The Nation Newspaper

Category: Dapo Fafowora

  • True meaning of freedom

    True meaning of freedom

    Freedom, freedom, everywhere there must be freedom: Freedom for you, freedom for me, everywhere there must be freedom’.

    The short poem above on freedom is not foreign in origin. It was the catchy song and slogan of the NCNC, the leading political party in the heady days of Nigeria’s nationalist movement. The freedom refrain became popular in the mid 1940s when colonial Nigeria was stirred into demanding independence from British colonial rule. The Action Group, the other leading Nigerian Party, also joined the fray with its own slogan of ‘Life more abundant’, or ‘Afenifere,’ that inspired and caught the imagination and nationalist impulse of the Yoruba. Not to be left out, the Trade Union Congress, under the uncompromising and courageous leadership of the indomitable Michael Imoudu, waded into the fray in 1946, or thereabouts, with a hugely successful labour strike for pay increases for the workers. The strike was total and effective. It paralysed the activities of the colonial government and exposed its weakness. It was forced to give way to the demand of the workers for wage increases. This event marked the beginning of the struggle for Nigeria’s independence. But the vision of Nigeria’s early leaders of an independent country in which freedom would flourish has since been abandoned, as has the general welfare of Nigerian workers who now wallow in abject poverty and misery.

    I was a boy growing up in Lagos at the time and saw some of those popular demonstrations, mainly at Tom Jones Hall, Evans Square and Oyingbo in Lagos. The colonial government allowed public demonstrations as long as they were peaceful. That is no longer the case today in Nigeria where peaceful demonstrations are often broken up by the police. My late father, who was then in the colonial civil service, often took me along to watch those political demonstrations against British colonial rule in Nigeria. He tried to explain to me that we were fighting for our freedom. That did not mean much to me at the time as I was too young to understand what freedom meant. The struggle for freedom and against foreign rule gathered momentum everywhere. The British had ruled India for over 300 years. But in 1947, after a bloody colonial war led by Mahatma Gandhi, India was granted its independence. The event was epochal as it presaged the fall of the British Empire and foreign rule in Asia and Africa.

    In Nigeria, the activities of the independence movements were confined largely to Lagos where, over a century, some educated elite of professionals, such as doctors, lawyers, and engineers had emerged. It was this educated African elite that led the struggle for independence in Nigeria. Initially, all that this small educated African elite wanted from the British colonial authorities was representative government, and equality of treatment with white British officials; not outright independence. They had all been educated in England and loved and admired the British way of life. Colonial rule in Nigeria was benign and more visible in Lagos, the seat of the colonial government. It was at the old Bristol Hotel in Lagos that a black West Indian was first offered accommodation when it was thought he was white, but refused later, when he was discovered to be black. The vibrant Lagos press took up the matter, and strongly supported the agitation for freedom from foreign rule. To the credit of British colonial rule in Nigeria only one journalist, Anthony (later Chief) Enahoro, was arrested and convicted for sedition, after he had made a speech at the Tom Jones Hall calling for a revolution in Nigeria against foreign rule.

    Outside Lagos, the pro-independence movements made very little impact as colonial rule and some of its atrocities were not so visible, or rampant. Unlike in India, there were no bloody massacres of the people in colonial Nigeria. But there were a few incidents outside Lagos, such as the tragic Aba women’s riot and the violent demonstration led by Mrs. Funmilayo Ransome Kuti, over the introduction of local taxation in Abeokuta that led to the Alake being deposed by the colonial authorities. In Northern Nigeria where the British colonial authorities worked closely with the powerful emirates, there was very little agitation for independence. Raji Abdallah in the North was like a lone voice. British rule did not change much there. There was very little sense of the loss of independence or freedom in much of rural Nigeria where British colonial officials ruled through the Obas. Only the black educated elite in the South felt the humiliating impact of colonial rule. In 1960, Nigeria was granted independence with profound goodwill and amity on both sides. Its independence struggle was short and the transition peaceful. After World War II, Britain was hardly in a position to retain its African colonies and decided to let them go. Starting with the old Gold Coast (now Ghana) in 1957, the African colonies all became free from foreign rule. By 1962, British colonial rule in Africa had ended.

    In October 1960, I was a student at the then University College, Ibadan, and was proud to see the British Union Jack unfurled and replaced by Nigeria’s national flag at the Lagos Race Course (now Tafawa Balewa Square). Like many other Nigerians, I believed that the end of colonial rule would usher in freedom and a better future for the people of Nigeria. But in later years, I began to realise that though Nigeria was now free, this did not mean that its people were also free and could really take their destiny into their own hands. This new freedom was, soon after independence in 1960, undermined by new challenges that were not anticipated at independence. Foreign domination had ended, but it was soon replaced by tribal domination and tyranny that was more extensive and vicious than colonial rule. The ‘federal might’ was used to crush the democratically elected AG government of the Western Region, and its leader, Chief Awolowo, jailed for treason in suspicious circumstances. This presaged the 1966 military coup and the ensuing civil war in Nigeria. Tribal colonialism had replaced foreign rule. The freedom from colonial rule in 1960 and respect for fundamental human rights in Nigeria has since proved to be illusory and elusive. Alien rule is evil, repugnant and unacceptable. And we were right in resisting it. But there is less personal freedom today in post-colonial Nigeria than under British colonial rule. Our new rulers care far less about any freedom or liberties for their subjects.

    Now, the true nature of Freedom is often not understood. It is usually regarded as a single and simple idea: let people be free to lead their lives as they will; provided always that they do not interfere with the equal liberties of others. But Freedom is not such a simple idea. If it were, it would be triumphant everywhere. It is not even a single idea; it includes many other ideas, which sometimes may conflict with one another. There is, first, national freedom-the right of a people to determine its own destiny, free from alien domination. There is, secondly, Constitutional freedom-the right of the citizens to manage their political affairs, not subject to a despot or an oligarchy, or tribal domination, but ruled by representatives duly and freely elected by them. There is also personal freedom- the freedom of thought, of speech, of association, of religion; freedom from arbitrary arrest and punishment, and from any form of control, other than that of impartial courts of Law.

    These personal freedoms are the bedrock of a stable society. A truly free man will not stoop to certain despicable ways of behaviour, such as docility, cowardice, servitude, sycophancy, lying, meanness and plain stupidity, all of which abound in Nigeria today. Only enslaved people exhibit those characteristics. And a nation is not made great if its people are enslaved. Great nations can only be built by free men, not enslaved men. Ancient Rome was great because its citizens were free. A free man will defend his freedom and his nation tenaciously, even unto death. He may, like Nelson Mandela, be jailed for his hankering after freedom, but he will still feel a sense of personal freedom, an inner feeling that transcends all physical shackles. And the true attitude of the free man is not to ask more from the state but to see that it is governed justly. A true liberal, or progressive, goes into public life thinking of what he can contribute rather than what he can get from the state.

  • Delay of the Okurounmu Panel’s Report

    Delay of the Okurounmu Panel’s Report

    The eagerly awaited report of the Okurounmu Panel on the proposed national conference/dialogue was submitted by the Committee to the President shortly before Christmas, over two weeks ago. But it has not yet been released or made available to the public. It is still shrouded in secrecy, leading to all kinds of speculation regarding its contents. Given the urgency and importance of the proposed national dialogue, and time constraints, the release of the report to the public should no longer be delayed. A public debate on the report before the national dialogue starts is necessary. This requires that the report be released to the public at once.

