure is being increased, I think it’s the gains of the country where the motorcycles are being manufactured; they are smiling to the bank while we are groaning.

    Then, the use of motorcycles as a means of transportation is doing nothing but reinforcing and increasing the image of Nigeria as a very poor country gripped by chaos, confusion and wretchedness. At no time do you get this feeling than when every motorist has been stopped at the traffic lights or traffic warden. Then, when all are released, it’s the motorcyclists who first surge forward like a swarm of ravaging locusts revving infernal noises and belching soot and smoke to be consumed by the hapless motorists coming behind them. I don’t particularly care for that.

    Naturally, many of us non-users of Okada are in favour of banning their use. The country’s government needs to stop hiding behind them to give the illusion that it is providing employment. It is not because in this employment, there is no possibility of career development.

    However, two or three words of caution here when it comes time to ban them. The first concerns the timing. Clearly, no banning can be effective when the group that uses the motorcycles remains hungry. Infrastructural decay has been fingered as the culprit. These have not been addressed in the country because as usual, the government is playing politics with them. So, clearly, until that is done, it will be grossly unfair to remove the source of livelihood of that group, no matter how riotous or unpleasant its members are, without replacing that livelihood with something that can feed them better.

    Secondly, the government needs to plan the ban properly when it is ready to impose it. Right now, Okada is too useful in helping people get from the express road right into their bedrooms. So, it’s not just the riders, but even the clientele, who will be ready to bite the head out of any ban-ner of Okada. It cannot just come out of blues; it must be done systematically.

    Thirdly, before the government bans Okada, it must first have a plan concerning what to do with the millions of the little monsters that have been imported into the country. This means that there must have been put in place a system by which they will be destroyed or recycled or exported out of the country again. This will be the only way to avoid the evil of motorcycle gangs and gang wars that is often concomitant with so many of them lying around the place.

    Clearly, we need to seriously think about this Okada issue now so that we may see it as it really is: a social disease. Using them to fodder political interests or score political points as is being done currently in Ekiti state is being most unkind to the future of many Nigerians. Using them to project a rise in employment figures is also engaging in deception. Truth is that Okada business is destructive at all levels. This is what we need to confront.

  • Boko Haram as our remorseless nemesis

    Boko Haram, with or without the ubiquitous Abubakar Shekau, has proved surprisingly good at holding captured towns. The terror group is described as ragtag, and its commanders untrained, unschooled and tactical improvisers. But in their desultoriness, they have composed, not a dithyramb, as we hoped, but a symphony of madness, bloodletting and extreme depravity, as we feared. Their setbacks, as the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) illustrates in Caliphate setting, serve merely as fillip for more daring and copious martyrdom, for more thirst and zestfulness for blood, for more commitment to anarchical causes.

    The Nigerian Army has sometimes found a way to blunt Boko Haram attacks, regain territories and even display tactical proficiency which a military of its size and stature is conversant with. But the army has been quite unable to summon the commitment and passion required to sustain the battle against the terror group, and the defensive capability needed to turn the tide. Boko Haram and its commanders believe in the cause they are fighting for, though they have sometimes conscripted child soldiers and other captives; on the other hand, Nigerian troops, given the number of court martial going on, have not shown the conviction necessary to fight and win.

    This is the pressing danger Dr Jonathan’s government faces. Last week, Mubi and surrounding villages in Adamawa State fell. Other important cities that have fallen in parts of the Northeast have not been retaken by government forces. Horrified by the scandalous abduction of over 200 schoolgirls by the terror group in April, a few countries offered to help. For inexplicable reasons, they have since abandoned the search for the girls and spurned any attempt to cooperate with our army. They cite the unwillingness of our troops to fight, corruption in the military, and human rights abuses. Whether these reasons were sufficient enough to dissuade them from helping Nigeria is not clear. But obviously the chances of retaking lost cities are for now not encouraging. Nor is it clear that indiscipline, as the ongoing court martial of scores of soldiers and their officers tend to suggest, is the bane of the anti-terror war. The problem is obviously much more fundamental.

