Category: Festus Eriye

  • On PDP’s weight loss programme

    Politicians are by nature the most sunny and optimistic set of people on earth. They would spin a calamity and make it seem like their greatest hour. Garrulous Information Minister, Labaran Maku, belongs to that breed. Each time he opens his mouth gems fall out.

    While trying to make sense of the unending defections from the ranks of the ruling Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), he declared that the party was shedding weight in order to regain strength. In Maku’s universe anyone who has defected from the party was either shameless or desperate.

    The minister forgets that many of those who have abandoned the party are in the final lap of their second tenure. It is unlikely therefore that their motivation for moving to the opposition All Progressives Congress (APC) was about being given tickets to run for office again.

    In any event, if that were the motivation it is something they could easily have received without the aggravation they went through as members of the G-7 governors or New-PDP. I dare say it takes even greater courage to divorce a party you have associated with for ages and plunge into the unknown with new associates in a party that is just in formation.

    In a country where government patronage is the only game in town and legitimate opposition is demonised, it takes more courage to walk out of one’s comfort to join forces with those on the outside.

    Maku’s ill-digested diatribe ignores the fact that for many months those who eventually left kept pressing the PDP to address their grievances but were treated like inconsequential school boys. Those untreated issues were what eventually toppled erstwhile chairman, Bamanga Tukur and led to the installation of Adamu Muazu.

    Everything in the emerging political picture points to the 2015 general elections being a very close battle. Any wise political party would choose to enter the contest with all the hands it can muster. If these ex-PDP types were such lightweights and losers why is Muazu pulling out all the stops to get them back?

    Those who think the likes of Kano State Governor, Rabiu Kwankwaso, Rivers State Governor, Rotimi Amaechi, former Vice President Atiku Abubakar, are the weights that have to be shed so PDP can emerge stronger are only deluding themselves. These politicians have proven that they have following in their home territory. They are also known as fighters who would give as good as they get.

    But more importantly, I suspect that the desire to prove their continued relevance to the Makus of this world come the elections could be added motivation for all who have turned their backs on PDP.

  • 2015: Every opinion is treasonable

    2015: Every opinion is treasonable

    One of the greatest tragedies of the Fourth Republic is the all-out assault on our national psyche. Each time we enter a new election cycle truth, reason and common sense become casualties. As the darker side of our leaders emerges it’s as if a wet blank has been dumped on the nation’s mood. There’s very little to uplift and all you read and hear depresses.

    We are ostensibly in a democratic dispensation, but never has there been a more anti-democratic temper in the land. Before our very eyes hard worn freedoms are being rolled back by temporary occupants of powerful offices, and Nigerians who are notorious ‘shock absorbers’ are casually taking it in their stride.

    Today, the most dangerous thing you can hold is not a gun but a contrary opinion. Former President Olusegun Obasanjo in his famous epistle to his erstwhile protégé, President Goodluck Jonathan, raised disturbing questions about the actions of this administration.

    Rather than limiting his response to the substance of the letter he received, he veered off into name-calling, bald insinuations and topped it by labelling Obasanjo’s missive a threat to national security.

    Several weeks before the letter-writing saga began this same administration accused the opposition All Progressives Congress (APC) of treason – nothing less – over some statement the party issued!

    Ever since there has been no let-up in the flood of tirades and threats from ethnic champions and jobbers falling over themselves to attack anyone who dared criticise the powers-that-be. All this is coming at a time when even Popes are becoming leery of laying claim to infallibility.

    A few days ago, former Minister for the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), Nasir El-Rufai, was hauled in by agents of the State Security Service (SSS) for making “inciting statements.” Apparently, at some forum in Abuja last week he had predicted that the 2015 elections could be bloody in parts of the country and many would lose their lives.

    With what is going in Rivers State today it is hard to see how that comment can faulted. Already, people are being beaten and bloodied for belonging to the “wrong political camp.” The continuing assault on gatherings of supporters of Governor Rotimi Amaechi by the police and hired thugs is a matter of public record. A senator, Magnus Abe, is recuperating in London after his body stopped rubber bullets allegedly shot by the police at one of the aborted rallies.

    Without any sense of shame, the Rivers State police command willingly provides security cover whenever the governor’s foes hold their own events. Mbu Joseph Mbu who presides over this partisan detachment of the “Nigerian Police,” is often quick with the mealy-mouthed response about Amaechi’s supporters not obtaining a police permit.

    The Police force is chock full of lawyers who cannot claim ignorance of the fact that both the Federal High Court and Court of Appeal have ruled that Nigerians do not need a police permit to enjoy what is their constitutional right. Lagos lawyer, Femi Falana (SAN) has written a treatise on this referring to the rulings of Justice Gloria Chinyere on a 2006 suit filed by the defunct All Nigeria Peoples Party (ANPP), as well as a subsequent ruling on the same matter by Justice Olufunke Adekeye formerly of the Court of Appeal.

