The Nation Newspaper

Category: Hardball

  • CJN reads the riot act to judges

    CJN reads the riot act to judges

    Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN) Aloma Mariam Mukhtar is determined to grab a prominent space in Nigeria’s judicial history. Sworn in as the 13th indigenous Chief Justice of Nigeria in July last year, she has since taken a few decisive steps and made many radical statements worthy of attention. One such statement was made early this week when she declared open a refresher course on judgment writing and delivery organised by the National Judicial Institute (NJI) for judicial officers nationwide. Judges, she observed, had become the butt of jokes nationwide on account of the decline in quality and quantity of their judgments. “A judge should write judgment in a simple and unambiguous manner such that it leaves no one in doubt as to what the judgment has addressed,” she advised. According to her, some judges wrote judgments either to exhibit their obsession with judicial jargons or to purposely create ambiguities for the mischievous to exploit.

    She is probably right, for lawyers and judges have a tendency to immerse themselves in deliberate arcana, sometimes mystifying themselves and getting entangled in complicated verbosity, thereby requiring the services of an impatient senior judge to cut through the maze. But let us hope that in the campaign for simplicity, the renascent Lord Dennings (as in Beswick v. Beswick) would not forsake the profound veneer and logical complexities that have set jurisprudence apart from other less esoteric disciplines and given oomph and meaning to the phrase “my learned friend.” But nothing can detract from the engaging idea Justice Mukhtar tried to communicate to her audience at the NJI workshop: that justice must not only be done, but that it must be seen to be done, with no cumbersomeness of fact, logic or language. In fact her asseveration was in tune with the drastic and unexpected step she took late February under the aegis of the National Judicial Council (NJC) when she approved the sacking of two judges, to wit, Justices Charles Archibong of the Lagos Division of the federal high court and Thomas Naron of the Plateau state high court. The CJN also referred a Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Otunba Kunle Kalejaiye to the Nigeria Bar Association (NBA) for disciplinary action.

    The public, which the CJN referred to as a barometer for sound judgments, may, however, have made up its mind on just how nearly impossible it is to bring far-reaching reforms to the judiciary, especially because the judiciary is part of a society that has lost its moral compass. The public views the impasse in the reinstatement of Justice Ayo Salami of the Court of Appeal as a better barometer not only of the lack of rectitude of the judicial branch but also a measure of the lack of will of judicial officers to dispense justice in difficult and excruciating circumstances. Shortly after she assumed office, the CJN attempted an activist and moralistic approach to the Salami impasse, like Justice Dahiru Musdapher before her, but met a brick wall in the Jonathan presidency. Justice Mukhtar will probably wisely concentrate on other less controversial areas of sanitising the judiciary, and severely avoid issues that deal with judicial independence.

    Though her effort on the Salami case foundered, the CJN at least indicated her admirable perspective on sanitising the judiciary and helping it to regain respect in the estimation of the public. She will press on in battling such malaises as are within her gentle reach, and she will do battle with style and grace. Under her watch, more judges will be made to shape up or ship out, and perhaps the quality of jurisprudence will inch up somewhat. But it is hard to see the quantum of improvements, both in quality and volume, that the CJN expects manifesting soon. This column will back her, as long as she follows her own counsel by giving those accused of indiscretions fair hearing. (Justice Archibong’s supporters, it will be recalled, claimed he was not given fair hearing). But at the risk of being described as a pessimist, Hardball will be unwilling to hazard a guess that the CJN will make a substantial dent on the malfeasances that have undermined the judiciary, for that sector is neither insulated from the rest of the society nor, because of decades of practiced compromise with the system, does it show any eagerness to live, like Caesar’s wife, above suspicion.

