Category: Editorial

• With institutions in disarray and corruption in full sway, the Jonathan legacy is a poor instance of how to shepherd a nation

As the Jonathan regime winds down, a post-mortem beckons. What were its strengths or its failings, and how much of a legacy will resonate a generation from now when historians ponder its era?

Whatever we say today may be revised by a generation or two from now for ill or for good. But the moment compels us to look back at a regime that is incapable of sliding into the oblivion of memory.

It was a period of intense activities, but it was marked by epic failures. Its greatest undoing however was its failure, some will say unwillingness, to tackle the fundamental flaw of the Nigerian nation: a value system. The consequence of this was a reign of impunity, the subversion of the rule of law and the inability of institutions to rise to their promise.

No doubt, President Goodluck Ebele Jonathan ascended the throne in historic circumstances. His predecessor, Umar Yar’Adua, died in office, and that unleashed a constitutional crisis that some thought threatened our frail democracy.

A cabal loyal to the dying leader jousted with him, ethnic moguls whipped up atavistic sentiments, lawmakers clutched at straws for a way out, the leadership of the judiciary was hazy, ambitious politicians schemed with subversive opportunism, and furtive speculations of military intervention stirred conversations about the longevity of our political experiment.

Eventually, the nation settled for a workable oddity known as the doctrine of necessity, and Jonathan segued from acting president to full president. Months later he staked himself as presidential candidate for his party, the People’s Democratic Party (PDP). It was from that time that questions arose about his sense of values as some Nigerians wondered if it was right as a signatory to a zoning arrangement that Jonathan decided to run.

But the resistance was feeble and he rode to power on two sentiments that would later dog his era: religion and tribe.

Once he won the 2011 polls, he rode the wave of these two sentiments, and occluded the north and Muslims in what his followers described invidiously as a pan-Nigerian mandate.

The first value that suffered was a sense of fairness and inclusiveness. He never built a bridge across to his northern subjects, even if in an act of ill grace his runner-up, Muhammadu Buhari, did not come out in strong and clear terms to condemn and dissociate himself from the turbulence that racked parts of the north in the aftermath of his historic victory. Rather President Jonathan consciously played a politics of divide and rule, and showed ethnic partiality in his association, appointments and preference of visits in the course of his reign.

That was the beginning and it turned out he was not willing either by words, deeds or symbolism to shed that image.

When the Boko Haram insurgency tore the north apart, he and his men began to see it in terms of a conspiracy theory rather than a task to cement a fractured nation and emphasise the sameness of a heterogeneous people. The result was a neglect of the war whose narrative culminated in the abduction of about 276 girls from a school in the rustic town known as Chibok.

His handling of it started with rage against the news breakers and then denial. His wife, Patience, made a mournfully comic drama out of it by subverting the culture of mourning when she – and later the president -invited the mourners to Abuja rather than visit them in their downcast homes. She also turned the visit into a platform to castigate the government’s perceived enemies.

With the ethnic tension, add the religious. We do not begrudge the president his right to confess a faith. But he turned it into a balkanizing treasure. He started to play up the pious card, and became a president as pilgrim not only in his sojourns to churches and sermons on pulpits but also his act in Jerusalem.

As the election cycle came to an end, his visits to Lagos became emblematic of his manipulation of ethnic and religious cards. A few years earlier, he said that the non-indigenes outnumbered the indigenes in Lagos. He exploited that in the firestorm of election campaigns.

President Jonathan also surrounded himself with persons who had cases to answer on corruption. Significant was a former governor who received presidential pardon and became a mainstay of his regime. He also had ministers tarred with either corruption or appearance of it, but the president looked the other way and in other instances sullied the dignity of his office by lining up behind them.

One instance concerned the aviation minister, Stella Oduah, who was accused of corruption and double standards, and the matter lingered with the media and civil society bodies pelting the president with various epithets. The president never issued a statement to dissociate his government from her activities. He hid under a reshuffle to step her down, while she still played a role, if informal, in the running of government.

Before that Abdulrasheed Maina was involved in a pension fraud case, and the matter that involved the fortunes and welfare of millions of our senior citizens ended shamefully. Maina was a close confidant of the president and he was never brought to book in spite of an official indictment.

