The Nation Newspaper

Category: Comments

  • Flaws of democracy

    Monday, May 29, Nigeria celebrated Democracy Day, but I have concerns about whether the democracy we practice is the best option for us. First, democracy allows everybody above the age of 18 to vote, irrespective of their education, knowledge or political awareness. This is one of the flaws of our democracy. Not everyone is informed of the requirement or competence for leadership; not everyone has the skills to interpret information presented by candidates, not everyone has the correct mind-set or upright ideology in making the right decision, and if everyone including the uninformed are handed over the ballot, we risk the chances of ignorant choices.

    Therefore, casting a vote is a skill that everyone must acquire, and if you do not have the skills, you will not be qualified to have a ballot. It is just like handing over guns to everyone. You risk giving the gun to an uninformed person, and he may end up shooting himself or shooting the good guys. Just like not everyone should lead, not everyone should vote too. If a child is denied the ballot because it was believed that a child may not be well informed or acquire the necessary knowledge to participate in the voting, likewise even among adults, there are those who are not informed or have the knowledge to guide their decisions.  So, there has to be clear requirements to qualify to vote in a democracy, especially in developing countries where there is mass illiteracy or unawareness, which reflects in the ballot and can cause the poor selection of leaders, resulting in bad governance.

    Uninformed citizens can easily be manipulated and used through bribery, bogus promises, or intimidation to make the wrong choices. The votes of uninformed citizens may not necessary reflect their own opinions, which is against the principles of democracy. So, some sections of society need to be stripped of the voting chance. However, highly informed and educated citizens will have fewer tendencies of being used or manipulated. In some elections, a leader can emerge even with a one percent margin, and it does not matter if that margin was as a result of a vote from an uninformed voter. That one percent will also make the other major 49% voiceless.  Uninformed voters can decide the course of the ship of our democracy. Giving uninformed citizens the ballot is like giving unprofessional the wheel of a ship at the middle of a sea during a storm; how would they steer the ship? Even in courts, we don’t allow every citizen to give verdicts, a select few competent judges are the ones we trust to give verdicts, because we believe they have the skills in making a sound and fair decision, and we accept their judgments.

    This also applies to candidates contesting elections. Once you have a lower educational qualification, irrespective of the quality of that education or the depth of your knowledge (especially political and economic affairs), you are free to contest. It is just like an aeroplane, not everyone deserves to fly the plane, if someone who is not an expert stepped up to fly the plane, no one will agree to that. So, why should we allow those who are not expert to steer a country’s direction? Candidates must have certain strict criteria to contest. We cannot risk allowing people with shallow knowledge of politics and economics or education to stand for elections. If we do that, we put ourselves at risk of voting incompetent leaders. If a private company wants to appoint a new MD/CEO, they will shortlist those with the best qualification in terms of knowledge and ability to meet the company’s targets. So, why can’t we shortlist the best candidates for leading our respective countries, why do we accommodate incompetence in our shortlists? That is why we have to raise the requirements for who we allow to contest in our elections.

    To achieve this, we have to change the system of nominations for elective positions; first, candidates must be allowed to stand for election independently without standing under a political party. Political parties must allow every member of their party to cast their votes in the selection of their party’s candidates, instead of few people, i.e. delegates. These delegates are targets of manipulation, bribery, and deception because there is no strict requirement for their selection, and once they are manipulated, the entire country is manipulated too. So, for immediate remedy, parties must open the selection of their candidates to every member of the party. Any party that does that will, for sure, have more appeal to the people.  Political parties must be forced to reduce the cost of nominations for political positions, to give room for competent candidates who may not be able to afford high nomination fees.

    Restricting candidacy to parties is what produces leaders without ideas. Shehu Musa Yar’Adua once said, “Our major problem as a country is that we elect people that we know are not competent, and leave out those that we know are competent”. One of our African orators, Harmon Okinyo once said, “the problem with Africa is that those that have ideas, have no power, and those with power, have no ideas. Once Africans are presented with the option to vote between those with ideas and those without, they will vote for those without the ideas”. So those who are the ‘good ones’ don’t get the chance. The good ones do not have the money to outcompete the bad ones, and the bad ones use illiteracy and an uninformed electorate to find their way, and that is why it is dangerous to give the ballot to the uninformed citizens.

    So, let us have an intellectual democracy and not democracy by birth right. Another issue with democracy is the frequent change of leaders, and giving them absolute powers to change the course of governance. Frequent change of governments and elections attracts huge costs, which short-change the citizens.

    To ensure informed choices and better selection of leaders, Islamic, traditional or new systems of democracy can be looked into. We can consider electing voting representatives in each district or ward, who are knowledgeable, respected, experienced and reputable. These voting representatives will cast their votes on behalf of their people, and will undertake by oath to be fair and just in their selections. They will be like judges, who will use facts and evidence to give a verdict without sentiment, fear or favour. All candidates must then present themselves and their visions to earn the votes of the voting representatives. This will give a chance to credible candidates from unpopular parties, marginalised ethnicities or sections of society, because it is about who is more competent. The voting representatives will vote according to their conscience and conviction, and they have to report back to their respective communities and explain the justification for their choices. So, they will be the judges, who make verdicts on our behalf. This kind of system is found in Islamic election processes, where few selected respected members of society are chosen to select a leader. It is also found in the traditional system of democracy, where few selected kingmakers choose the king on behalf of the people.

    Finally, the above system can be merged with direct democracy, where a proportion of the votes can be allocated to the citizens and the bigger proportion to the voting representatives. We can say, voting representatives have a 60% weighted proportion of the votes, and 40% goes to the citizens. If a candidate wins, the entire votes of the voting representatives can emerge. A candidate can still win if he has the majority of the overall votes, combining proportions from both voting representatives and the citizens.

     

    • Dr. Adamu, a petroleum economist and development expert, teaches at Umaru Musa Yar’adua University, Katsina.

  • Noisome pestilence as governance

    Monday May 29, marked a threshold for assessing Nigeria’s democracy and President Muhammadu Buhari’s mid-term. Positive as things seem, all is not well with Nigeria. Beyond Western normative idea of good governance, Nigeria missed the age of convergence, which Jeffrey Sachs once described as “the tendency of developing countries like Nigeria to make unprecedented economic advances through the deployment of best practices and advanced technologies”. Sachs’ assessment was off mark. This much is known. In five decades, statist Nigeria missed out on the best practices of good governance and technological advancement. Nigeria also missed the opportunity to lead the power grouping that Prof. Bolaji Akinyemi named the Concert of Medium Powers. Despite her rebased economy, Nigeria also missed out on the BRICS economic grouping, settling for the third-rate MINT grouping. Her non-qualification for and non-inclusion in the earlier groupings was not incidental, but self-inflicted. One may ask why such a fate? Like the question, the reasons are seemingly oblique, yet stark.

    There is merit in worrying about Nigeria. Hitherto and now, assessments of Nigeria using acceptable global development parameters have been negative. Presently Nigeria ranks 152 of 188 in the 2016 Human Development Index (HDI); 136 out of 175 in the 2016 Corruption Perception Index (CPI) and the 13th most unstable country in the world out of 178 countries on the 2017 Fragile States Index (FSI). These triple-negative indices, coupled with a double-negative challenge of corruption and double-dip recession are worrisome. Moreover, weak cohesion and poor governance, two variables known to accentuate state vulnerability and collapse, are prevalent in Nigeria. Contextually, whatever challenge Nigeria faces has cascading risk and negative spill-over effect.

