By Festus Eriye

 

The capture of Independent Peoples of Biafra (IPOB) leader, Nnamdi Kanu, by Nigeria’s intelligence agencies was a massive coup for an administration that has been reeling under the siege of insecurity across the land.

The dramatic announcement of the “interception” of Kanu at some unnamed location came out of the blues. It was the stuff of spy movies, something you associate with Americans, Russians or Israelis; not Nigerian security agents who are more adept at cracking down on demonstrators and activists than hardboiled enemies of state.

Perhaps inspired by that success, the Department of State Services (DSS) stormed the Ibadan lair of Yoruba nation promoter, Chief Sunday Adeyemo aka Sunday Igboho – leaving in their wake two dead bodies, dead cats and a slew of damaged cars.

Amidst the shooting the agitator who legend says is endowed with magical powers, and has reinforced the myth by parading in public with a juju bulletproof vest as sartorial accessory, went underground.

In just one week President Muhammadu Buhari’s administration had put two troublesome individuals out of circulation. You could tell how much it meant to the government when the president praised the military for saving Nigeria from disintegration.

His supporters were over the moon. They hailed Buhari as a professor of linguistics who had spoken to the secessionists and agitators in a language they understood. This referenced his throwaway threat to deal with IPOB and their like “in a language they understand.”

True, the geographical expression called Nigeria remains whole, but are its different peoples still committed to the one nation ideal? Never before has there been so much division and hate along ethnic and regional lines. It’s one thing to keep an entity united at gunpoint, quite a different proposition securing their commitment to a union by choice. At this point in our history I shudder to think what a referendum will reveal about our true feelings.

History is replete with countries that were once held together by the force of arms or the iron will of a strongman. Who remembers the once mighty Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) under the vice grip of a succession of communist dictators, or Yugoslavia as one country for as long as Josip Broz Tito had breath in him?

But a time came when guns, tanks and secret police couldn’t stop things falling apart and they crumbled under the weight of their inner contradictions.

Now, whether the events of the last two weeks were so perfectly choreographed such that threat morphed into action which produced dramatic result in the form of Kanu’s return to the “zoo”, remains a matter of conjecture. But that’s academic; we’ll assume it was part of some genius plan.

There’s no doubt that the military crackdown and arrest of the IPOB leader has brought a level of quietude to the Southeast. The daily assaults on police stations and soldiers have virtually stopped and armed militants have gone to ground.

In the Southwest the picture is quite different. Despite the din generated by Igboho’s activities there’s really no appetite for secession here.

The separatists and ethnic nationalists are thriving because an enabling environment has been created through the years. What we see with the Kanus and Igbohos are outward manifestations of an inner malaise.

Those conditions have not disappeared with the legal troubles of two arrowheads, neither does taking the advantage in a shooting war translate into prevailing in the battle for minds.

If anything, analysing reactions in the Southeast especially since the decommissioning of Kanu, you get the sense that bitterness and a sense of alienation have only increased within the ranks of his supporters.

Among the elite there may have been sighs of relief, but the younger demographic retain sufficient resentment regarding which those in authority should be concerned. This, after all, is the majority segment of our population.

Matters are not helped by tone-deaf dialogue between sections of the country and government. Driving the agitations down south are frustrations over inequalities, injustices and sense of exclusion which current leaders are loath to address.

One of more interesting aspects of the ongoing national exchanges is that those most disturbed by the activities of Kanu and Igboho are majorly from the north. Even those in Zamfara, Kaduna or Borno feel more threatened by the activities of agitators in Imo and Oyo, than the depredations of bandits and insurgents who have turned life upside down across their region.

We’ve heard rhetoric that suggests bandits are actually very shy and sensitive people that deserve to be treated specially. We’ve been told by Kaduna State Governor, Nasir El-Rufai, that they can’t be compared to Kanu and Igboho because they are lone rangers!

Well, in the last six months these independent criminals have abducted hundreds and killed scores across the north. Last weekend they murdered 50 people in attacks in Kaduna and Zamfara. A few days ago they upped their game by snatching the Emir of Kajuru.

As I write 121 students of Bethel Baptist Secondary School remain in captivity. Following their abduction, El-Rufai hurriedly shut a number of schools for security reasons. Even before then many parents had been mulling the wisdom of putting their children in harm’s way by sending them to school! So, slowly but surely Boko Haram’s assault on Western education is being actualised in the north.

It was perhaps against this back drop the largely reticent former Military Governor of Kaduna State, Abubakar Umar, advised Buhari to focus on the bandits and insurgents, arguing that secessionists were exaggerated threats.

It wasn’t what the president’s cocky supporters wanted to hear. He was dismissed as an irritant who was frustrated because Buhari wasn’t sharing public funds with prominent Nigerians.

But truth is the troubled North remains Nigeria’s greatest headache at this point. The insurgency in the Northeast continues to drain valuable resources that could have been deployed to national development.

The Northwest lies prostrate before bloodthirsty bandits with no viable economic alternative to wean them from their deadly trade.

In the North-Central zone the unending conflict between herders and farmers continues to leave death and misery in its wake. The telling effect on food production is being felt right across the land.

So rather than embarking on a premature victory lap, Buhari needs to realise that at the point when he took over, Nigeria was in crisis and that drove the hunger for change. Six years after, that sense of crisis hasn’t disappeared, it has only deepened.