The most contentious was the accusation that came from the former governor of the Central Bank of Nigeria to the effect that about $50 billion of our oil money could not be accounted for. Although it was later denied and pruned to $12 billion by the government under finance minister Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala, the Jonathan Presidency never did any clear accountability of the money. The newly unified Governors Forum that included mainstays of those who defended the Jonathan administration’s footloose regime, agreed it was $20 billion. When the Jonathan administration asked a firm, PriceWaterhouse Cooper Nigeria, to look at the books of the Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation (NNPC), it turned out to be an elaborate charade. The NNPC and the Central Bank did not cooperate with the audit team.

Even when his oil minister, Diezani Alison-Madueke, was accused of spending a superlative sum of N10 billion on air travels, she shunned the flurry of media inquiries and snubbed the National Assembly.

The lesson is that the Jonathan administration ruined institutions, allowed corruption to fester and the nation reeled morally.The Buhari administration that will succeed it will do well to watch out for any moral traps and lead this country on the path of a values rebirth. If the Jonathan era failed, his should act as a bail-out era.

SIR: If there is any nation on this planet earth so favoured of God, Nigeria if  not the first cannot be third because of a truth, God cares for Nigeria. There are series of events and indices that point to this assertion.  In the early stage of our nationhood, we survived a brutal civil war,  which was enough to see to the end of this nation.  We survived Maitasine’s war, religious riots, many military coups, youth restiveness,  terrorism attacks and Islamic insurgency; that we still remain a strong nation is very amazing.

Despite all the satanic prognostications and doomsday prophecies that Nigeria will break up in 2015, God has proved Himself faithful on our behalf.  We have demonstrated to the whole world that we are mature and able as a nation to find solutions to our squabbles and solve any problem without recourse to any foreign country.

We stood united against Ebola virus and won;  some even made the supreme sacrifices to save the rest of us, which has made our nation a cynosure of all eyes in the international community. So for this year’s election to have come and gone without the nation’s disintegration, we all share in the credit.

Kudos should be given to President Jonathan for making history as the first sitting president to conced defeat to the opposition in a keenly contested elections.

That is why to whom much is given, much is expected; the in- coming government of General Muhammadu Buhari should brace up to the challenges ahead, because the masses of this country are banking on him to liberate them from the shackles of poverty and unemployment ravaging the nation. He should get his acts right by hitting the ground running to defeat the monster of corruption as he stated during the election period. He should be magnanimous in victory by treating every Nigerian equally.

A situation in which some few people sit down to share our collective patrimony should be quickly addressed.  It is unfortunate that many past leaders shared our oil blocks among themselves. He should be ready to step on toes and cancel all these oil licences.

The issue of jumbo pay for the legislators should be looked into; the situation in which a Nigerian senator earns about $181,000 per month, and their counterparts in the US earns about $174, 000 annually is incongruous and ludicrous.

He will definitely get the backing of the majority of Nigerians in his bid to recover stolen funds from corrupt officials without minding whose horse is gored.

The fuel subsidy is another debacle that needs urgent attention.  He should make use of people with impeccable character to man the oil sector. Our refineries should be put to maximum use to reduce the price and hardship being experienced by Nigerians in getting fuel.

Stable electricity is very essential to the growth of our national economy; infrastructural development will facilitate industrial growth and job creation. He should focus on these. With God on our side, Nigeria is on the path of greatness, and I wish the incoming administration the best of luck and God’s guidance

• Pastor Mark Debo Taiwo,

Takie/Ikoyi Road, Ogbomoso.

•Transition committees should not be platforms for petty partisan wrangling

One of the marvels of democratic elections is the promise of another era and the smooth jettisoning of the reigning regime. It is a rite that comes with not a few rights. But one of the great rights is that the people who ushered in a new dispensation should enjoy their entitlement to the spectacle of new faces, new leadership and the exit of the old.

It is not always an enjoyable ritual for the departing, whether they suffer from the opponent’s cliffhanger victory or a historic shellacking. To lose in a democratic process comes with its inevitable pangs and it is all too human.

Yet the loser and winner are expected to show grace, to unveil in their conduct, speeches and symbolisms a respect for the majesty of the democratic system.

It was cheering to observe that President Goodluck Ebele Jonathan pulled off a first in the grace of a concession phone call to winner Muhammadu Buhari in an election in which his was an inaugural loss in our history. But since then the nation has been hostage to a series of comical shenanigans in the relationships between the transition committees of both outgoing Jonathan and incoming Buhari.