    As Nigeria struggles to situate herself positively in global affairs, dissonance in her governance modalities remains high. Such dissonance which is symptomatic of her extremely weak institutions, poses grave danger to her national interest; a subject political leaders are averse to discussing publicly. Yet what is most worrisome is the tendency by Nigeria’s leadership to mistake noisome pestilence for governance. Indeed, governance in Nigeria reflects high artificiality, since political leaders now over-engineer governance by misconstruing hype, rhetoric, and incessant motion for good governance. Nigeria’s political leaders also gloss over prevailing drivers of fragility: social exclusion, resource disparity and the negative impact of politicizing national issues.

    While Nigerians retain hope for concrete change, development and advancement, Nigeria struggles at all levels with governance challenges. Change remains elusive, which explains the Christian Association of Nigeria (CAN) recent call on the federal government to stop making excuses and tackle head on, challenges confronting the nation. CAN also asked the federal government to focus more on governance – an obvious upbraid of its anti-corruption fixations.

    As various national issues fester – herdsmen violence, absence of an operational 2017 budget, non-submission of budgets by 38 MDAs, broad violations of the Fiscal Responsibility Act, non-adherence to the Fiscal Strategy Paper (FSP) and the Medium Term Expenditure Framework (MTEF), the national debt rising to 23% of GDP, Biafra recidivism, militancy, coupled with a very sick president and related coup talks, it’s now common for Nigerian policymakers to resort to obfuscating buzz words to convey a sense of good governance. Nigerians are hungry and dying. In a nation buffeted by recession, loss of purchasing power and high unemployment, the use of soundbites to convey good governance, without correlating evidence of concrete and implementable programmes, amounts to noisome talk. Relatedly, rule of law is increasingly being flouted, ignored or manipulated, and often made inapplicable to common interest. Besides the diminution of ordered liberties and extant statutes, precepts are being insinuated into the realm of governance as substitutes for law and order, due process and due diligence. These developments plus disrespect for judicial orders and separation of powers highlight the scope of the rut in the governance circles.

    Traditional benchmarks for good governance are well known. But acknowledging and espousing these benchmarks hardly guarantee their deliverables. Beyond polemics, good governance is about accountability, inclusivity, rule of law, transparency, responsiveness, consensus-building, equity, effectiveness and efficiency in service delivery and above all, sustainable strategic vision. Good governance also demands frugality, operating within available resources, plus prioritization and equitable distribution of resources.

    The down side of the prevailing dissonance in governance is that the much touted progress is marked by retrogressive indices and persistence of extreme poverty in Nigeria. A recent study shows that “Despite its vast oil riches and impressive economic growth, Nigeria has struggled to lift its people out of poverty over the past three decades.” As a recent 2017 World Bank report revealed, “35 million more Nigerians were living in extreme poverty in 2013 than in 1990.” Nigeria also reportedly lost a whopping $200bn over five years from the non-implementation of the Petroleum Industry Bill (PIB). Power supply remains epileptic nationally, despite Nigeria having spent over N5 trillion ($36 billion) since 1999 on the power sector. Expert opinion indicates that Nigeria can only enjoy 4600 megawatts of power, despite the capacity to produce 12,000 megawatts, due to infrastructural deficit and paucity of funding. Meanwhile, DISCOs are owed N600bn in unpaid power supply, and the federal government’s promise to infuse N701bn into the power sector has failed to materialize. These are revolting facts. That Nigeria is not seriously looking at alternative energy is in itself a gross policy failure. An attentive leadership should have long declared a state of emergency in the power sector. Relatedly, by now, it should be obvious to Nigerian leaders that the nation can’t tackle national infrastructure development challenges including housing deficits, without clear city rankings based on demographics, physical disposition and an analysis of the capacity of existing and envisaged infrastructure to cope with social demands.

    Dissonance has also intruded into routine constitutional dictates, including statutory appointments. It is most confounding that some policymakers even attempted to tweak the statutorily role and the delegated authority that devolves on the Vice-President in the absence of the incumbent president. Similarly, but unnecessarily, the debate of the pertinence and superiority of the Constitution, notably Section 171, has become rife, more so, where extant statutes like the Pension Reform Act 2014 (PRA) and the EFCC Act stand violated. Lost in the ensuing debate, is the fact that the extant checks and balances as crafted, were meant to foreclose on undue interference from the executive branch, as all statutory appointments are tenured and therefore protected until they lapse. One may ask then why political leaders in Nigeria keep repeating earlier distractive mistakes.

    The most troubling dissonance in Nigeria’s governance is the dichotomy between Nigeria’s ruling elite and her working class. Pretend as Nigeria’s political elite may, there is a badly broken relationship between Nigeria’s elite and the nation’s working class, including civil servants and unemployed youths. This chasm is reflected in the continued resistance by public and private sector employers to implement an agreed minimum wage across board. Growing bold civilian protestations against electric power distribution companies and looming strikes by the NLC and its affiliates underscore existing fault lines. Irrefutably, a great void exists where Nigeria’s middle class ought to be; and there is no assured formal migration from lower class to upper class Nigeria. Incidentally, Nigeria’s leadership elite, which is a minority, in mapping Nigeria’s governance challenges including poverty, consistently think of their needs first, then that of Nigerian working class, which represents the majority.

    In two years, Nigeria made some progress in security and fighting corruption, but not much in good governance and development; after all, national development endeavours amount to naught, absent accelerative thrust. Indeed, change, progress and development have been halting. The promised change has not materialized and the political leadership rather than focusing on governance are politicking for 2019. Since good governance is about public institutions managing public resources efficiently via good decision-making, the present state of the nation calls for a deeper evaluation. Moving Nigeria forward requires civility, inclusivity, transparency and honesty in governance. Doing so requires confidence without attitude — attitude towards the governed or attitude towards the opposition. Whilst anarchy or implosion is rarely contemplated in a democracy, they remain remote possibilities in any polarized nation. Also in a nation without differentiating political ideologies, anything is possible. Ditto any nation where noisome pestilence has replaced good governance. For these reasons we must refocus on good governance.

     

    • Obaze, MD/CEO, Selonnes Consult Ltd. writes from Awka, Anambra State.

  • Kaduna and El-Rufai’s triple antecedents

    When Malam Nasir El-Rufa’i became the Governor of Kaduna State in April 2015, there were mixed feelings in expectation of what will become of his tenure:  Will it be dogged by controversies as his media image portended; or will the man rise above his political tenderfoot and deploy his technocratic and results-focused antecedents from  PIMCO, BPE and FCT Abuja?

    Even he would admit that, as far as the politics of the Northern establishment goes, he was a green-horn on the turf of what remains of the once regional political powerbase of Northern Nigeria.The turf once dominated by a colossus politician, Sir Ahmadu Bello, the Sardauna of Sokoto. How would the self-styled “accidental public servant” fare in comparison to politicians of the late Sardauna’s ilk at the helm of affairs of a state that has, of recent, acquired ill fame for religious-cum-ethnic conflagration?

    Two years down the line, it is now clearer what the tenure of El-Rufa’i would bequeath to the people of Kaduna State.  Well, that he wrested power from an incumbent administration signaled readiness for the challenge, although it must be conceded that he leveraged on the Buhari domino effect.

    Kaduna has since sprung to national attention, evidence that El-Rufa’i has pulled the state from the brink of socio-political oblivion. From the results that are beginning to emerge, he has brought the competence of a thorough-bred technocrat to the business of governing Kaduna State.

    In El-Rufa’i, all the three shades of experiences from private business, activism and public service are interwoven into complex mosaic of reform-laden art of governance. What could have demonstrated his businessman approach than his jettisoning of sentiments, when he decided to shut down Kaduna State Board of Internal Revenue; redeployed all the staff and start a new IT-compliant institution from scratch—the Kaduna Internal Revenue Service (KIRS)? The result was fantastic as the governor acknowledged in a recent interview: “Within a year we saw a jump in our revenues by more than 60 percent without any new tax being introduced. We just blocked leakages… no cash collections; only one agency collecting taxes; new people with a new attitude’’.

