The Nation Newspaper

Category: Dele Agekameh

  • Ekiti: The fire this time

    Ekiti: The fire this time

    On Tuesday, April 14, another election dispute that had progressed through the several adjudicatory levels in our court system was disposed of. It involved the emergence of Ayodele Fayose of the Peoples’ Democratic Party, PDP, as winner of the Ekiti State gubernatorial election held on June 21, 2014. The All Progressives’ Congress, APC, had lodged a petition at the Election Petition Tribunal after the said election, with several allegations, including fake certificates, harassment of opposition by security outfits and Fayose’s disqualification from contesting the election.

    After all the legal wrangling in the courts leading to the Supreme Court decision delivered last Tuesday, the story from the onset at the tribunal remains unchanged; the election results remain valid. The decision, as we have seen, has addressed certain constitutional issues. The most prevalent issue, perhaps, is the question of whether an impeached governor is by implication disqualified from contesting future elections in the manner set out in section 182(1) of the 1999 constitution which lists grounds upon which a governor may be disqualified. Particularly relevant is Section 182(1) (e) and (i). Section 182 (1) (i) which state that a person is disqualified from running for election if “he has been indicted for embezzlement or fraud by a Judicial Commission of Inquiry or an Administrative Panel of Inquiry or a tribunal set up under the Tribunals of Inquiry Act, a Tribunal of Inquiry Law or any other law by the federal or state government which indictment has been accepted by the federal or state government”.

    On October 16, 2006, a panel put together by then acting Chief Judge of Ekiti State, Justice Jide Aladejana recommended Fayose’s impeachment after which he was impeached. The panel was set up despite the fact that the Chief Judge at the time, Justice Kayode Bamisile, who was suspended by the state assembly in controversial circumstances, had previously constituted a panel of inquiry. The Bamisile panel had considered the impeachment notice and cleared Fayose of wrongdoing. Events in the state later deteriorated into chaos. The Aladejana panel recommendation and the subsequent impeachment of Fayose had been relied on as ground for canvassing Fayose’s disqualification from the 2014 elections. The court last Tuesday held that impeachment is not a ground for disqualification of a candidate for election. It further said that the second panel set up by Justice Aladejana, who was thereafter dismissed by the National Judicial Council, NJC, was illegal.

    According to reports, Bode Rhodes-Vivour, JSC, further stated in that judgment that even if the second judicial panel of inquiry had been rightly constituted, Fayose still had to be tried and convicted before the Code of Conduct Tribunal notwithstanding the recommendation by the Judicial panel of authority, before he could be disqualified from running for election. The purport of this is that the decision of a judicial panel of enquiry ordinarily will not fall within the scope of an indictment of “…a Judicial Commission of Inquiry or an Administrative Panel of Inquiry or a Tribunal…” envisaged in section 182 (1) (i) reproduced above. However, a conviction under the Code of Conduct is specifically stated in Section 182 (1) (e).

    Several questions still arise like what constitutes an “indictment” under that subsection. Though I have not had the opportunity of seeing the actual judgment, but if Justice Rhodes-Vivour’s views are mirrored in the lead judgment read by Justice Sylvester Ngwuta, then the position of the Supreme Court of Nigeria would be to exclude the decisions of such judicial panels altogether from the contemplations of Section 182(1) (i). This appeared to be the crux of the APC appeal which was dismissed across all levels of court. The certificate allegations were equally dismissed as it had been brought before the courts previously and had been adjudged to be valid.

    However, looking forward from this judgment, a thorny issue emerging from Ekiti State is the present bid by the majority APC lawmakers in the state assembly to impeach Fayose. A notice of impeachment has been submitted to the governor and by all indications, the state assembly is set for a repeat of 2006. There have been calls for the legislators to halt the  impeachment proceedings, which include letters to the NJC. It is curious that the NJC is being called to intervene in state legislative processes. It is clear that once the lawmakers follow the provisions of Section 188 or 189 of the constitution, nobody or other arm of government, may interfere in its proceedings. As such, it would seem that it is completely within the powers of the Ekiti State House of Assembly to exercise its powers under the constitution providing that all acts are done within constitutional boundaries. Therefore, the suits filed on behalf of the governor including that filed before Justice Ahmed Mohammed of the Federal High Court sitting in Abuja, cannot stop the state’s lawmakers from performing their constitutional role, but can only rule on whether certain acts are legal or otherwise.

    The absurdity of the situation in the Ekiti State House of Assembly is reminiscent of the Rivers State crisis where the house mace was destroyed after it was smashed against the head of one member of that house. The facts are similar, with a PDP minority seeking to impose a speaker of their choosing on a majority APC House of Assembly, despite not having the required numbers to perform such an act under the constitution. In the Ekiti case, PDP lawmakers are carrying on an absurd legal anomaly by foisting Dele Olugbemi on the house as speaker, despite the fact that APC’s Adewale Omirin, the legally appointed speaker, has not been impeached as the constitution provides.

    To make matters worse, the majority APC members have deserted the legislative complex to conduct sittings at the state university because their safety is not guaranteed. The seven PDP members of a 26-member house that presumably ‘impeached’ the Speaker present the presence of the Clerk of the House and the sergeant at arms in their midst as well as the house mace as proof of their legitimacy. Apart from the backing of the governor, no part of the constitution has been invoked to legalise their claims. The situation leaves the illegal faction conducting proceedings in the house while the otherwise legal faction is conducting sittings outside the legislative chambers, which, in itself, is against the Supreme Court judgment in Inakanju v. Adeleke.

    These repeated occurrences continue within our political system, despite the apparent rascality of the acts and their illegality. It sends the message that the political class is immune to logic and are bent on dragging the country back to the old days of the rule of force rather than the rule of law. It is particularly distressing that while strides are seemingly being made towards a saner society fit for modern participation in civilised practices around the world, some elements within our system are unwilling to cultivate the art of statesmanship or learn the rudiments of modern politicking. It bothers the mind as to whether our moral fibre as a society is so stained as to reject progressive thinking and civilised behaviour at all levels.

    It is not enough for hapless individuals to perpetrate unfounded illegalities and thereafter head to the courts to exploit the machinery of law. The law is not there to be used as an instrument in political warfare but stands alone as the sole authority in the country. As long as legal action is an afterthought for the ‘ruling class’, then real peace will always be threatened. The courts need to also be firmer in admitting or rejecting claims and where claims are admitted, final, definitive decisions must be made that will themselves stand as a backdrop for admitting future claims. As much as the law is open for aggrieved parties to lay their claims, it is also a pre-cursor to gaining that recourse that a case should contain actual legal issues and not mere confirmation of obvious outcomes that are plain in the constitution. May God help Ekiti State, help Nigeria.

    ‘It is particularly distressing that while strides are seemingly being made towards a saner society fit for modern participation in civilised practices around the world, some elements within our system are unwilling to cultivate the art of statesmanship or learn the rudiments of modern politicking’

     

  • The New Information Highway

    Nigeria’s 2015 general elections have come and gone. We are now confronted with the ripple effects or the smoldering aftermaths of the titanic battles. While the winners are jubilating and celebrating by popping champagnee all over the place, the losers are licking their wounds. One thing that will, for long, remain indelible in the minds of everybody is the unprecedented level of attention given to the elections in the social media by emergency reporters. It was a novel experience in many ways.

    In Nigeria’s federal system, the federal government at the center holds sway over the state governments. As such, the ‘big vote’ in every election is the one for the top job in Abuja. This is true for other federal systems elsewhere around the world, but maybe more so in Nigeria. Not surprisingly, the election for the top seat generated wide interest, especially from the young generation and other Nigerians far and wide, gripping the whole world that watched on to see if the ruling Peoples’ Democratic Party (PDP), could be unseated at the centre. The outcome of the presidential election held on March 28, could not have been better for the neutrals and the teeming hoard of enthusiasts on social media around the world.

