The Nation Newspaper

Tag: gaffe

  • Kukah’s gaffe

    For someone whom a significant segment of society holds in high esteem as representing its moral authority and its moral conscience and a public intellectual to boot, one would think that even the mere hinting publicly that the military may be a viable alternative to a civilian and democratic government would be the last thing to come into the forefront of Bishop Mathew Hassan Kukah’s consciousness.

    The elevation of the military, if not the nostalgia he seems to be having, for its involvement in governance, is the Bishop’s latest prescription for the alleviation of Nigeria’s poor leadership challenge.

    In a lecture with the theme: “How to make democracy work for Africa,” organised by the Kukah Centre (his pet project), the Catholic Bishop of Sokoto Arch-Diocese, Mathew Kukah was reported to have warned political leaders to “govern well in order to avert any temptation by military to take over governance via coups.”  The Bishop was also reported to have “lamented the worsening state of the country from poor leadership” adding that “Nigeria has only survived the democratic dispensation because of the confidence reposed on the system by the military.” Therefore, the country’s leaders should “not take the patience of the military for granted.”

    Kukah went further to say that “It is a measure of the faith of the military itself on the urgency of democratisation that has kept them in the barracks. But I think the politicians and the political class cannot take this patience for granted. What we have experienced in the last few years has made us a laughing stock of other nations.”

    For starters, it was not the first time that Bishop Kukah would ‘shoot’ at Buhari from his bully pulpit. And the latest threatening remarks won’t be his last as long as Buhari remains the country’s Number One citizen. Kukah was among the very first set of prominent Nigerians from the religious class (followed by Cardinal Anthony Olubunmi Okogie) to register his displeasure about Buhari even before the 2015 presidential election. Through speeches and other appearances, he had campaigned, at least indirectly, for then President Jonathan. For inexplicable reason, he seemed terrified of Buhari then and appears even more disdainful of him now. After Jonathan’s loss of the election, Kukah quickly formed a group of prominent Nigerians among them Gen. Abdulsalam Abubakar, Nigeria’s last military ruler and gave it a duplicitous name of National Peace Council (NPC). As the arrow head of this organization, Kukah commenced some sort of priesthood diplomacy to the presidential villa after Buhari’s inauguration not to discuss peace or any policy initiatives, but to tell the then president-elect to “move on” and “look the other way” concerning what Jonathan and his administration may have done because the man at the helm of the most fantastically corrupt government in the nation’s history, if not the world, had done something “spectacular” – a veiled reference that the former president had conceded defeat. Sensing that President Buhari was unyielding in his resolve to wrestle corruption to the ground before it kills the country, Kukah has been taunting him ever since with uncomplimentary remarks.

    Kukah is probably too far gone in his disdain of Buhari to even realise the contradiction in his warning to politicians to “not take the patience of the military for granted” when he also mentioned that “democracy requires lots and lots of patience and hard work.”  On what basis then is the intervention of the military, no matter his so-called “worsening state of the country from poor leadership” desirable? Did the military record any enviable achievements that advanced the country in any way in the seven times that the institution intervened in the country’s governance since flag independence? Has Kukah ever heard of the universal and time-tested truism that the worst civilian, democratic administration is better than the best military government?

    So, the question now becomes – if Kukah truly believes that it takes “lots of patience and hard work” for democracy to germinate, not to talk of having strong roots in a country that has not only been traumatised by the military (of which this trauma remains a major part of the national psyche till date), but also has never had any sustained democracy in her life because the same military had always truncated her democratic aspirations at every turn for its selfish interests, why is the bishop in a hurry to have the military back in governance because he believes that the political class is taking its patience for granted?

    Does the bishop even realise that the destruction unleashed on Nigeria’s socio-political and economic fabric in the first 16 years of the present democratic dispensation…not to talk of decades of plunder to which the military subjected the country…is so daunting and humongous a task to be ameliorated in four years?

    Kukah’s thought process cannot get any more bizarre than this.

    Kukah’s latest swan song of “poor leadership” he thinks the country “experienced in the last few years [that has] made us a laughing stock of other nations” could not have been targeted at Obasanjo (who was president for eight years) or Jonathan (who spent six years in the saddle) but President Buhari whom he loves to hate. In a more civilized and serious clime, Kukah’s not-so-subtle encouragement to the military to once again consider truncating a democratically elected government would not only have provoked public anger, but he would by now have been invited by the nation’s security and intelligence agencies for questioning and subsequently put under surveillance.

    Perhaps it is important to ask if Kukah’s reckless statement was just a coincidence or part of a grand plan to stop Buhari’s second term by any means necessary. In less than a month, it is such an irony of history that the two most vilified generals wrote letters in quick succession to President Buhari not to seek re-election. One is therefore curious if Kukah is the head of the religious wing of these generals who may have already taken strategic positions in order to create a critical mass of unsuspecting Nigerians to hound Buhari into submission. And if the president insists on running for re-election, is the military option part of this grand plan? Otherwise, how come Generals Obasanjo and Babangida seem so vehemently opposed to Buhari now even when their contrived “poor leadership” allegation doesn’t hold water?