  • Sabre-rattling on the Korean peninsula

    Sabre-rattling on the Korean peninsula

    North and South Korea are still technically at war. If there has been no all-out war since the conflict between the two countries ended in a ceasefire in 1953, it is not because there have been no incidents capable of undermining the tentative peace on the peninsula. Much more than South Korea, North Korea has indulged in serial brinkmanship so intense and somewhat paranoid that it is a surprise threats and rumours of war have not led to something more catastrophic. The latest round of tension was stoked by North Korea threatening to unleash a thermonuclear war on South Korea and the United States. The threat in turn resulted from Pyongyang’s response to the imposition of United Nations sanctions on North Korea and the military exercise conducted between the US and South Korea. The sanctions and the military drill did not, however, happen in a vacuum. They were in turn triggered by Pyongyang’s recent ballistic missile test, satellite launch and underground nuclear test.

    Though the US, South Korea, and even North Korea’s backers do not seriously think the North Korean leader, Kim Jong-un, will start an all-out war, the newly installed 30-year-old leader has appeared very convincing in whooping for war that China now seems cautiously worried while the US has made tentative military deployments in preparation for the worst-case scenario. Hardball had himself resisted commenting on the Korean faceoff until now because he was unconvinced that the young Kim would not start something he couldn’t finish. The chances of an all-out war are still very slim in spite of the reluctance of the more prosperous Seoul to respond aggressively to the North’s military provocations, and in spite of the indulgent Chinese’s reluctance to pressure their economically disadvantaged protégé. In fact it is believed that all the posturing by Pyongyang would end anticlimactically on April 15, the anniversary of Kim Il-Sung’s birthday, with some fireworks involving perhaps the launching of one or two missiles at harmless targets.

    The assumption is that notwithstanding the North’s aggressive posturing, nothing would go wrong, that there would be no miscalculation, and that all the ongoing psychological operations of Pyongyang would end in a damp squib. To underscore this, it is observed that Pyongyang’s threats have so far not resulted in the mobilisation of its 1.2 million troops, nor has the hermit country carried out major and strategic military deployments. While Kim may be conducting elaborate bluster to shore up his image and status in North Korea, just as his father Kim Jong-Il did before him, there is nothing to suggest that one day, poorly timed provocations would not lead to open war. Indeed, it seems apparent that such provocations will continue in the foreseeable future, and Pyongyang will continue to bluff and bluster because even before the Korean War began in 1950, the North had been more aggressive about reuniting the Koreas, while the South had been more aggressive about submitting to reunification. The South’s supine psychological disposition has been little affected by its enormous wealth.

    During the Korean War, battlefield successes had been on and off for the combatants. Today, things have not changed much. While tension will build and dissipate in the years to come, as they had done since the armistice of 1953, a day in future will come when the Koreas will be reunited, either by force or by compelling social and economic reasons. It is only then that the more than three million civilians and soldiers who lost their lives in the war can rest in peace.

  • Thatcher: 1925-2013 or 1979-1990

    Thatcher: 1925-2013 or 1979-1990

    When the curtain goes down on a play,” remarked former United States president Richard Milhous Nixon, “members of the audience file out of the theatre and go home to resume their normal lives. When the curtain comes down on a leader’s career, the very lives of the audience have been changed, and the course of history may have been profoundly altered.” Few epitomised Nixon’s pithy remark as poignantly as Baroness Thatcher, former British Prime Minister who passed away at 87 on Monday. She had been hospitalised last December to remove a growth on her bladder, and had suffered from dementia since 2005. Considering her age, the speculation was not on how many more years she had to live. What overwhelmed commentators was a feeling of weariness about her impending departure, and the difficult obituaries to be crafted by writers to capture what she represented to Britain and the world.

    In the end, she fooled everyone by departing suddenly, just when many were beginning to think she would stay for a little longer. That she was a divisive figure nationally and globally is not in doubt. What with the bitter war she waged on equally intransigent trade unions which had both paralysed British economy and subverted parliamentary rule. Her economic policies, which came to be dubbed Thatcherism, also proved deeply contentious even up till today, and were blamed for the impoverishment of many and the enthronement of an unfeeling variant of modern capitalism. Nor was a large part of Africa enamoured of her foreign policy, especially because it exhibited either a tinge of racism or indefensible sentiment in its support for apartheid and for the Khmer Rouge, and constituted an undertow to her vaunted campaign for democracy and freedom both in the Falklands and Soviet Union.