    He applied the same tactics when he, in an unprecedented move, abolished the ministry of land and supplanted it with Kaduna Geographic Information Service, which is now the custodian of the records of all lands in the state.

    If you want to see his civil society instincts at work, look no further than his appreciation and adoption of the Millennium Village project, which his current Commissioner of Rural and Community Development was implementing independent of the state government at a time. He told the story of how she was brought on board: “I did not know the Commissioner for Rural Development until after the election. We went to a project they were handling for the millennium project and met her and a colleague of hers. They made a presentation to us on what they were doing. The deputy governor and I immediately said we will hire these people if they will come and work for us”.

    The Millennium Village concept is a rural community empowerment project started in Pampaida, a rural community in Kaduna under the guidance of UNDP with the aim of achieving the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). Today every village selected for the project is given five basic amenities that will enable them to become fully empowered to realise their full potential. The El-Rufa’i government has infused into the project components to improve education, healthcare, rural roads and the farming activities.

    El-Rufa’i’s approach to governance exemplifies the belief that the best preparation for tomorrow is by doing your best today. He is ever conscious of his place in history. He knew Kaduna has lost leadership of Northern Nigeria. He knew Kaduna, the capital, was a divided city with concentration of Muslims on the northern side of River Kaduna and the Christians on the southern side. He wants to change this situation. To assume its leadership status in Northern Nigeria, Kaduna needs to project itself as model state worthy of emulation in all ramifications—statecraft, defence of our shared values and regional interests, building a common regional agenda within a united Nigeria, etc. His starting point and indeed supreme test will be his ability to integrate the city of Kaduna to restore its cosmopolitan nature.

    Without appreciating the finer nuances of El-Rufa’i one is bound to miss the substance of his approach to governance. When he broke the tradition of appointing one commissioner from every local government of the state —23 in total—has that negatively affected the smooth running of the government? In contrast that has only saved the government unnecessary overhead costs and freed much needed funds for development work.

    When he applied what may amount to shock therapy to the Board of Internal Revenue and Ministry of Lands, he was convinced that any attempt at reforming the rot in the system will only lead to dismal change. But uprooting the problem tree and supplanting it with a fresh one will do the magic. And it actually did.

    Because a sense of history is ingrained in his sub-consciousness, he always goes for what is best for Kaduna. Therefore, he always looks for the best practice and the best people or consultants in whatever endeavour he is pursuing. He went out of his way to hire General Electric (GE) to equip 255 primary health centres (PHCs). He hired Bain & Co. to train the state’s finance officers in the best practice in public finance and budgeting. The former head of Federal Inland Revenue Services (FIRS), Ifueko Omoigui, was contracted to help in setting up the state Inland Revenue Service. She is one of the best consultants in the field. He doesn’t shy from seeking support wherever he can find one—IMF, DFID, EU, etc, have all found in Kaduna under El-Rufai a willing partner who understands their language.

    So when the state achieved the feat of accomplishing the introduction of a Treasury Single Account (TSA) in six weeks, IMF recognised that as a world record and made Kaduna a case study. The impact of the TSA was immediate. When the state closed its 470 different accounts in the process of creating one treasury single account, it discovered N25.5 billion that it did not know it had.

    On attracting investment to the state, El-Rufa’i’s solution was to hold an international investment summit to showcase the state’s potentials. He followed that up with a one-stop shop for investors—the Kaduna Investment Promotion Agency (KADIPA). The whole idea of KADIPA is to be the surrogate for investors as far as interfacing with the government is concerned. Once investors make a convincing presentation, list what they want from the government, from land to building plan approvals, KADIPA is supposed to take that up with the relevant government agency and get it for them. Ease of making business in Kaduna for investor is the ultimate aim here. And so far many investors have expressed interest others have even opened shop—Notore, Google, Vlisco, Coscharis, etc.

    It was the American businessman, Paul J. Meyer, who said productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a commitment to excellence, intelligent planning and focused efforts. Two years into the El-Rufa’í administration, the results we are seeing are re-assuring. It means that the goals set in the state blueprint are achievable with commensurate results.

  • Ibadan chieftaincy and imperatives of change

    Change, as the only constant in life, has become a universal aphorism. Nonetheless, humans are evolutionarily predisposed to resist change because of the inherent uncertainties. Organizations and people that don’t embrace change are bound to lose ground and stagnate. In the words of a late British Prime Minister, Harold Wilson, ‘He who rejects change is the architect of decay. The only human institution which rejects progress is the cemetery.’

    The hoopla that greeted the move by the Oyo State governor, Senator Abiola Ajimobi, to carry out a wholesale review of the existing Olubadan Chieftaincy Declaration and other related chieftaincies in Ibadanland because of its touted uniqueness, is nothing short of clinging to primordial sentiments. Nothing captures the hasty criticism from familiar quarters better than the words of John F. Kennedy, who once said that ‘Change is the law of life. And those who look only to the past or present are certain to miss the future.’

    The governor had on Friday, May 19, constituted a seven-member judicial commission of inquiry headed by a retired High Court judge, Justice Akintunde Boade, to review the 1957 Declaration of Olubadan on Ibadanland, which, he said, was no longer in tune with the current realities and modern trend in Yorubaland.

    The commission was saddled with the responsibility of reviewing the existing requirements and qualification for ascendancy to the throne of Olubadan, as well as to review the selection process from the two qualifying lines of Otun and Balogun.

    It was also mandated to look into the possibilities of having more beaded crown Obas in Ibadanland, taking into consideration the present size and population of the city.

    Ajimobi had made it clear that the review was long overdue. The governor said the primary purpose of the review was to facilitate the development, modernisation and effectiveness of the traditional chieftaincy system in the ancient city in particular and across the state in general.

    To disabuse the minds of cynics, he stressed that similar exercises were in the offing across the state, in order to create an enabling environment for active contributions of the traditional institution to the socio-economic development of the state.

    The move by the governor had attracted criticisms. A former governor of the state, Senator Rashidi Ladoja, was the first to raise dust. He was soon to be joined by others.

    Ladoja, the Osi Olubadan of Ibadanland and chieftain of the Accord Party, anchored his vituperation on the same old belief that the tradition of selecting the Olubadan had become long-established and rancour-free and should not be tinkered with.

    To Ladoja, who contested the governorship elections with Ajimobi in 2011 and 2015 and lost, the governor had left ‘other important issues’ unattended to, only to be focusing on the Ibadan chieftaincy.

    Section 26(1), (2), (3), (4) and (5) Cap. 28, Vol. 1, Laws of Oyo State of Nigeria empowers the governor to approve or review Chieftaincy Declaration of any chieftaincy in the state. To this extent, Ajimobi has not gone outside his mandate as far as the proposed review is concerned. With its vast population and cosmopolitan status, I dare to say that Ajimobi’s Ibadan, nay Oyo State, will not cling to antiquated customs no matter whose ox may be gored.

    The germane questions are: Shouldn’t a declaration made exactly 60 years ago be modified, especially if the need arises? Was the declaration not made by a particular government in 1957? Does the fact that no government had attempted to carry out the review mean that it should be left perpetually unattended to? Shouldn’t there be room for dynamism? Is the law so sacred to the extent that no reasonable mortal must dare touch it? Was the Ibadan of 1957 when the declaration was made still the same as we have today? Shouldn’t the status quo, therefore, be challenged to accommodate the changing face of the ancient city?

    It is sheer bunkum to whip up salary arrears sentiment to attempt to blackmail the governor into a state of helplessness over the governance of the state. It beggars belief that supposedly informed people will join the chorus of those suggesting that the governor should abdicate other responsibilities on the account of the four-month salaries arrears. With the ongoing spirited efforts by the governor, the state’s workforce will soon begin to sing a new song to the shame of the traducers of the Ajimobi-led administration.