 

 

By Festus Eriye

A little over twenty years ago when the founding fathers of what would become the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) were cobbling it together, they had a theory. They argued Nigeria actually had two political parties – civilians on one side and the military on the other – because coups were still common place.

So they dreamt of a party that would be a grand umbrella to accommodate the mainstream political tendencies – north, south, east and west. It was to be Nigeria’s answer to South Africa’s African National Congress (ANC).

But for the last minute departure of a rump that became the Alliance for Democracy (AD), they largely succeeded in creating a platform that had the broadest spread.

Indeed, so big had it become after a few years in power that its leaders boasted about being the biggest political party in Africa and dreamt of governing Nigeria for an uninterrupted 60-year stretch.

It wasn’t such a fanciful proposition because in order to win the presidency you needed cross-country presence and appeal that the likes of AD, All Nigeria Peoples Party (ANPP) or Congress for Progressive Change (CPC) never had. That was until its leaders got consumed by hubris.

Many have argued that without the backing of All Progressives Congress (APC) National Leader, Asiwaju Bola Tinubu and the defunct Action Congress of Nigeria (ACN), President Muhammadu Buhari and the All Progressives Congress (APC) would never have gotten to power – because their strength in the Southwest provided a leg that complemented Buhari’s popularity up north, creating the national spread that was required to win the presidency. That certainly was the case.

Read Also: Ogun, Oyo workers’ fate hangs in the balance

However, the nascent APC was given a massive helping hand by the arrogance of PDP leaders in 2014.

In this country a governor is a major political asset, a mini-president in his territory. Imagine that in one day the opposition which barely counted eight governors within their ranks, suddenly found themselves gifted five in one day! They were joined by former Vice President Atiku Abubakar, former Kwara State Governor, Bukola Saraki, and sundry others in that seismic move.

Rather than realise they were strengthening an opposition that had little or no room for manoeuvre at that point, then President Goodluck Jonathan and National Chairman, Bamanga Tukur, celebrated the exit of those they termed ‘trouble makers’ from the ruling party. It was the beginning of the end.

Imagine if PDP had resolved its internal problems and convinced the defectors to stay. It’s hard to see how the opposition could have seized power without the additional votes, spread and resources that the new entrants brought.

Six years after that landmark where an incumbent civilian president was toppled in widely-hailed polls, the outlook hasn’t improved for the opposition.

First, it had to deal with the trauma of going from 16 years of presidential power to contending with life in the political wilderness. All the evidence shows it hasn’t quite made the adjustment.

Back in 2015, there was no unanimity as to the best way forward in its new life, but many agreed PDP had to reinvent itself. But to do that the party needed honest self-examination as to how it came from defeating Buhari by 10 million votes in 2011 to losing by under three million votes four years later.

They needed to understand that what happened in 2015 wasn’t just an electoral loss but the evisceration of a political brand and that a radical reinvention was called for. Instead of that soul searching, party leaders were more interested in a speedy return to power in 2019 – offering the same damaged goods to a suspicious electorate.

It should have occurred to the party that clear differentiation was required because with nothing setting the parties apart, members could flit from one to the other based on self-interest. Today, the only way to know who has the upper hand is by tracking who’s going where.

In the last one year, three governors have switched parties. In Edo State, Godwin Obaseki, fled to the PDP after he lost the APC gubernatorial ticket. His problem was his erstwhile godfather, Adams Oshiomhole, was opposed to his return. Had they kissed and made up he wouldn’t have moved.

Ebonyi State Governor, David Umahi and his Cross River counterpart, Ben Ayade, have crossed to the ruling party spurred by battle a for control of PDP power structures in their states.

A fourth governor – Zamfara’s Bello Matawalle, has reportedly skipped to the APC with only the ceremonial singing and dancing left to seal the deal.

This latest defection is distressing for the opposition. Its spokesman, Kola Ologbodiyan, released a statement warning the governor and his entourage that their action amounted to vacation of their offices under the constitution. Curiously, PDP didn’t make these same legal arguments when it was benefitting from Obaseki joining their ranks.

But rather than split hairs over what it can’t prevent, the party should worry about something desperately wrong within its ranks. We didn’t see this sort of stampede into the ruling party when ACN governors were in opposition. So what’s eating their PDP colleagues?

Benue State Governor, Samuel Ortom, has a theory: the corrupt are leaving in hope they would be protected from prosecution by joining the ruling party. But that isn’t logical. Former Abia State Governor, Orji Kalu, joined APC and many said that it was to terminate his prosecution on corruption charges. In the end he went to jail until the court reversed his conviction. Now, the EFCC is vowing to reopen his case. So much for protection.

The defections may be depressing for PDP, but they are disastrous for an aspiring democracy that could do with a vibrant opposition and alternative governing option.

Very rarely do governments in countries facing Nigeria’s kinds of challenges retain the level of popularity they attained on Election Day. The longer they stay in the power the less popular they become as they take tough decisions. Their misfortune becomes the opposition’s opportunity.

But despite all that’s going on with insecurity, ethnic and separatist agitations, herders-farmers, conflicts, Boko Haram insurgency and the economic recession, the opposition isn’t really putting the government on the spot or positioning itself as a credible alternative. Instead, its ranks are being depleted daily.

