Tag: Goodluck Jonathan

  • Obasanjo’s letter: I’m not training snipers, says Asari-Dokubo

    Obasanjo’s letter: I’m not training snipers, says Asari-Dokubo

    Former President Olusegun Obasanjo’s allegation that President Goodluck Jonathan is training snipers keeps generating the heat.

    Although, Obasanjo did not name anybody, the founder of the militant Niger Delta People’s Volunteer Force (NDPV), Alhaji Mujahid Asari-Dokubo, thinks he is the one the former president was referring to.

    Asari-Dokubo was recently detained in the Republic of Benin.

    He said yesterday that he was not training snipers either in Nigeria or abroad for the presidency.

    He said although Obasanjo should be bold enough to indict him for a response.

    Asari-Dokubo said he was neither flown in a private jet nor in a presidential jet after being investigated by security agencies in Benin Republic.

    He said he flew to Abuja from Lagos in an Aero Contractors plane.

    He said the last time he enjoyed the luxury of a presidential jet was when Obasanjo sent one to fly him from the creeks as part of the search for solutions to the crisis in the Niger Delta.

    He admitted that he had a problem in Benin Republic following what he called a false security alarm and the Federal Government waded in.

    Asari-Dokubo, who spoke exclusively with our correspondent, said he was only suspected of being a Boko Haram leader in Benin Republic and after investigations by Beninoise authorities, he was let off.

    He said: “I don’t know what is called snipers; I will revisit my dictionary for the meaning of snipers.

    “I am not training snipers for either the Presidency or anybody. If ex-President Olusegun Obasanjo wants to point a finger at me, I will know the path to take or the relevant authorities to contact.

    “I have not seen my name mentioned directly by anybody, but I know what to do if this is so.

    “If I am being invited by security agencies on issues that have to do with denting my image, I know what to do.”

    Asked why he was arrested, Asari-Dokubo said: “Information reached Beninoise security agencies that I was a Boko Haram leader. And from all investigations, they said they did not find any clue linking me with Boko Haram.

    “Some people gave Benin Republic false information to see that Dokubo dies before the 2015 general election. So, we are in a political era and from all investigations, my encounter in Benin Republic had to do with politics.”

    On how he returned to his base in Abuja from Benin Republic, Asari-Dokubo said: “I came in through Aero Contractors plane from Lagos to Abuja. Many people were on board and they saw me.

    “I was not flown into the country either in a private or presidential jet at all.

    “I had problem in Benin Republic and the government waded in the matter because nothing incriminating was found against me.”

    Responding to a question, the founder of the NDPV said: “If I was nobody, why did ex-President Obasanjo send a private jet to convey me to Abuja from Port Harcourt to negotiate for militants? ”

  • Critical issues for Nigeria’s progress

    Critical issues for Nigeria’s progress

    SIR: The axiom is apt: there can be no peace where there is no justice. Yet, President Goodluck Jonathan and supporters care less about justice, but how he will stay 12 years in Aso Rock. The late Nelson Mandela was imprisoned for 27 years, and after gaining freedom, he stepped down after a single presidency term. Egocentricism is killing Nigeria, politically and financially. Jonathan’s conference is a financial fiasco ab initio.

    The All Progressive Congress (APC) is gaining ascendancy. That trend should become even more accentuated as Jonathan takes personal control of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), apparently out of frustration. Too many Nigerians have been systematically frustrated since 1999 till date; it is the turn of Nigeria’s enemies to be frustrated. In order to maximize profit, all well-meaning Nigerians should rise in support of APC for change.

    Positive and sustainable change resides in equity, justice, peace, and stability which rotational presidency among the six geopolitical zones can guarantee for progress. Secondly, giving General Muhammadu Buhari the opportunity to revive his War Against Indiscipline (WAI) is crucial against the level of corruption that has pervaded Nigeria. APC and all well-meaning Nigerians should insist on Buhari’s presidency; he is an epitome of self-discipline and accountability. His experience as a former Head of State, Petroleum Minister, and Finance Minister with optimal performances should not be wasted.

    Providentially also, Buhari has never betrayed any form of religious fanaticism. I urge all APC chieftains to shun politicization of religion; total de-politicization of religion is imperative for social equity and cohesion. Adhere strictly to Nigeria’s constitutional secularity. And, may the NLC, TUC, ASUU, etc. remain forever united and strong. Amen.