    On April 11, it was time for the gubernatorial elections and elections into the State Houses of Assembly. It proved to be a more ‘local’ affair (as it indeed is), with waned interest noticeable even at the polling units. On social media, where the presidential election was keenly followed step by step from the wee hours on election day, through the arduous process of collation in Abuja (including the ‘Orubebe interlude’), until final results were declared, the gubernatorial elections drew significantly less attention. The ‘online situation room’ was still operational, albeit with less force.

    The posts on the different online platforms told pretty much the same story as was the case in the presidential election. One could discern a pattern consistent with the narrative in the presidential election. The Rivers State election again was a hot topic, with sporadic violence reported by residents beginning from the day before the election, quite unsurprisingly because of the precedence set on March 28. Lives were, again, lost in Rivers State, with gory pictures of victims spread across facebook and twitter.

    The INEC twitter account was active, voters posted events from their polling units which showed thinner crowds but much of the same allegations. The INEC account dispelled claim after claim of malpractices and fake ballot papers reported in different states. One report that INEC account answered directly to was that of armed naval officers in Ikorodu LGA in Lagos distorting elections, stating that the Lagos State Resident Electoral Commission would “resolve” it. Fresh pictures of under-age voters around the north again emerged, with a good picture reportedly from Jos North Local government and another from Kofar Fada polling unit in Keffi, Nassarawa State, making the most sensation on social media. INEC did not confirm the authenticity of these pictures; neither were they denied as many reports coming out of different states were denied.

    A particularly popular post that went viral during the gubernatorial elections was a video of the son of Musiliu Obanikoro. The junior Obanikoro, who was a candidate for a seat in the Lagos State House of Assembly, allegedly involved in a fracas of sorts at a polling unit in Lagos. While some reported that he was confronted while dolling out cash at the polling unit, others suggested he was arrested for bribing voters at the polling unit. The video showed him engaged in heated argument with several people, including a woman who appeared enraged for unclear reasons, shoving the state house of assembly candidate at one point. The presence of policemen at the scene explained the reports of his arrest, but he is seen entering his vehicle at the end.

    Even with the low turnout and the absence of many of the international observers who were themselves posting updates on social media during the presidential election, it is clear that elections in Nigeria have taken a new turn. The unprecedented use of social media in these elections is a welcome development. It succeeded in making the last minute scramble at polling units by political party affiliates a reduced feature in the elections. For whatever reason, Obanikoro Junior was engaged in that scene captured on video, future candidates will be wary of making costly mistakes at polling units going forward, if for nothing else, but to avoid embarrassment or undue insinuations and rumours. At last, Nigerians are catching up to the true power of their resolve and determination; using the tools they have control over.

    It is now time to extend the practice to all aspects of national life. All agencies of government should establish an online presence on social media for easy access, not just outdated websites that are never maintained. In more civilized countries, the police respond to threats posted on social media and multinational corporations make big announcements first on social media. There is one glaring example of the part it played in the Arab spring – governments have been toppled via social media. The sooner Nigerians realise that power to force the hand of our historically unresponsive government and its agencies, the better it will be for the general well-being and development of the country.

    If “my oga at the top” can go viral, and elections can be monitored from polling units to collation centres through eye witness pictures and videos, then people can attend public tenders, follow government projects in their communities, phase by phase, and make reports with pictures or video evidence. The change does not have to end with All Progressives Congress (APC), taking over from the PDP at the centre, it should also extend to the citizenry being more involved and informed using the resources at their disposal. One man cannot guarantee change, but with everyone on board, real change can be realised.

    Anyone who has been following the rising cases of police brutality against black people in the United States of America, will know what role video evidence caught on smart devices has played in getting people’s attention. It has put recalcitrant policemen on their toes, because new videos emerge every day.

    But then, political apathy in Nigeria is still very much a problem. The presidential election roused a good number of the citizenry, due largely to the fact that indications were clear that it will be a close race and the debate was steered by prevailing issues like insecurity among others. Still, after all the barroom talk and public debates, the turnout was less than ideal. The states with the highest numbers, like Lagos, Rivers and Kano, only had a fraction of their official population registered as voters and a fraction of those registered actually voted. The gubernatorial elections saw that number dip. However, to be fair to the people, there are probably more than a few reasons to stay safe in one’s home during elections in Nigeria. People on social media in Rivers State reported monitoring elections “safely in the house”, which is sound logic.

    This is why Nigerians have to work together to make the state apparatus work for the citizens and show interest in government processes. The political parties may have their agenda, but the people’s agenda should remain the same to make the officials work to get tangible results that will speak for themselves in the next elections. News travels faster than ever before, through easier channels and with greater reach.  It is time Nigerians exploit this great avenue to create the change we crave.

     

     

  • Online facet of 2015 elections

    Online facet of 2015 elections

    The constitution and Electoral Act in Nigeria do not allow for voting in the Diaspora, a feature of elections in Algeria and Tunisia, which has also been proposed in Angola. Nonetheless, Nigerians in the Diaspora who are interested in the 2015 elections have had to take to the internet to follow the exercise. This is in addition to the online platform of many of the nation’s media channels. In recent times, online media has been a useful channel for engaging people worldwide, whether as electorate or otherwise, presenting an opportunity to be somehow involved in public processes, particularly in elections on the scale of Nigeria’s 2015 general elections.

    However, the internet was not the exclusive preserve of those in the Diaspora during the elections. In fact, if it was, then it would not have been as rewarding. Millions of Nigerians who were physically on ground for the elections went to the polling units armed with their personal cameras and smart phones, uploading pictures and videos of the exercise on platforms such as the popular Facebook and Twitter. The large number of Nigerians in the Diaspora who could not be in the country and who were interested in the exercise, hung on to these uploads and reacted to the posts by those on the ground. Soon, the section of cyberspace, which is referred to as ‘Nigerian Facebook’ and ‘Nigerian Twitter’ became an unofficial polling unit, collation center and situation room, all at the same time.

    As results from the different polling units poured in, reactions followed and of course, arguments and accusations took over. The internet was buzzing, reflecting the reality of the Nigerian landscape at the time.  Early in the polling, a video showing a group of northerners frantically pressing their thumbs against the PDP ‘umbrella’ on what appeared to be ballot papers went viral on Nigerian twitter with lamentations of rigging and cries of foul play. This was quickly discredited by the Independent National Electoral Commission’s (INEC), official twitter account which stated that it was a video from the previous elections in 2011 as the ballot papers that could be seen in the video were those used in that election, which are different from the ones currently being used. A subsequent post showing the two different ballot papers was circulated thereafter.

    INEC, through its online accounts called on Nigerians to alert the commission of any case of irregularities in any ward or polling unit around the country. Pronto, the opportunity was seized with both hands by many Nigerians who swiftly took to the internet, turning it into a beehive of activities. They reported late arrivals of polling materials, non-arrivals and insufficient materials. Two particular reports that caught INEC’s attention after the discredited video was a picture of a young boy who looked no more than 13 or 14, being attended to by electoral officials. The location was unclear as some posts stated it was in Taraba State, others said it was Gombe or Katsina and many other Northern states. People screaming underage voting in the north subsequently used the same picture in posts.

    There was also a post concerning the repeated failure of card readers used during the voting. In one particular ward, a voter discovered that the officials had not peeled off the protective film covering the lens of the card reader being used at the polling unit before attempting to scan voter’s cards, with no success. This fault was pointed out to the officials by a technology professional who live in the neighbourhood. After some heated exchange, according to the post on twitter, the film was peeled off eventually and the device worked efficiently after. The post was circulated throughout twitter, advising voters to call attention to this in wards where card readers were malfunctioning. INEC later confirmed this as one of the problems that caused faulty devices at polling units. One video showed a voter screaming “Massive Rigging” and filming events around him while he challenged officials, even though it was not clear from the video what his actual claim was.

