The Nation Newspaper

Tag: BUHARI

  • ‘Yoruba won’t regret voting for Buhari’

    ‘Yoruba won’t regret voting for Buhari’

    A former member of the House of Representatives and a chieftain of the All Progressives Congress (APC), Chief Bode Mustapha, has decried Senator Femi Okunrounmu on his comments on President Muhammadu Buhari.

    He said only him and his cohorts in the Southwest were not comfortable with the Buhari administration.

    Okunrounmu, the chairman of the defunct Presidential Advisory Committee on the National Conference, was reported to have said among other things that the Yoruba would regret voting for President Buhari and the APC.

    Speaking at the weekend, Mustapha, an ex-national auditor of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) and the director-general of the Senator Ibikunle Amosun Campaign Organisation in the governorship election, dismissed Okunrounmu’s outburst as one coming from “an inconsistent and a self-serving politician.”

    Addressing reporters in Abeokuta, the Ogun State capital, he assured that the Yoruba would not regret voting for Buhari and the APC.

    He described Okunrounm’s criticism of Buhari and the appointment he made as “childish and premature,” expressing confidence that the Yoruba would “get the best out of the present government.”

  • Buhari visits Ghana on Monday

    President Muhammadu Buhari will on Monday pay a one-day official visit to Accra, the Ghanaian capital.
    During the visit, President Buhari, according to a statement by Presidential Spokesman, Femi Adesina, will confer with his Ghanaian counterpart, President John Dramani Mahama on bilateral relations, regional security, trade and other issues of common interest to Nigeria, Ghana and other members of the Economic Community of West African States.
    The President is also expected to meet with members of the Nigerian community in Ghana and entrepreneurs before returning to Abuja on Monday evening.
    He will be accompanied to Accra by the National Security Adviser, Maj.-Gen. Babagana Monguno (rtd.) and the Permanent Secretaries in the Federal Ministries of Foreign Affairs, Defence, Justice and Industry, Trade and Investment.

  • Wasted or gained 100 days?

    Wasted or gained 100 days?


    The Twitter space in Nigeria is agog with a trending hashtag #100WastedDays.
    Nigerians have taken to twitter to review President Muhammadu Buhari’s performance during his 100 days as president.
    The hashtag which by literal interpretation was created to spite Buhari since his inauguration into the presidency seemed to have backfired as many Twitter users have turned around the hashtag to laud Buhari.
    Some others have criticized and some more have advised. See tweets below.

  • Buhari needs new ethos and paradigm

    Buhari needs new ethos and paradigm

    In its response to accusations of sectionalism and even nepotism in determining federal appointments so far, the Buhari presidency has confidently indicated that balance would soon be restored, itself an admission  of existing disequilibrium. Presidential aides went on further to reassure the country that President Muhammadu Buhari, a changed and firm leader and democrat, harboured no sectional agenda, whether hidden or open. They also added that all the appointments made so far were done on merit, without explaining why merit can’t seem to be widespread, or why it seems to the government expediently localised. There is no statistical proof of how many people are persuaded by the president’s response, but there is at least evidence that most Nigerians, assured by the government’s overwhelming response to the anti-graft war and other laudable steps taken so far, are prepared to give the president the benefit of the doubt.

    Why the president did not deem the controversy weighty enough to merit his direct intervention and explanation is hard to fathom. Last week, given the intensity of the migration crisis inundating Europe, not to say the evocative and iconic images of distressed, dying or dead migrants, some of them infants, the British prime minister, David Cameron, felt compelled to urgently and directly respond to accusations of British lukewarmness on the plight of refugees. Germany foresaw the scale of the disaster early enough and indicated preparedness to accommodate more than its fair share of refugees. Britain reacted a little late, but at least Mr Cameron finally stirred himself. A leader cannot react to everything, but he must have the judgement or at least the intuition to know matters weighty enough to require his direct intervention.

    President Buhari’s governing machine may just be revving up, as he and his aides have generously asserted. But he has an urgent responsibility to define that machine and open the understanding of the public to its fundamental attributes. Other than his travels to assemble a coalition against Boko Haram, and a few words now and again on his anti-corruption war, he has not made either concrete or symbolic trips to the geopolitical zones of the South to deliver a few great messages about himself, his government, and his country. There is nothing on the ethos of the country, those ennobling characteristics of the nation that manifest in the cumulation of national attitudes and goals. Nor is there anything yet on his governing paradigm, that indispensable fulcrum of policies. But perhaps he is still in deep contemplation.