While the nation learned that both committees had been set up barely two weeks after the March 28 presidential elections, it was hard to believe that until a week ago, both committees had not had a joint session. Their public image rattled with recriminations on both sides, each side accusing the other of bad faith. The Jonathan team lashed out at the Buhari team for bullying intrusiveness. On the other hand, the Buhari team caviled at what it saw as Jonathan’s team’s coy defensiveness.

We understand that having been in government for close to six years the Jonathan government may have felt a proprietary jealousy about its activities in government, especially if some of the doings would not minister grace to the ears or apple to the eyes.

But government has two important virtues. One, it is a continuum, and that means when the people have decided to oust a regime, it has to give way to the party of choice by the people.

Two, government is a public trust, and the principle of transparency dictates that whatever happens inside its inner sanctum should ultimately be made available to the people like a fish bowl.

It therefore behooves the transition team of the Jonathan administration to cooperate even if it implies that the unsavoury facts hit the public space. It is, however, inevitable since the regime will quit on May 29.

In spite of its vantage position, the Buhari team should not evince a sense of a gloating inquisitor or triumphalism. If by losing the Jonathan team is limping with wounds, generosity of spirit is the least that the Buhari team should show. The greater picture is Nigeria. They should note too that the government will take over power and it is not guaranteed to operate without human errors.

In fact, more tolerance is required from the Buhari team because as winner they are closer to the tolerant spirits than the losers who still chafe and pine.

But this has not happened in the centre alone. In Jigawa State, Governor Sule Lamido has travelled out on an ostensible vacation to avoid initiating a handover process to his successor. This is simply irresponsible. The office is no private fief and the good people of Jigawa who gave him eight years of unfettered reign require less than eight weeks of cooperation in this regard.

In Rivers State, Governor Rotimi Amaechi has no transition team. This newspaper has condemned the farce of the election that came off as gubernatorial polls.  In spite of that evident brigandage, the path of honour compels Governor Amaechi to bow to the decency of process just as he awaits the tribunal to follow the rules in adjudicating the appeal over the elections.

It is the rule of law and not the whim of men that ennobles democracy.

 ‘In spite of its vantage position, the Buhari team should not evince a sense of a gloating inquisitor or triumphalism. If by losing the Jonathan team is limping with wounds, generosity of spirit is the least that the Buhari team should show. The greater picture is Nigeria. They should note too that the government will take over power and it is not guaranteed to operate without human errors’

•Our concern is that the rule of law was followed in the case involving the ex-NSMPC boss

LAST week, a Federal High Court presided over by Justice Evoh Chukwu, ordered the extradition of the former Managing Director of Nigeria Security Minting and Printing Company (NSMPC), Mr Ehidiamhen Okomoyon, to the United Kingdom. In making the order, Justice Chukwu held that the Extradition Treaty of 1931, made applicable in Nigeria in 1935, has not been repealed. The court further held that by virtue of section 315(4) of the 1999 constitution, the act is deemed to be an act of the National Assembly. The argument by the defence counsel, Mr Alex Izinyon (SAN) that there is no subsisting extradition treaty between Nigeria and United Kingdom was dismissed. In his spirited argument before the court, the defence counsel further argued that part of the alleged crime was committed in Nigeria, and the defendant was willing to undergo a trial in Nigeria. The counsel therefore argued that allowing the extradition would amount to the subordination of Nigeria’s sovereignty to that of the United Kingdom. No doubt, these are weighty arguments, which we hope the court took into consideration in arriving at its judgment. However, our paramount interest is the strict observance of the rule of law, in dealing with the rights of Citizen Ehidiamhen Okomoyon. It is also important to ask whether reciprocity is embedded in the 1931 treaty, to grant Nigeria the right to ask for the extradition of British citizens, where there has been infringement of our laws. Of significance is the crime allegedly committed by the former Managing Director of NSMPC. According to reports, the defendant is wanted in the United Kingdom over his alleged role in the allegation of bribery, involving the NSMPC, the Central Bank of Nigeria and Securency International Pty of Australia, between 2006 and 2008. It is surprising that while the details of the bribery scandal against Mr Okomoyon, who allegedly used some of his domestic staff to perpetrate the crime, has been in the public domain for years, there has been no criminal indictment by relevant authorities in Nigeria. For us, while the Attorney General of the Federation (AGF), Mr Mohammed Adoke (SAN), may be obligated to pursue the extradition request by the British High Commission; it is strange that his office failed to bring Mr Okomoyon to trial for the crimes principally committed against Nigeria. After all, the money involved in the bribery scandal and the recipient primarily emanated from Nigeria. Even more indicting is the fact that the whistle on the alleged bribery scandal was also blown outside the country, which showed how ineffective our investigative agencies are. The import is that the criminal justice system that the AGF presides over is ineffective. It is also worrisome that the AGF has to rely on a 1931 treaty, in dealing with the fundamental rights of a Nigerian, which became independent in 1960. The underlining implication is that the treaty referred to was made under colonial rule, with all the likely challenges and shortcomings. Considering the elaborate provisions on extradition in our laws, it is unacceptable that the primary legislation should be a colonial relic, when we have operated the office of AGF of Independent Nigeria, for over 50 years. To save the state, time and resources, in proving the existence of extradition treaties between Nigeria and friendly countries, as in the present case; the relevant colonial laws should be re-enacted by our parliament, and made applicable only to countries that are willing to offer similar terms of reciprocity. We also urge the office of the AGF to borrow a leaf from the UK, to deal with the foreign components of the mind-boggling criminal infractions committed against Nigeria in recent times, with the connivance of foreigners.

