The Nation Newspaper

Tag: Femi Okurounmu

Soyinka, Falana to Nigerians: Beware of Obasanjo

Nobel laureate Wole Soyinka and activist-lawyer Femi Falana (SAN) on Sunday warned Nigerians to be wary of a coalition formed by former President Olusegun Obasanjo, purportedly to rescue Nigeria.

They said Nigeria was in danger when politicians like Obasanjo, who “supervised the sacking of democratic governments” in Oyo and Anambra states, pretend to be the messiah.

Obasanjo formed the Coalition for Nigeria Movement on January 24, 2018, which he said was meant to salvage the nation.

He asked President Muhammadu Buhari not to contest next year’s election as he had “failed.”

Soyinka and Falana, who described but didn’t name Obasanjo, spoke in Lagos at the 80th post-humous birthday of the late human rights lawyer Gani Fawehinmi (SAN).

The event was the themed ‘Democracy for the masses through proper and effective governance.

It also featured former Kaduna State Governor, Alhaji Balarabe Musa, Senator Shehu Sani, Lagos State Governor, Akinwunmi Ambode, Afenifere chieftain, Senator Femi Okurounmu, among others.

Soyinka said: “All I want to say in connection with the title of today is just one word: vigilance….There is no question whatsoever that democracy is in danger.

“And so I find it ironic, that those who’ve proved themselves the enemies of democracy who’ve really taken, they’ve really committed acts, not just negligence, but actually inaugurated certain policies which contributed to our being at this point again are once again coming out and positioning themselves as saviours, as messiahs, as the sole possible rescue mission that this nation can even dream of, a nation of nearly 200 million people.

“I find it very strange, and I find it even stranger because at the beginning of this movement towards ‘Rescue Mission’, there were one or two organisations that came out under different names and they had people in them whom I considered worth following, worth encouraging, worth encouraging others to study closely and even consider following.

“The next thing I knew, these movements were being hijacked by the very people who laid the foundation, an ironic word by the way, for the collapse of the democratic edifice.”

Soyinka said he turned one of the groups down when it approached him.

He said: “The next thing we know, they are forming coalitions and I was invited by one of the rescue missions to address them and I telephoned them and I asked the question, ‘wait a minute, which one are you? Are you the original people I saw or is there a faction or is there now a fatherly umbrella under which everybody is moving?’

“And I told them; don’t even come near me, if you’ve signed up on one of those who are the enemies of democracy in this nation.

“Those who inaugurated so-called constitutional amendment programmes, total charades, to assist them to continue to run, which has been scuttled by the direction known as tenure elongation, third term, etcetera for which the entire national treasury was almost bankrupted. And suddenly, here they are they are forming coalitions all over the place, once again, confusing people.

“Who are the genuine leaders, who are those that we can trust? The answer to that is very simple: look at their track record. That’s all.

He advised Nigerians not to allow themselves “to plunge into a zone of amnesia, in which you conveniently forget unpleasant realities.

“We’ve had presidents in this nation, some of whom inaugurated a never-ending democratic process, which landed us eventually under the most brutal dictators that this nation has ever known.

“We had others also who actually supervised sacking of ‘democratic government’; I’m speaking of Anambra, I’m speaking of Oyo State. A governor was kidnapped under their watch with their complicity; in another instance, thugs actually entered the House of Assembly, sacked the legislators and installed their own candidates; under the same watch.

“And they call themselves the God-designated watchman over the fortunes of this nation? And suddenly, here they are and I see Nigerians flocking to them and asking them once again to lead.

“Mind you, they’ve said very clearly if it becomes a political party count me out o, but paths are already being beaten to their doors, control by subrogation.

“Even if they do not individually put themselves back in the position of power, they are already smoothening the way for their surrogates, their stooges, so that they can continue to misrule from their cosy farmsteads. So, all I’m urging is: be very vigilant. Just look closely at their records, look at the company they keep.

He urged the youth to “grow up” and take political power.