    This is supposedly a democratic dispensation yet court rulings are either ignored or disobeyed without consequences. This is the sort of sick system that our leaders are proud to preside over and bequeath to those who will come after them.

    Unfortunately, this lawlessness, this blatant rape of the constitution continues apace because the police carry guns funded by taxpayers on whom – in cruel irony – they are now turning them in groveling service of their current masters.

    Of course, it suits the Jonathan’s political agenda to destabilise his political foe and to keep Rivers in ferment until 2015 in the hope that this will enable him take the state. It is the selfish thing to do but is it the patriotic thing?

    The stakes are high and nothing short of outright victory will do for either side. That sets the stage for violence and bloodshed in a community with a background for militancy, and where there is mounting evidence that politicians are amassing arms for the coming showdown.

    The week the world mourned former South African leader Nelson Mandela, our own president was at his preachy best – flaying Nigerian politicians for not imbibing the virtues of the great statesman. Sadly, he too has not been preaching what he preaches. Mandela would not have allowed what is playing out in Rivers – i.e. giving winking approval for the police to abuse their powers in one corner of the country – just because it suits him politically.

    In reaction to the crisis in Rivers APC has now directed its lawmakers in the National Assembly to block budget passage and ministerial confirmation. The Presidency and PDP have responded by accusing the opposition of seeking to truncate democracy. Jonathan’s voluble Political Adviser, Ahmed Gulak, regurgitated the usual line about “playing politics with everything.” Talk about hypocrisy!

    What is Jonathan doing by allowing the situation in Rivers to fester if not playing politics? What is he doing with his new cabinet selection if not placing pawns on the 2015 political chess board? If the president as incumbent has power to manipulate the police and armed forces for his own ends, the opposition are within their rights to deploy their limited and new-fangled pull in the National Assembly to full advantage.

    It happens everywhere. Late last year the American government shutdown because the Republicans who controlled the House of Representatives used their numerical clout to frustrate a budget deal until the most powerful president on earth cut a compromise with them. American democracy was not demolished just because of the two-week plus showdown.

    In the same manner Nigeria’s faux democracy will survive any clashing of heads between the APC and PDP. Indeed, in an environment like ours where presidents want to reign like monarchs, only such confrontations can bring them to heel.

    If this is the only way to get Jonathan’s attention to sort out the mess in Rivers, then the opposition deserves the applause of all true patriots.

  • APC, PDP and the religion card

    APC, PDP and the religion card

    For the last couple of months the PDP has been on the back foot, haemorraghing members who have been dissolving into a resurgent APC. Now determined to stop the bleeding, the ruling party is fighting back on all fronts. Such is its desperation that some of its rabbit punches are now landing below the belt.

    One of the major talking points last week was the back and forth between the parties over the issue of religion. I am not too clear what provoked the mud fight, but the PDP accused its main rival of being an Islamic party that wanted to divide the country along religious lines.

    Stung by the charges, APC spokespersons warned the ruling party of the dangers of playing with the fiery subject of faith. The PDP would not back down. Instead its spokesman challenged its rival to publish a list of the names of the party’s interim officers.

    These exchanges are a foretaste of what to expect come the 2015 campaign season. Just thinking of it already makes me feel sick. It is not only through rigging that politicians dupe the electorate; they achieve the same end when they can get us distracted from the things that matter to focus on those that divide us.

    What makes APC an Islamic party? Does its manifesto commit it to an Islamist agenda? If the opposition party is Islamic does that mean that PDP is a Christian party just because President Jonathan professes that faith? There are millions of Nigerians who are Christians whose lives have not in any way been transformed by the regime of this Christian president.

    Depend on it also that tremendous heat would still be generated by those whipping up sentiments that opposition to Jonathan is because he’s from the South-South zone. You would find millions in the same zone whose reality of grinding poverty remains unchanged in the nearly five years of their kinsman’s presidency.

    Nigerians – the media especially – have a choice to make. We can decide that we want to be taken for the same old ride by the usual suspects playing the tried and tested primordial tricks to force themselves on the populace. Let’s not be fooled. There are no Islamic bridges or tarred roads, neither is there Christian tap water.

    Even as we speak the Central African Republic (CAR) is engulfed in a sectarian war that has split this poverty-stricken country in two. Christians and Muslims are at each other’s throats. The hapless President Michael Djotodia has been forced to resign by African leaders.

    Speaking with journalists following their evacuation from that sorry country, returnee Nigerians warned against allowing this country to be plunged into ethnic or religious war.

    Over in South Sudan, the world’s youngest nation is in the grip of a power struggle between President Salva Kiir and his erstwhile deputy, Riek Machar. The fuel for the conflict is ethnicity; the body count so far is over one thousand.

