The Nation Newspaper

Category: Thursday

To the pleasure or disgust of Mr. President and company

This piece too could easily be signed off with some bleak and wholly glum conclusion about Nigeria and its affliction by the Nigerian factor. I attempt no lamentation of such tenor neither do I seek to project any highfaluting panacea that is self-serving and ego-activated. Yet, one really can’t make the words too strong; we are still the brutes in our recurring nightmares.

A simple lust is still our woe and neither sophistry nor brutishness would obliterate the fact that you and I are as culpable as leadership we loathe for horrors we suffer and let exist. The sooner we accept this fact, the sooner we understand why President Goodluck Jonathan, for all he exemplifies, is probably the most loved man in Nigeria today – and perhaps the most hated.

And the quicker we appreciate in understanding of the intrigues and extreme relativities that makes “the son of a poor fisherman” as well as our band of Governors, legislators and all other public officers hardly the next-best-thing to happen to the Nigerian polity.

This dispensation, among other things, presents an epochal narrative of the story of Nigeria – if it fails, Nigeria itself has failed. The onus not to fail the country although rests on the shoulders of over 150 million Nigerians, its crushing weight bears burdensomely on the shoulders of President Goodluck Jonathan and company.

On the flipside, it is instructive to note that the stewardship of President Jonathan and company, their rise to eminence as well as our seeming desperation to deride, eulogise, condemn and apologise for their politics aptly constitutes the epilogue and prologue to Nigeria’s descent and ascent into the doldrums and out of it respectively, and vice versa.

Now that we have made the worst of uninformed choices or probably the best of informed choices by voting them in, a greater responsibility lies with them to discountenance whatever foolishness, or inclination to self-destruct that spurred us to accord them untrammeled ride to our plinth of power.

Thus today, the greatest struggle before President Jonathan and company is to rehumanise public office cum leadership in the country. They probably don’t know yet that the positions they occupy requires of them, greater responsibilities than they could ever imagine.

Most important is for them to affect courage or look inwards to summon it if they are yet to attain a full grasp of it. This is because official responsibilities and platitudes they hawked last April requires that they be constituted as men capable of revolt yet to be heralded on the African continent.

Prevalent realities reveal a whole machinery of indoctrination that is at once retrogressive and perverse in the country – particularly among the nation’s ruling class. This perversion which actually accompanies almost every Nigerian from childhood inures in our psyche, feeble resistance to the grotesque and evil.

It excites in us impotent protestations and affectation of tact, immeasurable wantonness, fickle-mindedness, acquiescence to tyranny and the corrupt and other abominable inclinations that serves to perpetuate the join-them-if-you-can’t-beat-them politics.

We have perfected such dastardly perversions that drives us to perpetuate an endless narrative which stirs our 150-million strong populace basically, as helpless, hopeless victims of a paltry 10, 000 villains or thereabout.

This same thought process blinds the ruling class to endless misery they wreak on us and goads them to believe that despite their misdemeanours, they are born to impose upon us misrule without the least inhibition of imminent backlash.

Thus we have a society without any heartfelt moral doubt, workable rhetoric, rule of law, reward system and change process capable of guaranteeing an improvement of the status quo. To rebel against such an anomaly as we foster currently, proves hard, if not extremely hazardous. Yet rebel, we must – particularly leaders we entrust to steer the current dispensation to the bight of pleasant realities.

Mr. President and company owe Nigeria as a duty to rebel against so devastating an evil that the Nigerian leadership unashamedly epitomises. However, to do this, they have to rebel against its basic premise.

They have to wholly discountenance that time-worn politics that permits no view of men except as preys and predators. Then the twin evil of selfishness and corruption they have to exterminate. In doing this, the first step is to institute a moral code and recognise the need to respect its guidance in the fulfillment of their statutory responsibilities to the country.

Guided by such moral code, as supported by their personal politics and improvised in the nation’s constitution, Mr. President and company could finally attain such statesmanship that permits no view of the populace as guinea pigs and sacrificial lambs, and themselves as profiteers on sacrifice.

They could become capable of such politics that permits much sought benevolent co-existence among Nigerians as well as the enthronement of equity and justice. Then there would be no need to imagine or explain the reasons for the abject cynicism and corruption in which most Nigerians wallow and die.

There would be no need to wonder why President Jonathan and company’s inauguration speeches accorded Nigerians neither a roadmap nor destination point. There would be no need to wonder if Sankwala, Cross River State; Gembu, Taraba State; Olugbode, Itele, Lafenwa, Ota in Ogun State and Ipaja-Ayobo, Meiran, Ajasa-Command, Alakuko in Lagos to mention a few, would be left derelict were they endowed with infinite gold deposits or played host to the ancestral home of a few high-ranking government officials.

There would be no need to wonder how patriotic or disillusioned President Jonathan and company would be with the quality of leadership and governance they offer if they were ordinary men on the street.

The degree of perversion of the Nigerian leadership is quite endemic that that any heartfelt attempt to undo it would be akin to dousing a decomposed corpse in expensive fragrance to hide its stink.

The extent of the moral inversion in Nigerian leadership’s prevalent view of government remains a perpetual eyesore. Instead of being a guardian of the citizens’ rights, the government has become their most unapologetic violator. Instead of guarding both economic and political freedom, the government is establishing slavery

Instead of serving as the instrument of equity and justice in human relationships, the government is establishing a fatal, subterranean reign of uncertainty and fear, by means of unequal laws whose interpretation is left to the arbitrary decisions of random bureaucrats. And instead of protecting the citizenry from oppression and injury by whim, the government is arrogating to itself the power of boundless imperialism and whim.

Thus we ruin and stagnate in a state of critical perversion that guarantees the government unlimited right and freedom to do as it pleases, to the detriment of mostly poor, helpless citizenry. Today, we have perfected the rejuvenation of the darkest periods of human history – the stage of rule by brute force.

Little wonder that in spite of our enviable arsenal of human, mineral and capital endowment Nigeria is yet to attain any comparable degree of socio-economic and political progress. There is no solution. There is no workable solution save a wholesome embrace of that proverbial moral state preached and clamoured for by all and yet wholly despised and repudiated by all.

January 31, 2014
What can break Nigeria

Tears and predictions grow worldwide that Nigeria could soon break up. In the light of that, the coming national conference has become phenomenally important – important as a forum where we Nigerians could critically and carefully look around and inside us to see what, in fact, could make our country break up soon, and try very sincerely to fix it.

One factor that threatens Nigeria is growing poverty among us Nigerians. In terms of natural resources, we are by no means a poor country; in fact, we are one of the very richest countries on earth. Our natural resources are a solid base upon which we could have built one of the world’s richest and most powerful countries. Poverty is not in the making of our country; we are poor today because we have chosen to be poor. The men and women who have managed the affairs of our country since independence have, step by step, succeeded in turning us, the citizens of one of the naturally richest countries in the world, into a huge mass of paupers and beggars – paupers and beggars who must be crooks to survive, paupers and beggars increasingly driven by anger, hate, and an urge to violence. We have reached the point at which this situation must change.