    One hundred days in the life of a government may be an arbitrary figure advertised by unreflective and populist military governments. But it is not so short a period for the public to begin to have a feel of the fundamental direction of the Buhari government in terms of a political manifesto, social charter and economic philosophy. These charters go far deeper than the anti-corruption war he appears besotted to, than his platitudes on the rule of law and other liberties, and than his promises of the good life for everyone, especially the poor. What, in short, these times call for is the enunciation of a new ethos and paradigm for Nigeria. These are the two fundamentals required to drive his vision in the next four years. These are the fundamentals that will define him as a leader and sculpt an image of him in the public mind. These are the fundamentals that will shape and refine the country, and give it a personality in the world, in the same way an individual is defined and shaped by intrinsic ideas and inscrutable personal responses to experiences.

    Recruiting advisers and presidential aides, and making other key appointments into his cabinet, are not an end in themselves. They are just a part of the building block. What should engage the president is the kind of building he wants to construct and the use it would be put to. When critics assailed him over the 30 or so appointments he had made so far, accusing him of insensitivity and insularity, it was not because they already dismissed his government. The enlightened among the critics were only alarmed that the appointments did not give an indication of the change and future Nigerians want to see, or that President Buhari possessed the depth and innovation needed to remake the society on a scale that rivals great countries in other parts of the world.

    This column advocated this point a few weeks ago. Who are we? What do we stand for? How costly is the life of a Nigerian? What is the leitmotif of our existence? Do we have a leader who embodies the ambition and worldview of Nigeria? This column’s engagement with these issues, especially the recent presidential appointments, is anchored on historical facts. As far back as 6th – 5th century BC, Nebuchadnezzar II, King of Babylon, recognised the importance of widening his empire’s leadership recruitment base by casting his net far and wide to include promising captives of his many wars. The empire boasted of a template to sieve and assess talents from far and wide, a function he obviously placed great emphasis on. It was in that process that Daniel the Jewish captive was discovered. He would later become Prime Minister of Babylon.

    President Buhari must possess an acute sense of history, particularly Nigerian history, in order to function above the common mediocrity and self-created restraints that past leaders had entangled themselves with. World history is important to him to the extent that the lives and achievements of great world leaders and countries can ennoble his own actions and inspire him with great and incomparable examples. But to him, Nigerian history must be indispensable to the extent that in one sweeping and wholesome breath he would personify the life and ambitions of Nigeria.

    Once a Nigerian leader reaches that esoteric level, he becomes inured to the giant obstacles and barricades — some of them ethnic, and others religious — that create artificial divides between the people. He will then aspire to produce a definition of Nigeria within which he can situate a definition of himself, making the two inextricable, the one personifying the other. He will go on to synthesise the concepts of citizenship and individual rights without which Nigeria can never be great, not even if everyone achieved sainthood in a corruption-free country. Nigeria’s past leaders struggled with depth, unable to do more than enunciate a code of superficial and artificial behaviours for the country, and at various times devote either a department or a ministry to champion what they described as a reorientation movement. But their ethical revolution and national reorientation were nothing but sentimental and wasteful drivel.

    A cursory study of Roman history would have shown these leaders how to develop a new ethos, and nurture it. Roman Empire citizenship was so valuable that it was not even lawful for anyone, no matter how highly placed, to strike a Roman without a trial. (A Roman citizen could not be tortured or whipped, nor could he receive the death penalty, unless he was found guilty of treason. If accused of treason, a Roman citizen had the right to be tried in Rome, and even if sentenced to death, no Roman citizen could be sentenced to die on the cross). Paul the Christian missionary had reasons to remonstrate this point with Roman officials during his illustrious proselytising career. But more than two centuries later, Nigerian leaders have been unable to formulate an inspiring, practicable and disciplined concept of Nigerian citizenship, and have consistently sought to hide their incompetence and mediocrity behind the mask of bureaucratic and political skullduggery. Nigerian leaders and their security forces, nearly all of which cannot draw a line between private security interest and national security interest, possess probably one of the worst and most contemptible views of citizenship. Without a revolutionary conception and enforcement of the rights of the Nigerian, it is impossible to harness the country’s energies for national redefinition, growth and greatness, let alone to mobilise the people behind the government for country and glory. Two centuries ago, it meant a whole lot to be a Roman citizen. Today, it means virtually nothing to be a Nigerian.

    President Buhari was elected against the wishes of millions of sceptics who never really believed he had changed for the better or was capable of changing. He will be president for the next four years. So, it may be imprudent to give up on him until he gives up on himself. He will of course be criticised, counseled, admonished and reproved until he becomes a much better man and leader, even at 72. If he wants to mobilise the people behind himself, he will need to do more than just fighting corruption, remoulding the economy and instilling discipline. He must fundamentally rethink many national concepts, using a study of historical examples as a stepping stone. He must take contributions from his brilliant aides or his own private readings on how the concept of the German, American, British, French, Russian, and Chinese persons, among others, evolved and were nurtured over the centuries. He can learn from them if he wishes to leave the country a changed nation, far better than he met it.

