Col. Abubakar Umar is a former governor of Kaduna State from August 1985 to June 1988 during the military regime of General Ibrahim Babangida. After his retirement from the army, Umar became Chairman and Chief Executive, Work and Worship (Gas Company) Nigeria Limited, Kaduna.
Umar was an unrepentant critic of the Abacha regime. He joined the G-18 group of politicians that publicly opposed Abacha’s plan to become president. Known for his outspokenness, Umar, who has variously dismissed the concept of a monolithic Northern region as obsolete and unnecessary, in this interview with Assistant Editor, LINUS OBOGO, condemned those asking for power to shift to the North ahead of 2015, insisting that they are not speaking for the region. He also spoke on the helplessness of the Northern leaders to deal with the menace of Boko Haram. Excerpts:
President Goodluck Jonathan said during his recent media chat that the Federal Government could not dialogue with the Boko Haram sect because, according to him, the Islamic sect is faceless. Would you subscribe to the government going into a parley with the Boko Haram?
The President was right in the sense that if you are going to dialogue with anybody, the people must show their faces. Otherwise, with whom is he going to dialogue? Even if the people are interested in dialogue, the fact remains that the Federal Government does not know who to dialogue with. So, President Jonathan was absolutely right.
What do you make of the refusal by the former head of state, General Mohammadu Buhari (rtd), to be Boko Haram’s representative at the dialogue?
Well, General Buhari has since dissociated himself from the news item that he had been chosen by the sect to represent them. He said he had nothing to do with Boko Haram and it is to that extent of dissociating himself with the sect that we should draw the curtain on the issue. You cannot force somebody who is not a member of your group or association to represent you when he does not even know who you are in the first place.
It is true that we all desire peace. But how do we even know that those sending out these messages are doing so on behalf of Boko Haram? It is still not clear that those behind the message of dialogue are representing anybody. If Boko Haram genuinely wants to dialogue, they should come out in the open and say here we are, this is our grouse and this is what we want under so and so conditions. They should make themselves known before anybody would want to dialogue with them or for anyone to want to be representative at a dialogue.
For me, it is the only way to look at the issue. Dialogue has become a mantra where virtually everyone is mouthing it. That is why I maintain that the Federal Government is correct by insisting that it does not know who it is going to dialogue with. Another thing is that no one is sure about who are the people behind those asking for dialogue with the government.
In all sincerity sir, do you think there are convincing grounds for any dialogue with the Boko Haram, given their unrestrained attacks on government’s and Christians’ institutions?
In the first place, as an ex-military officer, when you are confronted by a threat, you will try to do some analysis of where it is coming from. But because of the statements people have been making about who the Boko Haram members are and who they represent, it has been very difficult for us to identify who the Boko Haram elements are and also what their grouses are.
An average southerner believes that Boko Haram and their activities are the handiwork of disgruntled politicians who lost out in the 2011 presidential election. They also believe that because power did not shift to the North, disgruntled politicians from the region have decided to use the Bok Haram to distabilise the country and make things difficult for President Jonathan’s government. I do not think this is true.
Also, an average Northerner believes that Boko Haram is a tool being used by the Federal Government to distabilise the North and ensure that the economy of the region collapses.
For me, neither of the two positions is true. The truth is that we are faced by a group that is a fundamentalist organisation in outlook and which does not have a stable or consistent agenda. The only thing I see happening is that people are being killed and the economy of the North is being totally destroyed. From what is happening, both Moslems and Christians are being killed. How then can we support the theory or the assumption that some Northern politicians are manipulating the Boko Haram? If it were true, the northerners themselves should have been the first people to deal with the alleged politicians behind the activities of the sect.
In the same vein, if the Federal Government is allegedly complicit, according to the position of some northerners, what does Federal stand to gain by destabilising its own component unit of the federation? If the Federal Government is destabilising the North, is the region not a part of the nation?