    Thatcher’s leadership might have been divisive; but whether you admired her or detested her, you could not deny she was an iconic leader, a strong leader with an intuitive grasp of the nuances of public policy and the dynamics of international strategic imperatives. No matter how much reviled she was, few doubt that she was both a trailblazer and an enigmatic leader, the likes of which are getting increasingly fewer in the world. Enlightened opinion of her leadership will ineluctably zero in on her iron will, political sagacity, supreme confidence both as a person and on behalf of her country, and charismatic understanding of what leadership should ideally be.

    Her place is secure in the annals of Great Britain. But much more than that, the world will remember her not simply for her firsts, such as winning three consecutive elections, or being the first and only woman Prime Minister, nor for her ripe old age, nor yet for some of her questionable and controversial economic policies which left many Britons and even Irish poor and bitter, but for being one of the 20th century’s great leaders, quite in the mould of Josip Broz Tito of Yugoslavia, Conrad Adenauer of Germany, and Shigeru Yoshida of Japan, among others. After she left office, no British Prime Minister has been quite like her, especially considering how difficult it is for a leader to make a huge mark in peacetime. Indeed, it will take quite a while to find someone who would replicate the massive impact she left on the world in the closing decades of the 20th century.

     

     

  • Murdered policemen: Jonathan’s Borno words return to haunt him

    Murdered policemen: Jonathan’s Borno words return to haunt him

    On Saturday, a boatload of policemen ran into an ambush along the creeks of Azuzama in Southern Ijaw local government area, Bayelsa State, leading to the death of 12 security agents. They had been deployed in the area for security purpose during the burial ceremony of the mother of an ex-militant, Kile Selky Torughedi, a.k.a. Young Shall Grow. The killings coincided with the warning issued by members of the Movement for the Emancipation of the Niger Delta (MEND) to resume attacks in the region following the conviction and jailing of their former leader, Henry Okah. In the warning, MEND had said: “…A series of attacks, codenamed Hurricane Exodus, will begin at midnight on Friday. (The attacks) will be a direct repercussion of a forged threat letter contrived by the Nigerian and South African governments purporting to have originated from MEND… We are now determined to conjure this imaginary trumped-up threat into a painful reality. The attacks will be sustained until an unreserved apology is offered to MEND and the Nigerian government shows its willingness to dialogue, the same way they are willing to dialogue with Boko Haram.”

    But in contemptuously dismissing the MEND threat, the Nigerian military had immediately offered this explanation: “The Defence Headquarters (DHQ) has an outfit on the ground in the Niger Delta. Our structures are on ground in the area. They (MEND) should not reverse the hand of peace; nobody should threaten the peace in the area. The JTF is on the ground and is prepared to do their duties in defence of every interest of the nation. Anybody trying to threaten the peace in the area is advised against it.” The police also weighed in with a terse statement. “The police will not respond to threats by criminal elements,” they said curtly, “but suffice it to say we are ready to curb any acts of lawlessness or criminality in the country.” However, notwithstanding the assurances of the police and the military, some 12 policemen were murdered barely moments after the security chiefs finished responding to the MEND threats.

    It is not the seeming impotence of the government’s assurance that has unsettled the public; the problem is that the responses by the two security agencies are agitating the people. For the military, it appears, it is still a matter of muscle flexing. “The five sectors of the JTF covering the nine states of the Niger Delta region are on the alert,” its spokesman boasted. “Our maritime and air assets have also been mobilised and we have intensified our patrols to dominate both land and waterways to checkmate any assailant. We will not permit any lawlessness that will jeopardise the peace in the region.” Not to be outdone, the police, through the state police commissioner, Kingsley Omire, suggested that the killing of his men had nothing to do with MEND’s threat of last week. It was probably a misunderstanding over money matters within the former militant group led by Torughedi, who now works for the Bayelsa State government, and the ‘General’ Adaka Boro Jnr group, the police boss argued. But whatever the cause, the fact is that the killings have been carried out, and the noses of security agents have been rubbed in the dirt.