    In a Sunday Times of London extract from his new revelatory and shocking book, The Outsider, due for release this week, the author Frederick Forsyth disclosed how he spied for Britain during the Nigerian civil war. His spying was not much different from the pushy but guileful manner many Western countries’ diplomats ferret information out of top Nigerian business, cultural and political leaders. The disturbing fact is that nearly all Nigerian leaders dissolve into molecules in the presence of white leaders, especially of the industrialised democracies. Though he has not started well, given his hasty visit to the United States even before he had time to recognise his own soul, President Buhari must begin to find ways of hardening his resolve against foreign interferences, and carving out a brave and independent idea of his country and unleashing and propelling the sublime geniuses of its peoples, whether they are writers, artists or musicians. That a leader does not grovel at the feet of white leaders does not mean that, like late Gen Murtala Ramat Mohammed, he is rebellious or defiant. His independent posture can also be interpreted as confident and self-reliant. If Nelson Mandela could do it, other African leaders can also do it, even if not on the same scale.

    Eight years of Olusegun Obasanjo was a gross national waste and misadventure. He had the opportunity to lay a solid foundation for Nigerian democracy, albeit a minor component of the needed national ethos. If that was all he was capable of, the country would today be grateful for that modest contribution. But he lacked the intellect and the discipline to fulfill that great and noble mission. Umaru Yar’Adua was a painful, emasculative hiatus. And six years of Goodluck Jonathan proved more than enough to purge Nigerians of any great hope for the future and infuse them with the most enervating pessimism ever. Between the three former leaders, not counting the about 40 years before them, Nigeria has managed to waste 16 whole years.

    If the next four years will not be another needless waste, President Buhari must take counsel far beyond his inner, and sometimes limited, reaches. He and his party enthuse about how well he has started. It is not clear what kind of measures they are using. But he needs to conceive and implement fundamental policies that will touch every nerve and organ and hidden crevices in the body politic. He has neither conceived nor implemented anything substantially evocative of the ethos and paradigm his government and this country sorely need. Even the anti-graft battle he is waging has not taken cognisance of the political economy of corruption, let alone devising formulae to ensure a lasting impact on the society, economy and polity.

    It is time Nigeria stopped frolicking with the peripherals of politics and government. President Buhari must dig deeper, with the help of his aides and advisers, into the purpose of government to bring out the ethos and paradigm Nigeria needs to fulfill its manifest destiny. Much of the little good Chief Obasanjo did in his eight years in office were quickly reversed because they were neither substantial nor impactful of the lives of the people in an unchangeable, unalterable way. President Buhari will undoubtedly do some good, but whatever things he does seem fated to become meretricious rather than consequential and ramifying — an obsession with provision of milk and bread, etc. rather than life- and destiny-changing ideas and policies in a way no one can dismantle for hundreds of years, not even with a succession of incompetent rulers, such as the Ottoman Empire endured after Suleiman, and Rome fitfully experienced after Julius and Augustus Caesar.

  • Buhari and August 27, 1985 (thirty years after)

    Buhari and August 27, 1985 (thirty years after)

    History is always neutral.   Whenever distortions creep in, it is historians who are to be blamed.  Effortlessly, but most significantly history like an ever rolling mill has crept up on us.    According to the clock and calendar, thirty years now separate us from the day when Major AbdulmuminuAminu, Major John Madaki and Major LawanGwadabe the Nigerian Army [Infantry] swept into Dodan Barracks, Ikoyi, Lagos and arrested the Military Head of State and Commander-In-Chief of the Armed Forces of Nigeria, Major-General MuhammaduBuhari.    It was a dawn attack and the coup d’etat was swiftly accomplished.    There was no resistance; hence there was no bloodshed.   It brought to an end the Buhari / Idiagbon regime which had been in power since 31st December 1983 – a brief twenty months of stern military rule which by its own mantra was determined to rid Nigeria of corruption and indiscipline.   The efficacy or otherwise of the security reports which should have alerted the Head of State that a coup d’etat by his own colleagues was imminent is a subject for another day.

    For now, it would suffice to confine ourselves to the neutrality of history which has with complete detachment and neutrality recorded that Major-General TundeIdiagbon who was Chief of Staff Supreme Headquarters and the number two man / right hand man of Buhari was away to Mecca on pilgrimage allegedly on the invitation of the King of Saudi Arabia.   It was a decoy disguised as a ruse which effectively fooled Idiagbon the strongman.   He even took along his teenage son.   He had been sold a dummy !!Unknown to the rest of the nation, Idiagbon would have (on his return from Mecca) announced the retirement of the Chief of Army Staff, Major-General Ibrahim BadamosiBabangida [IBB] from the army.   This was regardless of the pivotal role Major-General Babangida had played in the 1983 coup d’etat that toppled the civilian government of President AlhajiShehuShagari.    Rather than take over the mantle of leadership himself, Babaginda had ceded it to Major-General Buhari who was then in far away Jos, in Plateau State as General Officer Commanding [GOC] of the Second Division of the Army.   Major-General TundeIdiagbon was the Secretary of the Army Council.