    Already, the report is dogged by some controversies even though it has not yet been made public. One of its key members, former Senator Asemota, claimed that he had written a minority report which the panel did not present to the President along with its own report. Seizing on this claim the Ohaneze, the Igbo cultural cum political group, has rejected the report in advance even though it may not yet have seen the report, at least not officially. But it has since transpired that no minority report was submitted by Asemota to either the advisory panel or the presidency. Asemota was at the presentation of the panel’s report to the President. If he had a minority report he should have referred to this during the presentation of the report to the President. He did not. It is possible that he wrote one and was persuaded not to submit it to the panel or make it a minority report, indicating his disagreement with some of the recommendations of the panel. If he has any fundamental differences of views over the Panel’s report, then he should be courageous enough to say so publicly. The same thing can be validly stated in respect of Professor Ben Nwabueze whose position on the idea of the national dialogue has become increasingly ambiguous. Yet, as a leading constitutional lawyer, he should play a prominent role in the work of the conference, regardless of his advancing age.

    Now that the report is with the presidency, urgent action should be taken to consider the recommendations of the panel. Of course, the President and his advisers need some time to carefully consider the recommendations of the advisory panel. But it should avoid unnecessary delay. This it can do by issuing a White Paper on the report. But the presidency is unlikely to go for this option because of time constraints. A White Paper on the report would have to be considered and prepared by a cabinet committee. This could take months, and much valuable time would have been lost in the process. The alternative to a White Paper is for the presidency to try and ‘harmonise’ the report with its own views. This could be done in a matter of weeks rather than months. But both the report and the harmonised version of it should be published simultaneously so as to ascertain the views of the presidency on the report.

    President Jonathan has stated repeatedly that he has an open mind about the proposed national conference and that he would not seek to influence the committee’s report one way or the other. If that is the case, then it should not be too difficult to harmonise the recommendations of the panel and the views of the presidency on how to proceed with preparations for the conference.

    Basically, there are two key issues that the panel was seized with and which the presidency has to consider. The first is the modality for the conference. Such issues as the number of delegates, and the modalities for their election or selection will have to be carefully considered. There are a number of options here which the presidency will have to consider very carefully. These include the use of federal constituencies as the electoral means of electing the delegates, resort to the political parties to nominate delegates for the conference, the equal representation of the various ethnic nationalities, and the use of the existing local governments for the electoral process.

    Of these, the most effective and democratic means is for the delegates to the conference to be duly elected on party basis. This will ensure that all the registered political parties participate fully in the electoral process as well as the conference itself. This will confer greater legitimacy and credibility on the delegation to the conference. If the presidency decides to nominate some delegates to the conference, this should be limited in number to not more than 10 per cent of the total number of delegates. If the number of delegates nominated by the presidency is too large, it will lead to charges that the presidency has a hidden agenda in sponsoring the conference. In any case, the number of delegates at the conference should be minimal. Otherwise it will become unwieldy like the Obasanjo 2005 national political conference.

    The second critical issue is the manner in which the resolutions or decisions of the ensuing conference are to be implemented. Obviously, a legal framework will be required. A decision will have to be taken whether or not the decisions of the conference will be referred to a national referendum for ratification. It is legally doubtful whether on its own the conference can take that decision. It is not a sovereign conference and does not have sovereign powers. Even the president cannot do that without recourse to the National Assembly. Another possibility is for the outcome of the conference to be sent to the National Assembly for ratification. But given the tardy manner in which the National Assembly has handled debates on the recommendations of the 2005 conference, this is an option that could lead to a considerable delay in the ratification process. If the National Assembly is to have a role in the implementation process, then such a role should be limited, given time constraints.

    All these will place an enormous electoral burden on the Independent National Electoral Commission, still grappling with preparations for next year’s crucial general elections, including the presidential election. It is doubtful that it has the administrative and financial resources to cope with such a burden. Yet, it has to be involved in the election of delegates to the conference. Such elections must take place as early as soon possible, not later than March, after which the conference should start. The conference itself should not last more than three months to allow for enough time for its ratification before next year’s crucial elections.

    The electoral programme is going to be crowded and this will raise some public doubts about the timing of the national conference. In fact, some critics view the whole idea of a national dialogue now as a hoax, arguing that the time is not propitious for such a dialogue. Yet, it is imperative that some of the critical issues concerning Nigeria’s political future be addressed before next year’s elections, after which it would be difficult to get any federal government to show any serious interest in a political national dialogue. Since its independence in 1960 Nigeria has held over a dozen constitutional conferences without much progress being made in resolving its fundamental political problems. Some public scepticism about these constitutional conferences that lead no where is now justified. But there are some constitutional anomalies in the 1999 Constitution that, if possible, should be rectified at the proposed conference.

    Evidently, the post-colonial political structure and institutions are not working optimally. If Nigeria is to develop its economy more rapidly, then some residual political issues have to be resolved expeditiously. This could well be the last opportunity for the nation to attempt a fundamental restructuring of its political system to reduce the constraints on its economic development. The nation needs to urgently resolve such issues as federal-state relations, the extensive powers of the federal government, the issue of state police, the role of religion in the state, rising ethnic competition for power, and national security.

    But the political problems of Nigeria go beyond its imperfect constitution. To that must be added the imperfection of its leaders. It is basically one of poor leadership at all levels in the country. There is also the lack of a national consensus on ethical values, the tenets of a truly democratic society, a sense of social justice and fair play, all of which are necessary in a truly democratic society. This is why it is imperative to release the report of the Okurounmu panel now and get the whole process of restructuring the country urgently started in earnest.

  • A preview of 2014

    A preview of 2014

    Most Nigerians are happy to see the end of 2013 and will receive 2014, a new year, with some positive expectations, even though most of these will, as usual, not be met. 2013 was a year of ups and downs, more downs than ups, a mixed grill of more personal pains, more tragedies, than happiness. For many it is good riddance. All the old national problems, the Boko Haram security menace, to which Pope Francis referred in his Christmas Day speech, political assassinations, kidnappings, massive public corruption, mass unemployment, the poor social and economic infrastructure persisted, making daily life more difficult, particularly for the poor. As former President Obasanjo stated it in his 18-page letter of December 5, to President Jonathan, the ‘nation is bleeding’ from his inaction and incompetence.

    Foreign and local analyses indicate that the domestic economy achieved a growth rate of 6.8 per cent in 2013, slightly lower than the forecast of over 7 per cent. Nigeria’s economic fundamentals remain quite strong. There is greater stability in the foreign exchange market and inflation is under control. But this impressive growth rate has not translated to more jobs or a better life for the poor. The rich have continued to get richer, while the poor are getting poorer. More and more personal sacrifices are demanded of the poor, while the economic and financial rewards continue to go to the rich. This trend has increased social tensions and crimes in the country, as the poor, in desperation, take the law into their hands. It is a classic prescription for social conflict in the country.

    The impressive growth rate, one of the fastest in Africa, had been achieved and maintained over the last three years. The average for the rest of Africa in 2013 was about 5 per cent. The high growth rate was the reward for the tough economic adjustment measures introduced some thirty years ago, which aimed at restructuring the entire economy through its diversification and the allocation of a bigger role for the private sector in the domestic economy. But the high growth rate, particularly in communications (8%) and construction (2 %), was still far less than the target of 10 per cent envisioned for the economy to make Nigeria a truly emerging economy by the year 2020. It was fuelled largely by erstwhile and favourable trends in the oil sector and higher levels of foreign direct investment (FDI).

    But by the second half of the year, Nigeria was beginning to lose 25 per cent of its oil production to oil theft. In fact, the growth rate would have been higher but for this vast oil theft and customs waivers which had a negative effect on national revenues. By the third quarter of the year, there were fears that Nigeria was going broke. Revenue allocation to the states fell sharply. The Federal Government could not meet some of its statutory financial obligations. The minister of finance denied this, but the evidence is overwhelming that the federal and states governments are all facing a cash crunch. Many public sector projects had to be abandoned due to lack of funds. The trains are now partially rehabilitated and offering limited services. But the Nigerian Railways needs additional funds to make it more functional. The narrow gauge has to be changed to the standard gauge to improve its overall services. Kenya has just announced that it is embarking on the building of a new standard gauge for its train services. It is the kind of investment that Nigeria needs very badly if it is to modernise its public transportation, still in a deplorable state. If the East-West road is completed, it will cut travelling time to the East by half.