    Dead bodies don’t have a religion; they are just dead! Nigerians must not be hoodwinked into ignoring critical issues of governance to start squabbling over who has a tribal mark or prays five times a day. In 2014 and 2015 we must demand from incumbent politicians – Christian, animist or Islamic – what they have done with our mandate.

  • Jonathan versus Sanusi

    Jonathan versus Sanusi

    Women have been a major factor in the life of French President Francois Hollande. When he first ran for President in 2007 his erstwhile lover, Segolene Royal, defeated him for the Socialist Party ticket. He finally became president in 2012. At his side in his hour of triumph was Valerie Trierweiler, his current ‘partner’ with whom he started a relationship whilst still with Royal. Now Hollande is caught in the midst of a storm after the magazine, Closer, published pictures alleging the president had been having an affair with an actress named Julie Gayet. The ‘First Partner’ Trierweiler reportedly feels ‘humiliated,’ the president is angry and threatening legal action. Watch this space!

    Cynics often blithely warn that you should not believe everything you read in the newspapers. Still, reports that President Goodluck Jonathan had demanded the resignation of Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) Governor, Sanusi Lamido Sanusi, were just too intriguing to ignore.

    Significantly, neither the Presidency – which is often quick on the draw in these sorts of matters – commented on the report, nor did the CBN Governor issue any denial. The silence of the purported antagonists only served to confer a pregnant ring of authenticity on the reports.

    By the accounts, the president had asked that Sanusi fall on his sword as the price for leaking a confidential letter to former President Olusegun Obasanjo. The missive alleged that the Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation (NNPC) had failed to remit to the CBN funds totalling $49.8 billion.

    The exchange between the two men raises very troubling questions about the state of affairs in the country, and how the president exercises the awesome powers of his office.

    The CBN Governor is an appointee of the President. But like the chairman of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), although he’s so appointed he has tenure. That is what sets them apart from ministers whose membership of the Federal Executive Council (FEC) can be truncated if their boss wakes up on the wrong side of the bed.

    All the same, the president’s appointee serves at his pleasure. It would follow therefore that once there’s a breakdown of trust between them, the honourable thing would be for the appointee to step aside. But this is one instance where things haven’t been that straight forward.

    For starters, Sanusi’s tenure expires in June. He had long made it clear he wasn’t interested in a second term. In the last few weeks there had also been reports he intended to proceed on pre-retirement leave in March – a little over two months away. So why the sudden stampede to usher him out of the door? The only reason would be to humiliate and cut him down to size.

    This latest episode sheds further light on the mindset of the president and shows how he exercises power. Nothing that has been revealed so far should really shock anyone. According to the report in Thisday, Sanusi had asked the president why he was the one being told to resign and not those who could not account for almost $11 billion that remains ‘missing’.

    Officials of the NNPC and other defenders of the administration celebrated gleefully when it emerged that it wasn’t actually $ 49.8 billion that was not remitted but $ 10.8 billion. They called Sanusi names. But in their rush to defend the indefensible they created the impression that it okay to just toss away trillions of naira without an explanation.

    We have so far not heard reports of angry presidential phone calls to the Minister of Petroleum or Group Managing Director of the NNPC demanding to know how $10.8 billion was expended.

    This should come as no surprise. Early last year, Channels Television broadcast an expose of the disgraceful conditions at the Police College, Ikeja – one of the key training facilities of the force. The report was thoroughly embarrassing for the government. Such was its impact that President Jonathan decided to visit the school.

    But rather than concern himself with the scandalous sights he was confronted with, he was overhead asking some trembling officers how the TV station got permission to film the premises. For him, it was not about decaying facilities; his sense was that the story had been done to paint his administration in bad light!

    Little wonder he’s more concerned that someone leaked a letter to Obasanjo, and not that trillions of naira that should be in the nation’s coffers cannot be accounted for.

    A lot of the time the administration and its spokespersons are wont to claim that critics do not show enough respect to the person and office of the president. Perhaps they should take a quick peek in the mirror to see who’s to blame. In many instances it is Jonathan who through his actions and inaction diminishes his grand office. The exchange with Sanusi is a clear example.

    The president had no business calling CBN Governor to demand his resignation. That is an assignment he could have delegated to one of his minions. By doing the job himself he laid the prestige of the presidency on the line and got an embarrassing rebuff from someone he hired. His bluff has been called without consequences.

    Two weeks have passed since the ‘heated exchange’ took place and Sanusi in still in office. Jonathan could have gone ahead out of wounded pride to announce the governor’s sack, but he would have triggered a very messy political fallout from a National Assembly where the All Peoples Congress (APC) is in the ascendant.