    President Goodluck Jonathan will now have to revisit the threat he also unwisely issued in March when he visited Borno and Yobe States. He had angrily told his audience that he had issued directives to his security agents of his unwillingness to hear that a security agent had been murdered by anyone, let alone militants of any colour. The presidential threat was widely interpreted to mean that security agents could use maximum and indiscriminate force to pacify restive regions, just like Chief Olusegun Obasanjo did to Odi town in the president’s home state of Bayelsa when some seven policemen were murdered by militants. It remains to be seen what Jonathan will do to his home state now that 12 policemen have been murdered by militants, a classic case of the president’s words returning to haunt him.

     

  • A most contentious amnesty

    A most contentious amnesty

    After many months of dithering, the scale of killings in the North and the virtually stalemated military campaign against Boko Haram terrorists have seemed to finally persuade the Goodluck Jonathan presidency to resignedly offer amnesty to the violent Islamist sect. There is hardly a voice of dissent against amnesty in the North, perhaps because the region has borne the brunt of the violence undermining regional commercial activities and engendering poverty, social dislocations and alienation. But the South has been largely unenthusiastic about amnesty. It describes the proposed deal as wicked, unfair and counterproductive. Even if the Jonathan government goes through with the deal, a consensus between the North and the South on the amnesty deal is unlikely.

    Amnesty for Boko Haram militants is still a long way off. There is no agreement yet on who should be talking with whom, or when the talking should begin. More importantly, and no matter how much everyone pretends these things do not matter, there are deeply troubling issues, some of them moral, surrounding the proposed amnesty deal. First, and considering the senseless bloodshed, would it be wise to extend amnesty to Boko Haram masterminds, or should amnesty be limited to only the foot soldiers? If the masterminds know they would be excluded, would they be willing to talk peace and sheathe their swords? Assuming that that dilemma can be surmounted, would the proponents of amnesty, who have persuaded themselves that Boko Haram is largely a product of economic alienation, not expect a massive infusion of funds to wage war against poverty in the affected areas?

    And if funds are allocated to fight economic alienation in the affected areas, would this not amount to rewarding lawlessness? Would it not suggest to future law breakers that levying war against the state has its sweet rewards? There are many more issues surrounding the amnesty issue that require deep reflections and negotiations before the deal can fly. But overall, if no one is punished for the senseless waste of lives and destruction of public property, it is hard to see how an enduring peace can be secured in the face of such grave injustice. This may be why many have qualified their support for amnesty with a call for the sect’s masterminds to be punished, while others have asked for Boko Haram leaders to demonstrate public penitence before amnesty could be given any consideration.

    The country, particularly the federal government and the North, is desperate for peace, for the scale of destruction is so massive that the region may need many years and much help to rebuild its economy, an economy which was in the best of times gasping for breath. The country will also have to ask itself why the economic inequality in the country seems pronounced in the North in spite of the federally allocated and internally generated revenue accruing to the state and local governments in the Boko Haram region. The question is whether the revenue is too small or public officials have injudiciously used the money. Finally, and still on the propriety of amnesty, the country will have to ask itself whether by negotiating with terror, it is not demonstrating lack of character and principles or setting a precedent that could yet return to haunt it in the future.

  • At last, Ebonyi’s somnolent governor stirs himself

    At last, Ebonyi’s somnolent governor stirs himself

    Governor Martin Elechi, 72, of Ebonyi State is the oldest governor in Nigeria. His predecessor, Dr Sam Egwu, facilitated his election as governor in 2007. But either because of the mystery his advanced age evoked or of the obscurity he has dragged both himself and his persevering state, he managed to win reelection in 2011, thereby creating a paranormal phenomenon that no one inside or outside the state has been able to explain. For the about six years he has been in office, all we get from Ebonyi is perfect, inscrutable silence. In fact, it seems the governor and his cabinet have an antipathy towards news of any sort, and would rather that no news, good or bad, be written about them or the state. Since 2000 there has been only improvement in that silence, with more silence overlaying grosser silence until there is deadness.