‘To save the state, time and resources, in proving the existence of extradition treaties between Nigeria and friendly countries, as in the present case; the relevant colonial laws should be re-enacted by our parliament, and made applicable only to countries that are willing to offer similar terms of reciprocity’ 

Apex court’s intervention in the rift between the federal executive and Senate is suspect

IT is good that what had threatened to be another political impasse that could have affected the peace, if not the stability of Nigeria has been staved off following last week’s last minute decision of the Senate to stand down the face-off between the National Assembly and the Presidency which had dovetailed into the legislature’s attempt to disregard a ruling of the Supreme Court. The President had acted within his rights to withhold his assent on the Bill seeking to further amend the 1999 Constitution. He gave reasons for his disavowal of the sections of the amendment Bill. But, believing that President Goodluck Jonathan was playing political games, incensed legislators said they would muster the numbers to override the President’s veto. Had they done so, they would also have acted within their rights.

But, sensing imminent defeat and feeling very strongly that the National Assembly had overreached itself in proposing the amendment, the President sought the intervention of the highest court of the land, the Supreme Court, raising what he said were pointers of law that the National Assembly would have erred if the amendments were allowed.

It is our view that, on point of law, the President was probably correct in seeking judicial intervention in what had become a legal dispute between the two arms of government. The executive also wanted the Supreme Court’s interpretation of aspects of the Constitution it had cited in objecting to the amendment.

The lawmakers, too, could not be faulted in holding that the decision of their lordships to interfere with the legislative process amounted to usurpation of power and violation of the time-hallowed Principle of Separation of Power that is central to the practice of the presidential system of government. The furious lawmakers who alleged conspiracy between the executive and judicial arms of government said the court was wrong to have entertained the matter while the National Assembly was still in the process of examining and deciding what to do with the executive action. They pointed out that the two chambers of the assembly had always avoided discussing matters in court and they deserved the same respect.

We commend the maturity of the lawmakers in backing down on the threat to disregard the ruling of the Supreme Court that the status quo ante be maintained until the parties address the court on the matter on June 19. A resort to self-help in the matter would have created bad blood and set a bad precedence for other institutions of state and even individuals.

We agree with the National Assembly that the justices acted in a curious manner in adjourning the case till the tenure of the current assembly would have lapsed. It is unfortunate that those placed in sacred positions of authority ignore the cost implications of their decisions. The legislature which began the amendment process shortly after it was inaugurated in 2011 had already committed huge resources into it, organising seminars and workshops, holding public hearings in the federal capital and the six geo-political zones, and engaging the services of some of the best legal minds in the country as consultants. The adjournment is indeed a setback as the new assembly, comprising mainly first timers, cannot be expected to understand the history and  underpinnings of the decisions reached. Besides, it just cannot continue from where the matter would have been rested.