    What are the prognoses for 2014? Things will certainly be tougher for the country than last year. With dwindling oil revenues, and the massive corruption in the oil sector, where some $10 billion in revenue is reported missing, it is unlikely that the economy can sustain its current growth rate of over 6 per cent in 2014. Some indication of this can be seen in the 2014 federal deficit budget that is almost a trillion naira lower than the budget for 2013. As usual, capital expenditure was barely a third of recurrent expenditure, an indication that efforts to reduce the cost of governance in Nigeria have failed. The federal bureaucracy has continued to grow in size and incompetence. This means that many of the public sector projects envisaged in 2014 will either not be completed, or will be abandoned totally. There will be less job creation and increasing pressure on social services. The power sector is unlikely to witness any significant improvement, as the investments needed in the sector cannot be made due to rising financial constraints. If Nigeria achieves greater stability in its power supply, its economy can grow by 10 per cent. Led by recovery in the US economy, the global economic recession is weakening and Nigeria should benefit from this favourable trend. But there will be reduced demand for its oil, due to emerging alternative sources of oil, particularly shale oil. China still has a deficit of oil supplies, but it is now relying more on Angola for its oil supplies than Nigeria. With all these negative economic trends, economic growth in 2014 will be much slower and lower, in the region of 5 per cent.

    At the political level, 2014 promises to be an exciting, if not violent year. It is the year before the presidential elections in 2015. Already, the political landscape is changing with the emergence of a new united opposition party, the All Progressives’ Congress (APC), an amalgam of nearly all opposition parties in the country. President Jonathan is facing critical challenges to his political future, including his ambition to seek a second term in office. His ruling party, the PDP, is in disarray, with many of its governors and members of the National Assembly defecting to the opposition. This development represents a serious challenge to his hold on power, already slipping. Instead of being considered a national leader, he is beginning to look increasingly as the leader of an ethnic group, to which he is now forced to withdraw. The open and savage attack on Jonathan in Obasanjo’s open letter to him, (a case of the kettle calling the pot black) has now forced into the open the internal divisions in the PDP. President Jonathan is fast losing political support in the country, and will have considerable difficulty in getting the PDP presidential nomination for the 2015 elections.

    Former President Obasanjo has made it clear that he is not leaving the PDP. His strategy is to make it impossible for President Jonathan to win the PDP nomination for 2015. With the massive withdrawal of support for Jonathan in the North, Obasanjo’s strategy may work, particularly if a Northern candidate is chosen, instead of Jonathan, as the PDP presidential candidate. There is speculation that Obasanjo has Sule Lamido, the PDP Governor of Jigawa, in mind as the PDP presidential candidate. This explains why Lamido has not joined his colleagues in defecting to the APC. He is playing the waiting game.

    Now, if he gets the PDP presidential nomination, there will almost certainly be fresh political re-alignments, with the PDP members, who have recently defected to the APC, returning to their old Party, the PDP. They defected from the PDP simply because they want power to return to the North, an ambition supported by the APC. Obasanjo will not work for the APC to replace his party, the PDP, as the ruling Party in Nigeria. He cannot be accused this time of duplicity as he was rightly accused in the 2003 presidential elections when he outfoxed the AD. He has all but made it very clear that he will remain with the PDP. Now, if there is reversed defection from the APC to the PDP, this will place the APC on the horns of a dilemma. The political alliance may break up, as the sole objective of the alliance is to gain control of the federal government.

    Altogether, it will be for both the PDP and the APC a ‘do or die’ election. We may expect a lot of blood letting over this in the run up to 2015. Obasanjo has already claimed that Jonathan is training some snipers for the election, and that he has some 1000 people on his watch list, with some of them marked for possible elimination. Jonathan has referred the claim to the security agencies for investigation. But it is a claim that cannot be proven, and the security agencies will report that there is no basis for the claim. Whether it is true or not, the allegation has increased political tension in the country, a disincentive to foreign investment this year, as potential investors will place their plans on hold until after the 2015 elections. This is the centenary anniversary of Nigeria’s amalgamation as a country. But we will have to hold our breath as the politicians determine Nigeria’s political future in 2014 and after.

    May I avail myself of this medium to wish all readers of this column a happy and prosperous New Year.

  • Mandela: The man of destiny

    Mandela: The man of destiny

    Nelson Mandela, the great freedom fighter and first black president of South Africa, was buried last Sunday at Qunu, his remote birth place, in the Eastern Cape Province of South Africa. His death on December 5, after a long illness, evoked an almost unprecedented global outpouring of grief and sadness. Virtually all the world’s leaders, including leaders of countries that had once denounced him as a dangerous Communist and terrorist, mourned him as a global icon, and paid him homage as one of the most outstanding political figures of the 20th century. Through his exemplary life and epic struggle for freedom he touched so many lives, cutting across race, colour, creed, and nationality. Millions of people, rich and poor, all over the world mourned him and felt a profound sense of personal loss at his demise. Not since the assassination of US President John Kennedy in November, 1963, in Dallas, USA, has there been such an outpouring of grief and sadness at the death of a political leader.

    Nelson Mandela was a man whose entire life was shaped by destiny. In so many ways, he was a man of destiny. Born in a remote part of South Africa, his father was a minor tribal chief. If he had not ventured out of Qunu he would have ended his life unknown as a minor tribal chief. No one could have predicted that he would in future emerge as the leader of the epic and bloody struggle of the South African blacks against apartheid South Africa and eventually emerge as South Africa’s first black president. But throughout out his difficult life and harrowing personal experiences under apartheid South Africa, destiny beckoned him towards greatness. As he wrote in his memoirs, ‘Long Walk to Freedom’, not satisfied with the prospect of being a minor court official in Qunu, he fled with his cousin to Johannesburg, the prosperous South African gold city, and the country’s commercial capital, and worked in the mines there. It was a back breaking, poorly paid, and humiliating job, with black workers huddled together in shacks and horrifying conditions. The white mining officials exercised their authority over black workers with unspeakable brutality.

    When it was discovered that he had fled from home to seek employment in the city and was wanted back at home, he was fired. But instead of returning home, he chose to remain in Johannesburg where he suffered terribly. It was in that city that he encountered the horrors and personal racial humiliation suffered by all non-whites in apartheid South Africa. To borrow the famous words of William Gladstone, a 19th century liberal British prime minister, the apartheid racial system was a ‘negation of God erected into a system of government’. Next to Nazi Germany, it was the most vicious and evil system of government ever devised by humanity. The blacks were treated by the Boers in their own country worse than dogs. They had absolutely no political or economic rights. They were segregated and made to carry passes in their own country. Blacks who had university education were denied jobs in the government.

    In Johannesburg, Nelson Mandela went back to school and eventually studied law part time, after which he worked for a while as a clerk in a white law firm. He lived in a one room apartment in Soweto, the fabled shanty town for the blacks. His wages were so low he could barely support himself financially. Even though he was qualified to be an attorney, he and other black lawyers were denied that opportunity by the apartheid system. In the law firm, he continued to encounter the brutal nature of apartheid. The white office assistant employed in the law firm would not serve him tea at lunch break because he was black. Only his white colleagues could be served.

    It was the personal humiliation he suffered in Johannesburg that led him to join the African National Congress (ANC), then agitating for an end to racism in South Africa. He started a law firm with Oliver Tambo, his lifelong comrade in the long struggle against the apartheid system. He married early in 1946, but his first wife, Evelyn, who was the cousin of Walter Sisulu, a veteran of the struggle, left him because she could not share his unyielding commitment to the struggle. She was an adherent of the Jehovah Witness, a religious movement that forbade the participation of its members in politics. She could no longer stand his complete dedication to the struggle which left her lonely with four young children to bring up on her own. She did not understand the import of the great struggle and the long time spent away from home by her husband in pursuit of his political objective.