    The irony here is that these high-profile criticisms of Buhari are coming from those who presided over not only criminal enterprises they passed on as governments to the Nigerian people, but also whose accomplishments in their combined 16 years as presidents pales in comparison to the successes that has so far been recorded by Buhari in less than three years. One then wonders if the Obasanjo, Babangida and Kukah troika are revving up their criticisms to the highest decibel now because they had expected that Buhari would not survive his sickness. But now that he has not only survived, but he’s robust, energetic and much healthier looking than before and there are indications he would seek re-election and most probably win, they may have discreetly sworn not to let that happen as long as they’re alive. For the criticisms to be this vehement, Buhari must be doing something very terrible to their core interests that has held the country by the jugular for so long which the Nigerian people are yet to be aware of. Whatever seems to be getting them so irritated of Buhari must, no doubt, be good for the generality of Nigerians as these generals have never cared for the progress and wellbeing of the people whose backs they’re now attempting to ride back into political reckoning once again so that the country’s plunder can continue. They shall fail this time.

     

    • Odere is a media practitioner. He can be reached at femiodere@gmail.com
  • Gowon’s gaffe

    Gowon’s gaffe

    • The former head of state made a gaffe about a goofy president

    It a period that the entire world focuses on terrorist inflictions on the country, we expect leaders in the land, past and present, to show circumspection and deep understanding of the situation before passing comments. But General Yakubu Gowon, former Head of State and founder of Nigeria Prays, a non-denominational religious group, jettisoned the sensitive mood of the nation on the brazen terror of Boko Haram without effective official response. In an act of dark comedy, he expressed satisfaction about the unyielding efforts of the current administration at the Nigerian Bar Association, Ikeja branch dinner and award night.

    While speaking as chairman of the occasion, he reportedly declared: “I can tell you this and I know this, the president is doing his best and do not listen to the sort of news you hear from foreign press talking as if the government is doing nothing. He is in consultation with the military chiefs; he is in consultation with all the governors and all the political parties to be able to join hands to deal with this problem.” In view of global outrage over the tepid handling of the Boko Haram menace by President Goodluck Jonathan, we consider as quite un-statesmanlike for a man of Gowon’s standing, an otherwise elder statesman, to be so unguardedly provocative in his statement over this highly volatile matter.

    Gowon stakes his reputation unnecessarily since what in his estimation was ‘best’ of Mr.  President on the issue is worldwide rated not to be good enough to stem the tide of terrorism in the country. The most recent and heinous act of the terrorist Boko Haram group was the abduction of over two hundred school girls in Chibok, Borno State. Since April 15 when the girls were abducted, the government has not displayed convincing capability or shown purposeful plan of action to rescue the innocent girls until the very recent appearance of American soldiers/experts on the arena. We could not have so easily forgotten the bombings and explosions underscoring the reality that the government has truly lost grip of the battle against terrorism in the land. We wonder under the prevailing circumstances the parameters deployed by Gowon in arriving at that curious conclusion of ‘best’ actions from President Jonathan.

    As a former commander-in-chief of the nation’s armed forces, he cannot feign ignorance of the billions of naira already expended on the anti-terrorism battle and the shoddy responses to distress calls by the military around the affected areas. Despite this, could his recent statement truly have been conscience-driven? We doubt this because what Nigerians are craving for is not reckless panegyrics but the quelling of the brigands, effective rescue of the abducted girls; and return to normalcy in the affected areas that have been embroiled in turmoil for five years now.

    The statement attributed to Gowon is sad because we expect such to have, at best, emanated from a leader of weak resolve at this period of national hurly-burly. We expect that genuine statesmen would refrain from making unpopular statements, especially when such is not in tandem with reality. If Gowon’s statement was meant to buoy up the waning image of the Jonathan administration, then it is a bad public relations stunt at this time, more so coming from someone like him that has become notorious for publicly supporting discredited past leaders, including Generals Ibrahim Babangida, Sani Abacha and Chief Ernest Sonekan, among others.

    What Nigeria needs most, in our view, are statesmen that are ready to tell the truth to power. Not the ones that would clothe official ineptitude and corruption in borrowed robes. Gowon would do well by concentrating on his prayer project rather than making statements capable of reminding us of his feeble leadership over the country.

  • Presidential gaffe

    Presidential gaffe

    •The president’s stand on the 2007 polls and campaign funds is ridiculous

    PRESIDENT Goodluck Jonathan was recently at his goofing best when he received the outcome of the National Stakeholders Forum on Electoral Reform chaired by former Senate President, Ken Nnamani. In one breath during the occasion, he bemoaned the shoddy results of the 2007 presidential election that produced himself as vice president and late President Umar Yar’Adua as president. According to him, that election was an embarrassment to him then as second-in-command, within the international community.

    In another breath, he damned the recommended limitations on campaign funds which he described as unrealistic. The forum, among others, recommended that there should be regulation of campaign finance. His words on the 2007 elections: “I was embarrassed when the international observers complained that there were certain breaches in the 2007 polls … Each time one travelled abroad, people asked all kinds of questions that even got one angry. That was when I promised myself that if l could have the opportunity to oversee elections in Nigeria, no other President or Vice President should suffer that kind of harassment from the international community … And I promise that 2015 elections will be better.”