Apart from growing poverty, researchers and writers are talking more and more of what they call Nigeria’s “fault-lines”. By that they mean the differences inherent in the fact that Nigeria is not a nation, but a country of many nations. Yes, we are a country of many nations – each nation with its own history, culture, worldview, desires, expectations, ways of doing things, etc. Making one coherent country out of this intense diversity cannot be easy, even with the best of intentions and commitments. In fact, there is an additional reality that makes the task harder – namely, the fact that the three largest Black nations on earth (Yoruba, Hausa-Fulani and Igbo) are part of the Nigerian plurality. These three nations should never have been brought together into one country. Each of them is too big a fish to be swallowed. The manifest destiny of each of these three giants – in a Black Africa consisting almost entirely of very small nations – is to belong to the forefront of Black Africa’s development in the modern world, and to show Black Africans the path to prosperity. Huddling them together in one country inhibits the development of each of them, and distorts its proper vision of itself and of its duty in modern history. Are there, in the world in our times, many other nations of the size of the Yoruba, Hausa-Fulani or Igbo, each of which is subject to the sovereignty of an entity above itself? In our trying to contain these three giants together in our country, have we Nigerians, perhaps, been attempting to accomplish the impossible?

It is true that, even in spite of these almost daunting ethnic national realities, the desire of Nigerians to preserve Nigeria has been, on the whole, considerable. It was against that desire that the Igbo nation’s Biafran venture of 1967-70 failed. However, since then, especially since the 1990s, various ethnic nationalist movements and “self-determination” groups have been springing up in all parts of Nigeria – and, altogether, these have today become a force that Nigeria can only ignore at its own peril.

Meanwhile, a powerful factor has entered into the Nigerian equation. Most Nigerians are no longer ignorant about the cause of the terrible poverty under which they live – the poverty that makes their lives insecure from crimes, various species of conflicts, terrorism, etc. The root of the poverty is simply this: when the people who controlled most of the power over Nigeria chose to pull all power, all funding and resource control of the country together in the federal centre, they gradually destroyed the ability of Nigeria to generate economic growth, economic innovations, productivity, and wealth. The explanation for that is that it is the states in a federation, plus the local governments – the agencies that are nearest to the lives of the people – that generate most of economic growth and innovation in a federation. Cast your mind back to the 1950s, the years of Nigeria’s growing prosperity, the years of our prosperous cocoa, groundnuts and palm produce export industries, the years of the development of a cobweb of standard roads across the face of our country, the years of the Regional Development Boards and of our first public industries, the years of the proliferation of primary and secondary schools all over our country, etc, and you will find that our regional and local governments were the engines generating almost all the prosperity. In that kind of setting, the coming of petroleum money since about 1970 would have benefited Nigeria unbelievably. When the controllers of our country down-graded our state and local governments, and turned them into impotent zombies incapable of acting strongly, authoritatively and creatively in their states and local areas, they set the stage for vicious poverty for us the masses of Nigerians. Nigerians now know these things.

And the consequence is that the two strains in the popular response to the Nigerian situation–namely, assertive ethnic nationalism, and assertive rejection of poverty and deprivation and its effects – have now concatenated. That is why the demand for a national conference – any sort of national conference – has become so popular. And that is why Nigerians are accepting President Jonathan’s offer of a national conference so avidly. Those partisan political opponents of President Jonathan who are casting doubts on his sincerity about a national conference, or about his ability to run an effective national conference, and who are suggesting that we should wait for more dependable leaders to give us a really productive national conference, may have a point. But Nigerians are not in the mood to consider such a point. Nigerians are in a hurry to gather at a conference and restructure their federation and thereby strengthen their ability to fight their way out of poverty.

Without doubt, most Nigerians who will have the privilege of sitting at the national conference are going there with high hopes –hopes of bursting the door wide open to a better Nigeria, a Nigeria of open politics, of level political and economic fields, of stability, and of greater opportunities for all. In the atmosphere of such high expectations, therefore, the following things can suddenly break up Nigeria. First, any attempt, in the conference, by those who have been controlling most power in Nigeria, to resist the restructuring and the change, and to insist on the preservation of the status quo. Second, any show by the federal government of lack of sincerity or seriousness to manage the conference effectively so as to enable it to achieve the restructuring and the change.

Therefore, the question whether Nigeria will survive and go on to prosper, or whether it will break into a number of separate countries, is entirely in the hands of two groups today – the group that has, since independence, controlled most power over Nigeria; and President Jonathan and his men who today control the federal government. History is watching.

January 30, 2014
PDP provocation and APC irritation

By their last week assault on the sensibilities of Nigerians, both the PDP and its nemesis- APC displayed only instincts of factions with divergent tendencies, who are only interested in power as distinct from true political parties, the 17th century ingenious creation of intellectual elite to espouse vision and mobilize people for development. The president and his party on their part once again demonstrated their contempt for Nigerians by choosing Davos, Switzerland, at the World Economic Forum to celebrate what they consider giants steps made in the energy sector at a period most part of the country was in darkness as a result of alleged sudden drop from about 4600MW to 3600MW.

Then as if such display of contempt for Nigerians was not enough, five months after the president dropped 10 ministers nominated by his estranged PDP family members out of his unwieldy cabinet of about 40 compared to less than 20 of advanced economies like USA, Germany and Britain, he is sending 11 nominees as replacement for those whose absence nor contributions were never missed. In the list, the president seems to have special attraction for the enemies of his political adversaries.

And without giving a damn about how we feel, the president followed this up with the appointment of Bamanga Tukur as chairman of the Nigerian Railway Corporation (NRC). And just as none of the president’s advisers was able to tell him Tukur had outlived his usefulness the moment it became obvious, he was prepared to pull down the party along with himself, no one obviously told the president such an insensitive appointment cast doubt about his decision-making process.

If the name ‘Tukur’ is the president magic wand for 2013, the president could just as well go for Tukur junior and allow the old Tukur observe a well-deserved rest after two years tango and thorough pummelling by a gang of seven aggrieved PDP governors, some of whom are not much older than some of Tukur’s children.

On the choice of Adamu Mu’azu, as the new PDP chairman, a group of Human Rights Writers’ Association, HURIWA, has reminded us of his investigation by EFCC for allegedly ‘stealing billions of naira belonging to Bauchi State during his tenure’. But does this grumbling body expect PDP to wait without leadership long after the president has complained he is not to be held responsible for the slow pace at which the wheel of justice grinds in our nation?

And besides those picked on the basis of what appears a strange policy of ‘estranged friends of my political adversary is my friend’ such as Dr Tammy Danagogo, a former loyalist and two times commissioner under Chibuike Amaechi of Rivers, Hajia Jamilla Salik, a one-time associate of Kano Governor Rabiu Kwankwaso, and Boni Haruna , a former protégé of Atiku Abubakar, whose renunciation of support for him coincided with his being let off by EFCC that had drilled him in court for seven years over 28 counts charge . It took his lawyers only three days to file a ‘no case’ submission, argue their case and obtain a ‘not guilty verdict’. The icing on the cake was the appearance of his name among the ministerial nominees few days after his court victory. Is there anyone out there who disagrees with the president who like Pontius Pilate insists the wheel of justice which grinds slowly in Nigeria cannot be blamed on him?

Of the nominees, Gusau is the most intriguing. Only the president knows why he wants Gusau so desperately. He has for over 10 months reserved for him the Defence ministry portfolio, a post he resigned from in 2010 when it became apparent the only office eyed by Gusau was the presidency, which he contested for in 2006 and 2010. I am sure the man must be wondering how many security advisers they want to make out of him after holding the position of Director of the Defence Intelligence Agency (DIA) and acting Director-General of the NSO from September 1985 to August 1986, the coordinator on National Security from August 1986 to December 1989 and security adviser during most of Obasanjo’s presidency.