    Well, not anymore. Ebonyi’s dry bones are rising. Governor Elechi is breaking loose, and is stirring himself for the state and nation to feel his presence. He had been accused of not being in the news either in the past or present. Now, after firing four traditional rulers, he is definitely in the news. That forceful act has got the opposition Action Congress of Nigeria (ACN) hopping mad. The party alleged the governor did not follow laid down procedures, and did not also give the victims of his executive action fair hearing. In the days ahead, the state may want to respond to the opposition’s allegations and present the true facts of the case to bemused Ebonyians. Perhaps the governor can after all justify his action; perhaps the four chiefs’ sins were grievous and inexcusable. What is of interest to Hardball, however, is that he of whom it was said could neither stir nor speak, nor yet act with vigour, has finally conjured an earthquake.

    Cynical Ebonyians would probably have preferred their governor to conjure volcanoes in government policies and put some life and substance in enunciating a coherent developmental paradigm for the state. But since they asked for action without specifying what kind of actions would please them, they must be contented with the sacking of chiefs. The problem Ebonyians and those who expect more from the governor are having is that they can’t in fact seem to understand the man they voted for. They should have known that apart from the permanent avuncular grin on his face, the man is simply impenetrable, even indecipherable. He has initiated some building projects and continues to wring hands on those begun by his predecessors, but it is an irony that this graduate of economics seems destined to leave his people poorer than he met them.

    It is not for nothing that when he wanted a university education, he chose the Lovanium University of Congo in the Democratic Republic of Congo, at a time (1963) when that big, endowed but underachieving country was seething with discontent and chaos. He must be among the very few Nigerians who went in an unexpected direction to receive tertiary education from an unlikely country. It is all the more startling that though he graduated with a Bachelor of Science Degree in Economics (with distinction) in 1966, he has baffled his subjects by ruling as someone who read building technology. Ebonyi is rated as the poorest state in the Southeast in spite of its rich and indescribable agricultural potentials, but Elechi has blissfully elected to concentrate on white elephant projects than to build the capacity of his people. It is indeed a puzzle that he doesn’t feel what the rest of us feel: that Ebonyi seems to be in another country, its people and potentials unknown, and its governor even more mysterious.

    In helping the election of his successor in 2007, it is possible Dr Egwu felt Elechi would be a safe pair of hands. Indeed, he is characteristically a very safe pair of hands. But there are times when safety may prove detrimental to progress, for it is easy to confuse safety with caution. Ebonyi may be receiving the second lowest allocation from Abuja, but given its enormous economic potentials, it is a state that should flourish in the hands of a less sedate, less cautious, less insular and more enterprising governor. If Ebonyians decide to vote foolishly and sentimentally next time, they could find themselves ineluctably drawn into the famous black hole in space (spacetime, actually), the graveyard of stars – except that Ebonyi never really shone, notwithstanding Abakiliki, Afikpo and Nkalagu.

  • Social media and My oga at the top

    Social media and My oga at the top

    It used to be thought that newspapers were the main feral beasts tearing reputations apart and destroying careers. But compared with the immeasurable capacity of social media to pulverise and annihilate, newspapers are tame, friendly and adorable communication organs. In the few years since it became probably the most popular means for the creation, exchange and sharing of information and ideas between communities and individuals, social media has trumped everyone, in part because, like terrorism, it is not limited by borders. On social media, news and contents can be created and shared instantly. If the news is positive, and it goes viral, it can help an individual or community reap humungous benefits. But if the news and other contents are negative, the consequences to reputations and careers can be equally swift and destructive. Shema Obafaiye, the Nigeria Security and Civil Defence Corps (NSCDC) Lagos Commandant, is the latest to feel the merciless sting of social media.

    Mr Obafaiye had on a recent television programme performed poorly in projecting the image of his organisation. Though he answered most of the questions posed to him very well and showed mastery of issues pertaining to Civil Defence, he flunked the rather simple question of what his organisation’s web address was. And as he hemmed and hawed, he blurted out a reference to My oga at the top, a pithy part of his wrong answer that would haunt him in the hours and days after. Indeed, because it has now cost him his position as Lagos commandant of the Civil Defence, it seems the reference to My oga at the top will haunt him for the rest of his life, and perhaps in the end cost him his job.