    It may interest such people to know that Ajimobi is not a lone voice in his call for a review of the Olubadan chieftaincy. Those that have openly expressed similar views were a former governor of Oyo State, Dr. Omololu Olunloyo; renowned historian, Prof. Bolanle Awe; and a former Editor of Daily Times, Chief Areoye Oyebola. They bared their minds at a symposium organised by the state government as part of the activities for the funeral of the late Olubadan of Ibadanland, Oba Samuel Odulana Odugade I, held at the University of Ibadan on February 9, 2016.

    These eminent personalities and illustrious indigenes of Ibadan were unanimous in their opinion that the Ibadan chieftaincy declaration needed urgent review ‘to encourage younger, educated and influential men’ to ascend the exalted Olubadan stool.

    In a position paper on the theme of the event, “Issues in Ibadan Traditional Chieftaincy System,” Oyebola noted that the Olubadan chieftaincy system was fraught with complexities. This, he said, had made it impossible for any Olubadan to reign for long. He said it was not in the best interest of modern Ibadan city for a prospective Olubadan to wait for more than 35 years after becoming a Mogaji before becoming an Olubadan; since they must cross 22 or 23 promotional hurdles.

    Contributing to the discourse, Olunloyo said that the Olubadan chieftaincy tradition, Chiefs Law and Subsidiary Laws were replete with contradictions and obstacles that needed urgent review in order to make ascendancy to the Olubadan throne problem-free. Dismissing the age-old mantra about the Olubadan chieftaincy promotion, he said that the process was not without rancour as widely believed. The erudite scholar cited examples of the contention by the Seriki family and Iyalode chieftaincy lines to be accorded due recognition as examples of unresolved issues in the chieftaincy.

    Olunloyo said: “There are six obstacles in the way of an Olubadan. Some of these obstacles are in the Chiefs Laws and some are in the Subsidiary Law. The system is semi-promotional. There was this Akinyo crisis when the late Oba Akinyele wanted to become Olubadan. In fact, what the law even says is that the Olubadan-in-council can choose from the four most senior chiefs in any line to become the next Kabiyesi, not necessarily the most senior. Something must be done to reduce the lines and the rung of the ladder. We also need to remove all obstacles in the Chiefs Law.”

    Corroborating this stance, Awe said that in spite of its touted uniqueness, the Olubadan traditional chieftaincy needed to be rejigged to encourage younger men to become Olubadan. What more can one say?

    It is on record that the late Oba Odugade waited for 42 years after becoming Mogaji before he was installed as the Olubadan at the age of 93. The reigning Olubadan, Oba Saliu Adetunji, mounted the throne at the age of 87 after staying on the queue for 40 years, just to cite the most recent examples.

    The need for more beaded crown-wearing obas aside the Olubadan, is also hinged on the need for the paramount ruler to be assisted in the traditional administration of the city. This will further strengthen the position of the Olubadan as the paramount ruler and imperial majesty in Ibadanland as applicable in Ogun, Osun and Ekiti states.

    Rather than crucifying Ajimobi for taking this bold step, he should be commended and encouraged to extend the exercise to other towns and cities in the state whose chieftaincy laws need similar review. And for genuine and constructive critics, they will have the opportunity of making their submissions in written form before the judicial commission of inquiry when it begins public hearing. For now, let the naysayers sheathe their swords.

     

    • Sadeeq is Senior Special Assistant on Media (Print) to the Governor of Oyo State.

  • Buhari @ two: Past is present

    “To be educated is, after all, to develop the questioning habit, to be sceptical of easy promises and to use past experience creatively” – Chinua Achebe

    Two years into the four-year mandate of the Muhammadu Buhari administration, the human condition in Nigeria is still very much the same. The government has made a good show of scratching the surface of things. Its snail speed, which is not even the problem, has not yielded the filling fruits of change that it bells out with deafening clangour. Let us not pretend about it, the two years of the Buhari administration have only secured train tickets for Nigerians for a journey to a land called change. The train has refused to show up; hence the passengers in their numbers have remained stranded at the train station of increased unemployment, insufferable economic hardships, and avoidable and mind-numbing killings.

    The rains of wanton disregard for the rule of law, deliberate lack of accountability, proud disinterest in speaking to the people, unhelpful rebuttals, and arrogant demonstration of paternalism have all wetted the Nigerian passengers at that humiliating station in those spectacularly uneasy years. Even when there exist some baskets of achievements here and there in those two giddy years, the dominant narrative is still that the Nigeria of today is not markedly different from the ones preceding the second coming of President Buhari.

    This is the very matter I wish to address in this piece. In claiming, as the title of this piece announces, that for Nigeria the past is still the present, I do not wish to be understood as looking in the direction of that disappointing behemoth called government. It will not be Nigerian government if its actions and policies significantly improve the quality of life of the people. The past remains the present in Nigeria because a considerable number of Nigerians are comfortably docile, joyously uncritical, and are outlandishly satisfied with easy, simple answers. Democracy in Nigeria is weak and malnourished because many Nigerians do not tend to it. Governance in Nigeria is distressing and killing because oodles of the people do not contribute to it. Elected and appointed public officials in Nigeria live above the dictates of the grundnorm because a large number of Nigerians either kick feebly in response, are totally indifferent, or too often work the accordions of approbation. The history of poor, enslaving, punishing governance in Nigeria remains the reality of the present because speaking up and asking the hard questions are an anathema to multitudes of Nigerians.

    To be more specific, the Buhari administration was swept into office by a huge tidal wave of uncritical and saccharine approval. Few Nigerians lobbed the stones of germane and uneasy questions, but a disproportionate majority fenced them off, frenetically declaiming that a Daniel had come to hand down the condign judgement to the knaves diluting the broth of justice and good governance in Nigeria. They stubbornly refused that the Daniel be asked a few questions on how he intended to achieve his lofty vision of change.

    My take is that had candidate Buhari been subjected thoroughly to a blaze of the right questions, had he been taken through the fiery furnace of scrutiny, we would have known the depth of his vision, the practicability of his ideas, his readiness for the job and, more importantly, the core weaknesses of his thoughts and capability. That knowledge, I insist, would have empowered Nigerians to help his administration in its undertakings. No, it does not mean that if we had done that, a vastly better Nigeria would have emerged by now. The fact is that we would likely not have travelled some of the disconcerting roads of the last two years. Candidate Buhari became President Buhari without his feet sustained in the fire of critical engagements in all relevant ramifications. The fault, therefore, is not entirely in the punishing myopia and alarming contradictions of the Buhari administration. It is in many Nigerians who have erroneously understood their duty as “citizens” to be praise singing, fawning, and genuflection rather than an engaging role of questioning, keeping watchful eyes on the government, and doing much more than taking its words and promises at their face value.

    The administration has been so indulged, cossetted, and lovingly over-accommodated that it has become abysmally emboldened to insult decent minds with a scorecard positively portraying the administration’s Lilliputian achievements in exaggerated tone in wanton denial of what actual reality serves. Whether it is the repudiation of the logic of pluralism as evident in the nature of the president’s kitchen cabinet, the uncoordinated anti-corruption waltzing, the flagrant disobedience of court injunctions, the unworkable economic policies (when it manages to put up something like policy), or, among many more, the kindergarten handling of the President’s unfortunate duel with what ails him, a number of Nigerians are convinced the Buhari administration is infallible and changing the country as promised. They do not see that their blind, uncritical support for the administration hurts it more than it helps it. They do not understand that the great and mighty works they wish to really happen in the lifetime of this administration are not happening because, like the administration, they spare no moments to reflect and examine the methods and manner of the administration.