    If we are not to wake up one morning to discover that entire states have been taken over by Boko Haram, now is the time to grapple with the uncomfortable reality of the war and the societal division that underpins it rather than the chimera the Jonathan government has pursued aimlessly in the past few years. Dr Jonathan must understand that the reasons for failure are not what he has incoherently advanced in public. It is not hostile press, opposition politics and politicians , undisciplined soldiers, and apparently it is not even cowardice of troops. If it is not too late, the government should find out why our troops are so poorly motivated, so uninterested in fighting, and so divided and uncommitted. Dr Jonathan and his government want all political parties, particularly the APC, and the rest of the public to join them unquestioningly in fighting Boko Haram because all of us would suffer should the enemy win. But Dr Jonathan and his government have been engaged in a relentless war against the opposition, a part of the public they believe is too critical, the media, and religious groups they imagine are fighting them covertly.

    Unable to unite the people behind him and, worse, unable to inspire them, Dr Jonathan has angrily taken out his frustrations on those who accuse him of being lackluster or incompetent. But no one has divided the society as bitterly as Dr Jonathan, pitting his South-South compatriots against others, turning Christians against Muslims, fighting lawmakers and state governments that do not do his bidding, in short, creating enemies in torrents rather than uniting the people and making friends even in trickles. Soldiers in the battlefields of the Northeast do not belong only to the president’s friends and party; they are a reflection of the entire society, a society horribly misunderstood, traumatised and almost entirely alienated by Dr Jonathan. So, how does he hope to win this unfortunate war? And how does he hope to win the presidential election against the run of play?

  • Tambuwal’s defection, Jonathan’s rage

    Tambuwal’s defection, Jonathan’s rage

    Except he and his aides, and perhaps a number of other people to whom the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Aminu Tambuwal, revealed his mind, no one else knows just how adequately the Speaker’s camp prepared for the furious reaction of President Goodluck Jonathan to the defection of the Sokoto State-born politician and lawyer. The Speaker himself knows the legal grounds on which he rests his provocative move, and may have in addition taken counsel from eminent jurists and other well-meaning and knowledgeable people in the country in order to come to a fair conclusion on the limits and possibilities of his defection. I also suspect that he took advice on what possible steps the president could take to counter what seems to Dr Jonathan a ploy to vitiate his re-election chances and render his hold on the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) embarrassingly tenuous. Perhaps, too, Hon Tambuwal worked the House of Representatives to shore up the support he has enjoyed from the lower chamber since he became Speaker.

    If Hon Tambuwal took all these precautions, he would know that Dr Jonathan, in spite of his tame exterior, is a doughty fighter who jousts with a viciousness that contemptuously disregards the law, mocks the constitution, and despises every other ethical consideration that recommends itself to fairness, common sense and human decency. Dr Jonathan, since he ‘tasted blood’ in January 2012 during the fuel subsidy protests, has let himself go in affronting even the tenuous conventions upon which our society was founded but now totters. Never once a systematic fighter, or one inspired by great causes and lofty goals, the president has happily ignored the civilized world as they flinch at his actions and utterances. He fights brutally, ruthlessly, arbitrarily, and unconscionably. This, then, was the man Hon Tambuwal provoked to fury by defecting to the All Progressives Congress (APC) last week. Let him be prepared; for since he became Speaker, and partly because of the circumstances of his adolescence and training, he has been unable to adapt himself to the appalling rules and predatory manners of the ruling party, not to say the deceptiveness and exhibitionism of Dr Jonathan.

    It is surprising that the police withdrawal of Hon Tambuwal’s security aides has become controversial. There is nothing controversial about it. The police themselves know they do not stand on firm ground to take the action they took against the Speaker. They cite a constitutional provision — Section 68 (1)(g); but there is nothing in that provision that enables or authorises the police to exercise the initiative they took so casually. Everyone knows that the cabal that rules Nigeria, with Dr Jonathan at its bitter core, has resolved they would stop at nothing to exterminate Hon Tambuwal, whether their action makes sense or not, or whether they are backed by law or not. They could do worse, as some reports suggest. The Jonathan crowd is expected to force a stalemate in the House of Representatives, tear the constitution to pieces, and let everyone know that the president should never be challenged, let alone wrong-footed. They have never been comfortable with the role of opposition parties in a democracy, but in their view  if they must tolerate them, they prefer to set the extra-constitutional rules by which they must operate.

