Category: Hardball

It ended as it had started – in a cold and anti-climactic manner but we enjoyed it while it lasted. We refer to the African Nations Championship (CHAN) football tournament that is on-going in South Africa. The Nigerian team, the Super(?) Eagles, started on a most dour note, playing the scrappiest kind of football ever, were defeated in the debut game against Mali. But between that first match and the last against Ghana, our men gave us so much to cheer and believe in these grim times: enough to insist that they remain our champions in spite of their ugly ouster last Wednesday.

We are happy with our team’s performance in CHAN for numerous reasons. First, being a tournament for Africa’s home-based footballers, what is on display is football ‘born and nurtured’ on patched African soils. In that regard, Nigeria, big as she is, is probably the worst training ground in Africa for footballers. Well you may add that it is so for everything else but we are dwelling on football now. Nigeria’s football league is perhaps the worst managed and organised. While leagues across the world are about halfway through now, Nigeria’s is yet to start even as you read this.

Those players went to such a major continental tournament bearing months of match rustiness. Most of our league matches are played on balding pitches where teams hardly lose on home grounds because match officials are often compromised. Whereas teams are sponsored by groups and corporate bodies in most other climes, Nigeria’s football clubs are usually the extensions of the political machinery of state governors who run clubs like political parties instead of the big business it ought to be. Players’ wages for instance, often depend on the mood and temperament of the big man resulting in our home-based ‘professionals’ looking weather-beaten and worn all the time.

Even though we enjoy the English Premier League (currently being sponsored by the Barclays Group); the Spanish La Liga, and the German Bundesliga, to name the top three European football leagues, which are run like the big business that football has become today, we do not seem to learn from them. Government hardly has any business in owning clubs and managing major sports across the world today. Not so Nigeria; we still approach it all in a left-handed and awkward manner. Like every other natural endowment of ours, if only we knew the enormity of what we have; if only we knew how much foreign exchange countries like Brazil, Argentina, Spain and Portugal earn from football talent export. This is because they have managed to harness what providence has thrust upon them.

We are happy with the CHAN Eagles knowing that the team in South Africa is not our first eleven for as they trained for this tournament about half a dozen of them fulfilled their professional dreams when they found greener pastures in Europe to ply their trade. What it means is that Nigeria’s second best is Africa’s near best. South Africa and perhaps Morocco have facilities as good as you can find in Europe but our boys, some of whom have never played on a standard pitch before humiliated them. This is why we think they are champions regardless… but if only we can take the lessons from CHAN.

IN what amounted to a double display, President Goodluck Jonathan showed just how inconstant he could be. It was an unmistakable case of double standard morality as Jonathan sought to clarify the meaning of politics and the nature of the politician.

Typically, his talk, which turned out to be a bundle of confusion, was delivered during one of those now-usual occasions when he turns the pulpit into a podium for politicking. This time, it was at the National Pilgrimage Thanksgiving Service at the Aso Villa Chapel, Abuja. Although Jonathan apparently hugged the moment for personal projection, it proved to be socially enlightening.

Listen to his political homily: “The chaplain accused us (politicians) that we do not forgive or that some politicians don’t forgive. Apparently the Bible said this; that politicians are the people who forgive. Politicians, I would not say much, are those who forgive because in politics whether local or national, the belief is that you don’t have permanent friends or permanent enemies, but permanent interest.”

He elaborated, saying,” If somebody is your enemy today and there is a change of interest and he becomes your friend, first you have to forgive, otherwise you cannot have a friend that you cannot work with…If you see a politician who cannot forgive, he is an impostor.”

Easy talk! Against the background of Jonathan’s accumulation of political foes, particularly among his erstwhile party colleagues in the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) who have embraced the option of defection, it would appear that he was merely practising his own precepts by refusing to accommodate those whose interest differed from his own. However, perhaps this does not reflect the entire truth.