    Democracy and good governance continue to elude Nigeria not only because those who call the shots are phoney, struggling democrats and are not (wo)men of ideas and visions, but it is also because a great number of Nigerians lack basic knowledge of civics and do not understand that citizens’ roles in a democracy are not to praise government, go to sleep and expect that while they sleep the government will not sow tares among the wheat. Every Democracy Day since 1999 has become to Nigerians the paradox of a past being the present. Things change in far little ways and worsen in ocean measures because too many Nigerians do not understand their roles. In other words, you cannot correctly blame blind leadership as the bane of good governance in Nigeria without identifying blind, worshipful following as strongly instrumental.

    If democracy in Nigeria is to mean more than having elections and peaceful transition of power from one underachieving civilian head to another with a truckload of promises, if good governance is truly to endure and be enjoyed, Nigerians in their substantial number must begin to speak up, ask the hard questions, demand accountability, pamper no government, and be alive to their other duties as citizens. Uncritical citizens do not make a good country. Citizens without the questioning habit ruin a country quicker than they are able to contribute to its progress.

    But for their massive critical citizens, countries who are today reference points in the practice of democracy and increasing realisation of good governance would have treated the world to different discomforting narratives. Nigeria’s story cannot be different; if this country is to change to a land of prosperity, rule of law, good governance, justice, and equality, many Nigerians must put off their slavish caps and don the one that allows them to think, question, and reject tokenism and ensnaring propaganda. More than ever before, this is needed now if the Buhari administration is to be remembered for good.

     

    • Ademola is a public affairs analyst based in Bodija, Ibadan, Oyo State.

  • Honouring Ekere at 52

    There is a fine line between eccentrics of genius. If you are a little ahead of your time, you’re an eccentric, and if you’re too late, you’re a failure, but if you hit it right on the head, you’re a genius.”

    Half a century ago, when Thomas Watson Jnr, the second president of International Business Machine (IBM) made this golden and remarkable utterance, not quite a few in his generation knew he was making a prophetic statement that will outlive him and generations yet unborn.  Today the insightful and prophetic reflection on Watson Jnr, has not only reverberated globally, it has found a perfect rooted expression and deep meaning in the development of the helmsman of Niger Delta Development Commission (NDDC), Nsima Udo Ekere, a former deputy governor of Akwa Abasi Ibom State.

    Since he assumed office as the Managing Director of the interventionist agency for oil producing states on November 4, 2016, he has been innovative, methodical, logical and strategic in his approach to issues and policies to ensure infrastructural and sustainable development in the Niger Delta region and by extension, Nigeria.

    First, before his resumption, he prepared for the task of developing Niger Delta having used four months preceding his inauguration to analyse the challenges and issues affecting the agency and enunciated the 4-Rs strategy, to restore the commissions core mandate, restructure the balance sheet, reform the governance systems and to reaffirm a commitment to what is right and proper at all times.

    Innovation is all about doing the usual things in unusual ways or doing unusual things in usual ways and the bottom line therefore is positive change which is what is innovation is all about. The interventionist agency has experienced innovation in all ramifications and part of the reforms involves introduction of technology aimed at enhancing service delivery system in the commission and enshrining best international standards and practices.

    For the corrupt and those with itchy hands for enriching themselves with public funds, it is no longer business as usual.  Obong Nsima Ekere has set up a committee shouldered with the responsibility to conduct investigative hearing on allegations of corruption in some members of staff.  On this, he sought to promote transparency and probity in the commission, ensure significant reductions in leakages of public funds and improved efficiency in public expenditure.

    The speed with attendant impact which Ekere is transforming the region is amazing. According to Honourable Akanimo Edet, “Men and women,  children and the aged alike, communities and towns, kings and ordinary people stand in astonishment as the innovations that he bring every minute, every day in just six months give us satisfaction. I believe you because I know your history and your antecedents,” he said.

    Again, looking at Nsima Ekere’s intellectual and administrative capabilities, the people of Niger Delta can faithfully testify that together the collective rescue mission he promised at his onset in office has crystallized.  Indeed, as a result of his ingenuity and critical thinking, people can attest to how he has rescued Niger Deltans from the years of locusts and returned it to the path of respectability, stability and infrastructural development. Nigerians can affirm that he had kept faith with the Roadmap to recovery agenda.  Every stratum of Niger Delta can see the footprints on those key sectors he promised to touch and administrators should tap into his intellectual armoury.

    Emerging from the backwater of Edemaya clan in Ikot Abasi Local Government Area, where he was born on May 29, 1965 in Udo Ekere compound in Ikot Oboroenyin with no inkling that the place would be the curdle of an MD, NDDC in the making, boy Nsima went to Regina Coeli College, Essene and Mary Knoll College, Ogoja, Cross River State and got his school certificate.

    He continued his education at The Polytechnic Calabar in 1981 – 1982. Not contented with that level of education, he went to University of Nigeria Nssuka, where he graduated with

    1. Sc. Honours Degree in Estate Management in 1986. A fellow, Estate Surveyors and Valuers of Nigeria, Certified Valuer, International Real Estate Institute, Minnesota, USA and Institute of Revenue Rating and Valuation, London.

    His distinguished career took him to the exalted office of AKIIPOC, the investment and industrial promotion arm of Akwa Ibom State government as executive chairman, chairman of Ibom Power Company (IPC) and also represented the government’s interest on the board of many companies including Voice of Nigeria (VON). Prior to joining public sector, Ekere was the Principal Partner of Ekere and Associates, an estate valuers and real estate development consultants amongst other reputable organisations.

    Later Nsima Ekere turned to politics and, thoroughly furnished with experience from his brilliant career in the private sector, he clinched the Akwa Ibom State House of Assembly election where according to a writer “he bestrode the political terrain like a colossus, making his impact felt in all facets of socio-economic development.”

    He then moved on to politics at the higher state level to contest the gubernatorial primaries in December 2006 where Chief Godswill Obot Akpabio won and named him his running mate. However, in order to heal the acrimony, poor and jaundiced understanding of the circumstances that followed that primaries, Nsima stepped down in a striking mark of humility. No other politician had before then performed the feat in Nigerian history. Great people like great music, have the ability to uplift and inspire even in the darkest moments of our lives.

    But a holistic and dispassionate study of the man would reveal that he is a cosmopolitan man with a vast experience in dealing with problems and different types of personalities and their temperaments. His views are moderated by discretion, good judgment and reason. For him, committed politician is irrelevant if it does not help provide the road map that can enable people undertake various empowerment projects capable of giving them control over their own destinies and lives. This has caused him to strike a rare bond of relationship almost second to none with the people of Niger Delta.

    Nsima, his friends and associates equally have every reason to roll out the tambourines on his birthday, because of his indisputable and democratic principles. He demonstrates greatness when he makes himself accessible to the less privileged because “the glory of a king is the welfare of his people.” So you are identified as a result of your worthy and abiding contributions to the welfare and happiness of your fellow human beings and development of your fatherland.

    A novel idea from Nsima has been his interventions in the social life of his people even before he became an MD, NDDC such as provision of potable water and regular grading of local access roads in his community.  His scholarship scheme is now in its 16th year with more than 300 beneficiaries which covers secondary, post-secondary and post-graduate studies. It is a stroke of genius that critics and the media haven’t accorded its true status as worthy of emulation nationwide!  He radiates humility, dignity and nobility. He is a real man of honour, pedigree and brilliance, strong and solid man of character, a Christian and also example of the believer.

    As we salute Obong Nsima Ekere at 52, a journey with destiny and recollect some of his interventionist achievements in the social life of his people, we urge him to abide by the credo that has always guided him: first put the interest of the people ahead, secondly put the interest of the people ahead again and thirdly and finally, put the interest of the people ahead!

    Happy Birthday Obong Nsima Udo Ekere!

     

    • Udiong wrote in from Uyo, Akwa Ibom State.