    Other than a few lawyers and activists galled by the police action against Hon Tambuwal, some other activists, including the normally vocal Southwest interest groups, have spoken uncharacteristically in whispers, and hesitantly too. Their reticence seems to suggest they reluctantly condone the police action perhaps because the Speaker had joined the ‘wrong’ party, their worst regional enemy. But as this column has repeatedly warned, Nigeria is moving precipitously towards fascism, and the ominous steps that underscore this disposition are not being checked because the victims are other people, other parties, other crowds. Dr Jonathan has got away with too many constitutional infractions; if he gets away with this also, Nigerian democracy might begin to flounder, perhaps irretrievably. This is no hyperbole. We don’t have to like Hon Tambuwal, and we may loath the APC, but to turn a blind eye to Dr Jonathan’s frequent unconstitutional actions is to open ourselves, our businesses, our families and future generations to assault of the most heinous type.

    I do not think Hon Tambuwal should resign his position as Speaker. Let him instead test his popularity. Let the House of Representatives, acting independently in accordance with the rules of the House, determine the tenability of Hon Tambuwal’s position. Whether most of the members like their Speaker or not, I think they would however be unwise to cede their powers and veto, not to say their tastes and affections, to the misdirected Nigeria Police or the insular Jonathan presidency. Whether we like Hon Tambuwal’s defection or not, we must resist the presidency’s obvious manipulations of the House of Representatives. We must not feel guilty that Dr Jonathan does not appreciate the separation of powers doctrine, does not understand democracy as a concept, and is unable to appreciate the sanctity and indispensability of the opposition in sustaining and preserving our way of life and system of government.

    At a time when Dr Jonathan rides roughshod over the judiciary and undermines its effectiveness and independence, and abridges press freedom and free speech by impounding newspapers and obstructing their operations, and at a time when the Senate has become so pro-establishment that it has become so indistinguishable from the presidency, it is dangerous for the country and the members of the House of Representatives themselves to let the independence of the lower chamber be malevolently compromised. I feel like Cassandra already. But in the interest of Nigeria, Dr Jonathan must be restrained from continuing to jeopardise the peace and unity of Nigeria. He stubbornly sticks to his misfiring guns and his inoperable and undecipherable policies, many of them parochial, insensitive and paranoid. We must coax him into transferring his aggression and recalcitrance to fight the equally obstinate and vicious enemy, Boko Haram, against which he seems to have no answer and lacks the courage.

    What I find incomprehensible in all this, however, is why Hon Tambuwal has indulged in this high-wire politicking just to secure the governorship of his home state, Sokoto. That he needles the president remorselessly is not in doubt. That if he remained in the PDP he would be denied any ticket of his liking is also not in doubt. But given the cost of his defection, a cost that clearly transcends just the paper work involved or the principles he has had to sacrifice so much to sustain, it would have been admirable for the Speaker to take a shot at the presidency, a step I had advanced in this place and am prepared to defend and even promote. I recognise that seeking the governorship is safe and secure, and that if he should seek the presidential ticket of the APC and fail, he could be left with nothing. Notwithstanding his slight speech troubles, I have no doubt he has the eloquence, depth, wide perspective and character to seek the highest position in the land. He will bring to that office uncommon youthfulness, a can-do spirit, and a democratic disposition that none of his opponents, not even the gritty Gen Muhammadu Buhari, nor the uninspiring Dr Jonathan, would be able to gainsay.

    We must not lose sight of the danger constituted to the body politic by Dr Jonathan’s subversion of Nigeria’s security agencies, especially the subordination of the agencies to the ruling party. Nor must we lose sight of the fact that, so far, our democracy has been defended mainly by the Tambuwal-led House of Representatives. The incalculable sense of loss and futility we now feel viewing the president and his scheming aides plunder the House and defy the constitution would be cold comfort when time and events prove Dr Jonathan and his coterie of aides and advisers horribly wrong.