    INEC, the political parties and the electorate made ample use of the online platforms in the build up to the elections and during the elections. The downside to this platform is the ease with which anybody can make any claim and post them online with little evidence. Even where there is video or picture evidence, it is still subject to verification in most cases, as was the case with the outdated video from the north.  For this reason, trying to get a feeler for the direction the election was going was nearly impossible, as conflicting claims emerged from the same polling units, with results posted for wards where elections were still ongoing. Several accounts of popular and notable figures in the society were however more reliable, but where unverified information came from those quarters, it was indicated in the post.  The cyberspace also featured the ethnic and religious controversy that pervades elections in Nigeria, complete with the sentiments that accompany them.

    One thing that was certain in the middle of the unverified information and misguided comments was that Nigerians were taking a real part in the elections this time. Providing generators to ensure voting was concluded into the night, refreshments for electoral officials and accompanying the result sheet to the various collation centres – all captured in pictures and videos. The message on twitter and facebook and on the streets was clear: “Nigerians want their votes to count in this election.” The voters in the Military camps in Maiduguri, Borno State were shown in some pictures that were circulated. Evidence from the election violence in Rivers State went viral online within minutes.

    Perhaps, the criminals who earlier on Saturday hacked into the website of INEC had the intension to use it to post fake messages and results on the elections. They knew quite well that the internet was going to play a major role in this election. Thank God that INEC officials got the hint on time and moved decisively to dislodge the intruders or interlopers before they created havoc on the platform.

    By and large, though there were some hiccups here and there, the election appears to have been peaceful as attested to by observers from ECOWAS, the African Union and others. James Entwistle, the United States ambassador to Nigeria personally applauded the decision of INEC to use the Permanent Voter Card in the general elections. Speaking with journalists at the International Conference Centre, Abuja, the venue of the National Collation Centre of the election results on Sunday, Entwistle said: “The Permanent Voter Cards are very high tech. They are more high tech than my voter card from the state of Virginia in the US. My voter card does not have biometric. It does not have my fingerprint. The high tech gives the process more integrity.”

    As I write this Column on Monday, ahead of the release of the final results of the Presidential and National Assembly elections, my intuition tell me that the real challenge could come when the results are finally announced. I believe causing mayhem if the results are not favourable to any party, should not be an option. In a contest like this, there are bound to be winners and losers. The only option available is to approach the court or the election tribunal rather than resort to an archaic tactic fit only for animal farm.

    What is at stake in this election is the future of this great country, which is why the old and young, the elderly and the sick, braved all odds to cast their votes. The turnout of voters was overwhelming and unprecedented. Even though false reports from Enugu and other places emanated from the ‘internet electorates’ too, the Nigerian cyberspace now contains hard evidence, available to the electorate, counting done on camera down to the last ballot paper in different wards. For the online medium which was fully engaged, it is a statement of intent, by those on ground and those in the Diaspora helping to circulate the posts, videos and pictures, to amplify that: “the will of the people must prevail.”

  • Nigeria needs prayer

    Nigeria needs prayer

    In less than four days from now, Nigerians will troop out in their large numbers to cast their votes for the next president of the country who is scheduled to take over the reins of power on May 29, 2015. As usual, the permutations are high, so also is the anxiety and fear of a possible outbreak of violence should the election be perceived not to be free, fair, transparent and credible. The reason is not far-fetched: this is the first time two presidential candidates of nearly equal status and political standing are slugging it out since the country returned to democratic governance in 1999, that is, 16 years ago. Not only this, the two dominant political parties – the Peoples’ Democratic Party, PDP, and the All Progressives Congress, APC – have proved that they can match one another in strength and stamina.

    In the last few months, the campaigns have been frenetic across the country with issues ranging from the sublime to the ridiculous coming under focus and engaging the attention of the politicians in their attempt to either undo or outmaneuver one another. The APC, a rainbow coalition of several parties, parades political heavyweights from across the country. This is the first time such a coalition of political parties has remained united and going into election as one. For this reason, the PDP, the party that has been in control of the affairs of the country for the past 16 years, appears to be threatened in its comfort zone at the apex of political leadership.

    Now, the die is cast as all pretentions and surreptitious moves to postpone the elections a second time, have hit a dead end. The elections must hold as rescheduled by the electoral umpire, the Independent National Electoral Commission, INEC beginning from Saturday, March 28. Although, INEC had been befuddled by a litany of challenges, the electoral umpire had always found a way to wriggle out of the bottlenecks. It is apparent that the stakes of this election are higher than, perhaps, they have ever been.  Our economy is reeling under the seething vortex of mismanagement and waste. Our healthcare sector is in shambles, leaving the average Nigerian to patronise quack doctors and all manner of traditional healing homes where their cases are either worsened or are confronted with instant death. Education is becoming costlier to afford just when it’s needed most as many of our youths of school age roam about the streets in search of affordable schools. In fact, the number of available schools, especially the tertiary institutions, is a far cry from the multitude of intending students. It is a known fact that our tertiary institutions can hardly absorb 30 percent of the entire student population, leaving a good number of them to flood neighbouring countries and other overseas institutions in search of placement. The cost to the country in terms of foreign exchange is colossal.

    On the political front, the divisiveness and shrill partisanship among our politicians have almost obliterated the bright light that is shinning on our nation. Not only this, it has almost effectively exterminated the truest, deepest voice of our citizenry because our leaders have been acting out of greed and naked self-interest.  And we all know that in a nation as rich, as diverse and as powerful as ours in the continent of Africa, the road to greed and self-interest is often the easy road to take. It’s certainly the most tempting. Unfortunately, quite a good number of Nigerians who could have stood up to be counted have been rather too timid, too quiet in calling attention to the kleptomaniac tendencies of our leaders. This should stop if we are desirous of a virile and prosperous nation in the years ahead.

    Furthermore, our nation is currently at war and faces new and different threats to its national security. The war has claimed several innocent lives. Besides, many citizens of this country and foreigners alike have lost faith that our leaders can, or will do anything to reposition the country. The good news is that with this election, we have the opportunity and the obligation to chart a new course for Nigeria. This is the time for the citizens of this country, irrespective of political, religious, ethnic or tribal affiliations, to unite in the cause of renewing Nigeria’s promise because it is time to look beyond partisanship and division and move toward a common ground and real solutions to our problems. It’s time for us to use the coming election to reaffirm our shared values of faith and family, hard work and sacrifice, fairness and equal opportunity for all and create a brighter future for our nation.

    From what is currently on ground, there is little doubt that Nigerians cannot compete and succeed in the Twenty-first Century if we do not genuinely transform ourselves and transform our country from the present socio-political lethargy in which the country is mired. Our quintessentially African mix of optimism, dynamism and determination can help us meet this moment. But we will also need leadership with the ability and willingness to make tough decisions, with the foresight to see around the next bend in history, and with the fortitude to stand up to entrenched, outdated thinking and chart a new path. At this point in the evolution of our country, we need a leader who can unite us around principles that we share and rally us to a common purpose. Nigeria needs a president that will provide the right leadership, a president that will jump-start our import-based and near moribund economy, give lifeline to countless families struggling to make ends meet and ensure that hard work is adequately rewarded with the benefits of a decent living.

    And talking about generations yet unborn, we need a president that will be honestly committed to prepare the country to lead the industries of tomorrow by turning Nigeria into a leader in the green economy by investing appropriately in science, technology, and infrastructure. Such a president should be prepared to provide new leadership for a changing world, ending the war with Boko Haram and giving the Northeast and the entire country a new breathe of life as well as joining the rest of the world to tackle the new threats of this century – terrorism. The president we envisage must unite our country around our shared values; stop the cabal from controlling our government and return power in Abuja to the Nigerian people.