    Contrast the president’s bungling of a high profile sacking with the way Obasanjo handled things. When he wanted to get rid of Audu Ogbeh as the then chairman of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), he simply sent emissaries. Some reports claimed the resignation was procured at gunpoint! Not an approach I recommend though! The point here is that a president doesn’t get his hands dirty doing certain things.

    It is obvious that Jonathan in his rage didn’t think through the larger implications – locally and internationally – of him forcing out the CBN Governor. The reactions of the markets would have been very negative. Even with reports of some of sort of truce questions would remain about the character of those in charge of managing this nation. But such things don’t give you pause when you are convinced the whole world is out to get you

  • Jonathan’s annus horribilis

    Jonathan’s annus horribilis

    Annus horribilis is a Latin phrase meaning “horrible year.” Its use in recent times was popularised by Britain’s Queen Elizabeth in a speech in November 1992 marking the 40th anniversary of her rule.

    She had dug deep for a special phrase to describe a year that shook one of the world’s oldest monarchies to its root. It was a nightmarish period in which the world was treated to the collapse of royal marriages, publication of late Princess Diana’s tell-all book, and a disastrous fire in Windsor Castle, one of the Queen’s homes.

    Ever since that memorable speech many other leaders like former United Nations Secretary-General, Kofi Annan, Spain’s King Juan Carlos and others have had occasion to reference that unique expression to describe years that were not too pleasant in their realms and around the world.

    To say that President Goodluck Jonathan has had a torrid year is to state the obvious. In 2013 everything that could possibly go wrong went awry for him and his Peoples Democratic Party (PDP).

    Although he sought throughout the year to create the impression that security challenges under control, events in large swathes of the north gave the lie to his presentation. Over the months Nigerians would receive a bloody introduction to hitherto anonymous places like Bama, Benisheikh etc.

    As the body count mounted an administration that had tried to project to the outside world that the Boko Haram insurgency was something it could handily crush with its local resources, was forced to declare a state of emergency across three North Eastern states. But rather than stem the tide of terror the measure only seemed to enrage the insurgents and spur them to unprecedented levels of depravity.

    So much so the United Nations Human Rights office declared that the sect’s actions amounted to crimes against humanity. Interestingly, a regime that had sought desperately to downplay the gravity of the situation by opposing efforts by the United States government to classify Boko Haram as a global terrorist organization, without any sense of embarrassment was the one of the first out of the blocks with praise after the Americans succumbed to reality.

    After making his toughest move with the emergency declaration and ordering lightning air raids on the insurgent camps, the president and his team were rewarded with several weeks of relative quietude. But just when it seemed like peace and safety the insurgents popped up in Maiduguri like some jack-in-the-box object with an audacious attack on military bases and the airport.

    It was a spectacular statement that rather than being damaged, the sect was growing in confidence and military capability. The attack featured a long line of pick-up trucks and high caliber guns. Even worse, it was a humiliating experience for the Nigerian military to be worsted in one of its redoubts by what many once sneeringly dismissed as a ragtag bunch of clueless gunmen.

    Today, despite throwing everything in its power at the stubborn sect the terror threat remains undiminished. Yes, Nigeria may not be fighting a civil war yet in the manner of Congo, Sudan or the Central African Republic (CAR), still on Jonathan’s watch the security situation has degenerated gravely in 2013.

    On the political front it has been a horror movie. For all of its failings the ruling PDP has over the last 14 years always managed to extricate itself from situations that that threatened its existence. But not any more.

    No matter how Jonathan or his party may want to spin it, then revolt of the G-7 governors – leading to five of them defecting to the All Progressives Congress (APC) was a catastrophic development. To compound the injury, scores of legislators in the Senate and House of Representatives have followed the example of their leaders.

    Knowing the critical role played by governors in deciding presidential elections, the defections may well turn out to be the defining moment – not just of the Jonathan years but of the general direction of the Fourth Republic.

    The defections at the National Assembly are just as devastating. For the first time since 1999, the PDP lost the game of numbers in the House of Representatives. With the opposition in control of the lower house Jonathan’s legislative agenda for what is left of his tenure is in jeopardy.

    What makes this so remarkable is that these losses were self-inflicted. The five governorships and legislative seats were surrendered without one ballot being cast. It is truly unprecedented. Defections are commonplace in Nigeria politics but rarely on this scale – especially with more movements out of the ruling party anticipated in coming months.

    When Jonathan ran for president in 2011, he had a fairly united party behind him. Embittered northern politicians like former Vice President Atiku Abubakar, Adamu Ciroma, ex-President Ibrahim Babangida and others who lost the zoning battle, simply adopted a siddon look attitude. But they were not urinating in the communal well or hurling verbal missiles at the party’s candidate.

    Today, the situation is radically different. The PDP is bitterly divided with internal trust and cohesion destroyed. Those who have not jumped ship are still lobbing broadsides at the president and party chairman, Bamanga Tukur. Clouds of suspicion hang around all who have shown less than unalloyed loyalty to the current powers-that-be.