  • Our politics and geography of power

    Certainly, there are political leaders in the country whose religious affiliations seem to have been eclipsed by their modern mindset and commitment to building a modern state.

    Our national politics took a new turn last week. Two of the country’s former heads of state, General Olusegun Obasanjo and General Mohammed Buhari, took turns to examine the religious topography of the country in relation to selection of presidential candidates for the forthcoming national elections. Buhari was reported to have said that there is nothing wrong with the top two candidates in the presidential ticket being Muslims or Christians, illustrating thatAbiola and Kingibe were both Muslims in the annulled presidential election of 1993.  In contrast, Obasanjo was quoted as saying everything is wrong with any presidential ticket that reserves the top two positions for Christians or Muslims, emphasising that the time is not ripe or right for any political party to make that kind of choice. The interest of today’s piece is to examine why both of the two former rulers may be, in Nigerian parlance, half-right and half-wrong.

    Ideally, religion should not be a matter of any importance in politics and distribution of power in a modern state, more so in a multicultural one. If religion were left at the level of spiritual interaction between individuals and whatever represents God for them, it should not matter to voters and candidates who are interested in solving social and mundane problems facing citizens. In particular, citizens in a mono-religious space would have no reason to think in terms of religion when choosing a candidate or when a candidate that subscribes to the territory’s only or dominant religion canvasses for votes.

    Focus on politics and power for the purpose of improving the quality of life of citizens would even be better assured were such a mono-religious society to proclaim the state a secular state rather than a theocracy. In such a context, citizens may not need to worry about the religion of those who govern them or represent them in legislative chambers. Emphasis in such a context is likely to be on candidates’ capacity to govern properly by solving citizens’ social and economic problems. For instance, the United Kingdom is a multicultural polity that is largely united by religion, a crown, and the book of common laws. Even though the country subscribes to the principle of freedom of association, it has not since 1707 had a non-Christian prime minister and no constituency seems to be bothered by this. It is just assumed that anyone wanting to serve as the country’s political leader would accept or tolerate the only or dominant religion in this multicultural society.

    Still on idealism, a plural society that houses multiple religious orientations: Animism, Christianity, and Islam has the potential to demand a supra-religious attitude to its politics and distribution of power, to avoid destabilising sectarian thoughts and activities. Regardless of claims by partisans of the dominance of one religion or the other in Nigeria, the country houses multiple religions, some of which appear to compete with each other. For a multi-religious society to avoid conflicts that can distract it from proper governance, it has two choices: declare itself a secular state or accept to reflect its religious diversity in the composition of its governing team in the fashion of the country’s principle of federal character.

    It is crucial to come to terms with the reality of Nigeria while hoping for ways to change such reality, more so if such is believed to strengthen the capacity to improve governance and enhance unity. Calling for a society in which the religious affiliation of political leaders should be of no consequence in seeking votes and post-election governance is not a bad thing. But anchoring supra-religious vision of the polity solely on readiness or capacity of individual candidates to act right to all regardless of their religious affiliation is not enough to guarantee peace and unity. The country needs a constitution that is unequivocal about secularity of the state as a means of welding together a country of multiple religions. Without a constitution that has adequate provisions to remove fear of domination of one religious group by another, or of one ethnic or linguistic group by another, asking citizens to discountenance the politics of identity and reflection of plurality (in terms of religion, ethnicity, or language) may be nothing more than wishful thinking.

    In a multicultural Nigeria where two of the three Abrahamic religions (or so-called universal religions) are themselves endangered by division into regular and radical Islam and Christianity, it is not advisable for any politician to push religion to the back burner in the choice of candidates, more so that the current constitution is not sufficiently secular in its vision and provisions. Even the amendments by the national assembly and recommendations from the national conference have chosen to ignore the confusion or inconsistency in the 1999 Constitution with respect to the difference between a secular state and a multi-religious state.