    The gaffe was of course shocking, but not unpardonable. Web addresses are generally pesky little irritations on the memory, especially when they are not the simple dot com or dot co dot uk type. In the pre-social media days, a little gaffe now and again would not kill anyone, let alone bring a person to universal opprobrium. But Obafaiye has chosen to blunder in an age when all communication barriers have fallen, and when nothing is beyond the reach of the web or of the waspish pens and tongues of pernicious fellows. Moments after the Civil Defence officer made the gaffe and gave the public the memorable line of My oga at the top, social media took up the refrain and relentlessly lampooned him. The unsparing ridicule was followed by yet more merciless parodies, caricatures, clerihews, musical compositions, emblazoned tee shirts, and one-act drama pieces. A deeply mortified Civil Defence had to withdraw Obafaiye from his visible office and consign him to obscurity, perhaps to push files, run errands and clean the archives.

    With social media becoming the leading activity on the web, it is now clear that no private or public person can even afford to tell a little, innocuous lie. Once he is found out, ubiquitous and pretentious Mozarts and Beethovens will produce instantaneous compositions to celebrate the lie. Nor, from all indications, can anyone even commit indiscretion bordering on spousal unfaithfulness. Imagine social media to have been very active in 2007 when Robert Mugabe allegedly videoed the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Bulawayo and critic, Pius Ncube, romping with a married parishioner, Rosemary Sibanda. All borders have fallen, so never rule out what item will next go viral on the web. Today’s safe man may be tomorrow’s endangered man. Today, it is Obafaiye’s gentle gaffe; tomorrow, it could be something much more poisonous and salacious. Many governments have spent incredible amount of time and resources trying to regulate conventional media; let us see how far they can go with social media, where there is little adherence to ethics, and where regulations even by the most vicious governments have proved utterly inadequate.

  • Fayose redefines politics

    Fayose redefines politics

    Mr Ayo Fayose, former governor of Ekiti State, may be a little subdued now, but when he was governor, he was a boisterous and easily excitable politician. His innate populism, everyone recalls, drove him to extremes of hyperactivity, even if the activities were specious and misdirected. He talked loudly when gentle talk would do; he jumped on any bandwagon because he lacked the sophistication to draw a distinction between nobility and plebeianism; and he showed absolutely no depth on the few occasions he attempted to grapple with issues. Some six years ago, he was untidily impeached by his own party for acts incompatible with his oath of office. Now he is back attempting to regain the office he lost in October 2006. He believes the same populist credentials that brought him into office in 2003 will serve him well when Ekiti goes to the poll in 2014. And he is back talking political and philosophical shop, posturing as an intellectual, pinpointing historical significances where there are none, and interpreting and redefining the science of politics.

    According to an interview he granted the News Agency of Nigeria (NAN), Fayose said he would be the next governor of Ekiti in 2014. He is entitled to dream. However, he anchors this dream on two things. The first is that the former governor has casually stringed together a group of dates on his Ouija board to achieve a desired outcome; and the second is that he has clumsily redefined the meaning of politics by simply ignoring common dictionary definitions and embracing his own self-generated, streetwise understanding of politics. He had apparently been asked what his agenda for 2014 was. “There is no agenda for 2014,” he shot back, “I am the next governor of Ekiti State.” The reason Fayose is so cocksure is because “…the State House of Assembly sent (me) packing on October 15, 2006, and Segun Oni was also sacked by the courts on October 15, 2010, while the incumbent Kayode Fayemi was sworn in on October 16, 2010. So the issues are very clear. The historic importance is very clear: my exit date marks the end of every government in Ekiti State.” Consequently, he romanticised, Fayemi would leave office on October 15, 2014 and a new government by him (Fayose) would start on October 16, 2014, “exactly eight years, after I left office.”