    Another political leader whose talents should be seriously tapped is Asiwaju Bola Ahmed Tinubu. I would propose for him the position of Finance Minister, for sustaining the economy of Lagos State even when the federal government seized the bulk of what Lagos should get from the federation account. Pa Obafemi Awolowo helped to manage Nigeria’s post-war economy, as a Finance Minister without any certificate in accounting or economics; Tinubu will not do less. Both Buhari and Tinubu are not associated with stolen oil wealth; they will be accountable.

    No society can be stable without order. That is a big lesson the emergence of Boko Haram has taught us. Credit should be accorded those who introduced the presidential rotational concept. We should formalize it to rotate among the six geopolitical zones. Northwest should serve a single term of four years (2015-2019) to complement the opportunity that Umaru Musa Yar’Adua had; Jonathan served the remainder plus his own single term which he craved inordinately. South-east should take-over, 2019-2027, even though Jonathan offered that zone plum appointments to secure its unflinching support. But no such advantage is sustainable. If adopted, rotational presidency among the six geopolitical zones can be a stabilizer, as does rotational kingship in many African traditional societies and communities.

    •Pius Oyeniran Abioje, Ph. D,

    University of Ilorin.

  • The Obasanjo-Jonathan diatribe

    The Obasanjo-Jonathan diatribe

    •The President’s response to Obasanjo’s letter on the state of the nation failed to address the weighty issues raised

    The rumpus generated by the exchange of fiery correspondences on the state of the nation by former President Olusegun Obasanjo and the incumbent, President Goodluck Jonathan, has continued to generate bad blood among the politically conscious in the country. The Obasanjo letter to Jonathan dated December 2 set the tone for the diatribe, and the President’s formal reply, as well as the informal, indirect response at a church service on Christmas day have heated the polity.

    Rather than address the substance, the President’s response have sought to take attention away from the weighty allegations levelled by the former President against the incumbent and his administration. Five areas commanded the attention of the former President. He called attention to the fact that the state of the nation had become worrisome and that the current leader has not been alive to his responsibility generally. In the ex-President’s views, the Jonathan stewardship could be assessed from five stand-points. They are: the leadership of the ruling Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), headship of the Federal Government, management of the military, control of the security of the nation, and general political leadership, especially in the movement towards 2015.

    Former President Obasanjo was damning in his verdict. He said Jonathan has been an unmitigated disaster in the running of the country’s affairs and should check himself. The breakfast shared by both men in Kenya, the pledge that the presidency would only reply at an appropriate time and the nature of the season- a point at which activities were winding down for the year – gave the impression that little  positive could be taken from the diatribe.

    While it has been suggested that the Obasanjo administration could not be exonerated from the ills plaguing the country today, the President has a duty to comprehensively address issues of fundamental importance to the health of the country from whatever quarters. It is interesting that the letter came from a leader of the ruling party; a former President. The fact that he knows much about the subjects he addressed in the letter compels attention.

    It does not help matters that President Jonathan merely dodged the issues raised. He glibly dismissed the concern over training snipers and putting about 1,000 compatriots on a political watch list. Why would a President do that in a democracy? Unfortunately, this uncontroverted information suggests that the country may be sinking further under the watch of President Jonathan.

    The Boko Haram sore that continues to fester also received the attention of the ex-President who suggested that the incompetent handling of the security, intolerance, clannishness and inability to rise up to challenges have compounded the situation in a part of the country. The former President literally apologised for the part he played in encouraging the enthronement of President Jonathan.

    Yet, in his reply, the President trivialised this serious allegation by asking if Obasanjo truly believed in all that he said. On corruption, Obasanjo had this to say: “Corruption has reached the level of impunity. It  is  also  necessary  to  be  mindful  that  corruption  and  injustice are fertile breeding ground for terrorism and political instability.  And if you are  not  ready  to  name,  shame,  prosecute  and  stoutly  fight  against corruption,  whatever  you  do  will  be  hollow. It will be a laughing matter.”

    Nigerians had looked forward to a rebuttal of this allegation with a robust account of what the administration has done or is doing to combat the scourge. It would appear that the presidency agrees that it has failed the nation on this score.

    We call on the President to look into the Obasanjo letter again and respond appropriately. Since the letter is in the public domain, even if he thinks he owes Obasanjo no explanation, he should give an account of his stewardship to Nigerians.