I think what we must do is to dispassionately look at who the Boko Haram are, what they represent and then forge a united front against the threat. If we cannot identify who they are and what their activities constitute, then we may not be in a position to deal decisively with the danger it poses to the region and the country as a whole.
Some people have tried to rationalise that poverty is a major causal factor that has fuelled the activities of the violent Islamist sect coupled with long years of neglect by the government of the North. How true is this?
There are too many interpretations and suggestions as to the factors responsible for the emergence of Boko Haram. Yes, poverty could be identified as one of the reasons. When the youths are unemployed and no hope of being employed anytime soon, that will certainly exacerbate the kind of crisis we are confronted with. There is a saying that the most dangerous person on earth is that person who has nothing to lose.
These youths are detached from their parents. They are seeking a means of eking out a living. Yet there is no employment anywhere for them. So they are ready and willing recruits by those who do not wish the country well, whether it is Boko Haram, the militants or the kidnappers, poverty has a lot to do with this. It is nationwide.
There is this theory that the North is more poverty-stricken when compared to the South. But from my reading of the situation today, poverty is all over the land. Youth unemployment is all over the land, hopelessness is all over the land. And there is also the issue of corruption. A situation where 90 per cent of the country’s resources are in the hands of only two per cent of the population, it is a recipe for disaster and anarchy in the land.
Today, our universities are producing graduates that cannot be gainfully employed. The general economic situation is so bad and worrisome that we no longer have the middle class. 90 per cent of the country’s population is living below poverty line and that is not a good storyline for the country.
So this kind of dark and ugly scenario has the tendency to put pressure on the idle youths to want to seek for some something violent to engage their time.
With the economy of the North completely on its knees, social life absent in the region, what would you say leaders like you and others have done to resolve the standoff?
You see, today, when people talk of Northern leaders, I do not think they know who they are talking about. Are they talking about the so-called elders, the governors or members of the National Assembly? Who are they referring to? But if you are talking of the elders like most people tend to emphasise on nowadays, you must ask yourself, what do these leaders have at their disposal to be able take on Boko Haram or solve the problem of the sect that the Federal Government does not have?
The Northern leaders people often refer to are usually very difficult to define. Are we referring to religious leaders like the Christian or Moslem heads? And if the answer is yes, do they have the police or the military or the courts. So, if the Northern leaders they are referring to do not have these means, it is difficult to see how they can solve the problem of Boko Haram. The solution to the menace of Boko Haram is the responsibility of all Nigerians, irrespective of geographical or ethnic affiliation or extraction. Unless every Nigerian gets behind the Federal Government to think of ways or means by which Boko Haram can be defeated, we cannot make any headway. So, Northern leaders are not the police, soldiers or the courts. They are civilians like other civilians who have neither guns nor bullets at their disposal.
The elite generally have the responsibility to allow for the growth of the middle class. Unless there is employment and less corruption in the land, that is only when there will be a reduction in the wave of violent crime in the country.
Do you think the Federal Government has been proactive enough in dealing with the scourge of Boko Haram or what should it be doing differently?
Well, government has a responsibility to solve not only the menace of Boko Haram, but all other anti-social vices in the country. And it can do this through empowering and creation of opportunities. All the tiers of government have a responsibility and must demonstrate that in the way they manage their economy to impact on the youth and the unemployed. It is another way to go about it.
Governments at all levels must be seen to be genuinely fighting corruption in such a way that it makes it extremely impossible for just two per cent of the population to control the resources of this country. The ever- widening gap between the rich and the poor is another problem that gives rise to the emergence of violent groups in the country.
There is a saying that if the economy cannot assist many who are poor in like manner, it cannot save the few rich. When people wake up to find out that those who are not contributing to the growth of the economy are making it big, there is the tendency for those who are contributing, but not making it to think of adopting the strategy of their opposite counterparts.
How do you react to the criticism of former President Olusegun Obasanjo against President Jonathan’s handling of the Boko Haram challenge?