“Why can’t a new generation actually rise, throw us all out of the window and take control of their own lives by themselves? Why do we keep recycling the same jaded, traitors, enemies of the people? Why do you need to go for blessing somewhere if you’ve made up your mind that it is time to take control of your own existence?

“Once again, I don’t want to be misunderstood, I know what I think about this government when voting time comes, I know exactly where I’m going to cast my vote but I’m not going to allow anybody to hoodwink me and say I will show you the path. No, this will be adding insult to injury.”

According to Falana, the government would confiscate some of Obasanjo’s assets, including a university, “at the right time.”

Falana said: “Our country is undergoing serious crises of governance but we must be very careful so that we do not allow those who destroyed the country, those who ruined the nation to pose as the saviour of our people.

Read Also: 2019: Obasanjo under fire for anti-Buhari campaign

“There’s somebody living very close to this place who has been parading himself as the saviour of our people; this guy ruled the country for 11 and a half years cumulatively – three and a half years under the military, eight years under a civilian dispensation. And even wanted to do a third term but Nigerians rejected him.

“The guy is going round the country now, claiming to have solutions to our problems; I wish to say here and we are challenging him to name one thing that he did, any problem of the country that he solved.

“On the contrary, this guy wasted $16billion to generate darkness for the country. This guy formed and took over the resources of the country blindly under what he called blind trust.

“Nigeria is the only country in the world where a sitting President and a sitting Vice-President established private universities when the government refused to fund public universities and other tertiary institutions. But let me tell,

“Gani went to court to challenge the extortion of state governments and contractors by a man who realised about N7billion to set up a so-called library.

“Under the constitution, any gift received while you are in office, other than customary gifts, is forfeitable to the state; therefore, at the right time, this country, when it is properly organised will take over all those universities and libraries that were set up with public funds and that may be sooner than you think.”

Kaduna State Senator, Sani, said Nigeria is not yet in a true democracy.

He said: “In fact, our country is sick, the republic is sick; our people are dying, violence, bloodshed, killings, mass murder is becoming the emblem of our democracy today.

“We are out of PDP misrule but we will be deceiving ourselves to say we are in the Promise Land; we are not in the Promise Land. We must keep vigil,

“The political ruling elite are not yet prepared to see to a democratic Nigeria. Nigeria’s political reality is about personal interest.

“Those who destroyed our country in the past are very much present as born against.”

He urged Nigerians of integrity to support Buhari because “You can’t build a country because of the integrity of one person. The integrity of one person is not enough to rule and sustain a state. We have a President who is a man of integrity but integrity is not enough for leadership.”

Sowore lamented that Nigerians rejected Gani for Obasanjo in 1999.

He said: “I want to say very briefly that Nigeria must be regretting that when they had a chance to choose between Chief Gani Fawehinmi and a Barabbas, Chief Olusegun Obasanjo, they decided to choose Obasanjo instead of choosing Gani Fawehinmi and that is why we are regretting today.

April 23, 2018
Jonathan’s game of musical chairs

It is becoming obvious to a growing number of Nigerians who bought into the idea of the proposed national dialogue that the conference may not succeed in dousing the current tension in the country, Deputy Political Editor RAYMOND MORDI writes.

Then President Goodluck Jonathan set up the Femi Okurounmu-led committee late last year to work out the modalities for a national conference to restructure the country’s political system, the idea was greeted with enthusiasm by many Nigerians, who have been yearning for a return to true federalism, to harness the country’s abundant human and natural resources. But since the federal government released the modalities for the nomination of delegates for the conference on January 30, criticisms against the idea has continued to mount.