    The breakup of the marriage had a devastating effect on Nelson Mandela. By his own account, he returned home one day to an empty house, and found that his wife had packed out, taking the four children of the marriage with her. Even the curtains in the house had been removed by his wife. She had asked him to choose between his family and the anti-apartheid struggle. Though painful, as he admitted in his memoires, he chose the latter and continued with the struggle. Most men would have chosen their family. A few years later, he met and married, Winnie, who, unlike Evelyn, shared his commitment to the struggle. But after five years of marriage he was sent to life imprisonment for treason after the famous Rivonia trial in which he said he was prepared to die for his freedom. He could have been given the death sentence, but was spared by the strong international reaction to the 1963 Sharpeville massacre of unarmed and fleeing 67 blacks, shot in the back by the South African police for carrying out a peaceful demonstration. It was while he was in prison that he became the acknowledged leader of the black struggle in racist South Africa. He refused to compromise the struggle despite blandishments of possible reprieve by the racist regime if he abandoned the struggle. When his first son by Evelyn died, he was in prison and was not allowed to bury him.

    After 27 years in prison he was finally released by the apartheid regime. So much had changed in South Africa during his incarceration. The struggle for freedom had become bloodier and international support for the black struggle for freedom had increased. Economic sanctions against the regime had begun to bite. Fearing a total collapse of the South African economy, the white business community in South Africa, led by Oppenheimer, openly called for negotiations with the ANC. This paved the way for Mandela’s subsequent release and a review of the racist South African Constitution. In the ensuing elections, the ANC won and Nelson Mandela emerged as the first black president of South Africa. He served only one term as president. His job was done and he retired into private life, pleading that his successors should not call him. Jointly with F.W. de Klerk, his white predecessor in office, he received the Nobel Peace award. As president, he reconciled all the races of South Africa and laid the foundation for a rainbow country. He unified a once bitterly divided nation. He was the only leader who could have kept the country together and end racial bitterness and violence in the country. He made enormous personal sacrifice for the nation. He gave everything up for his country’s freedom, including his marriage to his second wife, Winnie, and his children and grandchildren. He never had a normal family life. Soon after his release from prison, he separated from Winnie. The long period of his incarceration had, regrettably, destroyed the marriage irreparably. As he said when announcing his separation from Winnie, it was the destiny and lot of freedom fighters not to enjoy a normal family life.

    Africa has produced other outstanding political leaders such as Kwame Nkrumah of Ghana, Sekou Toure of Guinea, Abdul Nasser of Egypt, and Nwalimu Julius Nyerere of Tanzania. But they all pale in political and global significance to Nelson Mandela, a truly global phenomenon, who, defying all odds fought courageously for his country’s freedom. As President Obama observed rightly, we may never see the likes of him again. The values for which he fought so bravely in South Africa are eternal and enduring. The anomalous situation in South Africa produced this great man of destiny, a truly global icon, now laid to rest in his home town, Qunu.

  • A tribute to Sir Michael Oladele Fafowora (1928-2013)

    I do not normally write public tributes, particularly to my own relations. I find doing so very painful, and I like to keep my private grief to myself. But I was shocked and saddened by the sudden and unexpected death on Sunday, September 1, in Maryland, USA, of Sir Michael Oladele Fafowora. He was my beloved paternal uncle, the youngest brother of my late father, Chief Olagunju Asaolu Fafowora. He was a man of the world, a well travelled and successful businessman. I had called and spoken to him in Maryland, in the USA, where he was on vacation, the day before he died. He seemed hail and hearty and told me two of his daughters, Jumoke and Tolu, a medical doctor, were getting married in the US, and that he was returning home soon, before Christmas, for their marriage engagements here in Ilesa. He died the next day. There was no inkling of his imminent death. Although he was 85, he had generally good health, and I believed he had many more useful years ahead of him. He will be buried at Ilesa on Saturday, December 14, after a funeral service at the Cathedral of the African Church.

    Uncle Dele, as he was fondly called in the family, was born on 31st March, 1928, in Ilesa, the youngest of the six sons of his father, my own grandfather, Pa Asaolu Fafowora, and the only son of his mother, Madam Dorcas Olateju Fafowora. He had an older sister, Mama Dokun, now deceased, and a younger sister, Auntie Lape, Mrs. Latinwo, who survives him. Of his siblings, she was the closest to him and was in Maryland with him when Uncle Dele passed on. Among his surviving cousins are Pa Adebayo Fafowora, an Architect and, at nearly 90, the head of the Fafowora family, Mr. Kayode Fafowora, a lawyer and former deputy Director General of the Nigerian Customs Services, Mr. Akinloye Fafowora, a Chartered Accountant, Mr. Suji Fafowora, a retired head of the FAO operations in the old Western Region of Nigeria, Mr. Sanya Fafowora, an Accountant, and Mr. Akinlolu Fafowora, a former Accountant in the Nigerian Foreign Service. His nephews and nieces include Mr. Gabriel Adesoji, a Chartered Accountant, Chief (Mrs.) Dupe Fafowora-Oseghale, a former Chairman of the Isolo Council, Hon. Folarin Fafowora, a member of the Osun State House of Assembly, and Femi Fafowora, a prominent lawyer in Ilesa. All of them held him in high esteem.

    Uncle Dele had a very good parental pedigree of which he was immensely proud. His father, late Pa Samuel Asaolu Fafowora, was a highly successful and wealthy business man in Ilesa in his time. In the 1920s, he already had a fleet of six lorries plying the Lagos, Ibadan, Benin route. His mother, Madam Dorcas Olateju Fafowora, hailed from the well known Ajayi Oromu family of Ilesa. Uncle Dele had a very privileged and happy childhood. Being the youngest and last son of his father, everyone in the family loved and doted on him. He lacked nothing. He grew up to be an independent, proud and immensely confident man. As a young lad, he had access to his father’s cars and stable of horses which he rode all over Ilesa to the admiration of every one in town. He was one of the finest horse riders that I knew and admired. Whenever I visited Ilesa from Lagos where I lived with my parents, he would place me on the horse and give me a ride all over Ilesa. I was thrilled and it was an experience I never forgot. Until recently, I had a photograph of the two of us on his father’s horse. That was how he and I first bonded.

    After his primary school education in Ilesa, he entered the Ilesa Grammar School where he completed his secondary school education in 1952. Thereafter, he worked as a clerk at the Ilesa Town Council. It was from there that in 1961 he proceeded to the Bolton Institute of Technology in England to study automobile engineering, which he successfully completed in 1966, on the sponsorship of the old Western Region government. It was from London that he was recruited into the Nigeria Police Force as a Vehicle Inspection Officer (VIO). In that capacity, he served all over the old Western Region and became well known. In 1977, after 10 years, he decided to retire from the Nigeria Police Force. He had become disenchanted with the Police and decided to go into business in which he was quite successful. He started by importing the British car, Chevy, for which he had a franchise, into Nigeria. He had inherited his father’s knack for business. His car business, Osue Motors, flourished and he diverted into other businesses in which he was equally successful.

    Uncle Dele was a good family man. He was blessed with many children and loved them dearly. He always wanted the best for his children who, in turn, requited his love and care for them. His expectations of them, particularly, Niyi, his eldest son, were quite high. He had many friends in Ilesa all of whom held him in high esteem. His maternal cousins include Justice Oluborode, former Chief Judge of Osun State, Chief Tunde Ibironke, now deceased, a former Director General of the Nigerian Law School, and late Mr. Ogun Ogundipe, a Permanent Secretary in Osun State. He was immensely focused in life and had no time for frivolities of any kind. He was taciturn, reticent, and deeply private man and never meddled in the affairs of others. He respected their privacy and usually kept his counsel to himself.