  • Igbo nation and agitations for Biafra

    According to the former head of state of the defunct Biafra, Emeka Odimegwu Ojukwu, in his short treatise, “Why I Am Involved”, Biafra was a line of safety drawn, so that any Igbo who crossed into it could be safe from the punitive reprisals against them, in the immediate aftermath of the then, 1966 military coup, claimed to be master-minded by officers and soldiers of Igbo extraction in the Nigerian military. He further argued that Biafra was created as a last sanctuary and refuge for a people threatened with extermination and targeted for ethnic cleansing from the then Nigeria’s ethno-political configuration.

    In other words, according to the late leader of the defunct Biafra, it was imposed on the Igbo nation as a last resort for survival following the collapse of the last lap of efforts at Aburi in Ghana then, to work out a loose framework of co-habitation, pending restoration of confidence in future. The proclamation of Biafra then, therefore, was an act of resistance rather than rebellion.

    Given the short historical synopsis of Biafra as the then, a categorical desiderata for the existence and survival of the Igbo nation, how does the contemporary agitation for Biafra by the Indigenous Peoples of Biafra (IPOB), Movement for the Actualization of the Sovereign State of Biafra (MASSOB), Biafra Zionist Movement (BZM) and others, approximate to the existential need of Ndigbo in the present context of broad marginalization of all working people, including peasants, artisans, professionals, women and children of all ethnic nationalities and social categories in Nigeria; aligned with the core issues around, the declaration of the defunct republic?

    Biafra was not a political wild cart, played by dreamers of new empire or political manipulators seeking space in a dysfunctional Nigerian politics, but an existential necessity, forced on the natural instinct and impulse of a people to survive in the face of a mortal danger. The profound historical import and lessons of the defunct republic, most graphically illustrated in the Igbo adage of “ozo emezi-kwana” must not be lost to the contemporary purveyors of the restoration of Biafra: The Igbo nation did not ask for the sufferings, the human and material losses that accompanied the struggle for Biafra and is now, in no absolute mood to re-enact the tragedy of the defunct Biafra which then, had no other viable option or choice.

    The contemporary decomposition and destruction of the Nigeria’s state, fuels all kinds of political imaginations, including separation and secessions but the alluring political semantics of separation or secession is only the first step in the overall illusions in seeking the construction of modern state, without the benefit of examining all of its several dimensions.

    Among thousands of Mediterrean Sea migrants today, are large number of Eritreans, who fought long war to separate from Ethiopian in 1991. Landlocked and reclusive, Eritrea’s former freedom fighters are voting with their feet in the long and perilous journey to Europe for an Eldorado that exist in their imaginations.

    Even at that, Eritrea has more cogent reasons to seek separation from Ethiopia but the leadership is learning the hard way, that the easy rhetoric of separation and freedom, are not the same thing with the practical challenge of building a modern state with all the factors of internal contradictions and fast changing global geo-political and economic landscape.

    Given the sophisticated ideological insight and liberation trajectories of the Eritrean leadership in the struggle for a separate state from Ethiopia, the current purveyors of Biafra are jokers, yet Eritrea is far from a successful experiment.

    South Sudan, Africa’s newest and its 54th State is a continuing decisive debacle, having fallen into the abyss of murderous clannish discontents, barely a year, after gaining the long sought-for statehood from the former Sudan. Now, a repulsive killing field, more of South Sudanese have violently died or displaced than in the whole period of South Sudan’s struggle to separate from Sudan, which spanned more than 50 years of on and off wars. While the country is laid to waste by the horrendous sufferings of its people, its former freedom fighters and now its political elite elevate corruption and predatory politics to new and higher frontier. Even by the sheer longevity, sacrifice and consistency of their struggle, the freedom fighters of the South Sudan are head and toe, above the upstarts of the contemporary Biafra agitators but the mess they have made of their new country cannot be undone in several generations.

    The Igbo nation is therefore, invited to closely interrogate their new “freedom fighters” on the motives, strategies and inquire even more rigorously their vision of what the new Biafra will look like. And because, I am nwa-afo of the Igbo nation, I am concerned about these questions.

    The Nigerian state and most other Africa’s states have been largely and incrementally dysfunctional, fostering bitter popular alienation of the majority of their peoples. The gradual degeneration of the formal state as the frontier of rogue public office holders, sap the modest popular legitimacy that the state enjoyed, in the aftermath of the collapse of colonialism. The deficit of historical context of modern state in Nigeria and Africa, as compounded by free-wheeling post-colonial elite, who relapsed to the comfort zone, as political gladiators without the rigour to undertake the intellectual and political interrogation or question the then, new and strange edifice, they have just inherited.

    Situating the then, new and emergent state in the context of Nigeria’s existential socio-political realities would have altered its subsequent trajectories, and even critically align it with the indigenous and our unique landscape.

    The fact of Nigeria today, is that, it is in desperate need of transformation of its core idea of statehood and the mechanisms it deploys for its practical expression. The popular maxims of key Nigerian political gladiators to re-structure the country to its immediate post-independence framework, do not actually take into account, of the several tectonic shifts and changes both in Nigeria and the world that have taken place and still taking place today.

    The prosperity and better life that the ordinary Nigerian working people seek and aspire to, cannot be guaranteed in the puritan ethnic state or quasi geo-political  enclave that is variously on offer, in the current political discourse. The most serious contradiction is the growing needs of the people for a prosperous life and the declining resources to meet the need and even the primitive method to create and increase the resources.

    The modern agitations for Biafra may be a well-oiled campaign to ingratiate a section of the parasitic elite to the mainstream of Nigeria’s decadent politics, for the political crumbs of more states or local governments in the South-east, which would in the main, create more few fat cats in the region as it did in others, but would not ameliorate the dire socio-economic conditions of the majority of Ndigbo which they share in elaborate dosage with other Nigeria’s ethno-political and social categories.

     

    • Onunaiju, public commentator writes from Utako, Abuja.
  • APC’s harvest in Enugu

    APC’s harvest in Enugu

    In the past few months, the All Progressive Congress (APC) has made bountiful harvests in the South-east, especially in Enugu State. The Enugu scenario is particularly interesting because the state is considered politically conservative if we accept the dichotomy hoisted by dominant public commentators. In this dispensation, the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) is viewed as the conservative party, while the APC wears the toga of progressive. But unlike in the USA, which we ape, there is fluidity here, and no endearing philosophical differences between the two dominant parties.

    But regardless, there is cause to recognise the strengthening of an alternative party in the state. To appreciate the development, let me do a recap of the Enugu State political odyssey in this democratic dispensation. Since 1999, the ‘Ebeano faction’ of PDP, had maintained a stranglehold on the state, with its grave political consequences. Brooking no opposition save its practice of political patricide, the state had been ran on the whims and caprices of every reigning godfather, which usually is the governor of the state.

    Governor Chimaroke Nnamani (1999-2003), the progenitor of the faction reigned as king throughout his tenure. To achieve pre-eminence, he had to scare Chief Jim Ifeanyichukwu Nwobodo who was a civilian governor during the Second Republic and who is reputed to be the pre-eminent founding father of PDP in the state into semi self-exile. Chief Nwobodo, who installed Dr Nnamani as his preferred candidate went to the Senate where he ended up as a one-term senator.

    Blossoming as the indisputable godfather of the Ebeano faction after felling Nwobodo, Governor Nnamami enjoyed two terms allowed by the constitution and handed over to his chosen successor, Barrister Sullivan Chime. He also cornered the senatorial seat which he had chased Nwobodo away from, in 2003 by also chasing away Senator Ken Nnamani, in 2007. Senator Nnamani, in his one term tenure, rose to become Senate President. Soon after Governor Nnamani handed over to Chime, they fell out; and in the tradition of the faction, Governor Chime assumed the status of the reigning godfather with all the grave political consequences for the dethroned and decapitated godfather.