What is apparent from the president obsession with Gusau who has been unable to reproduce himself within the state security apparatus after 40 years, and Jonathan decision to lure on to his fold, the estranged godsons of his political opponents is probably a desire to serve self and PDP and not Nigerians. Their confirmation which I am sure APC cannot stop will add nothing to good governance.

It is for the above reason I see APC grandstanding as merely playing the PDP game. And they are doing this by advertising their strategy to give enough ammunition to desperate enemies who fight rough with scant regards for rule of engagement, those who swore they would never allow power to slip from their hands, and those who swore their party would rule for 60 years. If APC is interested in good governance, I think they should show more seriousness than playing PDP game. And if they have chosen to play PDP game even as the nation looks up to them for rescue from 14 years of clueless PDP reign, there are softer areas to unsettle the president apart from the serious issues of budget and defence in an era of economic down turn when the nation is also at war.

Such soft areas include mundane talk about gluttonous consumption of food at the presidency which is costing the nation’s taxpayers billions, diesel for presidential generators when the nation is in darkness, kerosene for the Presidential Air Fleet (PAF) of 10 aircrafts when poor people don’t have access to the product in spite of government’s claim of allocation of billions as subsidy. These are the things that will resonate with the people if APC has opted not to rise above PDP in the popularity test and battle for the minds of the uninformed.

Gbajabiamila’s theatrics at the floor of the house were in my view unnecessary. One only repeats the obvious when one is not sure. APC should act its numerical strength if it exists beyond mere declaration when vital decisions that require partisanship unfold on the floor of the house. These include state police which everyone except those manipulating the police for political ends know is the answer to some of our intractable security problems, the rescue of the EFCC from the abuse it is being subjected to by PDP and the presidency and engaging the president in psychological warfare by passing a resolution calling for the dismissal of the IGP for using a dead law to abridge the freedom of Nigerians for peaceful assembly and protest.

Femi Falana only recently reminded us the law was long dead and buried by the appeal court. This perhaps will prick the conscience of the president who couldn’t have forgotten so soon that it was not too many seasons ago that the ‘save Nigeria Group’ saved his job of acting President by demonstrating in Lagos and Abuja without being stopped through illegal application of police permit.

But APC must note we are at war. Ordinary poor people bear the brunt of war. Only last Sunday, over 50 innocent people were murdered by enemies of our nation in Borno State said to be under emergency. We have a patriotic duty to support the president. What contributed to Democrats victory in America after incompetent George Bush took America to two avoidable wars was the party’s commitment to America.

And for attempting to rival PDP in its game of perfidy, APC from whom much is expected, has opened the people to further assault by insolent men who have no respect for us. We now have the rosy-cheeked PDP men – sworn enemies of the people, those who presided over the theft of N1.7 trillion, who sold unto themselves the patrimony bequeathed onto us by our selfless nationalists and which we are in turn expected to bequeath onto our children, those who with the military wrecked the aviation, pharmaceutical, textile industries, and who built private universities after destroying the world class institutions they inherited, all now talking of patriotism on national television.

January 30, 2014
International relations in historical perspective – 3

The evolution of the modern concept of international politics could be said to have begun in 1648 with the end of the Thirty Years’ War which was concluded by the Treaty of Westphalia. In spite of this recognition of sovereignty of states in the European system, it did not stop the outbreak of wars. A philosopher such as Geog Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (1770-1831) who was to rise to the prestigious position of professor of philosophy at the University of Berlin argued in one of his books the Philosophy of Right that in the march of human history, dialectical clashes between nations advanced the course of human civilization. Nationalists, particularly in the divided German and Italian states quickly embraced this new philosophy which saw nothing wrong in wars, especially those arising from the quest for national Risorgimento. Coinciding with the rise of Hegelianism was the unification of Germany and Italy, a development that was to radically revolutionise international relations.

Since the emergence of nation states like France and England as major players in the game of international politics, there has been a move towards two trends in international relations. The first trend was the idea that a state’s policy should be dominated by what it considers its national interest. It does not really matter whether this national interest is maintained by diplomacy, deception, duplicity or war. This concept of raison d’etat dominated the thinking and action of Armand Jean du Plessis, Cardinal de Richelieu (1585-1642). He was Chief Minister of France from 1624 to 1642. Being a Prince of the Church, one would have expected that he would champion the cause of the Holy Roman Empire and the universal Catholic Church. Richelieu came into office in 1624 when the Habsburg Holy Roman Emperor Ferdinand 11 was attempting to revive Catholic universality, stamp out Protestantism and establish imperial control over the princes of, particularly the German speaking states and statelets of central Europe. What did Richelieu do? Under him, raison d’etat replaced the medieval concept of universal moral values as the operating principles of French policy. By the time of the Thirty Years’ War (1618-1648) each of the principal powers of Europe namely Denmark, Sweden and France reduced Central Europe into human waste and by the time the war ended the German population of Central Europe was reduced by a third.

During the course of this struggle, Richelieu was able to expand the territories of France eastwards to encompass what later became the disputed provinces of Lorraine and Alsace. Few statesmen can claim a greater impact on history than this man. Richelieu was the father of the modern state system. Absolute devotion to the promotion of a state’s national interest, through the example of what Richelieu accomplished for France became the dominant theory and practice of international relations. The success of this policy of raison d’etat elicited another trend of balance of power politics in order to ensure that France did not impose an absolute hegemony on Europe. These two ideas, which started as facts of life and later as a system of international relations, were to dominate the international system for the next 100 years.

Even when Napoleon upset the working of the balance of power during his conquests in Europe, he was eventually brought down by coalition of forces in which Great Britain played a dominant role. This again introduced another theme into European politics in which even though separated from Europe by the English Channel, Britain’s national interest moved her to intervene in Continental European politics to ensure that no one single country dominated the affairs of Europe. After the defeat of Napoleon Bonaparte, the peace of Europe was maintained through the contrivance of balance of power politics and Europe acting in concert to maintain peace and to ensure legitimacy of European regimes and institutions.

The architect of this policy of Concert of Europe was the cosmopolitan Austrian Chancellor Prince Clemens Wenzel Lothar Metternich (1773-1859) who was committed to maintaining the status quo in Europe and stamping out the spirit of nationalism which was antithetical to the interest of the ramshackle Austro-Hungarian Empire of several nationalities. This policy worked hand in hand with the traditional policy of national interest. The British Foreign Secretary and later Prime Minister, Henry John Temple, Third Viscount Palmerston (1784-1865) articulated this policy when on becoming foreign secretary in 1830, a position which he was to hold for years until becoming prime minister himself, said,

“When people ask me … for what is called a policy, the only answer is that we mean to do what may seem to be best upon each occasion as it arises, making the interests of our country one’s guiding principle”

“We have no eternal allies and no permanent enemies”, said Palmerston “our interests are eternal and those interests it is our duty to follow”.

The policy of raison d’etat coupled with the policy of concert of Europe was built around a shifting coalescence of interests of Britain and Austria. For almost half a century this policy worked until the wars of German unification and Italian 11 Risorgimento introduced the potent force of nationalism, which had remained dormant since the French revolution. The emergence of Count Camillo Benso di Cavour (1810-1861) and Prince Otto Edward Leopold Von Bismarck (1815-1898) led to the modification of an old idea of national interest. This modification came in the form of a policy of realpolitik in international affairs.