    As Nigerians, we should not despair. When we are confronted with challenges like what we are currently faced with, all we need to do is not to lose hope but go out to cast our votes for our preferred candidate(s). Let us call our neighbours; our family, and our friends to join hands with us to carry out our civic responsibilities to enable us get it right. We must never give up. And guiding us is a belief in the power we have in our votes if we all work together, a fidelity to the history we share and an indomitable spirit that will propel us to success and stardom whatever the odds.

    Therefore, at the threshold of yet another general election to usher in new leaders in the country, what we are confronted with today is how the country can be rescued from perennial under-development, such that one of the most materially endowed nations on planet earth, can fulfill its promise and also meet the expectations of the world. So, Nigerians, shine your eyes. It is not all that glitters that is gold. May God help us; help Nigeria!

  • Demons in the House

    The story you are about to read points to the fact that, that “nice man” you call your husband or that “beautiful lady” you call your wife may just be a demon in the house. It all happened last Tuesday when I visited one of the outstanding health centres located in the sprawling city of Lagos. My mission was to undertake a routine medical checkup.

    I arrived at the medical facility a few minutes after 9 a.m and within some fleeting minutes; the laboratory technician took my blood sample to enable him run some preliminary tests – cholesterol, PVC, haemoglobin, etc. Naturally, it takes some time to run the tests. The time frame is between an hour and two hours at the most. But this particular day, it dragged on and on as more and more people showed up at the facility. At about 1 pm, it was my turn to perform the last rituals – urine test, blood pressure measurement and weight measurement – before being ushered in to see the consultant, a familiar, dedicated doctor with whom I have had personal, intimate rapport for many years.

    As soon as I sat down opposite him, the consultant started reviewing the result of the blood test and was sifting through the papers in the file as he compared the result with the previous ones. At a point, he ordered me to lie down on the examination couch where he examined me by pressing my stomach, ribs and all that, with his stethoscope glued to his ears. He asked me to breathe in and out or take a long breath, and all that. Just as he was doing this, shielded by the privacy screen, somebody walked in. The consultant told the person who was shouting “doctor, doctor,” to hold on and that he was busy attending to a patient. By the time he was through with me, he removed the surgical hand gloves, quickly washed his hands and went to his seat. I also disembarked from the couch, buttoned up my shirt, wore my shoes and went back to my seat. Behold, the man who had been waiting was another doctor. He had on him a white lab coat, the type worn by doctors while on duty. He appeared to be in a hurry as he was standing throughout his brief encounter with my consultant.

    From the trend of their discussion, he may have dashed into the medical facility from another medical facility nearby to arrange for a surgery that was to take place the following day. I guess it was a sort of collaborative effort between the two doctors as I overheard them talk about the bill for the operation and what will accrue to each doctor and all that. As a person who is always thorough and very professional on his job, my consultant then asked the other doctor whether he had taken all necessary precautions, to which the other doctor replied in the affirmative. To further buttress his point, the other doctor told my consultant that as a rule, he is strict with his team when it comes to observing professional ethics and rules in carrying out their duties. Then my consultant asked him: “Supposing you are not there to enforce the rules?” The other doctor replied: “No, no, no, they know I am strict with it and so they will not, and I repeat, they dare not do anything without the necessary precautions.” And he quickly added: “But you know, to be on the safe side, we assume that everybody is positive, so we take the necessary precautions.”

    It was then it occurred to me that they were actually talking about testing the patients for HIV before carrying out any surgery. Then the other doctor chipped in again: “But you know, some of these patients will refuse to be screened for HIV and that is why we assume that they are positive to be on a safe side.” He then gave two illustrations to emphasise his point. If I must confess, those illustrations shocked me to my bone marrow and literarily swept me off my feet.

    First, the doctor said: “Let me tell you, there was a time, a woman, a housewife who had tested positive, told us not to disclose her status to her husband who was always driving her to the hospital. She simply told us to leave that to her and that she was voluntarily going to tell him at the appropriate time.” According to the doctor, “six months, then one year rolled-by and the woman never disclosed her status to her husband.” Again, the doctor said there was another case which was more frightening than that: “In this case,” he said, “an influential man tested positive for HIV. He was actually on antiretroviral drugs and he was always coming to the hospital with his wife. The worst part of it was that he warned us never to tell his wife. At a point, the wife, who was also nursing a renal-type problem, developed some complications arising from HIV infection which she obviously contracted from her husband.” The doctor said: “The wife invariably died from the complications.”

    If you think that was bad enough, wait a minute, the worst was yet to come. According to the doctor, they were all surprised when few months after the woman died, this influential man, whom he continuously referred to as very, very nice, sent him (the doctor) an invitation card, inviting him to his “coronation and marriage” to another “brand new” lady. At this point, my consultant, who could no longer stomach the pathetic story, lost his cool and lashed out against the so-called influential man, who was said to be so nice, calling him unprintable names. The argument soon snowballed into the issue of confidentiality in medical practice, that is, doctor-patient relationship which prevents a doctor from disclosing the health status of his patient to anybody except with permission from the patient.

    My consultant harped on the danger such poses to the health of the society as the man had even gone ahead to marry another “innocent” lady who might not know that her newfound husband is HIV positive. This is a man who had earlier nonchalantly dispatched his first wife to the great beyond through sheer dishonesty. Surprisingly, at every turn during the discussion, the other doctor had a defence, citing some legal nonsense and the fact that the man is so nice, to support his argument. When my consultant noticed that his doctor-friend could not be easily swayed, he simply said: “That man may be outwardly nice, but he is a demon inside.” That ended the discussion and the doctor took his leave.

    Throughout the discussion, I kept mute because it was a discussion between two professional colleagues. Though I just sat there looking like a novice, my journalistic instinct soon took over. The questions that have been agitating my mind ever since are: How many of these type of cases are happening all over the place in Nigeria, in Africa and all over the world today? What can the World Health Organisation or our individual countries, do to stem this ugly development which may end up silently killing hundreds of thousands of innocent people if not properly checked? Why will a partner in a marriage test positive for HIV and decide to hide it from his or her spouse, knowing full well that the disease is contagious and could terminate his own life and that of his partner or any other person could easily be infected by the non-disclosure of his or her status? How many people have died and how many more will still die from this avoidable catastrophe caused simply by man’s dishonesty?

    From this satanic and sad scenario, we seem to be in a world inhabited by animals going about with the deceitful features of human beings. With highly dishonest people around that will not disclose their HIV status to even their spouse, it is quite certain that the next pandemic with devastating consequences will not be Ebola but Demons in the homes. May God help us!

  • Mbu: The Burden of Denial

    Mbu: The Burden of Denial

    Mbu Joseph Mbu, the Assistant Inspector General of Police, AIG, in charge of Zone 2 comprising Lagos and Ogun police commands, is no stranger to controversy. In fact, he is very much qualified to be referred to as Mr. Controversy because it is as if everything about him revolves around controversy. Although it is this controversial nature that seems to stand him out among his professional colleagues, it also comes with a lot of temperature which at times, may be quite excruciating.

    Mbu is currently enmeshed in a tempestuous storm caused, perhaps, by his reckless use of the tongue. He had been rightly or wrongly quoted in the media to have told his men at the Ogun State Police Command Headquarters, Eleweran, Abeokuta, during his maiden visit to the command that: “If one of my men is killed, I shall kill 20 of them, but don’t shoot first. If they shoot you, shoot back in self-defence. Anybody who fires you, fire him back in self-defence.” Mbu was also quoted as having said that there is no big deal in the number of people policemen under his command can kill in self-defence. According to Mbu, “Since policemen are also human beings, they should be ready to take revenge on any violent group(s) that might attack them or other innocent citizens.”