More importantly, Jonathan is charged with an unforgiving spirit by some of his former party men who found themselves in his black book and allegedly made reconciliatory moves to no avail. To go by his definition, does this make him an “impostor”? Two names especially come to mind: Timipre Sylva, former governor of Bayelsa State, and Rotimi Amaechi, the embattled governor of Rivers State.

Of course, it could be that Jonathan reportedly failed to forgive in these instances, or permanent enmity prevailed, simply because there was no harmony of interests. But it could as well be that Jonathan left no room for harmonisation of interests. Either way, it raises basic questions about the nature of political interest and whether it is morally correct for politicians to place their usually self-focused interest above the interest of society since the two are not always in harmony. But who says politics is about morality?

According to Jonathan, “politics is like some trades. More than 50 per cent of us who are into politics are not supposed to be politicians. But we are in politics because we have no other thing to do.” This is the “Aha! Moment”

Little wonder, then, that the country is stagnating on account of leadership cluelessness. If it is true, as Jonathan has identified, that over half of those who are politicians are just idle fortune seekers, then God help Nigeria. There is a central question, though. Is Jonathan in this circle? He didn’t say. But it would have been helpful to know, wouldn’t it?

In the (un)presidential jungle of Rivers, if you escape Mbu Joseph Mbu’s police, hired militants will get you.

That is the message that must pierce the think skulls of Save Rivers Movement (SRM), as they launch another rally of theirs. SRM calls it rally to rally their democratic rights under the law. But their presidential vice-royal foes warn it is free suicide missions to which, of course, SRM has a democratic right of choice.

Where does the law stand in all of these?

The law is a prancing and gloating Nyesom Wike and his menacing Grassroots Democratic Initiative (GDI), with its divine-democratic right to pacify the rebellious natives in Chibuike Amaechi’s camp, and Wike’s wike-wike talk to rub in the grim message.

The law is a rampaging Mbu police, extremely proud and completely flush with their outlawry; and Mbu prancing and threatening and barking and swooning that he is Jonathan and wife’s imperial viceroy, in front of whom the democratically elected governor and his contemptible rabble of a people must bow and tremble.

The law is a colluding president that sees nothing, hears nothing, smells nothing and touches nothing on the Rivers crisis, for such meddlesomeness would demean the all-mighty office of president and disillusion those who feel they could demystify that all-mightiness, despite his meekly declaration that he is no Pharaoh, no general and no dictator, just an humble servant of power, that must be used however it must be used!

Still, for those galloping from strength to strength on the stallion of presidential impunity, and a police that wilfully bully innocent and defenceless citizens, here is some grim news.

Once upon a time, there was a ragtag rabble that called itself Boko Haram. It was so ragtag the sitting powers then virtually made its members game for shooting practice — so dispensable and so useless was this rabble. Indeed, Muhammed Yusuf, its ill-fated leader, was so dispensable and so woe-begotten that after the soldiers arrested him and gave him up to the police, the power-drunk police didn’t think twice before dispatching the “rebel” in detention.

But the ragtag Boko Haram of yesterday has become the terror of today. First, it gave the police in its area of jurisdiction a bloody nose, such that posting to that area became well-nigh a death sentence. Then, it took on the hitherto imperious military, giving as much as it took. Between these two extremes, it had become sheer terror to the Nigerian state, killing and bombing innocents at will. Such is the wrath of the hitherto inconsequential!

So, as Mbu and his federal sponsors go on overdrive in the criminal abuse of the power of uniform, they should dread that day when the fleeing are back against the wall; and have no choice but to lash back. Trust Mbu and co would have the fire power to cope with the infernal Niger Delta mess.

But where could such doomsday warning emanate? Just say a primer from a book entitled How a President merrily shoots himself in the foot.

The tone is decidedly triumphant: foreign concerns are coming here to mine gold, iron ore and allied minerals.