By this is meant accepting the world as one finds it and making the best use of the situation. The ideal world is utopian and can only be found in the realm of ideas, but the political world is dominated by struggle and national interest. The aim of nations was acceptably the avoidance of wars and the preservation of peace, preferably through diplomacy, but when all other options failed, war in the words of Karl Von Clausewitz (1780-1831) is politics by other means. This idea of realpolitik became the dominant idea of international relations until the eve of the First World War.

This concept was not confined to Europe, as the earlier ideas were. It began to influence even American and Japanese politics. Theodore Roosevelt (1858-1919) who became the 26th president of the United States in 1901 and remained in office until 1909 was closer to European practitioners of the politics of realpolitik than any American politician of his age. He was as much an imperialist as Robert Arthur Talbot Gascoigne Cecil, 3rd Marquess of Salisbury (1830-1903) who with Bismarck and Jules Francois Camille Ferry (1832-1903) were responsible for the European partition of Africa and South East Asia as well as the intervention in China to carve out spheres of influence.

Theodore Roosevelt not only fought against the Spanish government in Cuba before becoming president and in fact rode into the White House as a war hero. He in fact, parroting Bismarck’s comment, said,

“if I must choose between a policy of blood and iron and one of milk and water… I am for the policy of blood and iron. It is better not only for the nation but in the long run for the world”

American diplomacy had always been characterised by an idealism based on isolationism and non-intervention in the politics of Europe for fear of European entanglements. This policy had been an article of faith since the presidency of James Monroe (1758-1831), the fifth president of the United States. Theodore Roosevelt brought into American foreign policy the tradition of realism which would continue to struggle with the traditional American ideas of morality and idealism in foreign relations.

January 30, 2014
A game of numbers

Politics, they say, is a game of numbers. Soon, we will see how true this altruism is. And what other place to carry out this test than the National Assembly, where the All Progressives Congress (APC) and the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) are fighting tooth and nail to assert their authorities. Before it suffered a reversal in fortune, the PDP enjoyed a clear cut majority in the Assembly. It could call the bluff of the other parties where a simple majority was needed in the passage of a bill or in deciding certain resolutions.

So, whenever PDP members agreed on any matter, it was as good as settled because, invariably, that is the way the house would go. The PDP had a good run while the fun lasted. It ran rings round the other parties in the Assembly; it was the lord of the manor. Wasn’t it? Now, the chicks have come home to roost and the PDP is counting its teeth with its tongue. From the look of things, except it plays its card right, it may be in for a hard time until the next elections, which are around the corner.

Things started slipping out of the hands of the PDP at its 15th anniversary celebration in Abuja last year. The event held in the heat of some of its members demand for the removal of Alhaji Bamanga Tukur as the party’s chairman. The members were led by some governors and a former chairman of the party, Alhaji Kawu Baraje. They carried out a coup of sorts against the party at that event as they slipped out to announce their breakaway from the PDP. They, however, left a window for reconciliation.

They gave the party the conditions under which they will remain in the party. Their major demand was the resignation of Tukur. Being President Goodluck Jonathan’s man, many thought the Group of Seven Governors as it was later come to be known was asking for too much. Tukur resign? Political watchers thought this was an impossibility because his resignation may signal the crash of the much – touted second term ambition of the president.

The president, the North believes, wants to return to office in 2015 despite his so – called tacit agreement with the region to do one term. Tukur is believed to be on the same page with the president despite being put there by his people to stop their common ‘enemy’ from getting a second term. With Tukur standing firm and Jonathan, initially reluctant to let him go, five of the seven governors defected to APC, altering the power equation in the National Assembly.

What this means is that the PDP has lost its majority in the Assembly and the party is uncomfortable that it is now at the mercy of the opposition, which seems to be on the verge of becoming the majority. Though the APC may not be the ruling party at the national level, it has more than before become a force to be reckoned with by the ruling PDP in the day-to-day running of government. When APC sneezes now, the PDP catches cold. The APC is no longer the APC the PDP used to toss around. The shoe, as they say, is now on the other leg. Whether it likes it or not, PDP now has to dance to APC’s tune.

In politics, there is beauty in numbers. You do not need to tell that to PDP because until now it knew what it did with its then overwhelming majority in both chambers of the Assembly. Having lost that majority, which has wider implications for the principal offices it occupies in the Senate and House of Representatives, the party is running from pillar to post to stop the APC from enjoying the fruits of being the majority party in the Assembly, as outlined in its Standing Rules.

Besides, it is the legislative practise worldwide for the majority party to occupy the major parliamentary leadership positions. What is the essence of being the majority party if that party cannot exercise such power not only in name but in deed. A majority party solely in name is a democratic aberration and there is nowhere in the world that this is tolerated. A majority party which loses that status should be gamely enough to appreciate that fact in order to grow our democracy.

To seek to resort to underhand tactics in order to stop

the emerging majority party from enjoying the fruits of that position is an assault on democracy. Our politicians should learn to play the game by its rules, but will they? The problem is that they hate losing or being on the losing side. Well, whether they like it or not, politics is either you win or lose. They should stop seeing it as a win – win game all the time; they should appreciate the fact once in a while, they are bound to lose. When that happens, they should not try to bring the roof down on our heads.

The situation in the Assembly is not something for PDP to break bones about; it may lose sleep over it though, but that is the price it has to pay for not playing its internal politics right. Must it then vent its spleen on APC for capitalising on its political miscalculation to strengthen the progressives’ number in the Assembly? No, it cannot do that. What it should do is to return to the drawing table to see how it can stop further depletion in its rank.

Trying to stop APC from mounting the leadership saddle in the Assembly through its bolekaja method will not help matters; it will only end up overheating the polity. But does PDP care?

Reason prevails

So, the Save Rivers Movement (SRM) can hold a rally in Port Harcourt without any problems! What happened in the Garden City last Saturday speaks volumes about our police. Why were they blocking the group all this while from holding its rally? They claimed that they were doing so because the group did not obtain police permit. It was all bunkum. They were only unnecessarily getting themselves into a political matter that did not concern them. Police Commissioner Mbu Joseph Mbu was a proxy fighting a war that did not concern him. He should leave politics for politicians and concentrate on his police job in his own interest. Kudos to the Inspector – General of Police (IG) Muhammed Abubakar for his intervention that allowed the rally to hold. That is how it should be. The police should be insulated from politics. We thank the IG for allowing reason to prevail.

Up Nigeria

By the time you read this, our game with Ghana would have been won and lost. So far, the Super Eagles have put up a superlative performance in the ongoing CHAN Cup in South Africa. My bet is on the Eagles to win the trophy this weekend having defeated the Ghana Black Stars yesterday. Our boys may not have started well, but they have improved with each game. Did you watch their match against the Atlas Lion of Morocco? Coming from three goals down to win by 4 – 3 is the stuff of which champions are made. What is more, it was the die – hard Nigerian spirit that was on display. This spirit will see us win the Cup. Up Eagles!

January 30, 2014
Armchair Trotskys (3)

Tyranny is brought to ultimate refinement in the news columns; this brings to mind that memorable jest by Norman Mailer that “Once a newspaper touches a story, the facts are lost forever, even to the protagonists.” Journalists are often the butt of the most demeaning jokes and premeditated put-downs in the social arena. Nobody thinks much of a journalist; in the eyes of big business and the ruling class, the journalist whatever his designation or job title, is the manipulable pawn and necessary evil that has to be courted and tolerated.