In fact, I was very surprised that former President Obasanjo had to take on President Jonathan on his handling of Boko Haram. People are still talking about the operations he ordered in Odi and Zaki Biam that were considered high-handed. People like former Chief of Army Staff, General Victor Malu, threatened to take him to the International Criminal Court for what he referred to as genocide in Zaki Biam.
President Goodluck Jonathan was on a national television sometime ago talking about the massacre of innocent elderly women and children in an operation ordered by Obasanjo. He said after the massacre, nothing came out of the Odi debacle. In the end, the problem of militancy was not solved with the massacre of innocent children and women by the band of soldiers deployed by Obasanjo.
I really do not understand why Obasanjo should think of the use of what he thought was a good strategy in dealing with Odi and Zaki Biam crises to deal with other groups in the country. Does Boko Haram have a fixed location like the militancy in Odi? We are talking about a group that does not have a fixed or permanent address. So why would Obasanjo want Jonathan to adopt the same tactics he used in Odi?
From what is coming out now, it is obvious that Obasanjo’s strategy in Odi and Zaki Biam did not achieve its desired result in curbing militancy in the region, and to that extent, I do not see how the same approach can be applied in dealing with Boko Haram.
Governor Rabiu Kwankwaso of Kano State recently said the South was getting richer at the expense of the North. What exactly do you think was on his mind when he made the statement and is the North truly getting poorer and if so, why?
Governor Rabiu Kwankwas’s statement was ironic. And I want to look at it from two perspectives, one of which is that we are becoming more and more dependent on oil which is not the right strategy for the growth of the economy of this country.
What some countries are doing is to try and diversify their economy from being solely dependent on one source of commodity. Our continuous dependence on oil revenue to drive the economy cannot last for forever. This is for two reasons: world oil prices are bound to suffer the effect of fluctuation and so, it is dangerous to depend on oil revenue to run the economy.
Secondly, the operations of oil exploration are destroying the Niger Delta more and more. So, I feel that there will be less oil activities in the Niger Delta in the long run. From my understanding of the situation on ground today, I feel that what the oil and non-oil producing states should begin to do is to use the little allocations they are getting now to expand their internally-generated revenue base and to look for other sources of funding and not depend wholly on oil revenue.
The North, for instance, should begin to think of expanding its agricultural activities and industry. More and more countries are developing without oil than with oil. There are more states in the South which are non-oil-producing just like the North. So, if they are not crying, I wonder why the North should be crying. The question is that what have the states done with the so-called little revenue they have been getting from the centre?
There are a few states today that are putting their allocations to good use. It is even more worrisome to hear that an oil-producing state is borrowing money to finance projects and pay its contractors. The truth is that very few states are putting their oil money to good use.
What I want to emphasise essentially is that states must diversify their sources of revenue by exploring other sources to boost the economy of their states than continue to wait for handouts from the Federal Government.
Again, I do not know why people try to dichotomize between the North and the South when it comes to the issue of development. The truth is that the entire states of the federation are poorer than they had ever been. How many states are truly developing their economies with the allocations they are getting? There is embezzlement going on in all the states of the federation by their chief executives, council chairmen and their commissioners.
But there is this idea that the North is getting poorer while the South is becoming richer and richer. When the World Bank carried out a survey the last time, it found out that Nigeria was getting poorer. We must not dichotomize on the basis of the North and South when we are trying to analyze the economic performance of Nigeria. It is a fact that today, over 80 per cent of Nigeria’s population are living below poverty line. This percentage cuts across religious, cultural and geographical lines. So, it is fallacious for Kwankwaso to think that the North is poorer than the South.
There are currently agitations across the country for the creation of more states by the National Assembly Committee on Constitution Review. Do you think there are justifiable grounds for the creation of more states?
I do not want to be drawn into the arithmetic of state creation or be engaged in doing a balancing act over which region has less or more states than the other. But what I want to tell you here is that one of the greatest tragedies of our national development today is the creation of so many states. And one of the main causes of our backwardness today is the number of states and local government areas.