Going by the modalities, the consensus of Nigerians from various walks of life is that the federal government is not sincere and that the outcome of the conference would not satisfy the aspirations of Nigerians. For instance, Monday Ubani, a legal practitioner and chairman of the Nigeria Bar Association (NBA), Ikeja Chapter, said based on the modalities announced by the Presidency, the conference is likely to be dominated by politicians. “When politicians gather, you know the kind of mischief they cause; they would not address the fundamental issues bedeviling this country,” he said in an interview with The Nation last Wednesday. Ubani said the irony is that those people who have been very vocal on the matter and have articulated their positions would not have the opportunity to participate in the conference. “It is those who never believed in national conference that would take part in it,” he added.

He noted that the country is not making progress because the Nigerian state requires restructuring for efficiency. “We are not running a proper federalism; we are running a unitary system of government. The issue of allocation is absurd; every state goes to Abuja with a cap in hand, begging for money,” he added.

Even those who ordinarily support President Jonathan are not in agreement with him on this matter. Norman Osakuni, a Lagos-based chartered accountant and lead partner, Egba Osakuni & Company, is a great fan of the President, but he believes the number one citizen is wrong-footed as far as the modalities for the conference is concerned. His words: “I totally disagree with the idea of making discussion on the option of pulling out of the federation a no-go area. Gone are the days when our fathers used to impose wives or husbands on their children. Marriages nowadays require the consent of the two parties involved. In the same vein, the continued coexistence of the ethnic nationalities that make up Nigeria should be negotiated.”

Osakuni said ethnic nationalities in Nigeria never came together to agree to live together under one entity and that the proposed national dialogue would have provided a golden opportunity for them to do so. He believes that given the chance no ethnic nationality would opt to leave the union. “Rather, it would have provided an opportunity for us to reassess our relationship and chart a way forward based on current realities. What the Jonathan administration has succeeded in doing with the idea of a no-go area is pushing dooms day forward,” he told our correspondent.

Against this background, Ubani insists that there is no difference between the so-called national conference witnessed during the Olusegun Obasanjo era and the one currently being embarked upon. “It is going to end up in the same way: in confusion,” he said, adding this one is going to be more annoying because of the enormous amount of money involved (N7 billion). Ubani said the money should have been used to tackle the country’s decrepit infrastructure.

The NBA chairman said the country is sitting on a keg of gunpowder as it approaches the year 2015 because several geo-political zones are threatening fire and brimstone if things do not go their way politically. His words: “We are nearing 2015, remember the American prediction and remember the threats from several geo-political zones. The east is threatening, the north is threatening, the south-south is also threatening. It is not desirable for us to go into elections without resolving some of these issues. If you do that, you are creating a recipe for disaster.” He said if the country goes ahead with the forthcoming election without resolving some of the contending issues, the ticking time bomb would explode. “The disaster that may take place after 2015 may be more than what took place during the civil war, if care is not taken. This is because there is bottled up anger,” he added. He said if the federal government had been sincere; the conference would have helped to douse the tension in the country before the election.

Prof. Ben Nwabueze, a constitutional lawyer and chairman of The Patriots, a group of eminent Nigerians has been faulting the report of the Okurounmu committee, which worked out the modalities for the proposed conference, saying it falls far short of what the group had canvassed in a 30-page memorandum it submitted to Jonathan in August last year. For instance, according to the group, the conference it has in mind should have two fundamental attributes: One, adopting a suitable new constitution embodying re-negotiated terms and conditions on which the diverse ethnic groups comprised in Nigeria can live together in peace, security, progress, prosperity, general well-being and unity as one country. Two, the conference should be one of ethnic nationalities that make up the Nigerian state.

But rather than fashioning a new constitution as the Patriots had suggested, the advisory committee recommended a conference whose deliberations would only be integrated into the existing 1999 Constitution by the National Assembly. At least, the committee did not state it anywhere in its report that the proposed national conference is for the purpose of framing a new constitution. Contrary to expectation, it also failed to state categorically that the new constitution to be adopted should be submitted to the people in a referendum for approval.

Tony Uranta, a member of the National Conference Advisory Committee, said the committee did not suggest that the outcome of the conference be subjected to a referendum because such decision should be taken by the participants. “If we had gone for a referendum, it means the national conference may not hold as planned this year,” he added.

