Still on coronavirus

By Idowu Akinlotan

After weeks of uncertainty, President Muhammadu Buhari on March 29 finally addressed the nation on the coronavirus crisis coursing through Nigeria and ravaging many parts of the world. Some six days earlier, he had made a half-hearted attempt to address the nation, but what he had to say then was neither comprehensive nor did it resonate with the public. Indeed, most people missed the earlier address entirely. The broadcast of last Sunday was more comprehensive, more assertive, but ultimately even more controversial. Before March 29, the controversy centred on his reticence, and how that reticence had become elevated into an administrative style. After his last address, the controversy transformed into whether what he had to say and how he approached the health crisis facing the nation satisfied the prerequisites of substance and constitutionality. It is the president’s enduring leadership incongruities that even in the midst of some of his sound policy measures, the controversies he triggers sometimes outweigh, if not completely diminish, his sensible and practical deeds.

More than a week before he finally agreed to address Nigerians, Information minister, Lai Mohammed, had suggested that it was not yet time for the president to speak on the coronavirus crisis, and this was way after many world leaders had addressed their nations and began personifying the war against that unusual and relentless enemy. About three days before the March 29 address, presidential spokesman, Femi Adesina, also berated the calls for a presidential address, describing the president’s taciturnity as a leadership style that was deeply idiosyncratic. But because the calls would not go away, and perhaps after dotting their i’s and crossing their t’s, the president and his team finally relented and gave an address. Almost like the kerfuffle that surrounded the suggestion about silence being a presidential style, this latest address has also become somewhat controversial. But both controversies are, however, unlikely to retain public attention for long. The frenzied changes cascading round the country ensure that no issue, no matter how grave or major, remains in the public domain for too long: not banditry, which exceeds itself in the brutality of its practitioners, nor kidnapping, which has become a national subculture, nor atrocities by herdsmen whose terrorist inclinations shockingly receive official connivance.

The almost universal impression is that in his second address, which is actually the first real address, the president spoke like a statesman and succinctly addressed the main issues pertaining to the coronavirus crisis. Nigerians had called for him to lead from the front. He had finally started to do so. They had wanted him to champion the fight. He had finally given the impression of personifying the fight and issuing rules and regulations that do not seem far-fetched to a majority of Nigerians. After enumerating what his government had done and painting a picture of what still needs to be done to rein in a health monster rubbishing the know-how of many industrialised nations like the United States, Spain and Italy, President Buhari anchored his address and decisions on the Quarantine Act of 1926. He followed up by announcing a lockdown of two states and the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), giving a few exemptions, and adding a few benefits to palliate the sufferings of those expected to bear a disproportionate brunt of the pains of executing his orders. The palliatives did not seem well thought-out, nor did a few of the measures announced seem carefully reasoned, but the public was in no mood to be finicky about what they described as a huge and merciless threat to everybody.

All things considered, it was unlikely that the presidency expected any serious criticisms. They thought they had covered all grounds and left nothing to chance. But the criticisms streamed in notwithstanding the government’s efforts, the competence of the presidential task force, the controversial palliatives, and the equally controversial cash transfers, etc. None of the criticisms faulted the president’s ultimate goal of ridding the country of the virus, but they feared that the president, as usual, acted dictatorially by not underpinning his anti-coronavirus war with an enabling law, or even the right law for that matter. But exasperated by the fussiness of the critics, presidential spokesman, Garba Shehu, hurled a few barbs at one or two of the notable critics, particularly Prof Wole Soyinka who had wondered whether the president had the right to order a lockdown on some states. Responding, however, and without addressing the constitutional puzzles raised by the Nobel laureate, Mallam Shehu blurted out: “The scientific and medical guidance the world over is clear: the way to defeat the virus is to halt its spread through limitation of movement of people…In the meantime, we ask the people of Nigeria to trust the words of our doctors and scientists  and not fiction writers  at this time of national crisis.” But the eminent professor did not question whether restricting movement as a measure was legal. He only asked whether in the case of the lockdown in question due process had been observed. Other legal experts, including Ebun-Olu Adegboruwa and Femi Falana, had also questioned the president’s methods, preferring a different, probably inclusive, approach. Indeed, it was not surprising that Ogun State chafed at the suddenness of the president’s measures, with Governor Dapo Abiodun unilaterally giving his state a few days respite in the lockdown implementation.

Even though the president’s decisions left much to be desired, and too many loopholes were evident in both the address and the regulations later signed to give the lockdown legal backing, most Nigerians are unwilling to challenge the president. A certain paranoia and urgency had crept into the war against the virus to the point that the country appears eager to embrace any desperate measure to stamp out the virus. They reasoned that they could live with the president’s legal and constitutional infractions, but could not endure the rampage of the virus even for one day longer. In any case, having become accustomed to yielding to the president’s many unconstitutional measures, and surviving the pains that follow at the expense of the health of their democracy, coping with a few more constitutional strictures and illegalities would not kill them. It is precisely this sufferance that Prof Soyinka and a few others feel justifiably queasy about. But most Nigerians are with the president, whether he handles the virus crisis with the expertise and inclusiveness required of him or not, or whether the crisis could not have been handled differently and still within the ambits of the law.