And the golden tale bearer, Mohammed Amate, director-general of Nigerian Cadastre Office, Abuja, conveyed it with a flush of excitement: New Year, new hope, and new jobs, courtesy of mining!

Mr. Amate told the News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) that foreign firms, Mines Geotechnique Nigeria Ltd, Northern Numero Resources Ltd, Segilola Nigeria Ltd and KCM Mining Ltd, from Australia and United Kingdom, have landed mining rights for gold and iron ore in Nigeria: Kebbi, Kogi and Osun states, to be precise. Though Segilola Nigeria, from name recognition, seems a distinctly Nigerian firm, the report claims it is an Australian firm.

Segilola is the proud gold digger (no negative pun intended), which operating licence is in Osun State; and it’s a done deal, for the firm’s exploration activities have confirmed more than one million ounces of gold buried in Osun’s rich chest, at least in its area of operation. The other firms, mining iron ore, are no less lucky, for exploration activities have also proved no less than 500 million tonnes of iron ore.

Still on the good news: the quad is only a fifth of the 20 foreign firms the Federal Government has granted mining exploration licences. Shortly the gold – and iron ore – rush would start; and jobs, jobs, and jobs would come, to employ millions of Nigeria’s jobless and disoriented youth! It is a happy, happy New Year indeed!

But the avoidable depression: why is granting mining licences the monopoly of the Federal Government in a federation of 36 states?

Look at the bureaucracy of it: the host states lose wealth, while the central government makes a fetish of its licensing monopoly.

Look at the ecology of it: the host states – and communities – suffer environmental degradation, while the God-playing central government grabs the cash, and gives the Biblical hewers of stone and drawers of water a mere “change”.

Look at the economics of it: wealth lying untapped in the bowels of states, while mass poverty bordering on penury gallops all over the land because of some pre-historic law by which these natural resources are exclusively vested in the Federal Government.

It is good the Federal Government is taking mining more seriously as foreign exchange earner, outside its near-mono commodity of crude oil. But it is even better, the earlier it realises the present federal monopoly in that sector does nothing but impoverishes everybody, when a liberal and federalism-compliant law of states mining their land, and paying the centre some agreed tax, will enrich everyone. Besides, that realisation would drive inter-state/inter-region competition that would add value, and embed heavy local industries.

That would be smarter economics than the present practice of exporting crude oil and buying it back at a refined premium, therefore posting a net loss.

It is then, and only then, that we would have hit gold!

Dr. Femi Okurounmu, chairman of the Presidential Advisory Committee (PAC) on the National Dialogue, flew into a rage the other day. This was apparently triggered by remarks reportedly made by his (hitherto?) co-purist in the Sovereign National Conference (SNC) movement, which undermined his committee by allegedly peddling fiction as fact on the PAC report to President Goodluck Jonathan with negative implications for his integrity.

The object of his ire was Professor Ben Nwabueze, The Patriots leader and SNC purist who insists Nigeria must restructure via SNC – or die. The two men were like minds in the trenches (as regards Okurounmu, at least pre-2003; as opposed to post-2003 when the former senator became quieter on the matter). So, when Nwabueze, as part of the Igbo Leaders of Thought, suggested that Okurounmu’s panel might have compromised on its report, the PAC chair flew off the handle – and just as well, for such a charge is tantamount to SNC apostasy.

The Nwabueze group’s stand suggested PAC might have fallen for Aso Rock charm and conceded the planned confab could do with a constitutional amendment, while it ought to have insisted on a referendum, free of any legislative or executive control and influence. It also suggested Okuroumu’s panel preferred zonal representation while senatorial representation, based on ethnic nationalities, would be more like it. And, betrayal of betrayals: Okuronmu’s PAC had allegedly conspired with the Jonathan Presidency to kill an alleged minority report, in which the Nwabuezes group’s preferences were listed!