    Rising above the many factors that divide Nigerians into groups: language, ethnicity, and religion for the purpose of governance is not unachievable in the long run. But the rhetoric of transcending such divisions may not be capable of substituting for the wisdom of understanding such divisions and moderating them with a secular constitution that sets out to create and sustain a modern state. For example, with the current constitution that has a role for Sharia and Customary Court systems in the capital territory (the space of convergence of the country’s plurality) and a constitution that also has a role for the national assembly in regulating what should have been left solely to local governments and states that need such legal and judicial systems, citizens who do not share the religious beliefs of their Christian-Christian or Muslim-Muslim president and vice president may feel unrepresented or under-represented in the governing team.

    Certainly, there are political leaders in the country whose religious affiliations seem to have been eclipsed by their modern mindset and commitment to building a modern state. As a voter, there are many of such persons that I would vote for even if the presidential ticket is Muslim-Muslim or Christian-Christian. But this could be because I and others who think like that see religion as something that is best left to the private realm. Most of our present crop of voters have had no reason or exposure in the way the country has been governed in the last fifty years to think that the religious affiliations of principal officers of the Nigerian State do not matter. But it’s possible, even probable, for most voters to think that religion is irrelevant to the common good in a multi-religious society, but we may be too optimistic if we disregard the principle of inclusiveness without ensuring proper institutional or constitutional guarantees, to enable the polity move from where it is at the moment to where it wishes to be.

    After almost half a century of lack of direction, it is conceivable that most voters would want a presidential ticket that is committed and capable of providing regular electricity, an enabling environment for the growth of sustainable refineries to reduce the cost of energy for citizens and governments; creating jobs for young Nigerians and empowering our women; providing an educational culture that can compete in the modern world; etc. But it is also imaginable that there are many Nigerians who would want a guarantee of inclusivity, reflection of all forms of plurality (call it federal character) in the room in which the national cake of job and other opportunities is shared. Such guarantee can come more assuredly from a secular constitution and modern religion-neutral institutions, than from good-hearted leaders who can proclaim that they are tolerant Christians, Muslims, or Animists.

  • 2015: Propaganda and the road to fascism

    2015: Propaganda and the road to fascism

    All political parties indulge in one form of propaganda or the other. As the campaign for the 2015 polls begins, the use of propaganda will intensify. The All Progressives Congress (APC) will try to demonise the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), and the PDP will respond vigorously. Already, using various political and non-governmental organisation (NGO) vehicles, the PDP has taken on the APC’s leading presidential aspirants, and made the party look like a congregation of loathsome politicians. The APC’s choice of targets is a bit limited. It trains its guns on just one PDP aspirant/candidate, President Goodluck Jonathan, who seems to grow in popularity as his leadership foibles multiply. Worse for the APC, it is unable to attack Dr Jonathan as heartily as it would like on account of the fact that he is president, and some decorum must be observed. Expectedly, however, with the elections a mere four months away, and as the parties get desperate, the APC will open a fusillade of verbal and political fire against the president, whether he constitutes himself into a moving target or stands immovably and implacably as a buffalo.

    But often propaganda morphs imperceptibly into fascism, especially in the hands of organisations and individuals who have found a way of disgorging it of its ethical core. And here Ekiti is the archetype, showing the way Nigeria is heading. It is easy to lose the import of what is happening in Ekiti in the partisan fog of politics. It is easy to dismiss criticisms of Governor Ayo Fayose’s methods and politics as tantamount to sympathising with the APC. However, the lurch to fascism is real and frightening, not only in Ekiti but nationally, notwithstanding the governor’s protestations to the contrary or his sanctimonious embrace of spiritual change and rebirth. Sadly, what is true of Ekiti is also true of the Goodluck Jonathan government, where propaganda is indistinguishable from fascism, and where tyranny is used interchangeably with liberalism.

    Having tasted blood before the June governorship election by deploying misinformation and disinformation to hoodwink the electorate, Mr Fayose has found the value of misleading the electorate to achieve predetermined political objectives quite entrancing. Thus hundreds of thousands of text messages were disseminated to convince Ekiti voters and anyone else straying into the line of fire that the former governor, Kayode Fayemi, had enriched himself and enriched his godfathers. Spurious claims of costly diversion of state resources by Dr Fayemi for personal aggrandizement were told in the text messages. The public believed. After the elections, the same Fayose team also told stories of how hundreds of millions of naira had been budgeted to subvert the inauguration of the governor-elect. On the basis of this unproven stories, Ekiti foot soldiers were whipped into a self-help frenzy to subvert the judicial process and frustrate the natural course of justice.