The descent and humiliation of the journalist however, begins in the hands of his employer; very few media today are paying fairly. Many are not paying at all and among the few establishments that pay, salaries range from N15, 000 per month at entry level to N70, 000 per month at managerial level. Just three media houses endeavour to pay fairly and across the three; journalists are oft treated as vermin by administrative/human resources and advertising staff. The latter conveniently forget that without the editorial staff, they will be jobless. More worrisomely, in the few newspapers that exist, senior editorial teams collude with administrative staff to maltreat journalists in their employ. While The Nation Newspaper, Punch newspaper and perhaps one or two others may claim exceptionality in this respect, the reality is known to the government, big business, advertisers and general public that the Nigerian journalist is an endangered species, haunted by his employer and tormented by the public he serves. These sad realities lead to daily exodus of skilled and promising hands from journalism and a daily influx of quacks into the profession.

This resonates badly for the Nigerian mob; the nation’s critical mob to be precise. Mob culture requires that he who would adorn the cloak of defender of the masses’ rights should be upright and flawless in character, work and personal ethics. Such admirable traits are rarely attributable to the Nigerian journalist manager and the press in general.

The Nigerian mob, like every other rabble, seeks fulfillment of tyrant fantasies; such fantasies often vary between the destruction of an unpopular government, despot or worn-out civilization. Reality however, affirms the impotence of the Nigerian mob. The latter is continually tamed and kept on a leash by a ruling class that capitalizes on its obvious handicaps: its impulsiveness, insensibility to reason and judgment, poverty of soul and intellect, its irritability and overt sentimentality – which are undeniably characteristic of beings belonging to inferior forms of evolution, like savages and carnivores.

Despites it handicaps, the Nigerian mob conveniently picks on a scapegoat for its infinite timidity and cluelessness: the press. The journalist is expected to serve as the conscience and moral compass of the society, challenging the government and checking the excesses of the ruling class, uncompromisingly and selflessly.

As utopian fantasies go, these are noble expectations of the journalist but the Nigerian mob ignores the cultural shift of the society from conventional morality to unbridled hedonism. It assumes, hypocritically, that the press will continually give it honest and developmental news even as every segment of the society strive to unmoor the journalist from his role as a crucial appendage of the nation’s critical mob. The public, comprising big business, the government, and civil societies among other mob segments, vilify any journalist or news medium that seeks to educate and engage rather than entertain and perpetuate their biased definitions of reality.

Contemporary Nigeria embraces the emotional pageant that has turned news into paid publicity and mindless entertainment and the journalist in response kowtows to lusts and vanities of modern society. Beneath the mindless glamour and cultural decline however, an insidious reality festers in the death of hope and incandescence of tragedy. Prevalent socioeconomic tragedies necessitate the emergence and elevation among the citizenry of the bungling and sadistic, and the beginning of a differentiation cum tyranny of social grades.

At the centre of the turmoil is the journalist whose fate is so critically bound with the country’s but he obviously does not know that hence the cluelessness, treachery and brazen recklessness that characterizes his work. Consequently, the Nigerian journalist manifests as an accident to society. He perpetually loses his grasp of the issues at stake; fundamentally hollow and benumbed to valor, he shamelessly resigns to the powers that be, blaming the tyranny of the ruling class and the proverbial ‘system’ for his inability to fulfill his professional and moral obligations to the society.

Rather than pose a challenge to the system that domesticates and enslaves him, he chooses the easiest way out and plays junkyard dog to tyrant cabals and the predatory bunch constituting the nation’s ruling class. He assumes the role of a poseur and pretends to fight for the interest of the public. This sad charade is continually perpetuated across esteemed leader-writers’ polemics in foremost newspapers’ columns.

The contemporary journalist trades in all manners of truths, deploying sophistry and shades of impressive fallacies in the interest of whatever social divide fulfills his lust for relevance and survival. I am a journalist and I shamefully acknowledge that my clan and I hardly epitomize hope to our world. Not yet. Rarely does our work signify hope, self-sacrifice or a promise of future honesty and gallantry in the interest of all. We can blame the society and advance all forms of isms and ostentatious arguments to justify our descent the steep slope of amorality and socioeconomic expediency; it wouldn’t excuse our treachery to our calling and the Nigerian citizenry.

If Nigeria chooses to exist as a land of savages, it’s our responsibility to nudge her back on to the path of humanity and progress – for only in such clime can we positively evolve and prosper. Our failure as journalists indicates severance from a progressive and moral culture while we institutionalize bigotry, lies, depravity, base sentimentality and pitiful fantasies.

The traditional, conscientious journalist is going extinct today along with true, dependable news culture because Nigeria obsesses and migrates to the pseudo-reality of the internet and reality shows. It is no doubt ironical that the masses would turn around to blame the press for not fulfilling its roles to the society.

The only profiteers from the status quo are those skilled in the art of manipulation but this despicable band can rarely function without the support of the journalist hence the urgent need for the Nigerian press to retrace his steps. Journalism will thrive and Nigeria will prosper if we neglect the culture of the news spectacle to focus on progressive pursuits, like development and socially responsible journalism.

It’s about time we stopped narrowing the debates and spotlight to the shenanigans and petty differences of the ruling class and instead aspire to serve as a true voice to the voiceless. There is no magical antidote to our decline and death as a crucial part of the nation’s critical mob.

Real progress will manifest in the country when we start demanding that the ruling class march in virtual lockstep with promises they make. Whatever the tone and dialect of intellectualization that characterizes our news culture, posterity will judge us by how truthfully we fulfill our roles as conscience and watchdog of the society.

January 24, 2014
The power of dreams

WE all dream. We love those long trips of fantasy, powered by images of a beautiful world, full of leisure and pleasure; all gains, no pains. Those colourful thoughts we nurse in our sleep.

An ambition should not be confused with a dream. Many sleep without dreaming. Some dream but lack the will to power their dreams to reality. Others dream deceitful dreams. For instance, what kind of dream will a man have after hitting the bottle so hard before going to bed? Some dreams could also be telltale signs of a serious fever. Hallucinations.

A momentary loss of memory could force out such questions as: “Where am I?” “What happened?” “Am I seeing double?”

The Yoruba say a man who dreams of hitting the jackpot had better roll up his sleeves. It may well mean that, if he took no care, he would land in poverty. Our man may be riding a beautiful car in his sleep only to wake up and recall that it was the mere image of the sleek car he once saw cruising past him as he pounded the dusty street that would not just go away. Imagination. He wakes up and the reality hits him right in the face. No car.

But dreams are not all about material acquisition in which an unknown village boy strikes it rich in the city, living like a king and partying like a Hollywood star. Just like Jordan Belfort in the “Wolf of Wall Street”. No. We dream of occupying big offices, holding the reins of leadership and calling the shots from the top. It is, in other words, in the nature of human beings to be ambitious.

Ambition is such a powerful phenomenon that is difficult to understand, even when it is as clear as day.

Politicians are driven by ambition. There are those who dream of getting political power, not as an end in itself, but as a means to an end – a good life for the generality of the people through the provision of those basic needs that enhance the quality of living. Others desperately pursue a life-long dream of getting power to amass wealth to oil a life of opulence. In other words, there is the fantasy of politics, even as we have the politics of fantasy. Dreams.

The other day in Ekiti, the wife of the former governor, Ayo Fayose, announced to Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) women on her 50th birthday that her husband was returning to the Government House in June.

Said Mrs Fayose in simple biblical language: “I am not a politician. I am a woman that believes in God. As the Lord liveth, I have simply come to announce to you and any other doubting Thomases of the inevitable return of my husband, Mr Peter Ayodele Fayose, to his seat as the next governor of Ekiti State.”