It’s almost like some terminal ailment is draining its strength. Unless it can quickly resolve its issues the one-time political leviathan stands in grave danger of being supplanted as Nigeria’s main opposition party by those who can spot the vacuum.

By Festus Eriye

Nigerian leaders traditionally use the Independence Day or May 29 inauguration anniversary for reporting on the country’s progress. After President Muhammadu Buhari re-designated June 12 as Democracy Day, office holders now have an added platform for making their case.

Buhari’s predecessors chose to speak to the country from time to time through the closely-choreographed ‘Presidential Chat.’ But the taciturn new helmsman quietly shut down the talk shop – doling out face time to the media with his famed frugality.

I have had the rare privilege of interviewing him in Kaduna whilst the then Congress for Progressive Change (CPC) was in formation and in Aso Rock on his first anniversary as president. He was sufficiently chatty and amusing but couldn’t be accused of being voluble once he was done with his two favourite talking points – corruption and indiscipline.

So imagine the surprise when, sandwiched between May 29 and June 12, he granted two major interviews to Arise Television and the Nigerian Television Authority (NTA). For those who had become used to his rare interactions with the populace, it was close to an overdose.

They were as freewheeling as Buhari interviews would ever get – focusing on issues of moment like insecurity, secession, banditry, restructuring, potential coup plots, Twitter ban, infrastructure and the likes.

Anyone whom listened closely couldn’t have missed the president moaning about how unfair Nigerians were to him. He ticked off all he had done for them in six years and reminded them of where they were coming from. He admitted there were challenges but implied no leader had been so good to them.

Many of his ‘ungrateful’ compatriots were only too glad to provide a rebuttal to the presidential gab fest on the remaining social media platforms, with Twitter safely quarantined. They recalled the good old days in ‘Egypt’ when one US dollar exchanged for N192 and a bag of rice sold in the region of N10,000.

They remembered when talk of insecurity referred mainly to the depredations of Boko Haram insurgents in the Northeast, and a time not too long ago when people were not too scared to visit their farms.

Some recalled a period when Nnamdi Kanu and IPOB were a joke, Sunday Igboho was unheard off, and the closest thing to a radical Yoruba nationalist was Gani Adams.

It was their own way of answering two questions: Are you better off today than you were six years ago? Is Nigeria’s democracy working for you?

In the Southeast on May 31 Biafra Day remembrance these questions were answered after a fashion. In a test of wills IPOB ordered all in the zone to stay home in protest. Elected representatives of the people like governors asked them to ignore the order and go about their business. Guess who they obeyed?

The entire region was largely shutdown as people elected to remain indoors. Many say this was down to fear of being caught in the crossfire between militants, unidentified gunmen and security forces.

In the same Southeast an even more overt assault on the democratic process has been unfolding with coordinated arson attacks on offices of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC). The clear intent is to destroy infrastructure for holding any elections in the zone.

Meanwhile, on June 12 – that reminder of the most cynical subversion of a people’s will in recent history – the Southwest, Abuja and some others aped what played out in the Southeast on May 31.

Again, the people voted with their feet fearing that the anarchic violence of the #EndSARS protests would be reprised. But this anniversary wasn’t just about deserted streets and shuttered shops: it was also about the failed promise of protest.

But for a few diehards who gathered at Ojota in Lagos and were swiftly dispersed by teargas-firing policemen, even the most frustrated of people chose to lick their wounds and sulk indoors. It was as if many had come to terms with the futility of protesting.

In a sign of the times governors like those of Kogi and Cross River and the police in many states issued threats against citizens participating in protests. Dissent suddenly became anathema in a supposedly democratic environment.

Meanwhile, the president who obviously had a lot bottled up relished his primetime opportunity to vent and had a word for every one of his troublers.

For IPOB he hit great heights of creativity, describing them as a dot within a circle with nowhere to go. He suggested they rethought their agenda given that they had property all over the country. This created some confusion as to whether he was referring to Kanu’s crowd alone or Igbos in general.

It is academic now whether something was lost in translation: his comments hit a nerve. That notorious reference to the dot and circle is now the subject of a thousand memes and T-shirts.

The president was in fine fettle in the second interview; promising ‘more than fire for fire’ for separatists, bandits, kidnappers and their tribe. While some of these groups are just about criminality, others are thriving because of the political mistakes of national leadership over time. Seeing as the best way to fight fire is with water and not fire, many were waiting for some reconciliatory sop but heard none in Buhari’s riot act.

It was also evident the president and half the country are still poles apart on how to handle the vexed issue of herders. He came out for open grazing – proposing to exhume some ancient gazette backing grazing routes. Southern governors and their Benue counterpart, Samuel Ortom, remain resolute in their opposition. It is now emerging that the so-called legislation only existed in the Northern Region and had no nationwide reference.

How interesting that amidst Nigeria season of democratic celebration the government launched a sneak attack on the scope of free expression with its Twitter ban. Officials have been labouring unsuccessfully to argue they are following trends, as the world is fast embracing social media regulation.

Starved of their daily Twitter fix the government and some presidential aides have signed on to some Indian app called Koo hoping, no doubt, to trigger a nationwide stampede to Koo Kooland. It hasn’t happened.

So far, the cure-all Twitter ban which is hurting many innocents, hasn’t put Kanu or Igboho out of business, neither has it halted late Abubakar Shekau’s legions in their tracks.