    Of course, Nnamani ended up a one term senator after he was deregistered from the PDP and rendered irrelevant. So, despite his brave efforts and very entertaining trail during the 2011 campaigns, in a new party, the PDP machine smouldered his effort and retired him. Bruised and battered, he still occasionally holds court for his band of fanatics in his expansive country home, in Nkanu. Governor Chime’s reign, which fought many battles to consolidate, somehow cornered most of the officials, installed by his predecessor, into a new faction, within the Ebeano faction.

    One of the prominent betrayers of Governor Nnamami, albeit in the same manner Governor Nnamani betrayed Nwobodo, is the current Deputy Senate President, Ike Ekweremadu. Ekweremadu appears to be the wiliest of the Ebeano eminent members. He has survived under three godfathers and unless the emergent APC opposition in the state gives him an uppercut at the next election, he may yet survive the present governor, who is a weakened godfather. Indeed, in 2015, Ekweremadu successfully dribbled Governor Chime with the help of Abuja to win his senatorial ticket even though he had sided Chime to see off Governor Nnamani.

    To show his wiliness, Ekweremadu compromised his faction’s gubernatorial candidate’s interest to allow the present Governor Ifeanyi Ugwuanyi become the party’s consensus candidate even though the candidates who won at the primaries conducted by his faction were considered as the authentic candidates. That compromise has substantially been upheld by the courts. Governor Chime, embarrassed by the deft hand dealt him by Ekweremadu, quickly gave up his senatorial ambition, and became a lame duck godfather; and was even threatened with impeachment towards the end of his reign.

    Now in the past few months, the APC has harvested a number of these political juggernauts from the PDP, starting with Senator Ken Nnamani, erstwhile Senate President. Ken, urbane, sophisticated and a moderate was even named the leader of the APC by the only APC governor in the South-east, Governor Rochas Okorocha of Imo State, upon his declaration for the party. While many party faithful in the region may willingly elect him leader because of his refined mien, he may however need to do more to live up to the new title and deliver the votes.

    Another major gain by the APC is Chief Jim Ifeanyichukwu Nwobodo, who until the adventure of Governor Nnamani, was arguably the most colourful politician in the South-east. Jim, the beloved political son of Dr Nnamdi Azikiwe, Owelle of Onitsha, brought panache to public office as the governor of old Anambra State from 1979 to 1983. Handsome, debonair and flamboyant, Jim was loved by old Anambrarians, especially the female folk, who thronged his campaigns and public performances, as it were. Jim used that old talisman, to install Governor Nnamani, at the onset of the present republic.

    But all that changed with the birth of the Ebeano faction, prodded on by former President Olusegun Obasanjo, who allegedly had a fiduciary-stone to grind with Jim. Declared a persona non grata by his godson, Governor Nnamani, and with his bank, Savannah Bank, invaded and seized by Obasanjo’s men at the Central Bank, Jim turned a political tenderfoot overnight; and despite strands of rehabilitation by latter day PDP, has not recovered his waned gravitas. But as an old soldier, he has joined APC, and is reaching out to his old contacts, for the forthcoming election in the new Anambra State.

    The latest major gain of APC, in Enugu State is former Governor Sullivan Chime, the immediate past godfather of a faction, within the Ebeano faction, of the PDP. Chime at his declaration for APC told the cheering crowd in his native Udi that PDP has since died, wondering why the morticians have not given it a decent burial. He promised to mobilize, to see off PDP from the Lion House, the seat of the governor of Enugu State. He went ahead to take over the party headquarters, in the GRA, owned by his family and donated during his regime to the PDP. He joined APC with his supporters, including the erstwhile chairman of Ezeagu Local Government, Barrister Joe Mmamel, who served as a commissioner during his reign.

    As a critic of the Ebeano style of politics, especially in this column, I hope that the new entrants will add value and not bring rancour to their new party. While I usually gave thumps up for the developmental efforts of Chime as governor, I was always critical of his Ebeano style of dominance. In conclusion, it can be argued that the three major actors have progressive credentials. Jim as governor was a star, Ken as Senate President distinguished himself. So, let’s toast these new entrants, to Enugu State APC.

  • Stand for this democracy

    If anyone wanted to gauge how much store Nigerians set by our nascent democracy – wonky as it gets, they had the answer: just let us be! Citizens would rather sail or sink with the emergent tides, and grow in the process, than have military interlopers return to hijack political power. In other words, while the present state of the Nigerian democracy is far from being the ideal, we would not trade an inch of it for even the most beneficent species of military rule. This is the clear message from diverse reactions to an alarm raised penultimate week that certain persons had been nudging the military to once again throw their hats in the ring of political governance in our country.

    No less a personality than Chief of Army Staff (COAS) Lieutenant-General Tukur Buratai had red-flagged the threat. He said certain individuals were approaching some officers and soldiers for “undisclosed political reasons” – a phrase that was an apparent sugar pill for invitation to military intervention. Warning persons involved to desist from their venture, the Army chief also advised his members to shun the overtures and steer clear of politics or, if strongly attracted, resign their commission or apply for voluntary discharge. “Any officer or soldier of the Nigerian Army found to be hobnobbing with such elements or engaged in unprofessional conduct such as politicking would have himself or herself to blame,” a statement penultimate Tuesday on the COAS’s behalf by Director, Army Public Relations, Brigadier-Gen. Sani Usman, said. It added: “The Nigerian Army will remain apolitical and respect the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.”

    Buratai is a soldier’s soldier and leading figure of the present constitutional order, and he isn’t exactly reputed for idle talk, so it must be he sounded the alarm based on authoritative background intelligence. The Army statement did not disclose at whose instance the overtures to the military were being made. But amidst prevailing uncertainty over President Muhammadu Buhari’s health, and with the presumptive and as well shamelessly primitive jostling for regional control of political power in the country, it is logical to assume a desperation to preserve the status quo in regional balance of power.

    The COAS’s alarm came against the backdrop of perhaps unconnected, but without doubt curious realignment in the Army’s command structure. Just a week before the statement, 147 officers, including 13 Generals among whom were five General Officers Commanding (GOCs), were redeployed by the high command. And beyond the Army, three former military heads of state namely President Olusegun Obasanjo, Gen. Ibrahim Babangida and Gen. Abdulsalami Abubakar only recently held high profile consultations behind closed doors in Minna, the Niger State capital. Notably, even if inadvertent, those consultations excluded surviving former leaders who had no military roots.

    Such antecedents gave deep resonance to Buratai’s alarm, and the verdict came swift and sharp from the civil populace: Nigerians would no more spare even a quarter for military adventurists in political governance. Actually, there is perhaps no other issue in recent history on which there was uninfringed consensus in the polity across partisan, religious, ideological and socio-economic divides, among others; and you may never get it more sternly stated than that by All Progressives Congress (APC) chieftain, Asiwaju Bola Ahmed Tinubu, who last week issued prospective military coupists a blunt warning: “Don’t try it!” That is not mentioning foreign interests, like Britain, that weighed in to dissuade potential interventionists. From all indications, the idea of the military foraying back to power in any guise simply failed to fly.

    Not that the idea was brooked within the military itself. Besides the Army chief who strictly warned potential deviants, other formations like the Air Force spoke up to declare loyalty to the constitutional order. But it was perhaps the intensity – and not saying unanimity – of the public’s rebuff that stirred the Defence Headquarters (DHQ) into damage containment exertions last week. The armed forces high command allayed the fears of any coup plot and declared its members “totally loyal” to the President. The warning by Buratai, DHQ explained, was routine caution to officers to maintain professional conduct.