Nwabueze was peddling fiction, Okuroumu roared. A huge disappointment, he shouted, that the professor and his group could pass rumours for facts. Then, this was followed by name-calling. Nwabueze was an irredeemable egoist, who thinks only he could do the job, even if another could do it equally well, a bitter Okurounmu cried.

This last accusation is reminiscent of “50 wise men” of the Olusegun Obasanjo military regime’s Constitution Drafting Committee (CDC) of 1976. Chief Rotimi Williams (of blessed memory) was chairman. Chief Obafemi Awolowo was named but he declined (just as Prof. Nwabueze declined invitation to Jonathan’s PAC), thus reducing the number to 49.

In the old Western Region, Awo was Williams’ boss, for “Timi the Law” was Awo’s Justice minister. However, it is enlightening that Williams never accused Awo of vanity for not serving under a former subordinate. So, why did Okurounmu personalise his disagreement with Nwabueze?

Incidentally, a much older Williams (alarmed at the futility of past constitution-making?), became Nwabueze’s leader in The Patriots, a collective of elders that pushed for SNC and Nigeria’s restructuring. See how attempts at fixing Nigeria have been mere running in circles?

After all the thunder, however, the question remains: Dr. Okurounmu, what did your committee recommend? Mum is the word! A CONtroversy, therefore, has not only been generated; it is also galloping: first to contend, then to confound, later to confuse and finally to con, simplicita!

Who would have thought that President Goodluck Jonathan has interest in the meaning of words, beyond the glaring shortcomings of his administration? He exhibited his stuff during his meeting with a delegation of the Northwest arm of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) at the Presidential Villa in Abuja. After declaring, in obvious self-flattery, that his administration has out-performed its predecessors in its two years and eight months in office, he then engaged in a marvellous show of word definition.

According to him,” Some people call themselves progressives. They have done that before, did they change the system? Today, if you can abuse Jonathan, you are a progressive; if you attack the Federal Government, you are progressive; even if nothing is happening in your state you are progressive. We have seen the progressives.”

Strikingly, the point he succeeded in making in such a circuitous manner is that his party, the PDP, operates outside the progressive camp, which is actually uncomplimentary since the concept stands for people-oriented governance. It is no news that the PDP is crumbling on account of its internal contradictions as well as its clear failure to deliver passable good governance. In a significant sense, then, it can be argued that, in orientation and conduct, the party and its leaders fall short of progressivism.

In the context of governmental under-performance, there is fairness in the foulness if Jonathan is abused, as he claims, or if the Federal Government is attacked, as he alleges. Does Jonathan expect to be praised for doing little or nothing to lift the country in socio-economic terms? Or does the Federal Government expect a passive reaction to its consistent betrayal of the people’s expectations?

In particular, there is a tragic undertone of conservative triumphalism in Jonathan’s words. His tone is unapologetically pro-establishment; yet he complains about alleged hostile response from the forces of positive change.

Changing “the system” is not necessarily an overnight affair, and Jonathan ought to know that. So it is rather too early to reach a conclusion, or to imply that the progressives will never succeed in changing things. Furthermore, it is important to raise the question whether Jonathan indeed does not perceive the difference between himself and those whom he accuses of calling themselves progressives?

There is no doubt that progressivism goes beyond being a mere badge that people wear just to be politically correct, and the socio-economic results of a progressive administration are usually unmistakable and beyond controversy. So it would amount to a contradiction in terms to claim, as Jonathan did, “even if nothing is happening in your state you are a progressive.” Who is doing the assessment in this case? Can Jonathan who has, by implication, disassociated himself from progressive politics, be a reliable judge of performance?

From the look of things, more than ever before in the country’s political history, this period demands not only a definition but also a clarification of the concept and practice of progressivism; and it is not for nothing that, for the first time, there exists a formal Progressives Governors’ Forum (PGF) alongside other structures of progressive politics.

It goes without saying that Jonathan’s effort was a preposterously poor attempt at offering a definition of such a significant idea. But this is understandable; the concept is alien to him.