Ubani disagrees, however, saying government has deliberately created a recipe for disaster by not properly spelling out the objectives of the national conference. His words: “My position has always been that the objectives of the national conference must be properly spelt out and that spelling out must be done through an act of the National Assembly. That was my recommendation even to the Femi Okurounmu-led committee; that we must enact a law spelling out the modalities, the issues to be talked about and what to do with the outcome of the talk, so that we would know what we are dealing with.” He added: “When you now constitute a national conference and say that it is the conferees that would determine the outcome, you have deliberately created a recipe for disaster.”

Such obstacles, the lawyer said, were deliberately put in place to make sure that the conference fails to achieve the aspirations of Nigerians. The fact that 75 per cent of the delegates must agree on an issue before it can be ratified, he added, suggests that government does not want them to arrive at a consensus on critical matters. “They decided to set the consensus parameter at 75 per cent; that is, three quarters of the delegates must approve before they agree on any issue. This is very high; it is always two-third,” he said.

For Osakuni, the fact that Jonathan and state governors would nominate a sizeable number of the delegates is not an issue. “After all, those that would be nominated are Nigerians and may not necessarily toe government line at the conference,” he argued. But he agrees that the objective should be to dismantle the bogus federalism the country is currently operating, by giving more powers to the federating units and leaving the central government to control areas like currency, defence and external affairs. “We would develop faster if a healthy competition is encouraged among the federating units, by allowing them to develop at their own pace,” the accountant enthused.

Osakuni said the idea of proposing to ask the National Assembly to incorporate the outcome of the conference into the existing constitution is one of the biggest mistakes the Jonathan administration has made with regards to the proposed conference. He asked rhetorically: “How can you ask the National Assembly, which is one of the mistakes foisted on Nigerians by the military through the current constitution, to vet the will of the people? Where does the sovereignty lie? Is it with the National Assembly or with the people? What do you think members of the National Assembly would do? They would throw most of the recommendations overboard. Asking Nigerians to decide through a referendum would have been the best approach.

February 18, 2014
Igbo women support Nwabueze group

•Disown Ohanaeze

The President, Igbo Women Assembly and member, Imeobi Ohanaeze, Mrs. Maria Okwo, said yesterday in Enugu that Igbo women support the Prof. Ben Nwabueze-led Concerned Igbo Leaders of Thought in rejecting the modalities for the proposed National Conference.

Mrs. Okwo, who said the modalities were in contrast with the yearnings of the Igbo, faulted the apex Igbo socio-cultural organisation, Ohanaeze Ndigbo, for endorsing the modalities.

Igbo women, she said, disagreed with the report of the Femi Okurounmu-led committee, which suggested that the National Assembly would debate the outcome of the National Conference.

Mrs. Okwo said: “It is wrong. We should follow the footsteps of other countries where such decisions were subjected to a referendum. Ours should not be different. Sending it to the National Assembly will amount to nothing because they will kill it there.

“We (Igbo women) want a people’s constitution. The one we are operating is a military constitution imposed on us. The opportunity has arisen for us to give ourselves a people’s constitution and you want to send it to a handful of people to doctor it to their selfish taste?

“The President has convened a National Conference. What we do not want is another jamboree, which we experienced in the past. We have had two conferences – the Obasanjo conference and the Abacha conference. They came to naught.”

Chiding the Ohanaeze leadership for endorsing the modalities, the woman leader said the letter to President Goodluck Jonathan was to be signed by Prof. Nwabueze and the Ohanaeze President-General, Chief Enwo Igariwey, but he (Ohanaeze president-general) refused to sign it.

“Nwabueze was advised to call the aggrieved together and let us agree on our position paper on the National Conference as a body.

“A letter was printed and Nwabueze and Igariwey were asked to sign it. But the latter said he wanted to consult others. And that was the end. He never signed the letter. He refused to sign the letter. So, five people signed the letter, including Nwabueze,” Mrs. Okwor added.