But Nigerians are shock absorbers who keep believing that democracy will outlast attacks from non-state actors and those acting in the name of the state.

By Festus Eriye

Birds of a feather flock together. Last Friday, Nigeria joined the likes of China, North Korea, Myanmar, Iran, Turkmenistan and Turkey in blocking Twitter.

One thing common to these countries is repression and denial of citizens’ rights to freely express themselves or exhibit dissent.

In Myanmar, for instance, Twitter was blocked following widespread resistance to the February military coup that toppled the elected government of Aung San Suu Kyi.

It’s important to note that of 195 nations in the world today, just eight have taken this sort of action. It’s sad that a government that advertises itself as ‘progressive’ is the one behind this retrogressive move.

Much has been said about what the country loses daily while the ban subsists. But just as important is the danger posed to constitutionally guaranteed rights.

The immediate background to this saga is the deletion of President Muhammadu Buhari’s tweet where he threatened to deal with separatist groups “in a language they understand.” This was widely interpreted to be a reference to the Nigerian civil war of the late 60s.

A day after Twitter took down the post claiming it violated the platform’s rules, the hammer came down. Would government have acted out of the blues had the tweet not been deleted? I doubt it.

The president’s spokesman, Garba Shehu, has since stated that the sanction wasn’t just about Buhari’s tweet. He said the site had become a major channel for spreading misinformation and fake news and a threat to Nigeria’s corporate existence.

In reality, Twitter is just a microcosm of the internet which is itself an ocean of misinformation and fake news. So why not go the whole hog and ban the internet because it harbours things that are untrue or is abused by people whose intentions are malevolent?

Threats to national security and corporate existence cannot be limited to the activities of Nnamdi Kanu and his Independent Peoples of Biafra (IPOB) in the Southeast or the #EndSARS episode. The net must be spread to include the reign of bandits in the Northwest, the Islamist insurgency in the Northeast, killer herdsmen who have left their bloody imprint from Benue to Ibarapa and the legion of kidnappers who have blanketed our landscape.

Are we now blaming Twitter alone for all these evils that have overtaken our land?

In desperate defence of the government some argue that Nigerians may have a right to tweet, but no freedom is absolute. However, in making that argument they unfairly convict all 40 million Twitter users in the country of abusing the platform to undermine national security.

There are millions of small business owners, corporate organisations and government institutions all using the platform for positive ends. Within Aso Rock there are prolific tweeters who joyfully deployed the app to fight Buhari’s critics and other ‘enemies of state.’

Why should millions of innocent individuals and organisations be punished unjustly and stripped of their rights because of the sins of Kanu and #EndSARS promoters?

One big challenge with this ban is that a law or order you cannot enforce doesn’t qualify to be so called. In this instance there’s no specific legislation outlawing tweeting in Nigeria. There’s no Executive Order to that effect. Laws in this country are still made by the National Assembly, not the Presidency.

That didn’t stop Attorney General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Abubakar Malami, from threatening to arrest and prosecute users of Twitter. But he’s about to discover that through the ages whenever people are confronted with unjust orders or laws they resort to civil disobedience.

Prominent Nigerians, anonymous ones, civil society activists and organisations, are openly defying him and tweeting. He has two options: one is to arrest people for using Twitter and worsen the government’s PR mess. The other is to do nothing – realising there aren’t enough jail houses to accommodate the dissidents in their numbers. Nothing is more embarrassing than when a government is made to look toothless.

There are also those who have emotionally argued that deleting Buhari’s tweet was somehow an insult to Nigeria. I disagree. Twitter is a private company with terms and conditions for using its platform. Our president doesn’t have to own an account on the site. This wasn’t a bilateral arrangement between two sovereign nations. He walked in with his eyes open and subjected himself to the imperfect judgment of Twitter administrators.

Let’s not forget that this same organisation shut down former US President Donald Trump’s handle. He didn’t jail the company’s executives for their action, neither did Americans moan about some supposed slight to their great leader.

This whole episode is damaging for the president because it stirs up all the old stereotypes about his past as a military ruler who took an axe to civil liberties.

It is equally damaging for the country. A nation that should be Africa’s democratic example by expanding freedoms has chosen the bad company of those who would limit them.

Little wonder that Twitter chose to site its Africa headquarters in Ghana despite Nigeria’s massive market and potential. Imagine if that facility had been located here at this time!

Imagine how the ban is presently playing before investors looking to place their resources somewhere on the continent. Imagine how much this helps when we make our next arms buying pitch to the same Western countries that have denounced the ban as undemocratic.

If the government were truly concerned about fighting misinformation the worst thing they could have done was to take down Twitter. The speed at which a naughty tweet goes out is the same speed at which a fact checking post neutralises it.

Love it or hate it there are very few platforms in the world today with the instant communication power of Twitter. What a shame that the government has ignored all its positives and thrown the baby out with the bath water.

For a regime run by politicians this administration has exhibited an incredible talent for alienating its support and acquiring enemies. The day before the ban there were millions of apolitical Nigerians who were largely indifferent to it; today they are furious that a part of their lives has been snatched away for less than convincing reasons.

But it isn’t too late for the government to craft a face-saving exit from the mess it has created.