    His position on regulation of campaign expenses went thus: “I’m a realist and I’m a practical person, and that’s why I behave differently. I don’t pretend. I believe that even the laws or even regulations must not be designed in a way that it’ll pretend. In some countries, if you’re getting funds from government, then you must set restrictions; but if you’re generating your own funds, then you’ve no restrictions.”

    We ask: who is the president trying to impress? Could it be himself or the hopelessly deprived Nigerians? This is why we query him for weeping louder than the bereaved on issues bordering on the 2007 elections – After all, late President Yar’Adua publicly admitted that the election that brought him to office, despite judicial seal of affirmation, was flawed. Moreover, it was consequent upon that premise that he instituted the Electoral Reforms Committee headed by Justice Mohammed Lawal Uwais, with Professor Attahiru Jega, the current Chairman of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) as one of its members. Again: what hypocritical point is President Jonathan trying to make other than to indirectly cast the blemished mandate of his late boss in renewed bad light? The enormous challenges facing the nation, and begging for his personal attention, should be faced squarely and solved rather than for him to be making statements that are capable of unnecessarily overheating the polity and also disturbing the spirit of the dead leader.

    We equally regard his opposition to the recommendation for restriction of campaign funds by the forum as a scandalous direct presidential support for electioneering graft. Without being oblivious of the recent United States of America’s apex court decision that removed the seal on individual donations for political campaigns, we make bold to say that this is not America. The level of political maturity in that country cannot be compared with what obtains in our clime. How can the president be saying that a move meant to bring financial discipline and institutional checks on currently odious campaign spending in the land is not practicable? The president’s position is an invitation to politicians of his mould in power to dip their hands in the public till in their bid to raise stupendous money for election campaigns simply because government is not the one giving funds for that purpose.

    We state in unequivocal terms that the presidential aversion to campaign funds restriction and his needless re-awakening of the ghost of the 2007 election are immoral and uncalled-for, especially under his regime where routine oil graft/electoral fraud has now been elevated to the level of state policy.

  • Yet another gaffe

    Yet another gaffe

    •President Jonathan’s insensitive remark about Boko Haram killings rankles

    Though Nigerians may have come to accept the now obvious verbal challenges and frequent gaffes of President Goodluck Jonathan as his method but we, as a matter of duty, must continue to point them out with the hope that he and his handlers would be capable of making amends. We had in the past, heard such clangers as “I don’t give a damn”, when the president was confronted as to why he would not declare his assets publicly. He also once said that his cabinet may harbour some members of the Boko Haram sect, in response to the Police Headquarters bombing about two years ago.

    What has the president done this time? A fortnight ago, at the opening session of a meeting with the Honorary International Investor Council at the Presidential Villa, Abuja, President Jonathan told his audience, including Baroness Lynda Chalker and her team that the events in the three northeast states of Borno, Yobe and Adamawa confirmed his believe that religion was not the cause of the wave of insurgency spreading through that part of Nigeria.

    According to the president, “People thought the insurgency is about religious issues but the pattern of attacks shows clearly that it has nothing to do with religion. Just as there are threats to churches, so also are threats to mosques. They attack everywhere, killing Muslims and Christians. Even more Muslims have died in the conflict than Christians have.” And if there are no religious undertones to Nigeria’s terrorism, what would it be? Mr. Jonathan suggests that insecurity in Nigeria is as a result of the activities of some nebulous “internationally-backed terror groups.”

    Of course the Christian Association of Nigeria (CAN), among several other groups, has condemned the president’s comment, describing it as an “attempt to distort facts.” Pastor Ayo Oritsejafor, CAN president, has said that no fewer than 2,000 Christians have been killed in the Boko Haram insurgency, reminding that the sect is unambiguous about its targets from the outset. He said though people may have been killed near mosques, that there is no record that mosques have been targeted and bombed during worship the way several churches have been violated by gunmen, torched and bombed, especially on Sundays in the course of service.

    Also, Christians in the north of the country took exception to the president’s remark in very strong terms, describing it as unpardonable statement.

    President Jonathan’s gaffe this time, for that is clearly what it is, exposes the lack of rigour and introspection in the governance and administration of the country today. The Boko Haram insurgency is, without doubt, the most contentious issue being tackled by the Jonathan presidency. If the president was not grounded and hands-on on any issue, it could not be Boko Haram. If there had been proper reckoning of the activities of this sect, including a careful documentation of the victims, the president would have been briefed about the details of casualties. But that does not seem to be the case; this government is lackadaisical about the living just as it is about the dead and the ‘damaged’.

    In his starkly impolitic and insensitive remark, the president was only keen on playing politics with a grave matter of life and death. We do not see what point he needed to score by claiming so flippantly that more Muslims than Christians have died in the conflict, other than to cozy up to one section of the country. We hasten to point out that divisiveness, which is beginning to signpost this administration, does not win laurels for any government. Governance is a very serious issue and we urge the president to brace up for the enormous responsibilities he has elected to bear.