February 5, 2014
National Conference … just before another jamboree

The stage is set for the National Conference. As it kicks off on a controversial note, Group Political Editor EMMANUEL OLADESU examines the divergent views on its modalities, composition, duration and report ratification.

President Goodluck Jonathan has released the modalities for the convocation of a National Conference with limited powers. Expectedly, criticisms have been trailing the modalities. The seriousness of the Federal Government has been questioned by many stakeholders. The consensus of opinion is that, for another three months or more, delegates will participate in a government-sponsored jamboree in Abuja, the Federal Capital Territory (FCT). Since the premise for the national dialogue is not the ethnic nationalities, many have also argued that the exercise is an imposition.

However, pro-Jonathan forces have a contrary view. They believe that the conference will chart a new course for the country. Hailing the President for acceding to the popular request for a national debate, they also said that the conference will lay a better constitutional future.

When the President unfolded his plan for the conference on October 1, last year, many stakeholders queried his real intention. There were speculations that the idea was sold the option to the embattled leader to douse the mounting national tension. But, the sudden change of heart by the Commander-in-Chief still came as a surprise. In the past, Dr. Jonathan had objected to it, saying that a democratic government was in place. The proposal polarised the polity. A section said that the Federal Government was trying to divert attention from its gross failure to restore hope to the beleaguered country. In particular, the advocates of a Sovereign National Conference (SNC) were not amused. In their view, the proposal fell below expectation.

Public enthusiasm has been waning since the Presidential Advisory Committee headed by Senator Femi Okurounmu submitted its report to the President. It was a divided committee. A minority report surfaced. It was written by a member of the committee, Chief Solomon Asemota (SAN). The bone of contention was the method proposed for the ratification of the conference report. While the majority report hammered on parliamentary ratification, the minority report emphasised the import of ratification by a referendum. The majority report on the mode of ratification reflected the President’s view. Last year, Dr. Jonathan told the nation that the report will be sent to the National Assembly for ratification. The implication is that the decisions reached at the conference may or may not be approved by the National Assembly.

The fear expressed by critics were confirmed last week when the Secretary to the Federal Government, Senator Pius Ayim, released the guidelines. 492 delegates are expected at the talk show. They are to be drawn from the strata of the society: government, traditional institution, political parties, judiciary, and civil societies. They are to be nominated by local, state and federal governments. Thus, it is “guided conference”.

The ethnic nationalities may not command a strong voice there. Observers have argued that nominees may not have the mind of their own. Since he who plays the piper dictates the tune, the presidential nominees will be his eye and ear at the conference. The delegates may therefore, be manipulated by the government to achieved a pre-determined goal.

The official name of the dialogue is The National Conference. This is antithetical to a Sovereign National Conference. There is a no-go area. The Federal Government is sensitive to the warning by a foreign body that the country may disintegrate next year. Therefore, it stated that the unity of Nigeria is non-negotiable. The time frame is also suspect. The government has proposed three months. But, it is evident that the conference will coincide with preparations for the 2015 general elections.

The timeframe for the nomination of delegates is between now and February 20. Wide consultations may not herald the nominations. In outlook, the proposed conference is elitist. The President may have also played a fast game. He is not indifferent to the position of the main opposition party, the All Progressives Congress (APC), on the vexed issue. Therefore, if the 17 APC governors refuse to nominate delegates, Dr. Jonathan, an Ijaw from the Southsouth, will nominate delegates on their behalf. These delegates may come from the ruling Peoples’ Democratic Party (PDP). Critics will describe their assignments as “jobs for the boys”.

The delegates are expected to receive remuneration. But, funding for the conference is another hurdle. Although the conference is expected to commence proceedings this month, there is no assurance that the budget would have been passed before next month.