At a time when it should be focusing on insecurity and economic challenges confronting the country, every day spent on this nonsense is a wasted opportunity.

By Festus Eriye

After Attorney-General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Abubakar Malami, dismissed the Southern governors resolution banning open grazing in their states, President Muhammadu Buhari’s position on the matter became all too predictable.

The only surprise is he didn’t double down on the vehicle spare parts analogy, preferring to wrap his opposition in the garb of constitutionality. The ban, he said, in the statement by his spokesman Garba Shehu was of “questionable legality.”

Thankfully, the president, however grand and lofty his office, isn’t the court. He is entitled to hold an opinion and we’ll see about legality and constitutionality when the judiciary weighs in.

Following their Asaba summit, the governors announced they intended to visit the president to push their proposals. But on the strength of the statement bluntly rejecting the grazing ban, such a parley has become moot.

Still, I am stunned that the president could so casually dismiss the consensus of half the country over which he presides – if you add Benue that makes 18 out of 36 states – choosing the ‘my way or the highway’ approach.

Whether out of shock or anger, Ondo State Governor Rotimi Akeredolu who chairs the Southern Governors Forum has released a statement questioning whether Shehu actually spoke for Buhari or some other unnamed interests.

But that’s irrelevant because the president hasn’t come out to disown his spokesman on the grazing ban statement or any other such release ever. It’s inconceivable that such a position would be ventilated without authorisation by his principal.

However, there are fundamental questions arising from Buhari’s comments. Just like his top law officer, he presents this matter as being mainly about the rights of herders to carry on their business in any part of the country.

Such attempts at making the governors’ action seem like a causeless effort to abridge the constitutional rights of some Nigerians is dishonest.

It is also insensitive because it fails to admit that in exercising their rights they trample on the rights of people who just want to go their farms in peace and meet their investments intact.

There are well-documented cases linking herders to crimes like rape, kidnappings and murder. Recently, former Minister for Agriculture and chairman of the Arewa Consultative Forum (ACF) admitted their involvement in the violence, but blamed thousands of foreigners who cross our borders unhindered for the bulk of the atrocities.

Driving the violence is their sense of entitlement that they have right to enter a total stranger’s farmland and let their cattle run riot over his crops without consequences.

A few years ago, no less a personality than Chief Olu Falae, former Secretary to the Government of the Federation and one-time presidential candidate, suffered the humiliation of being taken captive by herders. He recounted how year after year they would invade his farm and set acres of palm trees on fire. His protestations were often met with threats of physical harm being done to him.

Such tales through the years never provoke empathy towards those who suffer losses as a result of the excesses of the pastoralists, instead we’re constantly assailed with blind, one-sided justifications for perpetuation of an outmoded practice.

It is amusing to hear the president talk about how the problem between herdsmen and farmers has been with us for ages. Is he arguing that crime and injustice be allowed to continue just because they have been with us for long?

Buhari dismissed the governors’ ban as offering “no solution” and yet this very idea is growing on many north and south of the country. Indeed, it would be very wrong to think opposition to the open grazing ban is unanimous in the north.

Many governors, prominent individuals and groups like the Northern Elders Forum (NEF) have come out to embrace it, acknowledging that the anachronistic practice of marching cattle for hundreds of miles had become a lightning rod for conflict in the face of development and exploding populations.

The ban isn’t even a new or original initiative of Southern governors, neither is it correct to cast it in terms of a power show by one region against the other. In fact, a constitutionally recognised body had prepared the template the governors reiterated.

Back in April 26, 2018, a meeting of the National Economic Council (NEC) presided over by Vice President Yemi Osinbajo approved the recommendation of its sub-committee that open grazing of cattle be banned across the country.

The three-man sub-committee on herdsmen/farmers clashes constituted by the government in February 2018 was headed by Ebonyi State Governor, David Umahi.

It was specifically mandated to unravel the causes of clashes and dialogue with relevant stakeholders to end the killings of innocent citizens.

Other members of the sub-committee were Governors Simon Lalong (Plateau), Samuel Ortom (Benue), Darius Ishaku (Taraba), and Bindow Jubrilla (Adamawa).

So this was clearly a “solution” that was approved by NEC in clear contradiction of the Buhari statement which dismissed the Asaba resolution as offering “no solution.”

On the contrary, what the Presidency has been pushing in terms or ranching, RUGA or by whatever name called, doesn’t offer an immediate response to ongoing, pervasive criminality and bloodletting that has frightened many off their farms in large swathes of the country.

It doesn’t address the fears of people that their ancestral lands could be cleverly taken from them through these so-called RUGA initiatives given historical precedents. In the face of fierce opposition in the South is it any wonder that governors were falling over themselves to deny they had made land available for such businesses?

The fear is deep-seated and one press statement isn’t going to dispel it, not when many feel – rightly and or wrongly – that the president isn’t impartial on the matter.

It’s good that the Buhari raises legal questions about the ban. He cannot stop states from making laws for the safety of their people and if the open grazing ban becomes one such legislation so be it. After all, Justice Ifeoma Ojukwu of the Federal High Court, Abuja last week affirmed the right of states to implement such laws. The best he and Malami can do is challenge such acts at the appropriate courts and hope they would be struck down.

The maiming and pillaging going on in most governors’ domains is mindboggling. They can’t just sit back helplessly while Buhari takes his sweet old time to address the problem – just because it’s something that predates the Amalgamation.