    Initially, the rulership had been anchored on the troika of Buhari, Idiagbon and Babangida.   Then the cracks began to show as both Buhari and Idiagbon were of the same stern and spartan disposition while Babangida’s orientation and body language were in sharp contrast (to the duo of Buhari and Idiagbon).   It was of little consequence that all three of them were Northerners and Moslems.   Increasingly, Babangida was according to his own subsequent version of events sidelined and isolated.    The Supreme Military Council consisting of the military hierarchy and intelligence / security officers was split down the line (as well as various factions headed by Major-General MamamVasta and Major-General Magoro).   There was also the unresolved nuanced dilemma over whether the Head of State was the “Supreme Commander” (Emperor) or “Commander-In-Chief” (first among equals).

    It is also on record that following the 1983 coup d’etat, two memorable declarations were given wide publicity by BBC Overseas Service:

    (i)          “These are our boys” – General OlusegunObasanjo (former Military Head of State 1976-1979).

    (ii)         “If only we had known that the Nigerian economy was in such a shambles (and the treasury was empty) we would not have bothered to take over the government”

    –             Major-General MuhammaduBuhari (Military Head of State of Nigeria).

    Somehow till today, the bond between General Buhari and General Obasanjo remains solid.   Ironically, the bond between General Babangida and General Obasanjo is just as robust (and enduring).   As for the Buhari / Babangida nexus, that is a different and complex equation.  Right in the vortex of the quadratic equation is Lt-General T.Y. Danjuma (Rtd) and his undulating relationship with General Obasanjo, (late) Major-General ShehuYar’Adua and General Babangida.

    For now it is sufficient to record that within a few months of the Buhari / Idiagbon government, the cracks began to show particularly as Idiagbon who had no direct control of the troops became increasingly domineering and overbearing – at the expense of Babangida, the Chief of Army Staff.   From being a full member of the troika, Major-General Babangida was somehow degraded to a junior partner in the government he had installed.   A whole chapter should be devoted to the dummy sold to Lt-General Mohammed InuwaWushishi(Chief of Staff 1981 to 1983) who like Babangida is from Niger State and may have been led to believe that he would be invited to become the Head of State.

    Anyway, what brought matters to a head was the retirement of Brigadier AliyuGusau by Buhari / Idiagbon regardless of the protestation of Babangida.   According to the grapevine the allegation against Gusau had something to do with import licence.   Brigadier Gusau pleaded innocence but he was nevertheless served with a letter of retirement by the new secretary to the Army Council, Brigadier Ele Peters.

    Major-General Babangida, Chief of Army Staff did not need any one to prompt him that the writing was on the wall.   If the junta of Buhari and Idiagbon could retire his trusted ally and bosom pal Brigadier AliyuGusau, he [IBB] was next in the firing line.   He went for the pre-emptive strike.  It was a masterstroke but the timing was awkward.  The coup d’etat was on the eve of sacred Sallah but the security agencies were generally relaxed.  Besides, Major-General Idiagbon who would have launched a counter coup was away in Mecca.  Here is the thrust of Babangida’s maiden address according to BBC History series:

    Most of all, the August coup appears to mark the decisive rejection of authoritarianism in Nigeria. This was forcefully signaled in President Babangida’s maiden address to the nation, an extraordinary statement for a military ruler. In it, Babangida recognized that even a military government “needs the consent of the people” to govern effectively. Promising to uphold human rights, he announced an immediate review of the status of political detainees. Most significant, he announced the repeal of Decree Number 4 and vowed, “We do not intend to lead a country where individuals are under the fear of expressing themselves.” Words are easily offered to an angry nation; the test will be in the way President Babangida governs. But having figured so centrally in the last four coups, he is acutely aware that Nigerian leaders ultimately cannot escape accountability for their actions. His initial actions indicate that—whether through real commitment to liberal government or simply shrewd political instinct—Nigeria’s new president means to govern liberally.

    Among his government’s first actions was the release of all journalists in detention. Dozens of politicians who had been in prison up to 20 months without charge or trial were also released, many to heroes’ welcomes. In addition, public exposure of the NSO’s (National Security Organisation) violations of human rights was encouraged. The top leadership of the NSO was dismissed, and a thorough probe and restructuring were undertaken. Amnesty International praised Babangida for these steps. Another augury of a more consensual and accountable style of rule is the new government’s structure and composition, which is both more open to criticism and internal debate and more representative of the country’s many ethnic and interest groups. To disperse power at the top of government, the functions of the domineering former chief of staff, Idiagbon, were split between two positions.