    In Fayose’s vast, tempestuous and superstitious mind, the dates he mentioned carried “historic importance.” Were all of us to begin harvesting coincidences to underscore our messages, policies and meaning in life, where would that leave science? But much more galling is Fayose’s definition of politics. Said he in reference to the crises in the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP): “Forever, there will be internal problems, it will never end, that is the hallmark of politics; that is why we call it politics, it is a game of interest and intrigues.” Now, we definitely understand how the fatalistic Fayose got the licence for ruthless machinations. And there are obviously many more like him in Nigeria. For them, politics is essentially about intrigues, about fomenting problems, about crises, about the kind of bitter infighting tearing the PDP apart everywhere. Now that it is clear he defines politics in terms of its worst connotations, and has set out what seems to him to be an intellectual foundation for his brand of politics, if he regains office, he will intrigue far worse than he did between 2003 and 2006, when he almost wrecked the state.

     

  • Jonathan’s punctuated Easter message

    Jonathan’s punctuated Easter message

    By some reckoning, President Goodluck Jonathan spoke for less than 10 minutes during the Easter Sunday service at Our Saviour’s Church Tafawa Balewa Square, Lagos. As usual he spoke extemporaneously, and whenever he does that, he delights the media with simple homilies or egregious political howlers. But on this day, the first time he would celebrate Easter in Lagos since he assumed office in 2011, there was no egregious political statement delivered, nor was there any homily. Perhaps frustrated by comments and criticisms that often followed his quaint political philosophies and dreamy exegeses whenever he attended a church service, he decided to play safe this time. It must dismay the faithful that the president’s short message and that of former military head of state, Gen Yakubu Gowon, superseded the sermon of the day. Most newspapers indeed glossed over the sermon, noting only that the vicar of the church, Igbein Isemede, remarked that Nigeria’s colonial governors-general worshipped at the church.

    By contrast, United States President Barack Obama worshipped at the St. John’s Episcopal Church, a few blocks from the White House in Washington, D.C. If Obama made any remarks at the Easter Sunday service, this columnist missed it. Instead what made the news was the tone and stridency of the sermon by the Rev. Luis León. “It drives me crazy when the captains of the religious right are always calling us back … for blacks to be back in the back of the bus … for women to be back in the kitchen … for immigrants to be back on their side of the border,” the preacher said, knowing full well he would draw flak. Sometime soon, the culture in Nigerian churches will change to debar a visiting president from mounting the pulpit and talking shop, for it is neither spiritually appropriate nor even politically wise.

    But notwithstanding the inappropriateness of inviting the president to say a word or two, Jonathan, as he is wont, chose something fairly noteworthy to speak on. Apparently, he recognised he must give newspapers something worthy of their front pages and headlines. However, through no fault of his, circumstances beyond his control pushed the story in a direction he could not have imagined. He had begun his Easter remarks with these harmless words of encouragement: “I promise that I will do my best. I will not disappoint Nigerians, within the limitation of our resources, to fix our infrastructure. Our rail system is coming up. We promise to fix our roads so that Nigerians can move freely. We promise to stabilise power in this country.” Ignore his idiosyncratic syntax; but as soon as he spoke of electricity, and as if on cue, there was a power cut. A flustered Jonathan made light of the hitch by switching gear. He said: “I believe they (those behind power supply) know that I am here that is why they took light; at least, to remind me that I must not sleep until we stabilise power. God willing, next year, they will not take light again.”

    The power cut predictably became the peg of the following day’s news reports of the president’s visit. Under the military, the outage would have been considered either treasonable or deliberately intended to embarrass. But the country is so inured to power cuts that no one, not even the president, bats an eyelid anymore. Jonathan’s promise that next year would witness the end of power cuts is significant. Next year is virtually around the corner. But it will not be the first time the goal post had been shifted. It was shifted repeatedly during the Chief Olusegun Obasanjo presidency so much that it was impossible to believe the goal post was still in the field of play. And just as deadlines were shifted, so, too, notoriously were output targets shifted. Today, neither deadlines nor targets are realistic.

    The president must, therefore, consider himself lucky that the said power outage rescued the triteness of his remarks. Considering the humdrumness of the president’s message, reporters would have had little or nothing to take back to their editors, and the venerable vicar would have been at a loss why the media glossed over the epoch-making presence of the president at a church service the like of which colonial era governors-general used to dignify with their stately presence.