By Festus Eriye

The recent Southern governors summit in Asaba, Delta State, has shaken things up like very few political events have in recent memory.

This isn’t because the ideas that emerged from the gathering were so radical or novel. ‘Restructuring’ is a word that’s been bouncing around the left of the political spectrum for decades. It’s mainstreaming by the governors simply confirms it’s a concept whose day has come.

Perhaps what has stirred unease in the establishment is that such a communique issued from a bipartisan gathering of ruling All Progressives Congress (APC) and opposition Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) governors. But so compelling and communal are the troubles they face that political affiliations took a back seat.

Still, it would have been expecting too much to think that their proposals wouldn’t annoy those who, in spite of all that’s going on, think things are just great; all that’s needed is a little police action and we can all sleep soundly.

So, former Nasarawa State Governor, Adamu Abdullahi, accused the governors of ‘betrayal of trust’ and undermining the sovereignty of the country.

One time Executive Secretary of the National Health Insurance Scheme (NHIS), Prof. Usman Yusuf, faulted the resolution because the governors didn’t consult Fulani leaders before banning open grazing.

From somewhere in Dubai former Vice President Atiku Abubakar headed awkwardly for the high road – condemning regionalism – without addressing the issues raised by the governors. His was a nice way of weighing in on a hot topic without saying anything.

Former President Goodluck Jonathan was equally unhappy with the fact the Asaba Accord issued from a regional base. He would have preferred if all governors – north and south – had come together. Another inoffensive intervention that conveniently ignores the fact that Northern governors have been meeting for ages and none of today’s apostles of oneness ever spoke against their congregating on regional terms.

In the end what the governors came up with in Asaba was just the base minimum needed to begin to address the contradictions threatening to sink the country.

Anyone with an objective view would admit that our existing governance and constitutional arrangements are not working, and major shake-up is needed. Whether you call it ‘restructuring’ or constitutional amendment, something just has to give. The US which appears to have a settled system of government has made several amendments to its constitution.

I’m not too sure why the term ‘restructuring’ provokes such intense emotions in certain quarters. Perhaps it’s because it’s so nebulous that some believe it’s ultimately about balkanisation of the nation.

In reality it’s about reshaping the country through resource control and redistribution, devolution of power; it’s about moving certain items from the Exclusive Legislative List to the Concurrent List in the constitution. It’s about examining the size of government at different levels to eliminate waste and ensure sustainability.

Every ad-hoc national conference that’s been organised in the country has come up with a template for these changes. The only problem is no government has shown any real appetite for constitutional reforms.

It has always been my position that whatever our restructuring dreams are, the most pragmatic option for realising them is to go through the National Assembly.

Unfortunately, that is where the process of change looks set to meet the greatest resistance. At a time the nation is crying for forward-looking leaders, we are saddled with legislative leadership that is desperately trying to preserve a crumbling status quo.

This is clear from the reaction of Senate President Ahmed Lawan to the governors’ communique where he berated them for deigning to suggest ‘restructuring.’

He said: “I believe that, as leaders, especially those of us who are elected, should not be at the forefront of calling for this kind of thing because, even if you are a governor, you are supposed to be working hard in your state to ensure that this restructuring you are calling for at the federal level, you have done it in your state as well.”

Lawan’s comments expose him as shockingly out of touch. His challenge to the governors to begin restructuring from their end is evidence of narrow-mindedness and mental fogginess. The constitutional issues people are complaining about can only be resolved at federal level; states don’t amend the constitution.

The Senate President is horrified that governors were in the “forefront of calling for “this kind of thing.” “This kind of thing” Mr. Senator are merely constitutional changes which you and your colleagues have sat on for two years – doing nothing.

For these governors – none of whom can be accused of being a revolutionary – to sit together and come up with such a consensus is something no wise person should dismiss.

If Lawan and company think that the present system favours their region and so should be preserved at all cost, he should take another look at that region – beginning from his home state Yobe which has become a regular stomping ground for Boko Haram insurgents.

‘Restructuring’ is to query whether Nigeria needs a bicameral National Assembly which is costing N128 billion to finance in the current budget? The Senate, for instance, is a luxury that a nation in dire economic straits cannot afford. Perhaps this is one reason “this sort of thing” is such a stomach-churning proposition for Lawan.

Nigeria’s existing security arrangements come from a time with different challenges. It was an era when terror, kidnappings, banditry, secessionist agitations, the internet and financial crimes were unknown. Today, all these and more are on the plate of state and federal governments and their efforts at containing them have, so far, been underwhelming.

Politicians in Abuja love the power that comes from sitting over a federal police with a central command structure. Unfortunately, they cannot fund the force which is in sorry shape. Across the country the Nigeria Police is being financed by many state governments – even down to payment of salaries. Yet, some still dream that this degenerating organisation shouldn’t be restructured.

With the exception of Lagos and a handful of others most states are unsustainable. They cannot pay their workers’ salaries or pensions. Shouldn’t we be thinking of consolidating states?

Even the much-talked about relationship between states and local governments is an issue that needs addressing. We should decide whether to scrap local governments since they are not federating units and allow states the freedom to make their own internal developmental arrangements.

These are some of the issues that restructuring seeks to address – even if defenders of the status quo would have you believe otherwise.