    As the controversy raged, some journalists again approached Mbu, who led policemen to provide security for President Goodluck Jonathan’s recent visit to Lagos, to clarify the controversial statement credited to him. Mbu said the media account was mischievous and contrary to what he actually said in Abeokuta. Curiously, however, he restated the media account he had tried to debunk. He said, “I still stand by what I said. And what I said is very clear: that if any violent group attacks my policemen, my policemen should attack them violently. If any violent group attacks a law-abiding citizen in a bid to cause injury or cause harm, the police should repel and save that law-abiding citizen because we have the powers to do so… The number I kill is immaterial because a policeman is also a human being.”

    When asked if his strategy of fire-for-fire is the best way to handle the situation, Mbu answered: “Which other way do you think you can handle it? You will shoot at the police. Is it not when the person is alive that he is coming to give evidence? How will somebody who is violently attacking others be stopped? Are you going to use your hands? You must repel him using a stronger force.”

    As usual, these statements went viral in the media. Many notable Nigerians also kicked against the statements. Others went to the extent of calling for Mbu’s head. Right now, there is a subsisting court case in which the plaintiff is asking the court to declare Mbu unfit to be a police officer. Last week, Gbenga Adeoye, a Chief Superintendent of Police and Zonal Public Relations Officer for Zone 2, Lagos, tried to bail out Mbu from this mess. In a series of advertorials in some newspapers titled: “What Mbu said in Ogun State,” Adeoye tried hard to extricate his boss from the web of controversy by reproducing what transpired between Mbu and the newsmen and placing them before the court of public opinion saying “let Nigerians judge.”

    However, one curious aspect of the question-and-answer session was where Mbu was quoted as saying… “Anybody found with arms will be arrested by the police. Who we cannot arrest, we will recover arms by force. And during this election, no politician and their followers should shoot at any policeman. If you shoot at any policeman, my policemen will shoot back in self defence.” Mbu’s defence, coming rather late in the day, shows that, except for the non-mention of the number of people any policeman that is attacked could mow down, there is no significant difference with what he was initially quoted as saying in Abeokuta and which he somehow upheld at another forum when he could have easily corrected the earlier misconception. It makes the whole thing look more like an afterthought.

    Mbu’s travail reminded me of an interview I conducted with the late legal icon, Chief Gani Fawehinmi in the company of two other senior editors – Adegbenro Adebanjo and Bola Adewole- for TELL Magazine many years ago. Fawehinmi had spoken on tape during the interview conducted in his chambers at Anthony Village in Lagos. By the time it was published the following Monday, a furious Fawehinmi put a call through to the office, threatening fire and brimstone. He also announced the severance of any relationship that had existed between him and the magazine. But because the management of the magazine had tremendous respect for him, we were simply asked to proceed to his office to conduct another interview using the same questions in order to afford him the opportunity to put the record straight. He grudgingly accepted.

    We went back to the chambers for the interview. By the time the thing was transcribed once more, even with some slight modifications in his choice of words, it was discovered that he had actually said the same things all over again. The following week, we published the new version and people could not see the difference between the two interviews. At any rate, that rested the case.

    Though he brooks no nonsense, those who knew Mbu when he was the CP in charge of the Mobile Police Unit at the Force Headquarters, Abuja, can attest to his dedication to duty. While his headship of MOPOL lasted, there were no complaints about his work ethics nor did anyone accuse him of professional misconduct. Perhaps, his no-nonsense posture started unfolding when he was posted to Oyo State as CP. There, he found out that the state’s security outfit had 90 percent police components and a sprinkle of military personnel. But the command and administrative structures were manned solely by the military. He protested but the governor was adamant. He simply withdrew his men and that grounded the outfit until the anomaly was redressed.

    As CP Rivers, Mbu and Rotimi Amaechi, the governor of the state, operated a cat and mouse relationship, simply because he did not like the way the governor was channeling official communications to him through his ADC, a Deputy Superintendent of Police.  At a point, the two men resorted to throwing verbal punches at each other until Mbu was redeployed to Abuja, first as CP, FCT, and later promoted AIG and stationed at Zone 7, Abuja. It was when he was CP, FCT that he attempted to dislodge the BringBackOurGirls campaigners before higher authorities and subsequently, the court, overruled him.

    In January this year, Mbu was redeployed to Lagos as AIG Zone 2. On his arrival, he was accosted by hordes of reporters and paparazzi who wanted a word or two from him as he took over his new command. Not a man to shy away from talking to newsmen, Mbu said he was in Lagos for purely police duties and promised a hard time for troublemakers during his tenure. His speech elicited a lot of reactions due to the fact that people already had pre-conceptions about him.

    For too long, Mbu has allowed himself to be tied to the apron string of controversy which may not augur well for his career at the end of the day. In his more than 30 years in the police, he has served meritoriously wherever he has worked. He is a policeman to the core. He should talk less and concentrate more on discharging his duty without fear or favour as required by the law. Remember the words of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, the late 32nd President of the United States of America who, in his speech at Washington DC, on January 8, 1936, said, inter alia: “A government, any institution personified by any executive, can be no better than the public opinion that sustains him.” And like I have always advised my friends: “Don’t be carried away by what people say in your presence, but be wary about what they will discuss in your absence.”

  • Drama at Chatham House

    Drama at Chatham House

    Chatham House or the Royal Institute of International Affairs, as it is also known, is an independent policy institute based in London. Founded in 1920, it operates from an imposing 18th-century house located at No. 10, St. James’s Square in the heart of London. St. James’s Square is the only square in the exclusive St. James’s district of the City of Westminster. It has predominantly Georgian and neo-Georgian architecture with a private garden at the centre. In its first 200 or so years of existence, No. 10, St. James’s Square, was one of the three or four most fashionable residential addresses in London. The square’s main feature is an equestrian statue of William III erected in 1808.

    Chatham House is a non-profit, non-governmental organization. Its mission is to analyse and promote the understanding of major international issues and current affairs. In this regard, the institute offers potential and established leaders drawn from across the world, the opportunity to deepen their understanding of critical issues, propose new ideas and proffer solutions to complex policy challenges and opportunities. There is a historical and symbolical meaning to the name of the organization. No 10 St. James Square, the building housing the organization, had been home to three past British Prime Ministers, including William Pitt, 1st Earl of Chatham, from where the organization simply derives its name.

    Over the years, Chatham House has engaged several governments, the private sector, civil society and its members in open debate and confidential discussions on the most significant developments in international affairs. Each year, the institute runs more than 300 private and public events mostly workshops, conferences and roundtables in London and its other affiliate locations worldwide. What keeps the organization on top of global international affairs rating is its convening power which attracts world leaders who have something to say, as well as, the best analysts in diverse fields from across the globe. It is for this reason that the institute is globally revered in terms of its ability and capacity to give a helping hand to policy makers and government legislations so as to improve global economies.

    Chatham House hosts high-profile speakers from around the world and also undertakes wide-ranging research. One of the most recent speakers is Shinzo Abe, Japanese Prime Minister who spoke on his country’s hostage crisis with ISIS on February 3. So, ordinarily, when on Thursday, February 26, it was the turn of  Major General Muhammadu Buhari, to speak at the think-tank institute, it was in continuation of its immeasurable services in international affairs to the global community. It was nothing abnormal. The Institute was just keeping to tradition. But Nigeria’s desperate politicians will not want to hear anything like that. General Buhari is the presidential candidate of the opposition, All Progressive Congress, a party strongly in contention for the leadership of the country in the rescheduled presidential election slated for March 28.