The script was carefully written at Aso Villa, the seat of government. But, The President needed an ally to sell the dummy. He found one in Senate President David Mark, who was saddled with flying the cart. The retired General, who had frowned at the agitation for the conference in the past, based on his belief in the legitimacy of the National Assembly as the anchor of popular rule, suddenly retraced his steps. Thus, many believed that the conference propaganda was designed to gage the public mood.

Historically, at critical points in national history, past governments have resorted to camouflage national debate, talk or dialogue to douse the tension. Indeed, when the dreadful dictator, the late Gen. Sani Abacha, set up a constitutional conference in 1994, the uprising in the Niger Delta stopped for one year. The Abacha conference was made up of 396 delegates. The late head of State nominated 96 members. Although the report of the 1994/95 conference did not see the light of the day, the delegates succeeded in dividing Nigeria into six geo-political zones. The six geo-political regions are not backed by law, but the structure is respected by the political class. Also, when former President Olusegun Obasanjo inaugurated the Abuja Reforms Conference, expectations were high that it would usher in a new dawn. The conference collapsed on the altar of the third term agenda. Of 400 delegates, Obasanjo nominated 50 delegates. Many delegates, who have reflected on the report, have called for the implementation of the report. Former Lagos State Governor Bola Tinubu, who also nominated delegates, has backed the call for the retrieval of the report from the dustbin. He said since resolutions have been passed on many of the issues that the delegates are going to debate in Abuja, the Federal Government should have the courage to implement the 2005 report.

Shortly after he assumed the reins, the first military Head of State, the late Gen. Thomas Auguyi-Ironsi, set up an ad hoc constitutional committee to debate the contentious issues tearing apart the country. The committee was dead on arrival. At the inception of the military rule, soldiers in power lacked the political skills to handle those sensitive issues and problems which the military intervention had compounded. When the Muritala/Obasanjo set up the Constitutional Drafting Committee and Constituent Assembly, the transition to civil rule programme of the regime received a popular acclaim. Even, when the former President Ibrahim Babangida set up the Constituent Assembly in 1989, it calmed down the nerves. But, the report also did not see the light of the day.

President Jonathan’s first step at implementing the proposal was confusing. He named an advocate of a Sovereign National Conference (SNC), Dr. Okurounmu, as the Chairman of the Presidential Advisory Committee to prepare the ground for the talk. But, the committee was on tour of the six geo-political regions to collate views on modalities, the President announced that the National Assembly will debate the conference report. The statement irked many people. But, the members of the committee became deviated from their terms of reference when they were defending the President. When the team led by Okurounmu visited Benin, the capital of Edo State, for consultation with the Southsouth stakeholders, a committee member, Col. Tony Nyiam, took on Governor Adams Oshiomhole. Thus, the committee was censoring public opinion on the conference.

During the debate on the proposed conference, members of the National Assembly were not aloof. In the beginning, they loathed the idea of conference, pointing out that the nation should not waste time on another Constituent Assembly that will be saddled with the business of constitution making at a time the National Assembly is also reviewing the constitution. But, when reality dawned on them that the conference would be inevitable, they indicated a deeper interest. Deputy Senate President Ike Ekweremadu said in Lagos that it will not be a bad idea, if the legislators are also delegates. He explained that federal lawmakers are also stakeholders. However, the agitation for the inclusion of the legislators was doused when the President announced that the report will be ratified by the National Assembly.

According rights activists and leaders of the ethnic nationalities, a conference, on its merit, is not a bad idea. The obstacle to its success in the past was the lack of sincerity by the government. Since it is not going to be a SNC, many rights activists have submitted that the scope of the national dialogue will be essentially limited. There are some puzzles: If a constitution is expected to be fashioned out by the conference, should there be no-go areas? Can a national conference produce a truly peoples’ constitution? Should the government insist that the unity of Nigeria is non-negotiable in a country that has not become a nation, 100 years after the amalgamation? How will the suitability and competence of delegates be determined? If they are nominated or appointed by the government and influential elite as it is being proposed by the Federal Government, will their nominations meet the criteria for representativeness and legitimacy? How popular are the delegates at the grassroots? Would they have the mandate of the people who are emotionally attached to the ethnic nationalities? Now that the nomination is based partially on the ethnic nationalities, states, local governments or constituencies, what will be the ratio of representation? Will the proposed single term of six or seven years resurface at the conference for debate?