    Seeing how successful that method was, and recognising tantalisingly that all the new governor needed was to modify a formula that is proving so effective, Mr Fayose has arbitrarily assigned figures to how much his predecessor spent on certain items and projects, proceeded to denounce those figures without proof, and elicited curses and mob action from the people of Ekiti. They have uncritically swallowed Mr Fayose’s accounts, and are bewitched by his words and populist inclinations. Reminiscent of Nazi era propaganda, and like every fascist government throughout history, Governor Fayose’s men have also purveyed stories of the opposition’s plot to impeach the new governor, for which, according to them, hundreds of millions of naira had been set aside by opposition leaders. There are already demonstrations by hundreds of Ekiti people denouncing the said plot. There will be more such stories coming out of Ekiti in the following weeks and months, all designed to malign reputations, instigate the people into unlawful acts and achieve predetermined goals.

    This lurch to fascism is not limited to Ekiti as a state, nor to Mr Fayose as a person. In fact he seems to have been inspired by the Jonathan presidency, which is replicating the same fascistic style in many parts of the country, especially the Southwest. It was this style that made the Jonathan presidency embrace the Iyiola Omisore option for Osun. And it is this same style that is inspiring the return of Adebayo Alao-Akala in Oyo State, the Gbenga Daniel/Buruji Kashamu confederacy in Ogun State, and the Musiliu Obanikoro option in Lagos State. It was this sinister and cynical approach in the first instance that inspired the president into introducing Jelili Adesiyan and Mr Obanikoro into his cabinet. As events showed soon after, it was clear they were not brought into the Jonathan cabinet because they had anything to offer, seeing how roguishly they behaved during the Ekiti and Osun governorship polls. They were hired for a decidedly malevolent purpose, and they have not disappointed.

    The opposition cannot set the tone for the ennoblement of Nigerian politics; it is first and foremost the responsibility of the government. The opposition can only respond dignifiedly to the fluctuating mood and temper of the Jonathan presidency; but so far, they have not responded adequately enough to overcome the ruling party’s subterfuge. Indeed, given the temper of the Jonathan government, it is apparent neither the president nor his men understand which direction to head, or that as things stand decadently, they appreciate what must be done to bring about healing and progress. I do not malign them. Not only have they fumed and sulked against the independence of the House of Representatives under Hon Aminu Tambuwal, seeking to rein him in and castrate the lower chamber like they did to the Senate, they have also renewed their plot to replace the Speaker with the grovelling Hon Mulikat Adeola-Akande. They have found it difficult to understand that the health of Nigerian democracy is contingent upon the independence of the legislature and judiciary, and the principle of virile checks and balances without which democracy will be doomed.

    But perhaps the most damaging propaganda embarked upon by the Jonathan government is turning the table effortlessly against the opposition on the Boko Haram controversy. The terror group and its violent acts predate both the Jonathan government and that of his predecessor, former president Umaru Yar’Adua. But by some incredible feats of propaganda, the Jonathan government has made it seem like the insurgency was inspired by the North and executed by the APC, both as a religious and ethnic plot to make the country ungovernable for Dr Jonathan, and to indicate that no one else but a northerner could and should rule. Sadly, the propaganda has caught on, especially in religious circles and among the unthinking elite of the Southeast and Southwest.

    There is very little anyone can say to dissuade the PDP from intensifying its destructive propaganda, regardless of the cost to the county. It brings them much gain, and they will kick viciously should anyone try to smother their efforts and style. What stands in the way of the dangerous lurch to fascism and state failure is the opposition’s ability to counter the ruling party’s bitter and unconscionable propaganda. But if the spineless acquiescence of Ekiti to Mr Fayose’s trickeries is a judge, the opposition will have to look for other ingenious stratagems to demolish the PDP’s architecture of misinformation and disinformation, and to demolish the bastions of fascism they have begun to erect with shocking lack of concern for the peace and health of Nigeria.