By Festus Eriye

Several things scare me about Nigeria’s current insecurity nightmare. Firstly, it is unprecedented. Under President Olusegun Obasanjo the major headache was the uprising in the Niger Delta which was largely contained and brought to heel with the deal with militants under President Umaru Yar’Adua.

The seed of the Boko Haram insurgency was sown under Yar’Adua following the killing of the sect’s founder, Mohammed Yusuf. It sprouted and blossomed under President Goodluck Jonathan. But the rest of the country was relatively peaceful under those dispensations.

Today, everywhere is boiling. The country is fighting to put out fires on several fronts. Thousands of bandits are terrorising seven states in the Northwest.

Boko Haram, which the government boasted it had degraded, has resurrected from whatever shallow grave was dug for it. In the last few days they wreaked havoc in Geidam and Mainok in Borno State. Niger State Governor, Abubakar Sani Bello, just cried out about the terror group planting its flag on territory it had taken in his domain.

Attacks by herdsmen continue unabated. I just watched a footage of Benue State Governor Samuel Ortom’s plaintive cry for help after herders invaded an IDP camp in the state – leaving seven persons dead.

Kidnapping is all the rage with isolated university campuses and similar institutions as choice targets. In the past few days abductors have snatched 21 students from Greenfield University in Kaduna State and another three from the Federal University of Agriculture, Makurdi.

Hostage taking for cash has become a growth industry that is finding takers in virtually all 36 states.

In the Southeast the uprising by the Independent Peoples of Biafra (IPOB) is shaping to become Nigeria’s second insurgency.

Without question, the larger economic crisis – worsened by the COVID-19 pandemic – is driving a lot of the criminality. Take the abductions for example. Most kidnappers don’t have a political or religious agenda: they are only after cold cash – which brings me to my second concern.

The problems we are dealing with require immediate solutions. Unfortunately, there are no quick fixes. An economy that’s on life support is not about to experience a miraculous resurrection. We’ve been dealing with Boko Haram for close to 12 years and they are not yet broken. Former Chief of Army Staff, Lt. Gen. Yusuf Buratai (rtd), predicted not too long ago that we’ll be battling the insurgents for the next 20 years.

Kidnappers are not about to disappear into thin air. Not when they earn millions by simply taking innocent people out of circulation. That’s why they are becoming increasingly ambitious. Those who snatched students of the Federal College of Forestry Mechanisation, Afaka, Kaduna State, are holding out for N500 million ransom.

The ones holding the Greenfield varsity kids insist their N800 million price is non-negotiable. They have ratcheted up pressure on the state government by killing five of the students. Governor Nasir El-Rufai has sworn he won’t yield to their demands.

Oh, how his views and position on this matter have evolved. I just saw a footage of an interview he gave Sahara TV on the subject of the Chibok girls while President Jonathan was still in office. Back then as a member of the opposition he declared that when the lives of your citizens are at stake, no option should be taken off the table – not even negotiation.

I sympathise with his new position because I agree that ransom payment is not the solution. The kidnapping monster feeds on ransom; starve it of that blood-sullied cash and it goes into its death throes.

Still, I wouldn’t want to be in his shoes – dealing with the emotional and political blowback from watching frustrated kidnappers dropping off the dead bodies of their hostages. But imagine paying N800 million to killers who have already murdered five kids? Imagine how empowered their criminal enterprise can become with such funds?

I’m sure El-Rufai now better understands what it means to be caught between the devil and the deep blue sea. He’s clearly left with only the option of a military rescue bid – with the attendant risks – before the abductors perpetrate even worse atrocities.

My third worry has to do with what has happened to our protectors in recent times. There was a time when people lived in genuine fear of the police and army – not any more, not since the #EndSARS protests. In the last few weeks scores have been killed across the country. When those who should protect the populace can’t protect themselves, you have real problems on your hands.

I am sure President Muhammadu Buhari and his team are just as troubled by the spreading chaos. Unfortunately, nothing he has thrown at the problem seems to be working. If anything, the emerging message is incoherence in government’s strategy for restoring normalcy.

A while back he issued an order that those found illegally bearing AK-47s be shot on sight. It was something that wasn’t clearly thought out because his Defence Minister was soon walking back the remarks, saying bandits would be apprehended and prosecuted.

It’s not as is his words matter at this moment. Words count when they are accompanied by concrete action. Each time Buhari threatens to deal with bandits it all sounds hollow as the very next minute a new outrage is reported. So it’s perhaps a wise thing that he’s keeping his counsel to himself.

By any yardstick, what is going on isn’t normal. Nobel laureate Prof. Wole Soyinka says Nigeria is at war. But it’s not warfare as we know it. If the nature of warfare has changed, we have to change the way we fight.

It’s not a situation that can be resolved by government and security forces alone.

Without delay the president should declare a national security emergency that would allow for the deployment of every available resource to pacify the land.

All efforts should be expedited to empower regional outfits like Amotekun and Ebubeagu.

There should be a mopping up of men and assets of our security agencies to focus on those states where the crisis is reaching a breaking point.

Governments should consider shutting schools in isolated locations for some months until better security arrangements are in place. It should engage rural communities better in gathering intelligence through the use of vigilantes.

For the long term, this federation must be restructured. We’re where we are because of what’s been left undone. If we’ll not do it willingly, our current troubles will make it happen – and with pain we could have avoided.