    Addressing journalists last Wednesday, the Director, Defence Information, Major-Gen. John Enenche, was reported saying inter alia: “It is pertinent to state that if there are signs or actions that point to likely breaches of the military code of conduct as it were, cautions or warnings are issued, with investigations following. In the present situation, the armed forces, and the Army in particular, have employed due process to ensure that officers and men remain committed to performing their constitutional roles…All fears about a coup should be allayed, as the contemporary Nigerian military is abreast with the best international practices in governance, which is democracy. The armed forces are totally loyal to the Commander-In-Chief and are in complete subordination to civil authorities.”

    It was perfectly understood that Defence Headquarters needed to take charge of a hot-button security information as was headed up to the public by the Army hierarchy. But its intervention last week, to my mind, bordered on sophistry and somewhat missed the basic thrust of the Army chief’s alarm. For a professional soldier that he reputedly is, Buratai’s warning was anything but routine. He was definitive in saying he had information that certain individuals were reaching out to officers and soldiers for “undisclosed political reasons,” and that Army members must shun such characters or face the consequences of their chosen affiliation. And so, unless the general notion of ‘routine caution’ has changed, the Army chief’s warning went beyond casual admonition to professional conduct, and rather pointed at a substantive undercurrent in the military. DHQ would better help our collective security if it locks in with the formations under its oversight, especially the Army, to identify and isolate members potentiated for political instigation.

    Incidentally, there are sufficiently disturbing indications not to lightly wave off an alert as was volunteered by the Army. Besides orphan cash hauls serially unearthed in recent times by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), hooded trafficking in large caches of arms persists. Only last week, Customs intercepted a container-load of arms and ammunition imported from Turkey at the Tin Can Island port in Lagos. That container, according to the port command of Customs, contained “100 pieces of black tornado single barrel rifles, 75 pieces of silver magnum single barrel rifles, 50 pieces of altar pump action rifles, (and) 215 pieces of black single barrel rifles among other accessories.” And the latest haul came barely five months after 49 boxes containing 661 pump action rifles were intercepted on a Lagos highway.

    But, of course, the ultimate security of our democracy lies, not with the military, but in ready resistance of the civil populace against any military adventurist. And there is perhaps no better time to stress this point than the so-called ‘Democracy Day’ being observed today. Eternal vigilance, as they say, is the price of liberty.

  • Nostalgia for true federalism

    One subject that had been topical in our recent national discourse is the current status of our federalism. The voice on it had been so loud that the need to revisit the kind of federalism we operate can and must not be ignored.

    All kinds of words have been used to describe what many people see as the lop-sidedness of our present federal system. Some have styled it power devolutions; while still some have described it as restructuring. However, proponents of the two theses agreed on one thing: that the political stability of the country depends mainly on the revisit of the present federal structure.

    Whereas, I agree both in principle and in practice with the advocates of restructuring, the only area where I disagree with some of the postulates is where they say it is a particular section of the country that is against restructuring in the country for the benefit of power perpetuity in the zone.

    Let me state with all sense of clarity that the level of our national political development has reached a stage that no zone can claim dominance over others. For instance, in 18 years of our return to democracy, the southern part of the country had occupied the office for more than two thirds of the duration, without any voice of dissent from the North. This is because the principle of zoning had come to stay in Nigeria.

    Besides, the shout of marginalization at the federal level have not been less vociferous in any section of the country including the North. Perhaps except in the area of personnel recruitment, no zone of the country, to the best of my knowledge, enjoy noticeable infrastructural advantage over other zones.

    The call for secession by a particular zone of the country is certainly not the solution; rather it is borne out of frustration and despondency; which however should not be ignored.

    To me, whether we call it devolution or restructuring, the need for a return to the First Republic federalism can never be overemphasized. The current power centralization is certainly a military version of federalism, which is not desirable in a democratic federalism.

    Fiscal autonomy of the federating units is the beauty of true democracy. It was under this arrangement that the old Western Region under Chief Obafemi Awolowo was able to set infrastructural model in areas of education, agriculture and industry for the country. One could notice that in such institutions, like the University of Ife, now Obafemi Awolowo University, Liberty Stadium at Ibadan, which the British Ace Boxing promoter Jack Solomon described as the Mini-Wembley Stadium in London because of the facilities provided in that stadium, WNTV, the first Television Station in Africa, the Premier Hotel Ibadan, the first five-star Hotel in Nigeria, the first dualization of Mokola road to the State Secretariat, Agodi, Ibadan which was commissioned by Queen Elizabeth II during her first visit to Nigeria in 1956, and not forgetting the farm settlements across the region.

    If only because of the healthy rivalry that existed among federating units of that time, both the eastern and regional governments were quick to take a cue from Awolowo’s initiative. That resulted in such institutions like the University of Nigeria, Nsukka, Nnamdi Azikiwe Stadium among others in the Eastern Region. In the North on the other hand, we saw such infrastructure like the Ahmadu Bello University, Ahmadu Bello Stadium, and Northern Nigeria Television among others.

    All these were achieved without recourse to the federal government. But the first assault to our federalism was that all those regional projects were forcibly acquired for the federal government by the Murtala/Obasanjo regime between 1975 and 1979; and that was the beginning of political imbalance in the country with which we are still battling today

    The regions at that time were allowed to harness their resources according to their respective initiatives for the benefits of their regions. One can imagine the state of unease the region would have found themselves were their natural resources be under federal revenue. That makes the current agitation in the Niger-Delta region somehow understandable. The only difference is that resource control agitation does not have to go with the destruction of public institutions or any kind of violence.

    In my own opinion, for Nigeria to remain stable and united, the centre must be made less attractive so also should be the cost running government at all levels. The central government should be restricted to such areas like Defence, Currency, Immigration, Foreign Affairs and few others. In areas of internal security and maintenance on law and order, police should be on the concurrent list whereby state police will operate without any hindrance from the central police. A lot of modern day crime like kidnapping and its likes can be avoided were state police to serve as a kind of vigilante to their respective communities.

    Unfortunately however, the craze for federal attention has reached such a level that even some highly placed traditional rulers in the country have also ‘gone federal’ – demanding a slot in the federal revenue allocation for the maintenance of their headquarters. Before we know anything, they would be demanding for recognition as the fourth tier of government in the country.

    If I have taken any serious exception to a unified traditional institution in the country, suffice to say that it is not a personal matter between one or any of the traditional rulers concerned. Rather, it is borne out of the fact that as custodians of custom, culture and tradition of their subjects, they should be content with the preservation of their peculiar cultures and customs without making any attempts to liberalize or nationalize it in the name of national unity of any form. I nurse no personal grudge against anybody.

    It is personally painful that what we are operating at the moment is a one-tier functional government. This is because the state government which is supposed to be the second leg on which true federalism rests is more or less a lame duck. This is as long as it depends on the federal government for its budgetary obligations to its people.

    I make bold to say that in actual sense, the Yoruba political system is the original home of true federalism, dating back to the old Oyo Empire which lasted for more than 600 years in history.

    Each of the traditional Yoruba kingdoms was a federating unit running their administration with local peculiarities. The role of the Alaafin as the Central Government was to defend the Yoruba territorial integrity against any external aggression as was the case in Iganna, Okeho and Kishi when Alaafin invited the British for military intervention to halt French aggression. Another was in the area of settling boundary disputes among various Yoruba communities. Few of such cases were boundary disputes between Ede and Ife which the Alaafin determined at Shasha; between Ibadan and Abeokuta which the Alaafin settled at Bakatari in favour of Ibadan.

    If we all want the Nigerian project to succeed, we must face the stark reality of history and empirical postulates of true federalism.

     

    • Oba (Dr) Adeyemi III JP, CFR, LL.D. is the Alaafin of Oyo and Permanent Chairman of Oyo State Council of Obas and Chiefs.