    Political administration was assigned to the chief of general staff, Naval Commodore OkoEbituUkiwe—the first Igbo military officer to hold such high government office since the 1967-70 civil war. Military administration was assigned to a newly created Joint Chiefs of Staff, chaired by the powerful Defense Minister Domkat Y. Bali. All but five members of the former Supreme Military Council were appointed to the new and enlarged Armed Forces Ruling Council. The five who were dropped were those primarily responsible for the previous regime’s abuses: Buhari, Idiagbon, the internal affairs minister, the NSO director and the attorney- general.

    The ethnic balance of the council’s membership was also altered, with the center of gravity shifting from the far north to the ethnic minority states of the middle north. And at the state level, Babangida replaced 13 of the 19 military governors, a shrewd move that gave younger officers—including several populists and an avowed socialist—a share in the running of the country. The cabinet appointments are even more striking, both for those who were retained (only six of the previous 18 ministers) and those who were newly selected. Signaling that open dissent will not be unwelcome, the new president retained Petroleum Minister Tam David-West, an independent academician who had condemned the policy of negotiating massive countertrade or barter deals exchanging Nigerian oil for foreign goods.

    It was rumored at the time of the coup that David-West would be fired for his candour. Instead, he is joined in the cabinet by other forceful and capable figures who were not afraid to speak out in opposition to the Buhari regime. These include Akinrinade (Agriculture), Professor BolajiAkinyemi (Foreign Affairs), who condemned the Buhari government’s expulsion of illegal immigrants, and Dr.KaluIdikaKalu (Finance), who argued, in opposition to the former regime, that Nigeria should take an IMF loan. Babangida named the president of the previously banned Nigerian Bar Association, Bola Ajibola, attorney-general. Given the explicit pledges, personal inclinations, appointments and early actions of President Babangida, his government seems unlikely to sink into the kind of narrow dictatorship that preceded it. Nevertheless, symbols and good intentions lack the force of law and the stability of institutions.

    Verbal commitments can wither in the heat of crisis and opposition, which are sure to greet the difficult economic decisions that will have to be made in future months. If there is a lesson in the misrule of the Buhari regime, it is so basic as to seem banal: unlimited power corrupts its holders and perverts its original ends. The Buhari-Idiagbon regime had promised to bring its predecessors to account, but put itself beyond public scrutiny or criticism. The current government likewise has pledged retribution for offenders. For example, in proclaiming the recent coup, the Babangida regime denounced the “glaring fraud” in the Buhari government, and then appointed a committee to investigate corruption in the negotiation of oil countertrade agreements. But, again, this is to establish accountability for past actions of other officials; it remains to be seen how those now in power will conduct themselves. How can accountability be advanced from the past to the present, so that it is not merely retroactive but also preventive? In my analysis of the December 1983 coup, I suggested that stable and accountable government in Nigeria might be achieved through a “diarchy” of shared civilian and military rule, in which civilian democratic rule was further checked and balanced by military control of certain crucial regulatory functions.

    This reflected the active search then under way in Nigeria for a constitutional formula to overcome the abuses of power that spoiled the country’s two attempts at democratic government. Before the Buhari regime banned all discussion of the country’s political future, this public debate accelerated, and numerous variations of diarchy were advanced and debated. Now that the Buhari regime, like the military government in the post-civil war era, has soured public confidence in the military as rulers, there may be an even more compelling case for diarchy as a way out of what one observer called “Nigeria’s ruinous political cycles.” Diarchy is typically conceived as civilian government making some permanent institutional place for the military in the constitutional system. It could, however, be implemented in reverse; the military could create and gradually enlarge institutional roles for civilians. Indeed, if the Babangida government is serious about allowing itself to be held accountable, and about building a consensus for a long-term attack on Nigeria’s economic problems, power-sharing may be indispensable to its success.

    To some extent, it has already shared power by appointing prominent civilians to the federal and state cabinets. But there is nothing institutional about this participation. Similarly, it has recognized that the free press is a cornerstone of accountable government. But with the constitution in suspension, this freedom exists only at the pleasure of those in power. There is no reason why a military government cannot draw up a constitution or bill of rights to which it can be held accountable in the courts.

    Such a document would be a first step back to democracy in that it would recognize the supremacy of the judiciary in interpreting and protecting fundamental liberties. There is also no reason why a military government cannot subject itself to a code of conduct for public officers, to be enforced by an independent bureau and tribunal. While the military remains dominant in government, the appointment and supervision of this framework could be entrusted to the Supreme Court, or the bar association, or a council of traditional rulers, or some other independent, civilian body commanding general respect. No government can ever be fully trusted to watch itself; nor can it root out corruption if it does not set up independent structures for doing so.