    He was a self-effacing man and disliked any kind of personal publicity, or humbug. I was surprised later when I discovered that he had been marginally engaged in politics. He was generally well informed about public affairs, and had been Senator Moji Akinfenwa’s deputy in the AD in Ilesa. He made an immense financial contribution to the Party in Ilesa, but he never sought an elective office, preferring to stay in the background instead. Chief Bisi Akande, the former AD Governor of Osun State, once told me of my uncle’s immense financial support for the AD in Osun State. Many crucial political meetings were held at his sprawling Ilesa GRA residence. Chief Bisi Akande told me he spent many nights in my uncle’s house usually after their late night meetings. He actually tried to get me involved in politics for a while, and almost succeeded.

    In later years, as he grew older, he became more devoted to his church, the African Cathedral Church, in Ilesa, where his own father, Asaolu, was converted to Christianity, and baptised in November, 1917, with his entire family. He made a lot of financial and moral contribution to the Church, in recognition of which he was knighted. For many years he donated one of his houses at Ilesa to the Bishop of the African Church there as his official residence. His brother, late Pa Olagunju Idowu Fafowora, my own father, was for nearly twenty years the Baba Ijo of the Church. Uncle Dele was very proud of the Fafowora family and had a prominent place in it. He has, by his death, left a big and yawning gap that will be difficult to fill. He was the bridge between the older generation in the family and the younger generation. He has left a good and inspiring legacy to his children and family of which we are all proud.

    Adieu, Uncle Dele. Sleep well in the bosom of God.

  • Anambra State governorship election

    Last week’s governorship election in Anambra State ended in utter confusion and chaos. According to press reports, voting did not take place in many of the voting centres. Voting materials arrived very late in many of the centres. In many places, voting registers were either not available, or displayed. Where they were available, many of the voters could not find their names in the register and could not vote. There were huge protests by those who were thus disenfranchised. The whole thing was farcical.

    Of the five political parties that presented candidates for the election, four, including the APC and the PDP, have denounced it as highly flawed and fraudulent. They have called for the outright cancellation of the results of the election. The Chairman of INEC, Professor Attahiru Jega, has admitted that the election was badly flawed and that there will have to be fresh election in Anambra State. Specifically, one senior electoral officer has been apprehended and handed over to the Police for suspected complicity in the massive electoral fraud. The whole sordid affair is being investigated by an INEC panel. The security agencies, particularly the police, have been accused of complicity in the massive electoral fraud in the state election. Many voters were allegedly denied access by the police to the voting centres. Some who were thought to be in support of the opposition parties were manhandled and not allowed to vote. This is one more reason why the creation of state police should be considered as necessary. The federal police have become increasingly partisan in support of the ruling party.

    Now, it is really a shame that after 53 years of our independence, we still cannot hold free and fair elections in this country. The result of every election in Nigeria has been hotly disputed with some justification. Elections have been successfully held in other African States with none of the rancour, bitterness and violence that mark our elections here. Only last year, Ghana successfully held its presidential elections, which were adjudged by most foreign observers to have been free and fair. Even in Kenya and Zimbabwe, the presidential elections in those countries were considered by observers to have been free and fair on the whole. There is absolutely no reason, except greed for office, why we in Nigeria cannot hold free and fair elections. In the last few years, the courts have had to over turn electoral results declared by our INEC in several states, on account of blatant fraud and electoral malpractices by INEC officials.

    Free and fair elections are crucial for the success of any democratic society. Where the integrity of elections is subverted, as is the case here, then this is a direct challenge to the stable and democratic society we have been trying to develop since our independence from British colonial rule in 1960. After the long period of military rule, it is time for Nigeria to fully embrace the tenets of democracy, particularly the holding of free and fair elections. A State in which elections are so blatantly rigged cannot claim to be democratic.

    Admittedly, the political stakes involved in elections in Nigeria are very high. Political offices ensure instant access to undreamt of wealth and social preferences. In a poor society, many people are only too willing on financial inducements to sabotage the electoral process. Many are driven to politics, not for public service, but by the attraction of wealth and position. This is no justification for the blatant manner in which our politicians act desperately to subvert the political process by rigging elections. This is why the so-called elected politicians are regarded in the society with disdain and scorn. Electoral rigging and fraud by our politicians alienates the electorate from participating fully in the electoral process, as it lacks any credibility. In most cases, the voters believe that the outcome of elections in Nigeria is predetermined and that there is no point wasting valuable time to exercise their civic duty and right, when they know how they vote is of no avail.

    In 2015, Nigeria will hold its presidential elections. There will also be elections in several other states. These elections will be crucial for Nigeria’s political future. From what transpired in Anambra, we can expect that the elections will be marred by violence and electoral fraud. In many cases, the results might not be conclusive, as in last week’s election in Anambra. We may be without any legitimate government for weeks, if not months.

    If there is a political vacuum, this could prove to be a fatal temptation for the security forces to again claim a greater role for themselves in Nigeria’s politics. Nigerians have never liked military rule. They fought against it for decades until the military were forced to step down by strong and unrelenting public opposition. We prefer civilian democratic rule to military rule. But many are beginning to wonder whether the badly divided political class can hold this country together. There are far too many political uncertainties. Many now fear that, as predicted by the American CIA, 2015 may indeed prove to be Nigeria’s apocalyptic year.

    Whether, or not, Nigeria survives 2015 is in the hands of the politicians. If the 2015 elections are massively rigged, or the outcome is not clear, then there will be a great danger of the country breaking up. The strains of carrying on will, in the circumstances, be too great for the people of Nigeria. They might then come to the regrettable conclusion that Nigeria can no longer be saved as it is. Many who have shown much faith in the unity of Nigeria will then be forced to join those calling for the peaceful break up of the country. This would be a pity. But it would be far better than having to go to war all over again.

  • Why we must keep talking

    Why we must keep talking

    President Jonathan announced in his Independence anniversary day broadcast that he had decided to set up a committee, headed by former Senator Femi Okunrounmu, to prepare the ground and modalities for what he called a National Conference/Dialogue. His decision was totally unexpected and caught most observers napping. It has been received by the public with mixed feelings. The President of the Senate, David Mark, has also declared himself in support of a national conference Those, like Professor Nwabueze, leader of The Patriots, a group of elderly persons that had been calling for a sovereign national conference, and a member of the preparatory committee, feel that President Jonathan’s offer of a national conference did not go far enough. It is considered a kind of tokenism. Regrettably, he will not take part in the work of the preparatory committee due to illness for which he is presently receiving treatment abroad.

    Others like Governor Sule Lamido of Jigawa State, have denounced the proposed conference/dialogue as illegal and fraudulent, insisting that only the National Assembly can review or amend our Constitution. But the National Assembly has not shown much resolution in this respect. It has been dragging its feet on the matter. Asiwaju Bola Tinubu, a leader of the APC, on returning to the country after three months abroad, has dismissed the proposed national conference as diversionary, a Greek gift, intended to cover up the failure of leadership in the PDP Federal Government. But he was careful enough to add that this was his personal opinion and not necessarily that of his party, the APC. There must be some members of the APC, who consider a national conference a good idea, worth supporting. So far, his co-leader in the APC, General Buhari, has not reacted publicly to the proposal for a national dialogue.

    Whatever his real intentions may have been in offering the nation the opportunity of a dialogue, I think President Jonathan should be commended for finally calling such a conference. In fact, the move came as a complete surprise to many as he had previously not shown any real interest in the idea of a national conference or dialogue to talk about the myriad of problems facing our nation at the moment. He says he is calling the conference in response to the yearnings of the people. His decision to call a conference now is courageous as it entails some political risks for his government. Once the conference starts he will be in no position to guide or control it. The tables may in fact be turned against him as it will provide his political opponents a platform for criticising the government for its failures. All the same it is better, as Winston Churchill, the British war-time leader remarked, to ‘jaw-jaw than war-war’. The alternative to talking is war which will not do our country any good at all.