  • Govt negotiates with ‘faceless’ Boko Haram

    Govt negotiates with ‘faceless’ Boko Haram

    It was an unusual volte-face. That is if you believe the Goodluck Jonathan presidency at any time ever had a principled or nuanced revulsion to negotiating with terrorists. The facts of the government’s approach to combating terrorism are, however, much plainer and simpler. They are now negotiating with Boko Haram over mainly the abduction of 219 Chibok, Borno State schoolgirls in a tripartite arrangement that sees representatives of the Nigerian and Chadian authorities speaking earnestly with representatives of Boko Haram or at least a faction of the terrorist group. The government was at bottom not really opposed to negotiating with the group, for it had no principles and no convictions about anything, but it was hesitant because it was not sure of a successful outcome. There was of course some disagreements between government officials over whether to negotiate or not, and the president had seemed chronically unable to make up his mind. But overall, the government recognised it lacked both the guile to rescue the girls and the muscle to defeat the terrorists. The delay in negotiating with Boko Haram is after all political.

    In fact, the Jonathan presidency’s war against terror had been undermined by impotence and vacillation. No concise or comprehensive strategy to fight terror was ever articulated by the government. As the terror group gained in prestige and territory, the government’s security agencies wilted in confusion and in-fighting. At a time, the government even began to fight the media for reporting the military’s shambolic response. After many years of confusion, the government has finally hunkered down to negotiating with Boko Haram, a terrorist group the president consistently and sneeringly described as faceless. Citizens and other intermediaries, including former president Olusegun Obasanjo, protested that if the government was sincere about negotiating, Boko Haram had a face. But Dr Jonathan stood angrily pat.

    It is not clear how the Jonathan government finally put a face to Boko Haram, or whether its volte-face had anything to do with the defection into the PDP of Senator Ali Modu Sheriff and the unusual meeting the president, the senator and Chadian President Idris Deby had in Ndjamena. No one also seems to know whether putting a face to Boko Haram and the ongoing negotiations do not have something to do with the general elections due to hold in about four months time. But whatever it was, Dr Jonathan has at last finally but belatedly recognised how Boko Haram looks like, who some of its leaders are, and that indeed the terror group can speak intelligible language. While it vociferously but without substantiation accuses the opposition for politicising the anti-terror war, it now seems clear that all along, it is the Dr Jonathan government that continues to manipulate the war, especially the rescue of the abducted Chibok girls. Surprisingly, the violation of a controversial ceasefire by Boko Haram elements has not weakened the government’s resolve to press ahead with negotiations.

    Instead, the government or its agents have shown clearer and more forceful persistence in blaming the opposition for the storm the negotiations have run into and the inability of the government to rescue the Chibok girls. There does not appear to be any logic to the accusations, but it has not prevented the government from suggesting that the presence of some All Progressives Congress (APC) members in the BringBackOurGirls (BBOG) campaign is proof the group had been infiltrated by politicians. This suggestion rests partly on the boast by an APC leader, Audu Ogeh, that his party identified with the noble cause the BBOG was fighting for. Oby Ezekwesili, a leader of the BBOG and former minister, had taken exception to Chief Ogbeh’s boast, thereby eliciting an apology from him. But another visible APC member, Hadiza Usman, a daughter of the famous historian, Dr Bala Usman, defiantly insisted she had nothing to apologise for. It was okay for her to belong to a political party, she asserted, and also fight a noble cause, irrespective of the government’s disingenuous politicisation of the cause.

    No one is certain how the Boko Haram negotiations will end, though there are talks the girls could be released tomorrow. But it is clear that the Jonathan government will do its best to salvage the discussions, bring it to some fruition because of the positive political spinoffs the release of the schoolgirls would engender for him, and try as much as it can manage to tar the opposition with responsibility for failure should the discussions end abysmally. The ruling party will also try to shift blame for letting the abductions last intolerably for more than six months, and for not having a strategy to defeat terrorism.