There are other questions: since delegates be appointed by the governors, what is the criteria? What will be the terms of reference? How will they emerge across the states? Will the conference resolutions be subjected to referendum? If it is not subjected to a referendum, how will the report or resolutions be validated? If it is not validated by a referendum, will it be legitimate? Will recommendations be accepted by the government, if delegates oppose the proposed ratification by the National Assembly? Will the report be thrown into the dustbin as usual? The Federal Government has said that resolutions on contentious issues would be taken, based on the approval of 75 percent of delegates. 75 percent of 492 is 369 delegates. How about resolutions that mainly touch on the lives of the minority tribes, who may not be adequately represented? Will the majority not trample on the wish of the minority?

Since the eighties, the agitation for a Sovereign National Conference had gained prominence. It was first articulated by the legal luminary, the late Chief Alao Aka-Bashorun. The deceased human rights lawyer said that it was possible to hold the conference in Nigeria. He urged the government to tap from the experience of the Soviet Union and the Republic of Benin, which resolved some of its problems by convoking conferences. Throughout the military rule, Aka-Bashorun was harassed for his principled position on the national question and agitation for a Sovereign National Conference.

Also, in the nineties, the former Oyo State governor, Chief Bola Ige, who summed up the arguments for the national conference, raised two questions: “Do we want to remain as one country? If the answer is yes, under what conditions?”. The implication is that a debate is necessary to determine the basis for peaceful co-existence and harmony. Ige said that many national problems could be resolve by debate, instead of resorting to the barrels of gun.

Following the annulment of the historic June 12, 1993 presidential election won by the late Chief Moshood Abiola, there was disillusionment. The cancellation disputed the basis for peaceful co-existence among the competing tribes. The advocates of the SNC expanded the national question. Discussion on the resolution of the identity, integration, participation and distribution crises came to the front burner. Stakeholders came to the conclusion that Nigeria was hanging on a flawed or defective federal system. The unitary system foisted on the polity by the military had created strains. But the interlopers opposed the struggle for a new order with brute force.

Up to now, these questions remained unsolved: Is state or community police not desirable in a big, diverse, heterogeneous country characterised by multiplicity of traditions, customs, and languages? Should the governors, who are the chief security officers of their states, continue to obtain permission from the distant Inspector-General of Police to maintain law and order? Should an Igbo or Yoruba, who was born and bred in the North be denied political and economic rights, owing to the tension between indigeneship and residency? Should a Fulani/Hausa, who had lived in the South for 30 years be edged out of the participatory political process? It remains to be seen if these questions will be answered by Jonathan’s National Conference, which has limitations. Does the President needs a conference to fight the infrastructure battle, tar the roads and fund education and public hospitals efficiently? Does the President needs a conference to build refineries, fight corruption and resolve the crises that have engulfed his party? Does he need a conference to guarantee power supply?

February 4, 2014
Yoruba groups: National Conference modalities flawed

Pan-Yoruba groups, comprising the Afenifere Renewal Group, Coalition of O’dua Self Determination Groups, O’dua Nationalist Coalition, Atayese and the Afenifere Youth Movement, have described modalities for the proposed National Conference as “ridiculous”.

In a statement, they said: “The nation remembers the Independence Day broadcast of President Goodluck Jonathan, which rekindled the hope for a genuine National Conference and enjoyed the support of Nigerians. But the proposed modality for the conference has slaughtered that hope.

“President Jonathan promised that there would not be ‘no go areas’ and that he will not tamper with the process. With these, Nigerians expressed the desire for a new constitution that would only be ratified through a referendum. However, since the Presidential Advisory Committee on National Dialogue, led by Senator Femi Okurounmu, submitted its report, we have witnessed catalogues of disappointments. We are now presented with a conference, whose modalities are incongruous with the President’s promise and the expectations that Nigerians exhibited through and during the public sittings.