    Parties going into elections understand the need for unity. It would take a miracle for the PDP to go into the 2015 general election with anything that approximates the kind of front it had in 2011. I suspect that for much of 2014 it would be engaged in trying to purge its ranks of “traitors” – an exercise that will not only weaken but also distract it.

    It is fitting therefore that a horrible year should close with the explosive and very public falling out with former President Olusegun Obasanjo – the incumbent’s erstwhile godfather. The exchange of toxic letters between the two has been substantially examined by sundry commentators.

    Many have suggested that Obasanjo’s antecedents disqualify him from criticising Jonathan in the manner he did. I take a different position. You can call the ex-president all sorts of names, but that does not remove the fact that the bulk of issues he raised in his epistle are part of the incumbent’s record on which he would be running in 2015.

    So while Jonathan and his supporters may be congratulating themselves for hurling barbs back at Obasanjo, they miss the point that all their responses and paid adverts have become academic. The former president’s devastating 18-page letter has long gone from an embarrassing correspondence from a frenemy to a template of attack that the opposition will adopt for 2015.

    So even if they attack Obasanjo from now to eternity the damage is already done by “a card-carrying PDP member.” It is not necessary to add that a house divided against itself is headed for a dramatic fall.

    It is often said that people grow in stature in a demanding office like the presidency. That is hardly the case with Jonathan in 2013. His many wars rather than make him larger than life have reduced him to a defensive figure whose most vociferous defenders are members of his Ijaw ethnic group.

    His defensiveness was evident when in response to the APC’s call for his impeachment he accused them of treason – forgetting that impeachment is provided for in the constitution. When Obasanjo raised pungent questions about his rule, he accused him of incitement and endangering national security.

    Intimidation and subtle threats are no way to respond to differences of opinion in a democracy. Only the insecure resort to bullying tactics when a robust discussion of issues would suffice.

    But by far the most unpresidential remark I have heard this year was the bit in the president’s letter to Obasanjo where he said most of the challenges faced by his administration began under other administrations. So what?

    Every administration inherits the problems left behind by its predecessors. People run for office promising to clean up existing mess. What we expect is not an incumbent regaling us with the history of our problems, but getting on with the business of making improvements.

    Unfortunately, as 2013 winds to a close Jonathan finds himself in situation where instead of pointing to achievements, he’s whining about what other regimes left undone. He should remember that in 2015 that attitude would not help him much when the opposition starts asking voters: ‘Are you better off today than you were four years ago’?

    Nigerians and their fragile ego

    Although I was away on a short leave of absence when the late South African President Nelson Mandela was buried, I followed the coverage closely like most people.
    Given the impact of the story of his life it was no surprise that leaders from all over were falling over themselves to pay tributes. Everyone was recommending to his neighbour the example of the anti-Apartheid hero, but no one was offering to be this generation’s Mandela.
    Frankly, for many who went to South Africa for the burial rites, it was more a chance to get their photo taken or hear their own voices. US President Barack Obama, British Prime Minister David Cameron and his Dansih counterpart, Helle Thorning-Schmidt landed themselves in hot water when they were caught giggling while snapping selfies.
    Nigerians, for their part, were infuriated that their president was not given prime time billing. They lost no time in reminding the South Africans of how much this country did to secure their freedom.
    To hear some of us talk you would think Nigeria was the only country that helped the South Africans. In reality there are countless thousands from across the globe who supported the anti-Apartheid struggle morally, financially and diplomatically. But you would not find too many of them as demanding of recognition as Nigerians. It just smacks of a lack of humility.
    Nigeria’s contribution to the struggle in southern Africa is well documented and cannot be erased from history. We don’t have to keep banging on about our generousity. We may have given them cash, but they shed blood and gave their own lives.
    Songs of praise from outsiders are not what we need. Instead of working ourselves into a fit over perceived slights by the South Africans, let’s move on and focus on fixing our country. We’ll feel better about ourselves and the world will respect us more when our country works.

  • When is a civil war?

    When is a civil war?

    The International Criminal Court (ICC) recently declared clashes between the Nigerian military and Boko Haram as a civil war.

    Not surprisingly, supervising Minister of Defence, Labaran Maku, says the conflict is not a civil but a war on terror. He justified his position this way: “When the terrorists attacked the United States in September 11, 2001, it wasn’t declared a civil war; it was an attack on a peaceful country by a group of terrorists for mainly evil objectives.”

    Truly, there’s no agreement among experts as to what constitutes a civil war. There is, however, one thing on which Maku and the ICC agree: Nigeria is at war – whether of the civil or terrorist variety. Irrespective of the tag wars involve destruction of lives and property and uncommon expense.