    Buhari spoke on: “Prospects for Democratic Consolidation in Africa: Nigeria’s Transition.” His speech dwelt on the postponement of Nigeria’s fifth general elections since the country’s return to civilian rule in 1999. It also touched on the fierce political competition among the contending politicians, the current security crisis facing the country, the severe economic challenges linked to the drop in oil price and the challenges of conducting elections in such a complex environment. While there is widespread speculation as to the reasons for the elections’ delay, there is also widespread acknowledgment of the necessity that the elections should take place as scheduled on March 28 and April 11.

    At the end of his speech, Buhari received a standing ovation as he left the conference hall after taking questions from the hordes of reporters who had gathered. The questions centred on his intended policies to chart a new Nigeria and his view on corruption. This interview was conducted within the premises in order to protect the person of the General from the unruly crowd of Pro-Jonathan campaigners who had, by this time, disrupted the peace and serenity outside the building. At the end of the interview, the General and his team were safely led to a waiting security van that took them away from the venue.

    However, it is pertinent to note that before the event began on that day, a group of individuals had gathered at several points around the very serene environment chanting and shouting anti-Buhari slogans thereby attracting curious attention from officials and members of the public. It was discovered that the unruly crowd of people were mostly Nigerian and non-Nigerian students brought to the venue in chattered buses from various educational institutions in Manchester, a distance of about 200 miles to London or about four hours drive.

    Unfortunately, before Buhari’s appearance last week, the same Chatham House was the platform used on January 22, by Sambo Dasuki, the National Security Adviser, who had no business with the Independent National Electoral Commission, INEC, to drop the bombshell that the general elections earlier scheduled for February 14 and 28, may be postponed. Expectedly, this drew the ire of the public. All the same, the elections were postponed.

    What is baffling in this latest episode is that our politicians have inadvertently exported our traditional but shameful Nigerian factor of renting crowds abroad. You can imagine luring buses load of students with peanuts to come and disrupt such an international event that had the propensity to impact positively or negatively on the image of the country and Nigerians as a people. The funniest part is that these were students who had no idea of what they were “hired and paid” to come and do at the venue as captured on a video recording that went viral in the social media.

    In the video, a lady, who obviously was the arrowhead of the whole arrangement confessed on camera that she brought the dysfunctional crowd from Manchester for the organisers of the anti-Buhari rally for a fee and that she was ready to do it for any other group once the bargain was right. The unruly behaviour of the group on that day caused a lot of disruptions to the usual activities in the St. James area on a normal working day. It was such an embarrassing situation championed by those who claimed to be Pro-Jonathan campaign agents in the UK. Good enough, security officials who were unusually invited from the Metropolitan Police to calm the tensed situation were able to maintain order.

    One sad thing about the melodrama that took place outside Chatham House is that it has exposed the shenanigans of our politicians who are highly intolerant of the opposition while professing that they are democrats. But it appears that the Pro-Jonathan campaigners are not done yet with their London drama. Last weekend, “Wind of Hope Foundation,” one of the amorphous groups in the Pro-Jonathan campaign, took advert spaces in the newspapers challenging Buhari to a sponsored international debate to be held under the auspices of the same Chatham House. This shows that the Pro-Jonathan campaigners were actually caught napping by Buhari’s outing in London and are so desperate to equal scores with him.

    The Pro-Jonathan campaigners should learn to be proactive and not reactionary. After all, when TAN (Transformation Ambassadors of Nigeria) was junketing all over the country in the recent past, they had a free reign. All these rough tackles are very demeaning. What the present situation calls for is strategic thinking, proper planning and execution. Nothing more. The beauty of democracy is the opportunity to associate freely and canvass opinions or views without any hindrance. This is exactly what those who practice true and genuine democracy have always preached. Nigeria cannot be an exception.

    From what is currently going on in the polity, it is like two trains on high motion, are furiously coming from opposing direction and nobody is saying anything. The only way to avert the looming catastrophe is to allow the people to freely choose their leaders without being coerced, intimidated, blackmailed or arm-twisted in any form. That is how we can guarantee peace and sustainable development in this God-given (not forsaken) country.

     

  • The Obasanjo-Jonathan tango

    The Obasanjo-Jonathan tango

    It all started like a joke, a joke that soon took on the pattern of a witch-hunt. Now, the push has come to shove, the bubble has finally burst. In the beginning, it was as if the whole country had been zoned to both President Goodluck Jonathan and his kingmaker, former President Olusegun Obasanjo, the man who likes to dominate his environment and every other thing therein either living or dead.

    At one time or the other, I have been privileged to observe, at close quarters,  these two important Nigerians who are now locked in a fratricidal war which is capable of ruffling political feathers in the country. My knowledge of Obasanjo dates back to the mid-1970s, precisely shortly after the coup through which the then Head of State, General Yakubu Gowon was ousted on June 29, 1975. It was at the end of my fourth year in the secondary school – St. John’s Grammar School, Ile-Ife. That coup thrust the late General Murtala Muhammed to the pinnacle of leadership as he succeeded Gowon as Head of State and Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. That also brought Obasanjo as his second-in-command.

    From then on, Obasanjo became a regular visitor to the palace of the late Ooni of Ife, Sir Adesoji Aderemi, one of the most respected and highly revered traditional rulers of his time. Having been born and brought up in the palace, I had the privilege of being around most times Obasanjo paid his numerous visits which were mostly done incognito. He usually came in just one car, a Peugeot 504 saloon car marked SHQ 2 accompanied only by the driver and one other person at the front seat of the car, all wearing mufti. The reason for those visits was first, to seek the support of the Ooni in the policy implementation of the new government such as the land use decree and others which the government initiated and also, to seek advice and tap from the great monarch’s fountain of wisdom. In all the visits, Obasanjo cut the image of a humble, quiet and easy-going person. Even when he later became Head of State, he still maintained his close contact with the monarch. Such was the respect Obasanjo had for elders and traditional institutions. I was also around him during the 2011 elections.

    As for President Goodluck Jonathan, I had the privilege to observe him closely when he was the deputy governor in Bayelsa State. My good friend and brother, Prof. Steve Azaiki, was a two-time Secretary to the State Government of Bayelsa during that period. Each time I visited Azaiki at that time, we would both end up either in the governor’s office or in his lodge. And each time the deputy, Jonathan, appeared on the scene, either in the governor’s office with files to treat or in the governor’s lodge for some official functions, Jonathan was always humble, quiet and very reserved. Sometimes, when he opened the door to the governor’s office and saw people waiting, he will quietly shut the door and go back to his office. In some instances, Azaiki will run after him, shouting “HE…HE…HE..” (His Excellency). As soon as he caught up with him, he would either persuade him to come in and see his boss or take over the files from him and take them straight to the governor for his signature. Azaiki was like a go-between for both Jonathan and his boss at that time. Jonathan was humble, honest and shy, while the governor was a no-nonsense man. This, notwithstanding, they both had an excellent working relationship.

    What am I trying to say here? Remember the Yoruba proverb: “When a goat is pursued to the wall, it will turn back and face its pursuers.” In the current Jonathan-Obasanjo tango, I am quite sure that one of them must have pushed the other to the wall which has necessitated the other one to turn back and say, ‘Not anymore.’ We are all aware of the political permutations that threw up the ticket of both the late President Umaru Yar’Adua and Jonathan. While in the case of Yar’Adua, Obasanjo must have seen an honest and God-fearing person, in Jonathan he must have counted much on the man’s humble disposition, sense of contentment and his decent composure, even in the face of provocation. As vice president Jonathan suffered all forms of humiliation but like the humble man he is, he waded through that period without causing any form of commotion. He was truly an obedient servant.