We, however, call on the in-coming lawmakers to be more diligent in pursuing matters of national interest. There could be no justification for the amendment dragging on for almost four years before it reached this point. Had the assembly been faithful to its pledge to get the amendment effected by 2013, the most recent intrigues that started with the 2014 National Conference would not have caught up with it. It is unacceptable that, after receiving huge emoluments, the lawmakers could still drag the process on for so long. We observe that the fact that many Bills are stuck on the President’s table, neither returned to the assembly nor assented to, is an indication that the legislature has for long shied away from exercising its powers and watching out for the public good. Had there been precedence of overriding the presidential veto, it would have availed them better in the instant case.

We note too that President Jonathan exercised bad faith in this matter. He weighed in with his influence to slow down the process when the legislators wanted to conclude it last year. He brought up the National Conference, the report of which he could not get implemented at a critical point. It was obvious to him at that point that it would be practically impossible for the conference to end its deliberations, make recommendations that would be given effect in the life of his administration. He might not have envisaged the defeat he suffered at the poll in April, but he was aware of the older constitution amendment plan of the National Assembly. He was equally aware that he would need to pass the recommendations to the lawmakers, yet no effort was made to reconcile the findings with the lawmakers who were set to pass their own summations into law. If the President were acting in good faith, he would have passed the confab’s resolutions earlier to enable a marriage of the efforts.

We are convinced that these political and moral facts were not lost on the Supreme Court justices who rather chose to buy into the federal executive’s delay tactics. As is always the case in similar matters, the people are the losers. The billions of Naira spent on both the confab and the National Assembly’s expedition have been flushed down the drain.

We call on the Nigerian people and civil society groups to be more socially engaged with their governments. At the point that it had become clear that the executive and legislature were on collision course, the civil organisations ought to have intervened decisively, bringing the issues involved to bold relief.

We expect that the incoming Buhari administration would demonstrate maturity, good sense and act swiftly in getting the issues resolved and the amendment process brought back on track. We hope that the administration would be well served by the knowledge and expertise of the Vice-President elect, Professor Yemi Osinbajo, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN).

We also advise the Supreme Court justices to be more circumspect and restore confidence in the apex court. A situation that has portrayed it, rightly or wrongly, as acting in cahoots with the executive can only deny it the honour it deserves and thus affect the impartial stabilisation role expected of it.

The national health is too important to be subjected to unhealthy power game.

 

SIR: It was news in all the major newspapers and online sites that the President-elect, General Muhammad Buhari has directed his  protocol officers and his team that traffic rules should be observed and respected. There was also a picture showing the President-Elect observing the rules. This is an unprecedented step by the President-elect. In a country where the the children  of government officials do not respect traffic laws, in fact many of them don’t even have drivers licence, and suddenly a President-elect has shown his commitment to respect each and every law in the country, it is both commendable and a sign of good things to come.

The directive to follow traffic laws by by Buhari can be considered his personal wish. But what about his protocols and his safety? It is also the duty of the Presidential security detail and advance teams to ensure that President is protected and transported to any place he wants to go right on time. As President-elect, that is quite possible. But as substantive President, that will be somehow difficult. A President visiting a particular place while on the road and suddenly the light turned red while his advance team has already passed would be a source of security concern. Or is it that the traffic control centre will monitor the President’s movement and timely turning the light green on his approach? The safety of the President is not his choice; it is a national security matter.

Security has always been a great source of concern to all countries around the world. That is why even in so-called developed countries, the roads are made open to their leaders and they don’t necessarily wait for the green light. Nigeria should be on its highest security alert now and even months after swearing in of General Muhammad Buhari. This is not just because of the transition or visiting foreign leaders, but because of potential terrorist threats. Already there is insurgency in North-east, militancy in South-south, terror groups and kidnappings in South-west and South-east, herdsmen-farmers clashes in North-west and North-central, etc. Everybody can be targeted – the President included.

A lot of tragedies and attacks have occurred to many leaders from around the world while they are on the road. Murtala Muhammed was assassinated in a car while he was in his car waiting for the traffic light. President Hosni Mubarak’s car was attacked in Ethiopia while he was in the country for a visit. President Kennedy was assassinated in a car in Dallas in 1963. The road is the weakest security place for a leader. The President-elect cannot not afford to play with the red and green lights at a wrong time like this. His security is a national affair that must be taken very serious.

 

•  Comrade Abdulbaqi Jari,

Katsina