Then, many started asking: Could this be a mere outpouring of emotion by a woman displaying her love for her man after dreaming about their days in power, those days when everyday was like Christmas? Is Feyisetan also among the prophets? Did she see a vision? Where are all those giants of necromancy; are they back? The Okunzuas. The Akpabots. Are they back?

“By the special grace of God, his return is certain, and so destined. I am telling you that nothing can stop him,” the woman said with prophetic relish. That is the power of dreams; ambition flying on the wings of dreams. Well, June is just around the corner.

“I went through hell as PDP chairman, says Tukur,” a newspaper headline screamed last week. Former PDP Chair Bamanga Tukur was recalling his travails while in the saddle. His dream was to unite the party and help it fulfil its ambition of ruling Nigeria for 60 years – in the first instance. He went about it in a strange manner, smashing some heads here and knocking others there – all in the name of discipline.

In no time, the tide turned against him; the hunter became the hunted. Tukur’s presidential bulwark against the governors’ fury collapsed. He threw in the towel. The dream died. Gone with it, obviously, was his son’s ambition of becoming governor of Adamawa State.

But Tukur tried. The dam had burst and the river had torn through its banks, with five governors leaving “the biggest party in Africa”. Under a less aggressive fellow, the governors would have quit the ship in droves as the turbulence got worse.

With off-track Tukur off to the railway tracks, the Jonathan administration has lost the greatest apostle of its transformation agenda –the compendium of Dr Goodluck Jonathan’s dream for Nigeria as an eldorado. Now, who will remind us that there was ever a dream– sorry, an error there– who will remind us that there was ever an agenda, transformation or otherwise?

Ever since he left power, first as a weakling elbowed out by the Adedibu forces, and after losing an election to his former deputy, Adebayo Alao-Akala, Alhaji Rashidi Ladoja has never hidden his dream of returning to the big stage. The Isiaka Ajimobi administration struck a deal with him, a kind of power- sharing arrangement. But the Accord chief kept maligning the government, showing no love but disdain for the party in power, his party’s ally. All efforts to pacify Ladoja failed.

In a desperate bid to regain power, he once cobbled together a deal with Alao-Akala, who supplanted him as governor before the court stepped in to stop the charade of Ladoja’s impeachment. He received in his Ibadan home high profile visitors, including former President Olusegun Obasanjo, who came to woo him back to the PDP. Apparently unsure of being handed the PDP’s ticket, Ladoja held back. Now, he is pursuing his dream of returning to power with Accord, the party he has been nursing. Accord, dear reader, is not to be confused with the sleek Japanese saloon car that is so common on Nigerian roads.

But his opponents – and friends – tell Ladoja that things have changed. A non- performing administration is easy to muscle out; not so the Ajimobi administration, which has shown some sparkling efforts in redeeming Oyo State’s glory. To Ladoja, this sounds like some awful music. Such is the power of dreams. Ambition.

Rivers State is slipping into anarchy. Governor Rotimi Chibuike Amaechi dumped the PDP for the All Progressives Congress (APC). His former Chief of Staff, Education Minister Nyesom Wike, backed by the Presidency, has vowed to ensure that the governor knows no peace. In Wike’s corner are the First Lady, Patience Jonathan, police and their pugnacious commissioner, Mbu Joseph Mbu. When Amaechi’s supporters organise a rally, the police are quick to smash it up. Wike’s men are as free as birds of the air at their rallies.

At one of those rallies, Senator Magnus Abe was shot. He is hospitalised. Last Sunday, many government officials had their vehicles smashed in Ogoni where a planned rally was aborted as hoodlums fired shots. Many were injured. The police looked the other way.

What is the problem? Wike wants to be governor, but Amaechi says since he (the incumbent) is an Ikwerre, like Wike, it is only fair that his successor should come from another ethnic group. The minister, apparently seized by ambition, rejected the suggestion and elected to fight.

A former chief of staff knows what it means to be a governor and will somehow dream to occupy the exalted seat. Ambition has no room for moderation. It often abhors modesty. This is the root of the coming anarchy in Rivers.

President Jonathan has resisted calls for him to put Wike, Mbu and their armies on a tight leash. Many don’t seem to understand why Jonathan won’t listen. He dreams of running again in 2015 and Rivers is critical in his calculations. Why then should some squabbles affect his ambition?

Since Taraba State Governor Danbaba Suntai returned from a medical trip, there has been little peace. Deputy Governor Garba Umar has refused to step aside and allow Suntai run the show. Besides the fact that Suntai’s health remains an issue, it has always been Umar’s dream to be the governor. Here is his brightest chance ever. Will he just surrender it?

In Osun State, Senator Iyiola Omisore is getting set to run for governor. The popular view is that, considering Rauf Aregbesola’s sterling performance, Omisore seems to be building a castle in the air. But, who can dismiss a man who won an election while in detention?

Should dreams have limits? Should ambition continue to thrive when it becomes a clear danger to its purveyors and the very people that are the reason for such dreams? It is neither here nor there. The right to dream is not just fundamental; it is natural. But then, dreams remain what they are, essentially – dreams. Let’s all keep dreaming. After all, it is legal.

January 23, 2014
History lesson for Yoruba leaders

Since about the 10th century AD, we Yoruba have been enjoying a high level of civilization in our towns, cities and kingdoms. By 1750, one of our kingdoms, the Oyo-Ile kingdom, had conquered a large empire comprising most of western Yorubaland and many non-Yoruba neighbours – the largest empire ever in West Africa’s forestlands. In eastern and southern Yorubaland, our other kingdoms were also thriving strongly.

But, about 1750, according to available records, we began to have a recurrence of self-serving (and therefore disruptive) leaders in our political history. It started in our great city of Oyo-Ile, specifically with a high chief named Gaha. As soon as Gaha was sworn in as Basorun in 1754, he started a headstrong war against Oyo-Ile’s monarchical system. He seized powers that did not belong to his position, and forced Alafin after Alafin to bow to his will or to commit suicide – until, at last, one intelligent Alafin managed to get him destroyed.

Gaha was probably insane. Nevertheless, he had started a plague that we have never managed to remove from our land – a tradition whereby some leaders emerge now and again who are dedicated only to their own purposes and interests. Soon after Gaha came one Alafin named Awole, whose self-centred crookedness produced a whole era of instability.

Soon after him came Afonja, the Are Ona Kakanfo of the empire. Afonja had some blood relationship with the Oyo-Ile royal family and wanted the Alafin’s throne. But since the Oyo-Ile Council of Kingmakers did not select him, he embarked on a wholesale rebellion against his kingdom, and ended up setting up the town of Ilorin as a centre of rebellion, with forces capable of destroying his country. Afonja perished disgracefully in his rebellion, but his Ilorin continued to be a powerful centre of rebellion. Attempts by the Alafins to destroy this centre of rebellion steadily sapped the energies of the kingdom and ultimately ended in one of the worst disasters in Yoruba history – namely, the decision of the citizens of the great and proud city of Oyo-Ile to abandon their city in 1835. Yoruba people often say today that Fulani jihadists destroyed Oyo-Ile, but that is not true. Ilorin and its powerful leaders after Afonja were over 95% Yoruba (mostly Oyo).

The disintegration of the Oyo Empire spilled wars into the rest of Yorubaland, wars that continued until the Europeans seized control of Yorubaland in the 1890s. Throughout the century, some leading Yoruba men tried again and again to generate agreement to stop wars – something that might have launched the collective energies of the Yoruba nation into truly revolutionary dimensions – and perhaps produced a modern Yoruba nation-state. At every crucial juncture, some leaders just would not give up their personal ambitions and interests for the national good.