“Being consistent and strident advocates of a National Conference, Yoruba people expected socio-political, cultural and ethnic organisations to be the main, if not only, stakeholders at the conference, not a potpourri of “interest groups” that did not even deem it fit to make public presentations to Okurounmu’s committee.

“For example, there would be five delegates representing five national academies and we are wondering what national interest these academies are pursuing that is not already covered by their parent ministries and, by extension, the Federal Government. The President would nominate six Judiciary delegates but the Nigerian Bar Association is allowed just one delegate, while the nomination of 24 delegates is ceded to civil society groups, which have no known umbrella or regulatory body. These examples are cited without prejudice to the fact that any Nigerian is qualified to be a delegate. However, after wide consultation with our people, which is ongoing, we have decided to continue with the same cautious optimism we expressed when this initiative was unveiled.

“The Yoruba people will participate in the conference, believing it may be the step that will take this process back to the sublime. We enjoin

Yoruba individuals and groups to participate in the Yoruba Constitutional Conference coming up on Feb 12 in Ibadan at the House of Chiefs in the Oyo State Secretariat, where we shall gather to discuss the future of Yoruba nation and our approach to the National Conference.

“To President Jonathan, we say that this conference will make or mar your tenure. This trend of gaining public support and losing it all too quickly is becoming characteristic of this administration and he needs to consider where his allegiance lies – whether as a statesman thinking of the next generation as espoused in his Independence Day broadcast or as a politician thinking of the next election.

“To the would-be delegates, we urge you to draw inspiration from the 55 delegates that wrote a new constitution for the United States (U.S.). Nigerians have no business with poverty, unemployment, corruption, religious extremism, nepotism and other vices threatening the nation’s sovereignty. We will continue to clamour for Nigeria to be restructured into a true federal structure that will allow viable federating units to unleash their creative and developmental potentials under an unfettered political structure.

“As a people, we are ready to work with stakeholders to ensure that the conference meets the aspirations of Nigerians for a new country anchored on a new constitution. However, Yoruba people reserve the right to take our destiny in our hands, if the current effort yields no desirable fruit.”

February 4, 2014
Nwabueze: My position on conference patriotic

The leader of The Patriots and Igbo Leaders of Thought, Prof Ben Nwabueze has said the Chairman of Presidential Advisory Committee on National Conference, Senator Femi Okurounmu is not fair over his remarks on him on the proposed dialogue.

Okunrounmu had said Prof. Nwabueze did not have a grasp of the committee’s report which was sent to the president. He said the Igbo leader rushed into condemnation of the committee’s job regardless of the fact that it had met its terms of reference.

Nwabueze, in a statement noted that “the impression one gets from the Senator’s outpouring is that either he has himself not read the report of his committee or he read it without fully understanding it.”

“The report was obviously not written by him but by someone else, by the secretary of the committee apparently and he looked it over without fully digesting it,” he said.

He said the Okurounmu outpourings were carried by some newspapers all in a bid to denigrate him in unsavoury manner.

He maintained that Okurounmu’s statement that he often condemns whatever he does not participate in was uncharitable.

According to him, Okunrounmu said “It is known and well published in the media that Prof. Nwabueze is nursing an illusion that he is the Mr. know-all for Nigeria, who Mr. President should entrust with the sole responsibility of drafting the constitution of Nigeria.”

He maintained that he does not wish to be involved in issues with Okurounmu, who he had not met before. “I do not know him. I have not heard of him before his appointment as chairman of the Presidential Advisory Committee and cannot make public imputation on his character by way of a resort to denigration of me.”

The Igbo leader said all the issues raised concerning the conference were genuine and patriotic calls to make the country better in terms of representation at the conference and its legality.

January 14, 2014