     

  • UN ‘offensive’ brigade in DRC not the solution

    Last Thursday, the United Nations Security Council unanimously approved the deployment of about 3,100 peacekeepers in the restive eastern region of the Democratic Republic of Congo. The peacekeepers, according to a report, have received orders “to carry out targeted offensive operations and attempt to neutralise armed groups.” The approval anticipates that the intervention force or offensive brigade will be stationed in the North Kivu province in the eastern part of the country where government forces have so far unsuccessfully tried to pacify a rebel group there called the March 23 Movement or M23. The war in the region between the army and rebels has led to the displacement of over a million people, while an additional 300,000 in the southeastern province of Katanga have also been displaced.

    The DRC has for long been a seething cauldron of rebellion, chaos and death. Barely a few months after independence, Joseph Mobutu, then a colonel, exploited the power struggle between President Joseph Kasavubu and Prime Minister Patrice Lumumba and helped it to degenerate irretrievably. The ensuing crisis created room for foreign intervention and eventually led to the death of Lumumba at the hands of a coalition of Belgian, American and Moise Tshombe-led Katangan separatists. After a long, brutal and exploitative rule, Mobutu was overthrown during the First Congo War (1996-1998) by a rebel coalition led by the late President Laurent-Desire Kabila. He was helped in no small measures by Ugandan and Rwandan forces.

    By 2001, however, Laurent Kabila was assassinated, but not before the misunderstanding with his backers, particularly Rwanda, had degenerated in 1998 into the Second Congo War (1998-2003). He was succeeded by his son, Joseph. This latter war cost an estimated five million or more lives, reportedly the deadliest conflict in the world since World War II, and millions more displaced. It sucked in nine African nations and more than 20 armed groups. For a country of more than 75 million people and an untapped natural resource endowment estimated at some $24 trillion, it is no wonder that the struggle for the country’s rich mineral resources is partly responsible for its instability.

    One of the factors that triggered the Second Congo War was the struggle between Hutu and Tutsi armed groups who made themselves available for proxy battles between Kinshasha and Kigali. The eastern part of DRC, particularly North and South Kivu, is destabilised by the Banyamulenge, who are ethnic Tutsis. The Tutsi-led Rwandan government has always found it convenient to support the Banyamulenge armed group, the Rassemblement Congolais pour la Democratie (RCD), against Kinshasha, especially in view of the activities of the defeated and weakened Hutu-led Democratic Forces for the Liberation of Rwanda (FDLR). The Hutu militias threaten Rwanda with cross-border raids. Apart from the restiveness of Kasai-Oriental Province, particularly the Ituri region, there is also the uncontrollable Mai Mai rebel group created by Laurent Kabila in northern Katanga.

    In effect the DRC is unsettled by a combination of economic, ethnic, domestic and international political factors, though the country is predominantly Christian. Until these factors are resolved, it is hard to see how the UN’s offensive brigade can pacify the eastern part of the DRC. It must not be forgotten that many peace deals had been signed and had collapsed under the weight of ethnic tensions and foreign intervention and meddlesomeness. It is recalled that the very first peacekeeping operation Nigeria was involved in was in the Congo. Incredulously, Chad, a smaller country than Nigeria, has shown keener interest in the DRC, had even once sent troops to intervene there, not for peacekeeping but as combatants, and had also shown interest and intervened in Central African Republic (CAR). Nigeria is perhaps too preoccupied with its own troubles to attempt to match South Africa in CAR, and Chad in both CAR and DRC.

    If the UN hopes to make any headway in the DRC labyrinth, it must actively go beyond the February 2013 peace deal signed in Ethiopia by 10 or 11 countries (Angola, Burundi, Central African Republic, Congo, the Republic of Congo, Rwanda, South Africa, South Sudan, Uganda and Tanzania) to bring peace to the DRC. A brigade may prove unable to resolve the long-running Congo crisis where peace deals are routinely broken because of greed and deep-seated domestic and foreign mistrust. The country’s potential wealth and ethnic pastiche are simply too explosive a mix to respond quickly or easily to a brigade of offensive peacekeepers.