    These structural innovations would provide established means for ensuring accountability and thus enhancing public confidence in military government. Moreover, such changes would not threaten the military’s basic control of the government. Yet it is difficult to imagine any government, including this government— for all its apparent democratic intentions—limiting its power in the absence of explicit, sustained pressure from opinion-makers and organized interest groups. The military government could also be strengthened, as an editorial in the journal West Africa suggested, “by announcing early a programme for a return to a more representative form of government no matter how far in the future.” President Babangida has signaled his intention to present a programme of political transition, with initial emphasis on revitalizing local government.

  • 100 days after,has Buhari made any difference?

    100 days after,has Buhari made any difference?

    Yesterday, Saturday, September 5, 2015, was 100 days since May 29, 2015 when President Muhammadu Buhari and most of the state governors took over the helm of affairs of the country. Associate Editor, Sam Egburonu, takes a brief look at Buhari’s scorecard so far, wondering if he has made any difference 

    As President Muhammadu Buhari and the state governors sworn into office on May 29, 2015, marked their first 100 days in office yesterday, there are mixed reactions over the tempo of their governments and their overall performance so far.

    While their admirers said their footsteps in these first 100 days are signs of the good things to come within their four year tenure, their critics express doubts if the people’s expectations would ever be fulfilled by the current leaders. Some of the critics hinge their denigration on the fact that both Buhari and most of the state governors did not appoint ministers and commissioners respectively in the first 100 days in office, a development they described as ominous and a pointer to the fact that the current leaders may have been overwhelmed by the realities they found on ground and were therefore ether confused or unable to move forward.

    As a result of this feeling, some critics of the Buhari-led federal government have not only expressed disappointment but have also dismissed him as rather too slow.

    But unlike some of the state governors who, until this week, have not come out to explain the reasons that delayed them from appointing members of their cabinet or even informing concerned citizens when they would likely name their commissioners, President Buhari has formerly given this month, September, as the time he would name his ministers. His officials have also explained that the seeming delay in naming the cabinet has to do with the decision of the president to study carefully the realities on ground before putting together his team.

    Information available to The Nation however shows that notwithstanding the criticisms against his pace, the government of President Muhammadu Buhari has witnessed some radical actions that are poised to make far reaching changes in the country’s polity and economic development.

    For example, in the area of security, it would be recalled that as soon as he assumed office, Buhari ordered the relocation of military command to Maiduguri. Most analysts agreed that this courageous and visionary decision took the war against terrorism right to the door steps of Boko Haram, recording amazing results of conquest against insurgency, release of captured villages, freeing of largely women and children and restoration of hope of an end to terrorism.

    The President also championed the creation of the Multinational Joint Task Force, which is designed to “create a ring around terrorists with the cooperation of the Lake Chad Basin Commission and Benin.” It is on record that the Lake Chad Basin Commission military deployment has already attracted donations, military platforms and more shared intelligence.

    To further give a bite to the Multinational Joint Task Force, Buhari has ordered the release of $21m to facilitate the establishment of the headquarters of the force in N’Djamena.

    Other major developments that have been recorded in the area of security within the first 100 days of Buhari government include the United States’ pledge to dole out $5 million to the fight against Boko Haram, in addition to other material support.

    Still on Boko Haram, informed Nigerians said Buhari “altered the strategy against Boko Haram by changing the service chiefs, and ensuring that the entire operation gets daily monitoring with the military heads now based in Maiduguri,” adding that the President’s visit to Germany, where he attended a meeting on the invitation of the G-7, world leaders “opened a new leave of diplomatic relationship with Nigeria, promising technical and material support to quell Boko Haram, and rebuild the Nigerian economy.”

    Although he has not named his ministers, another action he has taken, which many agreed will make some significant impact on the security situation of the country is his approval of the recruitment of 10, 000 into the Nigerian Police. Given the obvious shortage of personnel in the internal policing of the country, even Buhari’s critics are not forceful in their criticisms of this initiative.

    Economy

    Besides security, observers said the government, even without the appointment of the relevant ministers, has taken some radical steps that are poised to affect the economic fortunes of the country.

    As soon as he assumed office, Buhari did not waste time before he approved an intervention to pay public servants owed salaries across the states due to fall in revenue sharing. The President’s intervention was principally to alleviate the suffering of many Nigerians and reduce the level of poverty. Before that action, there was tension in the land as many civil servants were owed salaries.

    Apart from that intervention, reports from relevant bodies suggest that the monthly Federation Accounts Allocation Committee witnessed a substantial jump in the month of July, 2015, “largely due to the plugging of leakages.” The jump was in spite of fall in oil revenue.

    Although his critics insist he did not do anything new on the sector before the improvement, it is generally agreed that within his first 100 days in office, electricity supply has also improved significantly. The 4,600 megawatts has ensured longer hours of light and lesser light cuts.