    This is not going to be a sovereign national conference with full authority to take executive decisions on the future of our nation. No responsible government will make that kind of concession as it cannot be sure where such a conference would lead to. The issue here is not whether or not such a conference could end up calling for the dissolution of the nation. That would be a tragedy to be avoided at all cost. Rather, the point being made here is that once again the nation has been given an opportunity by the government to come together and discuss all the problems with which our nation is currently afflicted. Of course, we have in the past had similar conferences. Only as recently as 2007 we had Obasanjo’s National Political Reform Conference. Senator Okunrounmu and I participated as delegates at that conference which I think made some useful contribution to the resolution of some of Nigeria’s critical problems. Yes, it broke up on the third term agenda of President Obasanjo and the issue of true fiscal federalism, which the delegation from the Southsouth wanted reviewed, but which the northern delegation opposed. But there were other recommendations by the Conference that, if implemented, could have solved some of Nigeria’s urgent problems. The decisions of the Conference were referred for consideration to the National Assembly by the Obasannjo government. But nothing came out of it with the National Assembly insisting that any amendment to the Constitution has to emanate from the Legislature.

    Some will argue that nothing has come out of previous national conferences, and that the same fate will befall the proposed national conference. It is true that statistically Nigeria has held more national conferences than other countries. Virtually every Federal Government, military or civilian, has called a national conference in our country to try and resolve some of our problems as a nation. But then Nigeria is in so many ways unique and needs to keep talking to resolve its problems. In 1951, we started with three powerful regions, but now have 36 states instead. Some might consider this as too many and would argue that the Federal Government in the present dispensation has become too powerful, and the states too weak. Without a dialogue these constitutional anomalies will not be resolved. It is the only way to accommodate the fissiparous tendencies in our country. These are legitimate issues that can be discussed at the conference.

    We need to resolve so many issues such as the current incongruous political structure of the country, fiscal federalism, the creation of state police, terrorism, religious and ethnic conflicts, kidnapping, public corruption, the rule of law, mass poverty, and the poor infrastructure in the country. If necessary, the issue of secession may even be discussed fully, frankly, and openly. Reuben Abati, the President’s spokesman, has said there are no ‘no-go’ areas in the government’s programme. Every thing, including secession, is up for discussion. But it is doubtful that any delegate or state would openly call for secession at the conference. Despite our tribal differences and current difficulties, most sensible Nigerians feel it is better to keep Nigeria together than sponsor its break up. Our leaders may fan the embers of tribalism for political reasons, but I doubt if they would really like the country to break up. After all, they are the main beneficiaries of a united Nigeria with the vast economic and financial opportunities it offers them.

    The story has been told of how Dr. Nnamdi Azikiwe, then leader of the NCNC, advised the Sardauna of Sokoto, Sir Ahmadu Bello, leader of the NPC, that Nigerians should forget their differences. The Sardauna replied rightly that we should not forget our differences, and must continue to discuss them. That is the spirit in which the proposed national conference should be approached. Nigeria’s problems will not be solved by one conference, one government, or even one generation. It is basically one of poor leadership and governance, not the Constitution, one of the most elaborate ever. Through the kind of dialogue now proposed we must continue to work on this failure of national leadership until a national consensus on values and ethic emerge in our country. If we talk, we can make some progress in solving our national problems. If we do not, then it will make things more difficult for us as a nation. The alternative to talking is another civil war which we may not survive as a nation. Despite fears on both sides of the political divide about its possible outcome, I urge the public to fully embrace the proposed national conference and give it all its support.

  • Before America attacks Syria

    Before America attacks Syria

    President Obama is on the verge of firing American Tomahawk cruise missiles at Syria. This is in response to claims by the US government that the al-Assad regime in Syria is responsible for the August 21 chemical attacks on its own citizens. Anyone who has seen video clips of the large number of fatalities of the chemical (gas nerves) attacks, including hundreds of innocent children, men, and women, will be horrified by the attacks. There can be no justification for either side in the protracted Syrian civil war resorting to the use of chemical weapons. It is deplorable, barbaric, and morally unacceptable. The international response to this horrifying chemical attacks has been one of outrage. Nigeria has joined other nations in condemning the chemical attacks as morally reprehensible. Since 1925, the Geneva Protocol, signed by nearly 200 states, has banned the use of chemical weapons in wars. So, it is easy to understand the outrage and anger of the international community over the use of chemical weapons in Syria. It calls for some international response.

    But before launching American cruise missiles against Syria, President Obama should pause to consider whether a direct military response is appropriate and necessary. He should carefully consider the following factors and possible consequences of any missiles attack on Syria. First, though the evidence of the use of chemical weapons in Syria is now irrefutable, there is no clear and unambiguous evidence that the al- Assad regime is the source of such attacks. The US says the Syrian al- Assad regime was responsible for the chemical attacks. But it has, so far, not been able to produce any direct proof of this. The al- Assad regime has flatly denied the charge. Russia, a strong ally of President Bashir al-Assad, has also called into question American claims that it was the al-Assad regime that used chemical weapons against its own people. In addition, as I write this the report of the UN inspection team to Syria has not yet been released. President Obama should wait for this crucial report even though it may not be able to ascertain the real source of the use of chemical weapons in Syria. American military attack on Syria would, in the circumstances, be somewhat premature and would lack the necessary international support and moral legitimacy. It would not be justified.

    Secondly, there is strong opposition even in the US to any precipitate military action on the part of the US authorities. The polls in the US show that an overwhelming majority of Americans do not support any air strikes on Syria by the US. The American Congress is equally divided on any military action by the US against Syria. Although President Obama says he does not really need Congressional approval to attack Syria, America is a democracy and it is better for him to get Congressional support before launching his missiles against Syria. Without such support Americans will be divided over the war. In Iraq, President Bush went to war claiming that the US had clear evidence that the Saddam Hussein regime was in possession of chemical weapons. No such weapons were eventually discovered in Iraq in a war that led to heavy casualties on both sides. Now, many Americans do not wholly believe the claim by the US government that the al- Assad regime was responsible for the chemical attack in Syria. The opponents of the planned air strikes against Syria argue that intelligence is not fact, and that, as in Iraq, America’s intelligence regarding who used the chemical weapons in Syria may be flawed.

    Thirdly, America’s European allies have not shown much enthusiasm for an air strike against Syria. In Britain, the strongest ally of the US in Europe, the House of Commons has defeated and rejected a recent motion by Prime Minister David Cameron for Britain’s involvement in the proposed air strikes. Germany, Italy, and many other European countries will not join the US in the air strikes. At its recent meeting in St. Petersburg, in Russia, the G20 was equally divided on the proposed US air strikes. Only France appears keen on the air strikes but it can only offer the US limited military support. NATO will not be involved in any US air strikes against Syria. That will leave the US badly isolated. The lack of diplomatic support at the UN for a US air strike in Syria should also be taken into account. A US war against Syria would, in the circumstances, be morally untenable.

    Fourthly, although President Obama says the attacks will be ‘limited and measured’ US cruise missiles attack on Syria will almost certainly lead to some collateral damage, including the loss of innocent civilian lives. There could be some American casualties too as the Assad forces will resist American military attacks on Syria. In that event, the US will be obliged to send American boots into Syria, contrary to the assurances of President Obama that American troops will not be sent to Syria. Already, over 100,000 civilians have died in this civil war. An American air strike in Syria will lead to more fatalities. That cannot be the intention of the planned air strike by the US, which is intended ostensibly to save lives.

    Fifthly, US air strikes could lead to increased international involvement in the Syrian civil war. America is already supplying the Syrian rebels with arms, while Russia has also been supplying the Assad regime with weapons. If America attacks Syria, there will be some military response from both Russia, and Iran, al-Assad’s strong allies in the region. Israel will find it difficult to stay out of a widening conflict that is so close to its borders. Turkey, which is trying to cope with nearly 2 million Syrian refugees, will not stand pat over the war. It will seek some involvement in the ensuing military conflict. Hezbollah is already fighting with pro-Assad troops in the country. The Arab World, which is still battling with the consequences of the ‘Arab Spring”, will be further divided over the war. A grave regional security situation in the volatile Middle East will become even more complex. The Arab League has expressed its concerns over the use of chemical weapons in Syria, but has fallen short of endorsing America’s planned military action in Syria. Such widespread foreign intervention will increase the gravity of the civil war in Syria. It may be inconclusive and could go on for years.