    For everything good or bad, there is always a reward. I believe God must have rewarded Jonathan with the presidency of Nigeria. Why? I am not sure that if Yar’Adua had fully completed his two terms, it would have been possible for Jonathan to succeed him. Even when Yar’Adua was critically ill, it took the invocation of the doctrine of necessity by the National Assembly to enable Jonathan become Acting President and later, President following the eventual demise of Yar’Adua. We should take cognizance of the fact that, in the choice of Jonathan as Vice President, Obasanjo may have been thinking of a way to placate the restless militants who had then held the country by the jugular through their activities in the Niger Delta area of the country, an area that is responsible for more than 90 percent of the country’s foreign exchange earnings through the oil in its underbelly. Obasanjo could also have seen Jonathan as a humble fellow who would not rock the boat. In that case, Obasanjo must have possibly nurtured a hidden agenda which he expected to unfold as time went on.

    I believe things started falling apart between Jonathan and Obasanjo well before the 2011 election that produced Jonathan as President. Before that election in which the candidate of the ruling party, the Peoples’ Democratic Party, PDP, in Ogun State lost out, there was no love lost between Obasanjo and the leadership of the PDP. The fallout between Obasanjo and the then governor of Ogun State, Gbenga Daniel, was fuelled by the leadership of the PDP and key actors at the presidency at that time, notably Mike Oghiadomhe, the then Chief of Staff to the president and others. Backed by the other conspirators, Oghiadomhe, who was the go-between between Jonathan and Daniel, played a significant role in that messy arrangement all for reasons better known to him.

    Nevertheless, Jonathan still found a way to accommodate Obasanjo in his new government in 2011 when he appointed late Prof. Olugbenga Ashiru and Dr. Akinwunmi Adesina, Obasanjo’s two nominees, as Minister for Foreign Affairs and Minister for Agriculture respectively. Though the two men were eminently qualified, they were single handedly picked by Obasanjo without any input by any party member from Ogun State. Remember, Obasanjo’s appetite for globe-trotting and his entrepreneurship interest in Agriculture. These were the two reasons he brought the two men on board. While Jonathan had to drop the late Ashiru from his cabinet when he finally fell out with Obasanjo, Adesina held on because he had succeeded in dazzling the President with all his razzmatazz as Agriculture Minister.

    With Obasanjo’s penchant for dominating his environment and people around him, he may have over reached himself and forgotten that Jonathan is no longer the boy who could be tossed around. He is the President of the country. The fact is that Obasanjo will always want to have his way even if it means walking or stepping on other people’s heads. He cares no hoot. Besides, the current face-off between the two leaders shows the composure and comportment of those who are privileged to rule us. There are so many nauseating things that happen in the corridors of power especially in Africa and particularly in Nigeria, so nauseating that people will be wondering that such things could ever happen in high places. That is the way we are. Like late Ronald Reagan, former American President, once said: “I have learned that one of the most important rules of politics is poise, which means looking like an owl after you’ve behaved like a jackass.” Now, who blinks first?

  • Dissecting Nigerian Elections

    Basil Jide Fadipe is an indigene of Ile-Ife, the ancient town that occupies a pride of place in Nigerian history. I grew up there, so also are many other prominent Nigerians who are today, playing in the big league in the media and other human endeavours. That was where the late journalism icon, Dele Giwa, who changed the face of journalism practice in Nigeria, was weaned. Others have since followed suit: Dele Momodu, Dele Omotunde, Dare Babarinsa, Dele Olojede, Gbenga Adefaye, among others.

    Basil, as he is popularly known, taught me General Science in the secondary school. He is a professor and a surgeon. His scholarship and surgical breakthroughs have earned him accolades, rewards and recognitions all over the world. He is the founder/CEO of Justin Fadipe Centre, a flourishing, groundbreaking medical facility in the West Indies. He regularly churns out highly incontrovertible opinions on any subject under the sun. In this piece, reproduced here, Basil describes ‘Nigerian elections as a Season of Grains’. Read on:

    “It is the peculiar universality of his themes that has welded my heart to the man since that moment in 1980, when I first came across a book of his (“Human Knowledge”) as I wandered aimlessly,  a newly minted graduate, into a bookshop in the northern part of Nigeria. Ever since, I have never been able to shift my heart even an inch. Other than the four gospels, where comparable universality of themes, can be found, I have come across no thinker the size of Bertrand Russell; not before or since him.  And if I thought highly enough of (a) visitor(s), he could never leave Justin Fadipe Centre  without a stop at the little  ’shrine’ I mounted  for Bertrand Russell,  where, from the nature of the volumes, it should be obvious  Bertrand Russell, though long dead, weighs heavier dead than alive.

    “In 1950, when this Professor of Mathematics was awarded the Nobel Prize for Literature, (yes literature!!!), here was the citation: “In recognition of his varied and significant writings in which he champions humanitarian ideals and freedom of thought”. And when he came to give his speech as he received his award, here goes Bertrand Russell: “In any democracy, at what level of starvation will a citizen accept a bag of grains for his vote?” Since I listened to that speech few years ago, I lost hope in the intrincisity of democracy as an autonomous force. It is, like many tame-able forces, a merely contingent one,  shaped by the quality of its tamers. Democracy could be a lion, but one always at the mercy of hunger.

    “Give hunger a room, the lion is de-felinated, reduced, but to own caricature. Politics, as a democratic tool, gets blunted by the ‘rust’ of  wants, self or selves,  outmoding the polity or collective. Citizens who see the rust not the tool…keep a safe distance,  ….see the tool, not the rust… seek its  handle  and those who see tool as much as it’s  blight of rust  ….shelter in the clouds,  sporting for the right moment. Democracy in the end has no teeth intrinsic to it other than that granted by coalescence of self interests. Stumbling across such (spontaneous) coalescence, however,  is so often like stumbling across a toothed chicken. Competition, more than coalescence, more define the turf, one viscious interest pitted against another.

    “If democracy is so vulnerable to starvation, why pander to democracy and not starvation. When the dirt poor starves  from lack of means, Russellian logic about what a bag of grains may do to his vote is obvious but what happens when it is  the rich (or … the not-poor) facing starvation… its own kin. Dig a little down and it soon becomes obvious starvation leads both the poor and the rich to trading votes for a bag of grains. The dirt poor starves for means, the rich for contentment and the super rich for security. Subtract the combined population of these different categories of starvers from the whole, and see what flimsy residuum is left of a nation (any) to save democracy from the crippling effects of starvation.  The non-starving have learnt to be content with meeting basic needs, unmoved by desire for wants and more wants. They lie in the extremes of the bell curve, too few and too peripheral to swing democracy in the right direction; the advancement of individuals through  advancement, not exploitation of the nation

    “Yet if any, it is from within the ranks of the non-starvers, that  selfless calculations capable of moving a nation forward can be located .The dirt poor starving for food waits at the door, vote in hand  seeking the  highest bidder. The rich but uncontented, starving for more of everything,  or for contracts or position or loans, or grants or scholarship for kids, or any number of other wants, not needs, standing on one side of the road, beckoning democracy  for his kind of grains, too ready to do any dance  to seduce dividends. The poor trades vote for grains already in hand, delivered days before,  the rich trades on credit, the grains to follow a favourable outcome.  Trading on credit has risks, a risk minimized by conspiratorial alliance with the poor.

    “He seduces the poor into an expedient alliance with yet more bags of grain to bloat his stomach and cloud his judgement. It is this pre-electoral conspiracy between the poor who starve for needs and the rich who starve for wants that reduces Aristotelian democracy to a mockery. The non-starvers, too few to be anything,  but featherweight, sit at one end of the political seesaw,  pitted against the conspiratorial weight sat at the other end of the poor and the rich. In the asymmetry, the featherweight is lobbed into a cloud he could hardly see his path and the election delivered by unholy alliance into the waiting hands of the highest bidders in the ring.