    By classifying the ongoing conflict as only a “war on terror” is the minister suggesting that this kind of confrontation is somehow of lesser gravity?

    Unlike what happened on 9/11, al-Qaeda had no intention to seize and hold territory. Their plan was not to topple the United States government and take over. That is unlike Boko Haram that has never hidden its intention to take over the whole of northern Nigeria and set up an Islamic republic in the manner of the Islamists in northern Mali.

    I came across two dictionary definitions of civil war that I liked. Wikipedia says “a civil war is a war between organised groups within the same nation state or republic.” Another explanation describes it as “a war between citizens of the same country.”

    I like things kept simple. Maku and the army may think they are only fighting terrorists, but Boko Haram who claim to be prosecuting a jihad would not define themselves that way. They are also intent on toppling the government of the day using the North-East as the launch pad for their insurrection.

    It has also the makings of a civil war. The recent attack on the Maiduguri military formations in which the sect rolled into town in a column of pick-up vans underlines the scope of their ambition.

    For as long as the government and military continue to see the Boko Haram conflict as some little firefight, the nation would continue to face the kind of embarrassment it was exposed to in Borno State last week. Remember that when the Nigeria-Biafra civil war began, the Federal authorities spoke of a “police action” to quickly bring the rebels to heel. Three years later the war was still raging.

  • Keeping Tukur posted

    Keeping Tukur posted

    National chairman of the Peoples’ Democratic Party (PDP) is turning out to be a master at verbal ping-pong. The target of ferocious attacks by a slew of politics foes, he’s becoming increasingly adept at replying cutting soundbites with witty repartee.

    The other day, Jigawa State Governor, Sule Lamido, called him a “polio virus” in the PDP, only for Tukur to respond that he was “a necessary virus!”

    Knowing the destructive effect of viral infections it is no surprise that his actions contributed in part to the party losing five state governors in one fell swoop – without a single vote being cast.

    It must have happened while Tukur was dozing. The man announced a few days ago that he was unaware the five governors had defected to the All Progressives Congress (APC). Perhaps someone should send him one of those ‘Wish you were here’ postcards!

  • Ekweremadu and the grasshopper mentality

    Ekweremadu and the grasshopper mentality

    Judging from the torrent of criticism that greeted it, Deputy Senate President, Ike Ekweremadu’s tenure elongation proposal is dead on arrival.

    With the two leading parties – Peoples’ Democratic Party (PDP) and All Progressives Congress (APC) almost at par in the gubernatorial count, this single tenure dodge could only have assisted the ruling party to hang on to the presidency for another two years, and buy it time to regain the initiative.

    In an increasingly volatile and unpredictable polity we should expect more of such desperate political gambits in the run-up to the 2015 general elections. But it is a shame because it shows the mentality of Nigerian politicians hardly changes.

    Former President Olusegun Obasanjo and his henchmen embarked on a well-orchestrated nationwide campaign to amend the 1999 constitution and insert provisions for a third term when he had barely a year to go in his second term.

    Instead of allowing the system to work, this power-hungry bunch engineered a fake crisis that had the nation on tenterhooks while it lasted. But the moment the proposal collapsed in the Senate, the contrived crisis became like a lanced boil and peace descended on the land.

    It is hard not to see similarities here. Barely one and a half years to the next general elections we’re not only talking of a national conference of dubious value, we are even thinking of throwing the incendiary of tenure elongation gimmick into the mix.

    Back in 2007, it was another Deputy Senate President, Ibrahim Mantu, who was driving the process. Fast forward six years and under the guise of another so-called constitutional amendment process we are being offered a warmed-over Greek gift. Unfortunately the proponents of this sorry idea didn’t even take the trouble to pour paint on it: that’s why we can see it for what it is.

    Last time, a third term was necessary because Obasanjo was the only one who could ‘hold Nigeria together.’ Today, Ekweremadu would have us believe that crises raging in the polity are all down to “the issue of succession.”

    In his estimation a single tenure of six years would be the magic bullet that would sate people’s desire for power and restrain them from heating up the polity in the quest for a second bite of the cherry.

    In reality, there would always be succession crises whether we have a single term or two-term options. The rosy picture painted by the likes of Ekweremadu to sell their scheme is misleading. People might not be fighting themselves trying to taking advantage of the second term the constitution presently allows, but there would be equally fierce battles as incumbents attempt to install their stooges or those who would protect their interests after their one and only term.

    In this environment people’s appetite for power and influence is insatiable because public office is the only game in town. One year in an elective office can alter a man’s financial profile for life. Beyond that, the key thing is to remain relevant and retain access to the powers-that-be at every point in time. That is why transitions would always be tense in Nigeria

    Even more laughable is the suggestion that tenure elongation should be executed because it would give comfort to governors engaged in a free-for-all with President Goodluck Jonathan. Some of them are said to be afraid that a second term for the incumbent would afford him the chance to wreak vengeance on them.