Nigerians will be careful next time in asking their president to step into any fray. They should never assume that he would ineluctably become involved in a crisis trammelled by the legal and constitutional parameters that seem so obvious to everyone. Contrary to what the president said about overreaction and underreaction in the fight against the virus, either position is in fact possible. After all, in the same breath and indeed in the same paragraph in his March 29 address, the president spoke about the necessity of ensuring “the right reaction by the right agencies and trained experts.” There is no doubt that the country possesses the right laws to guide this emergency, whether as contained in the constitution itself or in the Quarantine Act. Without question too, he could have achieved the same results by properly deploying those laws without succumbing to the temptation to speak and give arbitrary orders. He spoke of having notified the state governments of an impending lockdown. But it was a decision he should have taken involving the state governments, not notifying them because he supposed the law empowers him singly.

By now, the country must be used to the president’s imperious approach to common and even mundane issues. In exasperation, the country has resolved to accommodate what his minders describe as his idiosyncrasies, believing that democracy and its rubric and principles are unlikely to be entrenched under the Buhari presidency, just like they were not entrenched under past presidencies. Prof Soyinka and all other patriots who warn that process is as important as objective indicate that many ensnared nations should serve as examples. They know by experience that it is during crisis that democracy or the rights and liberties of the people are most endangered or abridged. Already, some Nigerian officials, even from the presidential task force on COVID-19, have spoken glowingly of the arbitrary measures deployed by China and Russia to combat the virus, while execrating the so-called liberal measures deployed by Spain, Italy and the United States. Their logic is beguiling, despite its speciousness.

What is more, the Information minister has warned that if the states on lockdown do not behave themselves by abiding with and enduring the rules and regulations of the drastic measure as the government expects, the lockdown would be extended by another week or weeks. Mr Mohammed is always insufferable. Tact and diplomacy are not his forte. He and others in government, thinking and posturing with the disdainful elitism that has become their hallmark for years, completely ignore the fact that their government did not act on time on COVID-19; and when they stirred themselves, they invariably acted peremptorily without taking cognisance of the prevailing conditions of their country and people. This was why Gov Abiodun of Ogun State deferred the implementation of the lockdown measure by a few days. Lagos should have followed suit, though it was already almost shutdown and had had a head start over Ogun State. It is now clear that if the government does not manage to flatten the curve of infection during the lockdown, rather than blame itself for tardiness and arbitrariness, it will invariably blame the affected states and FCT for not obeying the order enough. Head or tail, it is hard for the people to win.

It is emotional blackmail to castigate critics who take exception to how the Buhari presidency is waging the COVID-19 war. Prof Soyinka and the other lawyers who try to prevail on the government to embrace the right process should not feel apologetic. Yes, they insist they are on the same page with the federal government, but only differ on process. Well, they should be appreciated for their explanations, but it really does not matter whether anyone believes their patriotism or not. They have made their points and properly and reasonably taken issue with the government. They are right to warn that authoritarianism often takes root and flowers in time of crisis, as history has amply shown. In the early years of the Buhari presidency’s war against graft, most Nigerians gave the president the benefit of the doubt, derided the judiciary, denounced the rule of law, and even urged the adoption of extra-judicial measures to rein in corruption. It was not until much later that the public shrank from the government’s double standard and the haphazard and futile manner the war was being waged.

The Lagos State government had trouble managing the distribution of palliatives to the vulnerable in the society during its graduated shutdown of the state. The federal government, despite its vaunted claims and know-how, will have even more trouble giving succour to the needy. The lockdown, it is clear, was done without significant preparation. It is a gamble they expect to pay off regardless of the shambolic nature the measure is being implemented. Hopefully, however, the federal government will quickly recognise its failings and make substantial amendment both in fighting the disease and in making palliatives available to the needy. As for the brusque and even undemocratic manner the government has pursued its policies and ideas since assumption of office, especially as exampled by the president’s March 29 address, which was replete with orders and indefensible assumptions, there is little anyone can do to change their style. Democracy and the rule of law, even in times of grave emergencies, are not virtues everyone can appreciate. They require deep understanding and conviction by leaders and the public. But only the deep can call to deep. Prof Soyinka et al. will always be misunderstood in their quest for order and progress. Despite Mallam Shehu’s name -calling, the professor and others who insist the process is as important as the objective are far ahead of their time.

The head of the presidential task force on COVID-19, Boss Mustapha, sometimes speaks like a democrat. He has warned security agencies not to complicate the crisis by manhandling members of the public. But the violence meted out to some people during the lockdown by security and law enforcement officers in a few parts of the country is nothing but an indication of how deeply ingrained in the security agencies such violent behaviour is, a violent behaviour constantly excused on the grounds of grave existential threat facing the country. There are not many in government who respect due process and appreciate the existence of alternative ways of combating societal ills and threats. But there are always other ways, perhaps even more effective ways, of doing things and achieving the same goals. These other ways do not diminish bureaucratic and governmental capacity to solve problems, and more importantly, they do not jeopardise the future of the democratic system the country has chosen in place of the Chinese or Russian model. When the people tire of the model of their choice, they are at liberty to choose or design any other model.

There will still be other threats to the republic, if not in the immediate future, then sometime in the distant future; if not health related, then perhaps politics or economy related. Just like how the civilization of a country is partly measured by how well it treats its prisoners and dissenters, it will be a mark of Nigeria’s advancement how well complex existential problems are resolved without triggering more fissures and causing more collateral damage. But the best way to guarantee that great and hypothetical future, one in which during crisis, the society can rest assured that the best and steadiest hands are in control, is by putting people of conviction and exposure in office. Surely the country must be tired of gyrating around mediocrity, even in the elementary task of tackling a fairly straight-forward crisis.