    “The poor for reason of needs, has little loyalty to anything other than the sanctity of self. Inside his need perimeters, issues of national drift,  an unaffordable and reckless luxury,  loom little, if at all. The rich, slave to uncontentedness and driven by wants, is too self consumed to think nation; he thinks self preservation and self perpetuation. Between the two, democracy becomes a manequin garbed in make believe colours. If there is to be hope for democracy, it is neither the poor, nor the rich, to seek, it is the middle class. The middle class, if it be true to value, is less dependent on handouts or hand in, able always to know the fine line between loyalty to party and loyalty to state. He invests his intellect on state driven agendas, little, if at all, on party driven parodies.

    “Governance, not partisanship, is his constant focus.  Democracy needs him more than he needs democracy.  But the only reliable path to middle class is quality education; it shifts up the totem pole. Current Nigeria still has too little of middle class to steer democracy out of murky waters.  The country is bottom heavy with the poor and top loaded with the rich; but to the credit of successive governments, education has remained a priority with expanding opportunities home and abroad,  to educate Nigerians. There is now hardly a state in the country without a tertiary centre and hardly a part of the world. Nigerians are not engaged in some form of formal education. In time, a coalescence of these human resources must count for something in growing a critical mass of middle class that can cause democracy to be less beholden to  starvation. The seekers of votes still benefit from starvation as a collateral tool to garner votes, but so numbered are the days that the next generation of politicians will encounter steeper climbs should they hope on business as usual.

    “For now and until that critical mass of middle class emerges, the winners of elections in Nigeria today will remain the winners in the past; those with bigger  bags of grains. Jonathan or Buhari, the contest will be decided on grains not ringside rhetorics; bigger trucks of grains and correct addresses. This is today’s predicament, hopefully, not tomorrow’s realities.

    Russell implied it all in 1950.”

  • Audacity of Violence

    Since the commencement of the electioneering campaign process towards the general elections which kicks off next week, loyalists and supporters of some of the political parties and many other faceless Nigerians, have, through their actions, body language, speeches, advertisements and documentaries, been fanning the embers of war ahead of the elections. They have been threatening fire and brimstone. From the North to the South of the country, the situation remains the same. Palpable tension is in the air, so thick that it could be sliced with a butter knife.

    As this column wrote last week, as a result of this tension in the land, quite a good number of people are already voting with their feet. They are relocating their families out of the country or back to their respective villages over the fear of imminent violence. Not even assurances by top officials of government and other agencies are enough to dissuade the mass exodus from perceived hotspots in the country. From discussions everywhere you go to in the country these days, it is clear that since 1999, Nigerians have not witnessed any election as tension-soaked and keenly contested as next week’s presidential election.

    The election fever is not evident in the country alone as the international community has also been caught up in the trajectory. Quite recently, John Kerry, the United States Secretary of State, had to dash down to Nigeria to meet with the two frontline Presidential candidates – President Goodluck Jonathan of the Peoples’ Democratic Party and General Muhammadu Buhari of the All Progressives’ Congress – as well as officials of the Independent National Electoral Commission, INEC.  His message was that the international community is watching Nigeria and that peaceful and timely elections were vital to the continued existence of the country as well as peace in the West African sub-region.

    Obviously, there were other underlining factors that prompted Kerry’s visit. But if he was economical with words during his visit, the events that took place shortly after his departure showed that the country may well be sitting on a keg of gunpowder. Few hours after Kerry’s departure, President Jonathan’s campaign train moved to Maiduguri, the capital of Borno State, the epicentre of the Boko Haram terrorists’ onslaught in the North-east. Borno is one of the three north-eastern states under emergency rule. With elaborate security arrangement provided by ground troops and the Air force, complete with roving helicopter gunships, the president managed to complete his campaign and departed from the city. Unfortunately, hours after, Maiduguri became a battle zone as Boko Haram terrorists, attacking from three flanks, descended on the city like a swarm of bees. It took heavy military reinforcement and bombardments, coupled with a curfew, to clear the city of the daring and deadly invaders.

    With this ever-present threat of violence from Boko Haram and the hate preaching by politicians all over the place, the country’s path seems to be littered with landmines. In fact, the threat from Boko Haram is only the most dramatic aspect of a situation in which almost every line on the chart of national stability is heading in the wrong direction. Falling oil prices have eroded government revenue, leading to raids on the sovereign wealth fund and pointing to a not too distant moment when governments at all levels – federal, state and local government – may be unable to pay those who work for them or even to maintain essential services. And this is happening in an energy-rich country where, for example, there is no reliable electricity supply, something that is very disastrous for economic survival and other social services.

    The truth is that as resources shrink, the hydra-headed monster called corruption will certainly get worse, leaving even far less available for legitimate purposes. Right now, in spite of significant increases in defence spending, troops battling terrorists in the north of the country are still without adequate equipment and, in some cases, even proper kits and regular supplies of food and ammunition. The police are not faring any better as no money has been allocated to them for the elections, leading to the usual speculation that the money earmarked for defence and security, may have developed wings.

    Apart from this, there is a sharp division between the political parties, on virtually every issue and all the issues about the forthcoming elections. The division between the parties has largely followed primordial ethnic and religious fault lines – north and south, Christian and Muslim, to mention only the most obvious – which rather than easing, have been deepening in recent years. Perhaps, of greater worry is the ready recourse of politicians to unleash menacingly-looking thugs, all brandishing dangerous weapons and missiles, on innocent people. While some of the campaigns have been marred by violence and may get worse in the days ahead, some ethnic bigots are also threatening to spill blood if their candidate is unsuccessful in the coming election. My fear is that if the situation is not urgently checked, the nation may soon be embroiled in violence of unimaginable proportion.

    With this sordid scenario, like I said earlier, the country’s path in the weeks ahead is laden with landmines. Even if the country manages to scale through the elections without the worst happening, the result of the elections may come under serious litigation. If this happens and the government fails to move quickly to defuse tension as well as arrest the  looming fiscal crisis, such a weakened government would find it even harder to put in place  adequate military architecture to combat the growing menace of the terrorists ravaging the north-east part of the country. The terrorists could as well intensify their attacks during the election period to create maximum confusion and disorder.

    In his historic election campaign en route the 2008 American presidential elections, Barack Hussein Obama, the incumbent President of the United States of America, demonstrated that with boldness and unwavering commitment to a cause, victory can indeed be achieved. That unwavering commitment as chronicled in his now famous book, The Audacity of Hope, singled him out as a man who knows his onions and just where to fix them. It painted Obama as a person who had a vision for America, a vision rooted in the values that have always made America the last bastion of hope in the world. Unfortunately, now that the general election in Nigeria is right here at our doorstep, we are yet to recognise such vision dripping with patriotic fervor in our politicians even as they crisscross the entire length and breadth of the country wooing and cajoling voters to give them their votes.

    For several months before his eventual election as president in 2008, Obama held meetings across the country with all manners of people on front porches and family farms; in the basements of churches and at town hall meetings. The people he met knew that it wasn’t possible that government alone can solve all their problems and they never expected it to be so. Instead, the people believed in personal responsibility, hard work and self reliance. They also believed in fairness, opportunity and the responsibilities they have to one another.  They believed in an America where good jobs are there for the willing, where hard work is rewarded with a decent living and they also recognised the fundamental truth that a sound economy requires thriving businesses and flourishing families. However, what they will not take is to see their tax dollars going down the drain or private pockets as we witness too often in Nigeria.

    In a globalised world that changes every now and then, forging this kind of future like that of the Americans in a place like Nigeria can never be a tea party. In other words, it will never come easily. It requires new ways of thinking, of doing things and a new spirit of patriotism. That is exactly what is expected of Nigeria and Nigerians and not the growing audacity for violence. Although, the country has, several times proved the doomsayers wrong before now, it however, remains to be seen if the present worsening odds against it could also pass away without causing a major catastrophe in the polity.