As things stood in the 1890s, the Yoruba, if united, could have preserved the independent existence of the Yoruba nation in Africa – in a way similar to Ethiopia in north-eastern Africa, or Japan in Asia. The most important European attack on Yorubaland was the British invasion of Ijebu in 1892. As at that date, because we Yoruba had been fighting wars for nearly a century, Ibadan had well trained, well-armed, and seasoned forces numbering about 85,000 at Ikirun, about 30,000 at Oru in Remo, and about 40,000 near Abeokuta. The Ekitiparapo had more than 50, 000 at Imesi-Ile. Ilorin had probably 40,000; Abeokuta probably 50,000. Each of the powerful kingdoms of Owo, Ondo and Ketu had armies that numbered 30,000 or more. An Ijebu army of probably 15,000 camped near Ife; and an Ife army of probably 20,000 camped in Ifetedo and Okeigbo. The main Ijebu army itself numbered about 50,000 and was armed with sophisticated breech-loading rifles. (Unfortunately the most advanced machine gun of the time, the Maxim gun which the invading British army had a few of, was not yet widely available in West African trade)). In short, if all these forces had been re-orientated to defend their Yoruba homeland, there would have been about 400,000 troops poised to defend Yorubaland – a magnitude of forces never encountered by European invaders anywhere in Africa, and that would have discouraged any European attack on any part of Yorubaland.

Moreover, the large class of Yoruba merchants based in Lagos, consisting of many of the most informed and richest merchants in tropical Africa, easily commanded the expertise and commercial connections to keep Yoruba forces well supplied with latest weapons. And the already strong Yoruba literate elite of lawyers, doctors, engineers, pastors, teachers, writers, accountants, journalists (and newspapers), mostly in Lagos, were already good at whipping up propaganda campaigns, and could have discouraged European invasions of Yorubaland.

Unhappily, such Yoruba unity did not happen. The leaders of each Yoruba group, while expressing great sentiments about their Yoruba ancestry, were too focused on their own goals. The Ijebu army single-handedly fought a gallant battle against the British invaders. They narrowly lost – only because the invaders had a few Maxim machine guns. Ultimately, most of Yorubaland became British possession and part of Nigeria. France and Germany seized the rest.

However, in 1952, most of the Yoruba again had some control over their own affairs – in the Western Region of Nigeria. Demonstrating great unity, Yoruba leaders immediately gave their people the most progressive and most productive government in Africa. But then, the old disease showed up again in 1962, allowing a hostile federal government to launch a war of destruction against the Western Region. The Yoruba people have not come out of that cloud till now.

Today, in the great confusion, conflicts and poverty buffeting Nigeria, we Yoruba face again very serious challenges to virtually everything important to our lives and our future. Admittedly, the state governments of the Yoruba South-west, controlled by different political parties, still manage to perform above the Nigerian average. But that is insufficient today. The Yoruba nation needs to have a Yoruba leadership structure above the leaderships of civic groups and political parties, uniting the various segments of Yoruba leadership, and able to speak confidently for the Yoruba nation in the increasingly uncertain and troubling situation of Nigeria. Yoruba leaders, and groups of them in their civic organizations or political parties, are, without doubt, committed to the well-being of their Yoruba nation, but experience is showing that none is, by itself, capable of fully addressing this moment’s desperate needs of their nation – or fully effectively promoting the Yoruba kind of enlightened solutions to Nigeria’s problems. Those Yoruba leaders who have been urging the controllers of the Nigerian Federal Government to treat the Yoruba nation more fairly in the affairs of Nigeria forget the old truism that, in politics, only power really works – and that a strongly united and well-led Yoruba nation would easily earn respect in the affairs of Nigeria.

Apparently inadvertently, Yoruba leaders are demonstrating today a particularly dangerous kind of incapability to unite. It looks like a version of the old family disease – the type that has shown up from time to time since the era of Gaha, Awole and Afonja. We need to suppress it – urgently. Saving our nation and our proud civilization, and properly sorting out Nigeria’s problems, are worth our best effort and sacrifice.

January 23, 2014
Jonathan and crisis of credibility

Democracy, the world reigning god, makes only two major demands on its worshippers- respect for the will of the people and an abiding faith in the rule of law. Leaders who after swearing by its name betray these democratic ideals lose credibility. Tragically one thing that has been in short supply in successive PDP administrations since 1999 is credibility.

And of all the challenges facing the current Jonathan administration, credibility appears to be the most daunting. When President Jonathan therefore says we should be ready to auction our generating sets, or that ‘Nigeria will export cars soon’, or that ‘the presidency is not behind the unfolding anarchy in Rivers’ or even when his chief of Defence Staff says ‘We will end Boko Haram insurgency by April’, they are received by Nigerians with scepticism.

To be fair to the president, this credibility gap, as indicated above was inherited from 12 years of PDP periodic rigging of elections, disdain for the rule of law, and self-serving policy initiatives such as privatization, fuel subsidy, identity card projects and many others designed not for spreading dividends of democracy as claimed by the party, but for sharing the nation’s resources among members of the ruling elite.

It was perhaps on account of these baleful legacies, coupled with what some considered as Jonathan’s below average performance as acting president and noticeable flaws in his character that accounted for the call for caution by perceptive journalists and analysts of our national affairs such as Sonola Olumhense and Haruna Mohammed. The former had warned that going by President Jonathan’s antecedents, he would certainly sell what is left of Nigeria to PDP if voted in while the later advanced seven reasons why we should not trust Jonathan. But instead of the president proving his detractors wrong, he has not only gone ahead to confirm their fears, he has through his continued assault on the will of the people and rule of law undermined the credibility of his own administration.

For instance, those who in spite of PDP gave the president a landslide victory had expected an injection of young blood with fresh ideas as different from PDP buccaneers that had held the nation down for 12 years. But even where we had inspiring young people, they were recruited as square pegs in round holes to serve Jonathan and not Nigeria. For instance Dr. Reuben Abati who can at best be described as an adversarial cerebral journalist with popular following arising from his relentless attack on PDP and Obasanjo presidency for about 10 years would have been an asset to a government run by a Dr Olatunji Dare, his former boss at The Guardian or an administration headed by a Professor Pat Utomi his soul mate.

He has been busy selling the president transformation agenda which to the opposition and a sceptical public has remained a mere agenda. Even when he is saying the truth about President Jonathan ‘he knows’, his past haunts him. Doyin Okupe who felt insulted to be called an attack dog (the role he played under Obasanjo presidency) has continued to make more enemies for the president as analysts had predicted. Most of pronouncements of Okupe, who is viewed as part of contract-chasing PDP crowd, is not only received with a dose of scepticism by the public, but chips away a portion of whatever credibility Jonathan administration has left.

Not even the president’s commitment to free election sounds convincing anymore. The cynical public now believes the president’s concern is about his own election and those of his friends. We now know all the talk of providing level playing ground through the deployment of a large contingent of police and a battalion of soldiers to ensure the victory of opposition party candidates in Ondo, Edo and Anambra was not informed by a desire to deepen democracy. As the president’s godfather who should know better recently revealed, the president traded off the support for his own party candidates for future personal gains from those opposition but friendly governors.