    Never has there been a lower reason for amending a country’s constitution. We are descending to the level of legislating to address the peculiar problems of individuals.

    To compound matters the senator suggests that the changes can be forced through the National Assembly using the so-called ‘Doctrine of Necessity.’ This legal contrivance was swallowed by Nigerians because of the unique circumstances of the late President Umaru Yar’Adua’s disappearance from the country in search of medical treatment. But for the political affliction that Ekweremadu wants to treat, this doctrine is so unnecessary.

    What it all comes down to is our national pastime of seeking shortcuts. We are a nation of grasshoppers – always quick to jump upon the latest bandwagon without truly testing the old. We keep moving the goal post around right in the middle of the game.

    The trouble with our politics is not so much the constitution as its operators. The 1999 document is barely 14 years old and we have dissected it more times than a teenager playing with a rat in a biology laboratory.

    There are no perfect constitutions. Indeed, there are countries like the United Kingdom where there’s no written constitution. These things are to be tested and this can only be done over time – by subjecting them to legal processes. It is not the document on its own that shapes a country, it is what people do with the document they’ve been handed.

    The present politicians in power delude themselves that they have superior solutions to Nigeria’s problems. But people forget that what we now operate as a constitution didn’t drop from the sky.

    It is the result of long and costly deliberations beginning with the constitution drafting committee of the late Chief FRA Williams,’ Justice Udo Udoma’s Constituent Assembly right down to the General Sani Abacha’s national political conference. What emerged from those processes was further tinkered with after much thought by those in power in 1999.

    In a country with more patient people the 1999 Nigerian constitution would probably work like a charm. Rather than fooling ourselves into believing that tenure manipulation would cause peace to break out in our politics, we should first determine what the problem is and what we want.

    Are we tampering with the constitution because our politics and electioneering generate heat? If that is the case then we are confused. You cannot separate conflict from political contests because they involve multiple parties and ideas.

    Two months ago the United States government was shut down because of the political conflict in Washington D. C. No one suggested a constitutional amendment, rather everyone knuckled down to work out compromises that moved the country forward.

    A constitution is not a plaything. Let’s give ourselves time to master what we have.

  • On the APC, New PDP nuptials

    On the APC, New PDP nuptials

    Former Italian Prime Minister, Silvio Berlusconi, is down. In his long years in politics and power the 77-year old has staggered from one scandal to another, but often staged improbable comebacks. This last week he was ignominiously ejected from the Senate because of his conviction on a tax-fraud case. That’s not the end of his troubles: he’s been ordered to stand trial for bribing a senator and is appealing a conviction in June for having sex with an underage prostitute – Karima El Mahroug aka Ruby the Heart Stealer – and abusing his office to cover it up. Clearly, a case of power corrupting and absolute power corrupting absolutely. Will the day ever come when such a character will face justice in these parts?

    Except for the blindly partisan, most reasonable people welcome the ongoing political shake-up which has seen the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) splinter group New PDP merge with the opposition All Progressives Congress (APC).

    Going into what promises to be a hotly contested general election in 2015, there are now no guarantees how things would pan out. Don’t be deceived by the PDP’s attempt at insouciance. They would be foolish not to be worried about what is unfolding.

    It is not every day that a party loses five of its governors to a rival. Looming ominously in the horizon is the prospect that more will jump ship when the elements are right. Even before the defection, the G-7 governors had often said that a few other colleagues within the PDP would move at the appropriate time.

    There is nothing for the ruling party to celebrate in the fact that Kano State Governor, Rabiu Musa Kwankwaso and his Niger counterpart, Babangida Aliyu, insist they are still part of PDP. True, there are no permanent friends or foes in politics still I don’t see how these two can continue in the ruling party. Even if Jonathan capitulates and accedes to all their demands they would never again be trusted by the party’s high command.

    Last week’s developments have rearranged the political landscape such that it is no longer unduly tilted in favour of the ruling party. A newly competitive environment emerged.

    Many have focused on counting governors. But to get a real sense of the changing power dynamic, we must look to the National Assembly. Before now President Goodluck Jonathan could reasonably expect his legislative agenda to sail through with minimal fuss. This may no longer be the case – especially in the House of Representatives.

    For the first time in a very long while Nigeria is about to go into a phase of divided government – where the executive branch is controlled by one party, while the legislature is in the hands of the opposition.

    If the messy United States government shutdown is any advertisement for divided government, we should all brace ourselves for a chaotic time ahead. But this dreaded arangement is not all about obstruction: it is one side asking hard questions and insisting that parliament not be a rubber stamp for decisions the executive has already taken.