    We gathered from top government officials that within this period “Foreign Reserve has improved to $31.5 USD in spite of the falling global prices of commodities. From an initial $29.2 USD the Foreign Reserve grew to $31.5, further securing the economy against global and domestic shocks.”

    The source also said, “The change in the leadership of the NNPC was a major stride in the restructuring of the organisation. The appointment of a new Group Managing Director and the slice of Executive Directors from eight to four by the President had repositioned the organisation.”

    Nigerians seem to agree with this claim as some refineries in the country had started operations. Warri and Port Harcourt refineries for example started operation at 60 percent capacity, hoping to close-up after a Turn Around Maintenance (TAM).

    As a result, fuel queues have gradually faded around the country, especially in Abuja and Lagos where the queues lasted for a while after the inauguration.

    Buhari also scored another high when he ordered a fast-track of Ogoni clean-up, acting on a United Nations Environmental Project Report that had been long delayed by previous administrations.

    He also directed the CBN to clear all the outstanding allowances of former militants studying in various institutions across the world. The delay in payment of allowances had left the entire Amnesty Programme hanging on a cliff.

    Commenting on this, a top government official said at the weekend that “Buhari also salvaged the Amnesty Programme from near collapse by changing the leadership, and giving it a new vision of catering for the weak, the poor and the vulnerable, instead of enriching a few; a move that was well received by the people in the Niger-Delta.

    The source added that Buhari also showed courage and determination when he ruled out the appointment of a government delegation for this year’s pilgrimage to Saudi Arabia, pointing out that through this decision, the government saved about one million U.S dollars and N30m in local expenses.

    Corruption

    More than all these, both his critics, supporters and associates agree that Buhari’s major concern since he assumed office is his glaring determination to battle corruption. Although his critics alleged that his war against corruption is lopsided or targeted at PDP chieftains, his aides and APC chieftains had countered that the allegation was unfounded as some APC chieftains and top officials are also under probe. In all however, no one has come out in the open to condemn the need for Buhari to fight corruption. That being the case, the President has given the fight serious attention. First, he ordered the closure of all multiple accounts in MDAs and a reduction to the use of Single Treasury Account to promote transparency and accountability. This, The Nation gathered is poised to serve as the long awaited masterstroke in the fight against corruption in high places in Nigeria.

    Although the benefits of his three days visit to the United States is yet to be comprehensively documented, it seems while there Buhari was able to harmonise the relationship with the United States, which reportedly “faltered greatly under the previous administration.”

     As a result of this, the United States has promised more support for Nigeria in terms of technical, military and intelligence support to nail insurgency in the North-East.

    Insider sources revealed that the United States has also released evidence of massive looting and links of monies wired out of the country to the President. As a result, said the source, “the President has directed prosecution.”

    It has already been reported that the meeting in the United States also attracted N2.7 trillion investments into the country.

    Still on the anti-corruption war, our source said “if for nothing else, you will agree that the impression of the President as incorruptible and the fear of prosecution have pushed many to return some stolen public funds, with reports saying key actors in the previous government have returned huge sums of money.

    “Also, he cancelled oil swap deals that had cost the country billions of dollars; resulted in fuel queues due to differences in figures and muddled the country’s reputation due to multiple interpretations and reported high level corruption.”

    Summarising the impact so far made at the economic front in the last 100 days, our source, an insider said: “The total monetary value of all finished goods and services produced in Nigeria in the second quarter of 2015 recorded a 2.57 percent growth, according to the data on Quarterly Gross Domestic Product estimates of the Nigerian Bureau of Statistics.

    “In real terms, the non-oil sector contributed 90.20 percent to the nation’s overall GDP, marginally higher than both the 89.55 percent share recorded in the first quarter of 2015, and 89.24 percent recorded in the corresponding period of 2014.”

    “Viewed holistically, one can say that President Buhari’s leadership has been religiously focused on cutting down the cost of governance while channeling scarce resources to the areas of priority, thus, government’s official travels have been reviewed so that public officers no longer embark on frivolous foreign trips,” the source said.

    As the President prepares to name his ministers even as he steps beyond the first hundred days, expectations are high across the country.

  • Senator lauds Buhari

    The Osun State Coordinator of the Buhari Osinbajo Campaign Organisation, Senator Mudasiru Husain, has said that judging by the first hundred days of President Muhhamadu Buhari, a new lease of life has taken over the political atmosphere in the country.

    The former lawmaker who represented Osun West in the 7th Senate stated this at a meeting with members of his political family at his country home. According to him, “The president is clear-headed in his policy direction; anti corruption drive, functional economy and tackling the security challenges.”