Of course, the ongoing assault on the governor of Rivers State only calls the credibility of the presidency to question. The police watched as five thugs attempted to impeach a speaker in an assembly of 32 members. The police give protection to supervising minister of education who is in Rivers State capital nearly every week end to mobilize ex-militants, thugs and his local council supporters who swear by the president’s wife name while disrupting pro state government organized rallies. And in the midst of unfolding anarchy in the state, the presidency has ignored the National Assembly resolution that police commissioner Mbu Mathew Mbu who acts as de facto governor of Rivers be transferred out of the state.

The president’s war against corruption is received with cynicism not only by the Speaker of the Lower House who complained about the president body language or by ex-president Obasanjo who agonized over Jonathan’s lack of political will to fight corruption, but also by many Nigerians. Besides the president’s lack of discomfiture in the midst of alleged corrupt individuals, there is also the impunity with which those close to government engage in corrupt practices. It is unimaginable how officials of the pension unit in the office of Head of Service of the Federation (HOSF) would subject those who had served the nation meritoriously, some in their 90s to such hardship as asking them to queue up for verification every month just because the exercise provided an avenue to steal N400 million monthly.

Apart from Sani Teidi Shuaibu, former director in the pension office who has since received a slap in the wrist from the courts, little has been heard of his former deputy Ukamaka Chidi, and 30 others charged with a 134-count charge of conspiracy, fraud and corruption, stealing about N60 billion, an act the Senate President, David Mark, described as a “monumental fraud” and a national disgrace and embarrassment,”

Similarly the presidency has been silent on Abdulrasheed Maina, the chairman of Pension Task Force Team, (PTFT), and his committee members who were indicted by the Senate report for ‘fraud, embezzlement, misappropriation, misapplication, outright stealing of pension funds. etc. While Maina, according to Audu Ogbe, former PDP chairman, was cruising around protected by a contingent of police, the IG claimed Maina could not be found to face prosecution.

The public scepticism about the president’s management of the economy was not helped by the controversy surrounding the$10.8 billion that was not accounted for initially but which Bernard Otti, the NNPC’s Group executive director of finance and accounts, now said was spent on ‘pipeline repairs, fuel subsidies and reserve fuel’. But as Sanusi the outgoing CBN governor has said, “No one has the right to retain money that should have gone to the federation account” and as echoed by Obiageli Ezekwesili, the former “Due Process Minister”, NNPC and Ministry of Petroleum have no FISCAL MANAGEMENT mandate: They MUST end OFF-TREASURY spending of PUBLIC FUNDS”

If it appears President Jonathan only pays a lip service to fighting corruption, if his commitment to free and fair election is seen as self-serving, if his war against insurgency appears unwinnable, and if the national dialogue project like other government policy initiatives are received with cynicism, it is precisely because his government is haunted by crisis of credibility often associated with disrespect for the will of the people and disregard for the rule of law.

January 23, 2014
International relations in historical perspective – 2

In ancient world of the Middle East, between 1500 and 500 years before the birth of Christ, a common great civilization occurred and dominated the area from the Tigris – Euphrates (Babylon) to the Nile (Egypt) and beyond. The choice then was between empire and chaos – just as in nature one empire fell giving rise to another. The empires of Alexander, the Romans, Chinese and the Mogul empire in India operated not on the basis of international relations but on conquest. There could be no relation between civilization and barbarism. Even up to the 17th century in Europe the accepted concepts was that of a universal empire and not the coexistence of sovereign states. It was not until the consolidation of the French, English and Spanish national states in opposition to the universal Holy Roman Empire that the idea of the proper mode of relations between sovereign states began to evolve.

Two philosophers, Jean Bodin (C1530-1596) and Hugo Grotius (Huig Van Gruit) (1538-1645) were the first two people to properly articulate the underlying philosophy that should guide the relations among states. This is not to forget that before them Niccolo Machiavelli (1469-1527) had something profound to say about interstate relations even though tangentially. This Italian diplomat and writer, the son of a prosperous Florentine lawyer, had in one of his books 11 Principe written in 1513 but published in 1532 said that the prince even in his foreign relations need not be bound by covenants entered to solemnly by him. He was also not bound by promises made as long as he concentrated on the end in view since the end would justify whatever means he adopted for political and territorial aggrandisement of his state. Machiavelli is not usually known for his contribution to the evolution of politics among nations but his amoral ideas have no doubt influenced politicians since the 15th century.

Jean Bodin was a lawyer and an attorney to King Henry 111 of France. Writing against the background of Machiavellian philosophy, he insisted that the sovereign has an obligation to keep faith in treaties and alliances and should not for political expediency repudiate treaties solemnly entered into if the international system were not to dissolve into anarchy. This identified need for restraining absolute sovereign in their international dealings influenced Hugo Grotius, 50 years later, to carry forward the philosophy of Jean Bodin. Hugo Grotius was an international jurist, born in the Netherlands and practised law in The Hague and held at various times diplomatic positions on behalf of the French and Dutch governments. He was finally appointed ambassador to France by the Swedish government. In his book De Jure belli et Pacis (1625), he advocated that sovereign states should coexist in amity and peace with one another through the restraints of international law and existing norms that govern relations among states. His importance in the history of jurisprudence rests not on constitutional law but upon his conception of a law regulating the relations between sovereign states.

The practical urgency of the problem in the 17th century laid in the chaos associated with the rejection of the universalism of the Roman Empire and the Catholic Church and the wars of religion which followed the Counter Reformation. The wars of religion brought to international relations, the intrinsic bitterness of religious hatred and afforded the colour of good conscience to the most barefaced schemes of dynastic aggrandisement.

Coupled with this was the economic imperative which led the western European nations along the road of expansion, colonisation, commercial aggrandisement and the exploitation of newly discovered territories. Hugo Grotius claimed there was an immutable law of nature which governed relations between sovereign and subject and one government and the other. This law of nature was the fundamental basis of the civil law of every nation and this civil law was reflected in the laws binding every nation. The originality of this classical idea of natural law which had been discussed by Plato (C427-347BC), Aristotle (384-322BC), the stoics and Marcus Tullius Cicero (106-43BC), was that Grotius believed that the same intrinsic principles are fundamental to the behaviour of states in their relations with one and the other. One of the most significant contributions of Hugo Grotius was his elucidation of the concept of extra territoriality, otherwise known as diplomatic immunity which was originated by the French jurist Pierre Ayraut (1536-1601). This concept was further developed by Samuel von Pufendorf (1632-1694), and by the 18th century the idea of diplomatic immunity had taken firm root and this concept of immunity was formally consolidated by the Vienna Convention of 1961. The idea that what binds human beings together on an individual basis can be transposed to relations between nations can be seen also in David Hume’s (1711-1776) A Treatise of Human Nature when he wrote, describing the basis of human relations and collaboration in founding civilized societies.

“I observe that it will be for my interest to leave another in the possession of his goods provided he will act in the same manner with regard to me. He is sensible of a like interest in the regulation of his conduct. When this common sense of interest is mutually expressed, and is known to both, it produces a suitable resolution and behaviour. And this may properly enough be called a convention or agreement betwixt us, though without the interposition of a promise since the actions of each of us have a reference to those of the other, and are performed upon the supposition that something is to be performed by the other party … assures us still more that the sense of interest has become common to all our fellows, and gives us a confidence of the future regularity of their conduct: and it is only on the expectation of this that our moderation and abstinence are founded”.

It is this logic of rule governing not only an individual behaviour but state behaviour that underpins the working of international relations.

January 23, 2014