    In this age where the image of government at all levels is so dismal, the prospect of robust checks and balances rather than frighten, should give us hope that the train of impunity that has been running out of control can be reined in.

    So much has been made of the untidy nature of the fusion. One day it is seven governors, the next two of them are denying dumping the PDP. In some states the erstwhile lords of the manor in APC have been less than enthusiastic in welcoming the New PDP hordes that look set to gobble them up.

    For me these are minor points of cavil. Politics is messy business. Anyone who was expecting the unprecedented movement of five governors from one party to another – each with his own agenda and local worries – to be without hiccups must be living on another planet.

    Frankly, what the APC has pulled off is remarkable. At every point they were written off. When the defunct Action Congress of Nigeria (ACN), All Nigeria Peoples Party (ANPP) and Congress for Progressive Change (CPC) came together their opponents dismissed the new grouping as a contraption that would collapse within months.

    When that didn’t happen, they began speculating that the arrangement would founder because of the personalities of Bola Tinubu and Muhammadu Buhari. Again, their dire predictions have not manifested.

    So now they cynically dismiss the latest stage of the APC evolution as the merger of strange bedfellows. This supposes that what we have in the PDP, Labour Party and All Progressives Grand Alliance (APGA) to name a few is a banding together of birds of a feather. Spare me!

    Depend on it: the merger of the APC and New PDP elements would throw up turbulence and disagreements from time to time. It will produce pain – even reverse movement when some people don’t get what they want. But then nature teaches us that the process of delivering a new baby can be painful and messy. To expect anything less is to fool ourselves.

    Thanks to the merger newspapers are now full of talk about ideology. This sudden fixation is so amusing because no one can tell you what the guiding philosophy of any of the current parties is – other than they all have a template of policies they would supposedly implement in office. The best you’ll get from any of them is that: a mere election manifesto.

    Ideological battles as we used to know them in the Cold War days died with that era. Harsh dividing lines between capitalism, communism, socialism and welfarism have become largely blurred. Philosophies of governance are now so indistinguishable that it is hard to tell what is driving what. Russia and China which used to be avowedly communist are now as capitalist as the United States.

    In America there is very little ideological difference between the Democrats and Republican. Both proseletyse about the beauty of markets driving the economy and making government intervention minimal.

    In the era of bitterly divided government in Washington, Barack Obama’s supposedly more left-leaning government has acceded to cutting government spending on social welfare programmes with a fervor that a typical conservative would envy. What now sets them apart are positions on social issues like abortion and same-sex marriage.

    So if Nigeria’s emerging two-party arrangement does not throw up the kind of ideological divide to please the purists, too bad. In any event, who the progressive is and who the conservative is in this country has always been a matter of branding. Whatever labels our politicians have worn they have managed to get stuck in the same shortcomings of corruption and mismanagement of public resources.

    Ideology cannot be an end in itself; it ultimately should bring about development. Our people wouldn’t care whether you are socialist or capitalist if they have electricity, running water, healthcare and quality education for their children. Where these things are available the rest is just background noise.

  • Jega battles the poisoned chalice

    With the exception of one or two cases those appointed to head the electoral commission in the past have often been men of personal integrity. Usually, the appointing authorities go out of their way to look for the most saintly of characters in the land.

    A few days before he unveiled Professor Attahiru Jega as his pick to lead the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), President Goodluck Jonathan, in a television interview dropped a few hints about the man he had chosen. I remember him saying that although he had never met the academic, all who knew him said he was a person of unbending principle and integrity.

    Jonathan’s statement underlined the thinking that has driven the appointment of those to manage elections in Nigeria. If only we can get a Mother Teresa kind of saintly figure who all Nigerians can trust not to pull dirty tricks all would be well.

    But a halo is not all that is needed to run acceptable elections. The INEC chairman is just one person; his organisation employs thousands of people as it tries to execute its mandate. If the chairman is an angel and has thousands of devils carrying out his instructions, he would deliver an Anambra gubernatorial election kind of performance.

    Organising an election is about getting materials to polling points on time and ensuring that electoral officials are at their duty posts. It is about ensuring that the integrity of vital documents – from voters’ registers to ballot papers.

    A proven manager with experience running multinational scale businesses, or a military officer who has handled logistics in a war operation, are more likely to eliminate those things we complain about – logistics hiccups and late starts – than some bishop without sin.

    Quick to admit that Anambra was a mess, Jega now wants to be given another chance. He says he should not be judged by his latest outing: Nigerians should wait till 2015 before delivering a verdict on him.

    The problem with his request is that the same things we complain about today besmirched the 2011 polls. Anambra is just one state. If INEC can contrive such a monumental cock-up in that little space, I hate to think what will happen when it has to deal with 36 states.

    After heartfelt apologies Jega would probably retire. Let’s hope that another botched outing doesn’t retire Nigeria along with its bungling electoral umpires.