 

 

By Festus Eriye

Minister of Communications and Digital Economy, Isa Pantami, is in hot water over statements he made in the past that amounted to paeans to terror groups like Al-Qaeda and the Taliban.

In one of the quotes from his teachings in the 2000s, Pantami declares: “We are all happy whenever unbelievers are being killed. But the Sharia does not allow us to kill them without a reason.”

“Our zeal (hamasa) should not take precedence over our obedience to the sacred law.”

Responding to questions about his views on Osama Bin Laden during a lecture about the Taliban, he said of the late Al Qaeda leader responsible for the attack on New York’s World Trade Centre that claimed over 3,000 lives in 2001: “I still consider him as a better Muslim than myself.”

Leading to the comments becoming public, Pantami had reacted indignantly to the publication by a national newspaper of unverified claims that he was on some US terror watch list. But while he was threatening legal fire and brimstone, his vocal skeletons started tumbling out of the closet.

Rather than tamping down the fire, his initial attempt to browbeat the newspaper snowballed into a raging inferno.

Many have called for his resignation – arguing that anyone with such extreme views had no place in government.

Sensing the crisis could consume him, Pantami dismounted inelegantly from his high horse to renounce the comments. He now says he’s changed his position and that he made the remarks as a young person. Unfortunately, some of these troubling statements were made in the 2000s – long after he had exited his teens.

The minister claims to have changed his views, but we only have his words about this convenient repentance. Is this conversion genuine or a contrivance to save his skin and secure his high office?

I suspect there may be more gems to be exposed from the complete works of the minister as scrutiny of his past positions intensifies.

While critics turned up the heat on social media with #PantamiResign, his supporters and sympathisers circled the wagons with #PantamiWillStay. The duelling hashtags show how desensitized and un-shockable we have become.

His backers want him let off the hook, arguing he has recanted. We all have our past, they argue.

Everyone has a past but not all are in public office. If you have an interesting past, public office is the last place you want to be because it comes with scrutiny.

The minister insists his views have evolved. Defending himself during his Ramadan tafsir session at the Annur Mosque in Abuja last weekend he gave examples of American leaders who changed their views on issues.

“If we recall, President Joe Biden of the United States, then as a Senator in America, did not support the invasion of Afghanistan by his country,” he said.

“And at that time, I also did not. So, anything that will lead to war is what I have always been against. That is why I don’t like injustice.”

I hardly see the connection between the two cases. But while we’re at it, let’s talk about a recent American example of someone who paid a price for her verbal indiscretions. In early March, the White House dropped Neera Tanden as nominee to head the Office of Management and Budget after senators across party lines revolted over her past vicious criticisms of the legislators.

Some are defending the minister based on ethnic or religious solidarity, without considering any moral principle. For them, those seeking Pantami’s resignation are anti-North or anti-Muslim. This is emotional blackmail that won’t wash.

Read Also: Senate moves to cut cement prices

This isn’t a North versus South or Christian versus Muslim thing, it’s a moral quandary. It’s about national security. If an individual confronted with these controversial statements and unanswered questions about his activities in the university can cling on selfishly without considering the damage to government and country, we must ask what horror you have to perpetrate in Nigeria to be held accountable.

The revelation of Pantami’s views is a conundrum for Buhari’s government.

For one thing, Nigeria has a serious problem with radical Islamists and terror groups who have turned the North into a tinder box and the Northeast, particularly, into a war zone.

The transformation of the region into a fertile ground for extremist ideologies is the result of the unregulated activities of preachers who sowed radical ideas over several decades – everyone from Maitatsine in the 80s to Mohammed Yusuf with his Boko Haram in the 2000s.

Some of these groups have been inspired by the activities of Al-Qaeda and the Taliban. Today, the so-called Islamic State West Africa Province (ISWAP) is making common cause with Boko Haram – devastating huge tracts of Nigeria territory.

The conflict they brought has displaced and killed thousands over the years. No one can put a figure on the number of fellow Muslims that suicide bombers from these terror groups have killed in mosques across the North through the years.

Even with an economy on crutches the government is spending billions prosecuting this war that doesn’t look like it will end any time soon.

Despite the best efforts of the last three administrations there is evidence that saboteurs and collaborators from within the system have been providing oxygen for the insurgency. The government just announced the arrest of over 400 such collaborators said to be channelling funds to Boko Haram.

Pantami is no ordinary Nigerian. He sits in the Federal Executive Council and is privy to government secrets and plans at the highest level. With the huge row that has broken out over his past, a cloud of suspicion would always hang around him for as long as he’s in public office.

People have resigned for lesser reasons. Former Minister of Finance, Kemi Adeosun, did over her NYSC discharge certificate saga – just because she didn’t want to be a blot on the image of an administration that had integrity as its calling card. No one argued then that the bulk of her critics were Southerners.

For as long as Pantami remains he will be a distraction. This was something Adeosun understood and she quit in the larger interest of the nation.

Those encouraging him to cling on pretend he’s offering some service to the nation that only he can provide. Truth is no one is indispensable.

He’s damaged goods politically. Every day he remains reflects badly on the administration and feeds the conspiracy theory mills. If the president decides not to dispense with his services, he only reinforces certain stereotypes about his government.