    The Americans say regime change is not their strategic objective in the planned air strikes against Syria. If that is the case then, from the US perspective an air strike against Syria will be meaningless. What is the point of the US simply knocking off chemical weapons facilities that can be easily replaced by both sides of the conflict? Obviously, the US will need to attack other Syrian military facilities, including military communications and air space, in the war that is bound to follow. This could then become a total war the objective of which will have to be a regime change in Damascus, contrary to the assurances of President Obama. If President al-Assad is removed from power, then the Americans will have to move in to sort out the mess there. In fact, the American military authorities may be working towards a total war in Syria aimed at the removal from power of President al-Assad. But this is wrong as the US has no vital national interests in Syria that is deserving of a war.

    The Americans are claiming a high moral ground in this matter. Specifically, the US Secretary of State, John Kerry, said on television in Qatar recently that one of President Clinton’s regrets was that when he was in office he did not stop the genocide in Rwanda by sending American troops there. But Clinton learnt from the embarrassing and humiliating experience of American soldiers captured and paraded on TV in Somalia when he intervened there. To whip up emotional American and international support for the air strikes John Kerry also said that World War II would have been prevented if Britain and France had stood up against Nazi Germany and had not ‘surrendered’ to Hitler at Munich. This comparison of el-Assad with Hitler is invidious. It is the kind of specious argument advanced in 1956 by the British Prime Minister, Anthony Eden when, in concert with France and Israel, he invaded Egypt over the nationalisation of the Suez Canal, claiming that Nasser was another Hitler On that occasion the US refused to support Britain and the invasion collapsed. Nasser prevailed. That terrible misjudgment and blunder over the Suez crisis was to end Eden’s brilliant political career. He died a few years later, a broken man. He had drawn the wrong conclusions from Hitler and Munich. President Obama should not make the same mistake.

    Besides, the situation in Syria now is different from the European crisis before World War II. The civil war in Syria does not threaten international peace and security. The US should also be reminded of its desperate use of napalm in Vietnam, against the 1925 Geneva Protocol, to save its tottering ally there from collapsing. In addition, it was the US that supplied Saddam Hussein of Iraq, then its ally, with chemical weapons for use against both Iran and its own people, the Kurdish Turks. The US should also be reminded that Israel is in possession of chemical weapons and will not hesitate to use it if it were to find itself with its back to the wall. In that event would the US threaten Israel with air strikes?

    The response to the use of chemical weapons in Syria has to be global and not limited to one major power. Russia and China also have strategic interests in the Middle East that they will defend. The US should not arrogate to itself the role of the world’s policeman. It should work for a consensus at the UN over this matter instead of resorting to unilateral military action that has the potential of widening the war. The Arab League should be given all diplomatic support and a more central role to secure peace in Syria and in the entire region. The UN inspectors should be stationed in Syria to prevent further chemical attacks. The UN secretary general has suggested a way out of the crisis; that if found the Chemical weapons should be taken out of Syria and destroyed. The big powers should agree not to supply either side with arms and ammunitions and work for a peaceful settlement of the Syrian civil war. Before attacking Syria President Obama must pause and think hard whether the military action he is contemplating will actually serve American strategic interests in the Arab World. After Iraq and Afghanistan, the US should undertake a serious review of its Middle East policy so as not to lose further grounds there.

  • APC: What prospects?

    APC: What prospects?

    A new political party, the All Progressives Congress (APC), a broad coalition of three political parties, the Action Congress of Nigeria (ACN), the Congress for Progressive Change (CPC), and the All Nigerian Peoples’ Party (ANPP), has emerged on the Nigerian political scene. The registration of the new party by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) after some disturbing hesitation and delay is commendable. It allayed widespread concerns that, under pressure by the PDP, the ruling party, the new party may not be registered. That would have been tragic. If there was such pressure from any political quarters, the INEC chose very wisely to reject it. In doing so, the INEC has restored public confidence in its electoral impartiality, vital in a democratic state.

    The emergence of this broad coalition of parties has generated some expectations and euphoria in Nigeria’s politics, particularly among the various opposition parties that have now merged and their supporters. The new party’s leaders are up beat about its electoral future. Many believe it is now time for change in the country, and that the new party may provide a credible alternative to the PDP Federal Government. Since the return of the country to civilian rule in 1999, the PDP has been in power, a total of 14 years. At the federal level at least, Nigeria was beginning to look increasingly like a one party state, or a one party dictatorship. After 14 years in power, the PDP Federal Government had become increasingly lethargic and complacent. That was partly because it did not have to contend with any serious opposition to its hold on power. The various opposition parties were too weak on their own to successfully challenge the electoral dominance of the PDP, itself an amalgam of various and often conflicting political tendencies.

    From that perspective, the emergence of a new broad coalition of parties should be considered a positive development in Nigerian politics. Nigeria needs a united, strong, and credible opposition party to check the excesses of the PDP Federal Government and make it more accountable and transparent. This has nothing to do with the performance or non-performance of the PDP Federal Government. Rather, it has to do with the fact that democracies function better where the opposition party has an electoral chance of replacing the ruling party in government. Even if the PDP Federal Government were doing quite well, it would still be necessary to have a strong opposition party that can present a clear alternative in policy choices to the nation. That is the essence of a true democracy.

    But will this new political alliance work? Does the emergence of the APC present the nation with the prospect of its becoming an alternative government? Can the APC seriously challenge the dominance of the PDP in the 2015 federal elections? The APC must face the fact that the PDP is still quite formidable. As the ruling party, it has enormous financial resources that it can use to influence the outcome of the elections. The new opposition cannot match these vast PDP resources. The president’s powers of patronage are quite enormous and he will use some of this to win votes in critical areas at the 2015 elections. In recent weeks, President Jonathan has been going up and down the country with some political goodies to mobilise support for his government.

    At this point, one can only speculate about the political future of the new alliance, as there are far too many imponderables and uncertainties in the political equation. To start with, the history of political grand alliances in Nigeria has not been a happy one. Grand coalitions are not new in Nigeria’s political history. Even the PDP itself is a kind of grand political alliance welding both the progressives and the conservatives together. From 1959, Nigeria has been governed, except under military rule, by grand party coalitions. Even during the current civilian dispensation, at least two such alliances among the opposition parties have been formed to dislodge the PDP from power. But, except the PDP, which is pan-Nigeria, the other coalitions or alliances have all failed. This is because Nigeria has for long been dominated by regional or tribal parties, a situation that reflects the tribal political structure of the country. Such regional political parties have block, or ‘captive’ votes that they can trade off with other parties in a coalition such as the APC.

    The logic of Nigerian politics has been that regionally, or tribally based political parties, cannot win federal elections on their own and need to enter into some form of political alliance with other equally regionally based parties. It was this situation that led to the formation of two grand party alliances in 1964 in the run-up to the federal elections. The NPC and the regionally based National Democratic Party (that had replaced the AG in the West) entered into an alliance, while the NCNC and the rump of the AG formed the United Progressive Grand Alliance (UPGA). But these opposition alliances collapse when they lose elections because they are not really bound together by common values or policies, but by regional political interests, of which the most important is the capture of political power at the centre. The APC alliance will probably hold until after the 2015 presidential elections. If it loses that election it will probably collapse and the constituting parties will revert to their regional political stronghold. If it wins this will be a major feat.