  • Buhari’s anti-corruption crusade best for Nigeria – Ajimobi

    Buhari’s anti-corruption crusade best for Nigeria – Ajimobi

    Governor Abiola Ajimobi of Oyo State has expressed full support for the anti-corruption crusade of President Muhammadu Buhari, saying it is the best for the country.

    Ajimobi, at a radio programme monitored in Ibadan on Saturday, said that Buhari’s anti-corruption crusade would take Nigeria to greater heights.

    “I fully support Buhari. I thank God now that we have him in power. He is a man that is determined to wage relentless war against the malady of corruption.

    “If we do not fight corruption as a nation, then we cannot grow,” the governor said.
    Ajimobi attributed the non-constitution of his cabinet to the economic situation of the state, adding that he had decided to settle down for three months before appointing his cabinet members.

    `We will appoint 10 Special Advisers and Commissioners this month, by God’s grace. We have reduced our ministries to 13,” he disclosed.

    Speaking on the bailout fund for states, the governor said that the state governments would pay the money back at about nine per cent interest.

    “The money we are getting is strictly to pay salaries. It is illegal to use it for any other thing.

    “Even with that, about N17 billion is to be paid to the state government workers.

    “We are supposed to pay local government workers N9 billion. As at today, we owe workers N21.3 billion.

    “This means that after using the bailout fund to pay salaries, we will still be owing and we will continue to owe until our allocation or internal generated revenue increases.”

    Ajimobi said that the allocation to the state from the Federal Government on assumption of office in 2011 was N5 billion.

    According to him, however, the state hardly gets N3 billion now.

    He said that the financial situation of the state was the reason he met with representatives of workers to consider the next line of action.

    According to him, the next line of action of the state government will be to reduce workers’ salaries, retrench or restructure.

    “We will block all loopholes from where government loses revenue. Civil servants found guilty will be dealt with after following the due process,” he said.

    The governor said that the people of the state had started complaining that the streets were now dirty again.

    “Our people complained that we were too harsh on street traders, so we calmed down.

    “Now, the same people have been coming to us to loudly register their embarrassment over the condition of our environment.

    “We have decided that from Oct. 1, it will be fire for fire with street traders. There will be no turning back this time around.

    “We will clean everywhere. We will use Oyo Youth Empowerment Scheme (OYES) personnel to achieve that,” he said.

    Speaking on the petition instituted against him by the ACCORD Party at the tribunal, he expressed optimism that he would win at the tribunal.

    “Even though I should not be talking about the tribunal issue, but I can say it here that there is no case.

    “I am confident that we will win. I am not afraid. We won that election,” he said.

  • PDP has no moral right fault Buhari, Osinbajo’s asset declaration’

    PDP has no moral right fault Buhari, Osinbajo’s asset declaration’

    The Presidency has said that the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) has no moral right to question President Muhammadu Buhari and Vice President Yemi Osinbajo over assets declaration.

    The Senior Special Assistant on Media and Publicity, Garba Shehu on Friday said that Buhari and Osinbajo should be commended for declaring their assets in line with the law.

    According to him, former President Goodluck Jonathan and former Vice President Namadi Sambo did not declare their assets either at the beginning of their administration or at the end of their tenure.

    He said: “The contents of forms as submitted by the President and the Vice President are,as we said in that statement,still being vetted and whenever the process is complete,they will be made public.

    “PDP doesn’t have shame, neither does it have conscience. If they did, they would have pressured their leaders, meaning President Jonathan and VP Sambo to declare their assets on leaving office as the law requires.

    “Nigerians haven’t forgotten that against all entreaties, the then President and his deputy adamantly refused to make any form of disclosure regarding their assets.

    “Now that they are out, they are behaving as if the law does not exist. Is that the party to question this unprecedented step our leaders have taken?

    “They have lost all moral right to pontificate to anyone on matters of probity and accountability,” Garba stated

  • Nigeria on progress path under Buhari – Atiku

    Nigeria on progress path under Buhari – Atiku

    Former Vice President Atiku Abubakar said on Friday that although the nation is moving at a perceived slow pace at the moment, President Muhammadu Buhari has reinforced the confidence that “Nigeria is on the path of progress and bright future.”

    In a press statement issued by his media office in Abuja, Atiku said the first 100 days in office of President Buhari clearly indicated that Nigeria is witnessing a marked departure from the culture of impunity, inertia and apathy in governance.

    He added that Nigerians have seen proofs that the country is already moving in the right direction, a development he attributed to Buhari’s leadership style.

    The ex- vice president explained that when leaders lead by example, they will automatically inspire confidence in the populace.

    Atiku insisted that the Buhari administration has succeeded in blocking revenue leakages and diversions, saying he was proud to be part of the change movement.

    He said the Boko Haram terrorists, for the first time, are facing a fiercer response from newly motivated armed forces.