If it were possible to cut down on the number of states and bring them to a more manageable size, I would gladly welcome that. Any attempt to continue to create more administrative units simply for the purpose of getting oil revenue from the centre will spell doom in the long run.
We have to be honest with ourselves, how many of these states are really viable? I know that I would have stepped on so many toes by the time this interviewed is being read by those clamouring for a state of their own. But the truth must be said, no matter who may be affected.
However, having said this, it is up to those saddled with the responsibility of reviewing the constitution to look at the various issues dispassionately. In the end, national interest must be seen to be paramount. It is not in the interest of this country to continue to create more administrative units. That is my position. I really do not want to get involved in how many states the North has and how many are in the South East or South West. The more we keep talking about what divides us, the more we remain divided.
Nigeria is 35th most corrupt country in the corruption index released by the Transparency International. Is this a statement about the helplessness or complicity of the government in the fight against corruption?
I am not surprised with the position of Nigeria as the 35th most corrupt country in the world. The truth is, the government has not done enough to end the scourge of corruption. When I say the government, I mean the executive, the legislature and the judiciary.
What we have seen is the occasional dramatic way government advertises its effort at fighting corruption. Once in a while, it will make some arrest and cause it to be shown on a national television after which nothing is heard again. Or the suspect’s file is sent to the EFCC with a lot of fanfare and the man is arraigned in court and there will be a lot of manipulation to delay the process or prosecution of the suspect.
The Federal Government is always quick to point to cases of corruption and then goes ahead to effect arrest. After the arrest, nothing happens and the court begins to play a kind of filibuster and delay the process with a series of adjournments. At the end, the government will beat its chest that it has achieved a feat in the fight against corruption.
Some five years ago, some former governors were arrested on charges of corruption, but as we speak, there has been no conviction. In fact, in the last three years, none of the governors has gone back to court to appeal his arraignment. What that tells you is that the fight against corruption has not been sincere in that respect.
The judiciary is as guilty as the executive of the process militating against the war on corruption. There have been cases of alleged inducements by suspects, culminating in adjournments. Take a look at the National Assembly, they engage in a lot of investigations after which reports are written and they are heard no more. That is the situation we have found ourselves as a nation.
A case in point is the Police Pension Fund. Up till today, we have not been told what went wrong. So, the National Assembly has not been vigorous in getting the executive and the judiciary to do their own part of prosecuting because they are neck deep in corruption themselves. Another instance is the case involving Mr. Farouk Lawan. Up till now the House of Representatives has not told us the complicity of Lawan in the fuel subsidy bribery saga.
You can see that the fight against corruption is done in the most lackadaisical fashion. The three organs of government are not serious about stemming the tide of corruption.
Ahead of 2015, there have been clamours that power should shift. Would you say the agitations are well informed or are rather misplaced and where should power shift to?
As far as I am concerned, it is extremely counter-productive and retrogressive to be harping on power shift all for the sake of power shifting to a small clique from the region asking for power to shift in 2015. If you probe further, when people are asking for power to shift to the North, they are asking that power should actually shift to their own men or to themselves and specifically, to their zone.
When they say power should shift to the North, they have a particular place in mind and exactly where the man from the North comes from. It is either to themselves or to their own men and not just any man from the North. So, they are not fighting for the North, but for their own selfish interest.
Even those advocating that power should remain in the South, they already have a fixed address in mind. It is not often the whole region, but a small section of the region.
So, even when they agree on power shift to the North, they will tell you oh, power should shift to the North East or the North West or North Central. There is a need to be wary of the intentions of this group of power shift advocates.
For me, power should reside anywhere in the country where the best man resides. This country is one and from wherever the best man emerges, the man from the North West, North East, South West, South East or North Central should vote for him. Nigerians should begin to disregard ethnic jingoists camouflaging as nationalists.