    But the emergence of the APC is merely the first step in a long political journey. It will encounter many formidable challenges. A lot still has to be done by the alliance to dislodge the PDP from power. The alliance must avoid a descent into playing the regional card or pursuing regional interests as this will weaken the resolve and unity of the party. It is clear that the APC has some conflicting and contradictory tendencies in its fold. It is a coalition of both the progressives and the conservatives. Some of the politicians who have now embraced the APC worked actively in the past with the military. Their credentials as progressives are somewhat suspect. Many of them have no electoral appeal or credibility and could even prove to be an electoral liability to the new party. The major historical tragedy of the progressives in Nigeria is their inability to stay and stand the heat together. This was the case in 1993 when Abiola won the presidential elections on the platform of the SDP. When the military annulled the election many of those in the SDP, who had worked with Abiola, simply walked away and left him in the lurch.

    As a new coalition of parties, the APC should begin to mobilise the electorate at grass roots level for support and build strong party structures all over the country. Every hamlet, village, and towns must be involved in the mobilisation, and be made to believe that peaceful change, through elections, is possible in Nigeria. This is particularly vital in the North where federal elections are usually won or lost in the country. No political party has ever won federal elections in the country without getting the overwhelming political support and votes in the North. Obasanjo lost in the SW in 1999 but won the presidential elections with the backing of the North. That is where the major electoral battle is to be won. Now, this should lead the APC to present a credible Northern candidate in the 2015 presidential elections. Zoning of political offices, though deplorable, is a reality in Nigerian politics. It cannot be ignored. But such a candidate must be a youthful and visionary candidate that can swing the votes in the North and win the presidential elections for the APC. The party should avoid bringing in yesterday’s stodgy men who have little or nothing to offer the country.

    The party must also spell out in clear terms why it is different from the PDP, the ruling party, and why it deserves the broad support of the electorate. The public would like to know how the APC is going to tackle such prevailing critical challenges as mass corruption, state of insecurity, infrastructure deficit, poor health and education service deliveries, and the growing rate of unemployment in the country. These are some of the key economic problems facing the country. To have any chance of winning the 2015 presidential elections the APC must offer a credible alternative to the blundering and inept PDP Federal Government.

  • Element of luck in politics

    Element of luck in politics

    Luck, or providence, is a major factor in politics. In a CNN interview during his recent official visit to China, President Goodluck Jonathan accepted this. He acknowledged that it is his good luck that has guided his political career in Nigeria, including his meteoric rise from obscurity to the presidency of Nigeria. A former university lecturer in Zoology at the University of Port Harcourt, he entered politics in 1999 and, in just over ten years, rose to the pinnacle of power in Nigeria.

    He started his political career as the deputy governor of Bayelsa. When the governor, Alamasiegha, tripped and was impeached for fraud and money laundering, Jonathan took over from him as governor of the state. Barely two years later as governor, he was handpicked by Obasanjo and made the vice president in Yar’Adua’s PDP government. Halfway into his administration, Yar’Adua died and was replaced, in spite of strong opposition from the Northern establishment and his limited experience in politics, as the President of Nigeria, a position that, in his wildest dreams, Jonathan could not have believed was possible. He defied the logic that politics is the art of the possible. He hardly lifted a finger before becoming president. He served out the rest of Yar’Adua’s term in office. He is in the middle of his own first term, and now wants a second term as president. He may yet get it.

    But Jonathan is not the only Nigerian leader who got into high office by sheer luck. Our first Prime Minister, Tafawa Balewa, got into that office simply because his Party leader, the Sarduana of Sokoto, declined the invitation to go to Lagos. He was very disdainful of Southern politicians and did not want to be contaminated by the Southern ‘infidels’. Instead, he sent Balewa, one of his party deputies. In 1954, Tafawa Balewa, a former school teacher, was appointed the federal prime minister and remained in that position, for nearly 12 years, until his assassination in the bloody 1966 military coup.

    His successor, General Aguiyi Ironsi, the GOC of the Nigerian Army, was a hard drinking and blundering military officer, without the slightest ambition of being Nigeria’s head of state. He had previously served as the head of the Nigerian military contingent in the Congo in 1960, and later as the military attaché in the Nigerian High Commission in London. He was just happy to be the GOC of the Nigerian Army, a post given him as a compromise by the NPC/NCNC federal coalition government. He had not even been recommended for that position by the departing British head of the Nigerian Army, Major General Welby Everard, who, for professional reasons preferred either Brigadier Maimalari, or Brigadier Ademulegun. After the 1966 coup, power was handed over to him by the rump of the federal parliament. Within six months, he fell from power and was assassinated in a counter coup by Northern military officers, who were fiercely opposed to his plan to introduce a unitary system of government in the country.

    Following that coup, power was handed over to then Col. Yakubu Gowon, the chief of staff, who had played no part in the July 1966, coup that ousted Aguiyi Ironsi. In fact, he had returned to Nigeria from a training course abroad a few days before the coup, and was to have been eliminated in the coup. He escaped by sheer luck and was imposed on the country by his Northern military colleagues as the new military head of state. His military superior officers, Brigadier Ogundipe, and Brigadier Adebayo, were not acceptable to the Northern officers responsible for the coup. He was only 32, unmarried, and he did not want the job. He had absolutely no experience of government and, for quite a while after taking over the government, had to be guided by the coterie of federal permanent secretaries. He fought the civil war successfully but was overthrown in 1975 by his military colleagues while attending an OAU summit in Uganda. In some ways, he regarded his ouster as a relief from a job he did not want or relish in the first place.

    He was replaced by then Brigadier Murtala Mohamed who, unlike his military predecessors, had always wanted the job badly, since 1966 when he plotted the ouster of General Ironsi. He did not get there by providence, but by calculation. He had such influence among Northern military officers that it would have been difficult to stop him. But he lasted barely a year on the job before he was assassinated and his military regime overthrown in 1976.

    He was succeeded as military head of state by then Brig. Obasanjo, his deputy. Obasanjo had played no part in the coup and actually went into hiding at the Victoria Island residence of late Chief S.B. Bakare, his old friend, from where Gen. Alani Akinrinade, fetched him. As a compromise between Gen. Danjuma and Gen. Yar’Adua, the ranking Northern military chiefs, Obasanjo was made the new head of state, a job that he did not want at the time. But through providence, or sheer luck, Obasanjo has been twice Nigeria’s head of state. In 1999, he was released from prison where the brutal dictator, Abacha, had sent him to a life sentence allegedly for being involved in a phantom coup plot. Had Abacha not died suddenly in 1999, Obasanjo would have been left to die in prison. But the Northern elite were looking for a Yoruba head of state after it had denied Abiola who won the 1993 presidential election. They wanted a safe Yoruba head of state and Obasanjo fitted that description. Elected in 1999, he served out his two terms as Nigeria’s head of state, another remarkable story of sheer good luck, or providence. This is a position that Chief Obafemi Awolowo struggled for during his long political career, but which he did not achieve, though he was eminently qualified for it. On several occasions, Gen. Obasanjo has publicly admitted that providence played a large role in his professional career, both as a military man and as a politician.

    There are many examples in some foreign countries as well of the factor of luck in shaping the career of other politicians. Had President John Kennedy not been assassinated in 1963, Lyndon Johnson would not have become the president of the US. And had his brother, Robert Kennedy, not been assassinated in 1968, Richard Nixon would not have been elected the US president. At another level, had King Edward V111 not abdicated the throne in 1936, to marry a twice divorced American, Mrs. Simpson, and been replaced by his younger brother, King George V1, Queen Elizabeth 11 would not now be the British monarch, a position she has now held for over sixty years. Had she not been Queen, we would not now be celebrating the latest royal arrival with so much pomp and pageantry.

    It was sheer luck that brought the former Labour Prime Minister, Harold Wilson, to power in 1963, when the tottering Harold Macmillan’s Conservative government was narrowly defeated by Labour in the elections. Hugh Gaitskell, the outstanding leader of the Labour Party, was widely expected to lead the Labour Party to victory in the elections, but died shortly before the elections. He was suspected of being poisoned by the Soviets who preferred Harold Wilson as Prime Minister. Harold Wilson was once quoted as saying that a day in politics is a long time, and that as long as there is death, there is hope for every aspiring politician. On both counts, he was right.