  • Centenary fixations

    Centenary fixations

    At last, comes tomorrow, 1 January 2014: the centenary of Nigeria’s amalgamation by the British Lord Frederick Lugard!

    And come 4 February 2014, a 20-month chain of activities would kick off, with “legacy projects” nationwide, led by a new Abuja city gate and a Centenary City in Abuja, modelled after the likes of Dubai, Monaco, Shenszhen, Singapore and Songdo (in South Korea), which will gulp a cumulative private sector investment of US $15 billion of which, according to Anyim Pius Anyim, secretary to the Federal Government, the Jonathan Presidency would not spend a kobo.

    “We must celebrate Nigeria”, former Senate president Anyim had declared on 24 January 2013 at a press briefing in Lagos, “because if we cannot underscore the essence and advantages of our unity, it means we plan to promote disintegration.” How about that for some mechanical piece of thinking!

    While a good number of Nigerians are nonplussed by the Lugardian patch-patch, even if not a few think it would have been a fantastic rainbow if it had not been so hugely dysfunctional, President Goodluck Jonathan, the latest beneficiary of the toxic Lugardian court, and his coterie of revellers, would rather celebrate!

    Such is the Jonathan Presidency’s fixation with Nigeria’s centenary celebrations.

    Lugard, of course, was a patriot. From Asia to Africa, from India to Nigeria, Lugard was a thoroughbred poster child of empire building — empire, that political euphemism for economic banditry. The Brits themselves picked no bones about such banditry, Pax Britannica!

    The marauding, might-is-right logic that made Queen Elizabeth 1 (1533-1603) to knight Sir Francis Drake (1540-1596), the patriotic pirate, because his sea-crested loot redounded well with home country, was the mandate that powered Lugard, et al: go forth, plunder and pacify the natives in the name of home country; but sell the pacified natives the dummy of a superior religion and culture! Pax Britannica!

    Lugard did his duty to his country. But in doing that, he created another headache: the Nigerian conundrum, that would be 100 years tomorrow.

    This centenary, therefore, is a toast to British greed. But it is also sobering juncture for a political amalgam that seems incapable of gelling into a harmonious compound; a supposed federation that spectacularly miscarried, a beacon that became a mirage: leaving the people distraught, disoriented and near-hopeless!

    The snag is: all these appear lost on the Jonathan Presidency.

    Or could the centenary fixation be some expensive escapism, the Jonathan government’s fond hope of burying the unwholesome fundamentals under a din of pomp?

    If so, it would be hardly surprising. The Nigerian people can gnash their teeth all they want. But for their rulers, it has been a ceaseless party, from the time of Lugard till now!

    Indeed, the Lugard spirit — that grim plundering ethos of a soldier-ruffian — never left the Nigerian power court. But whereas Lugard patriotically plundered, as Drake patriotically pirated, for Mother Britain, his Nigerian relay of successors have often fended for themselves. That tradition was well established before Goodluck Jonathan, the man from Otuoke, the minority of minorities from the Niger Delta, became president.

    Of all Jonathan’s predecessors, there appears no exception: not the sanctimonious Olusegun Obasanjo; not the charming but power wayward Ibrahim Babangida; not the stark and grim Sani Abacha.

    That feisty, borne out of self-help, appears the logical explanation for the centenary pomp in the ruling court, when the majority of Nigerians continue to agonise over 100 years in the wilderness, and how to break out of the cul-de-sac, and build a vibrant and vigorous Nigerian federation, that can deliver development and prosperity, from the present retardation and corruption.

    Still, no matter how conceptually flawed the centenary programme is perceived, there would appear some sweeteners.

    For starters, the promise of 15, 000 jobs in public works, to be generated in building the new Abuja gate and the Abuja Centenary City, would be more than welcome to the large army of Nigeria’s jobless youths.

    No less tantalising are the projected ICT centres in all Nigerian universities that do not have one, a modern library in a university in each of the six geo-political zones, one police crime laboratory in each of the six geo-political zones, building and renovation of sports facilities in each of the federal universities and the renovation, naming and renaming of colonial sites in the country.

    Also on the cards is a dialysis centre in each of the six geo-political zones; and renovation and upgrade of the National War Museum in Umuahia, Colonial History museums in Lokoja and Aba, and the National Museum inside the Old Residency in Calabar, Cross River State.

    But underpinning the projects is Nigeria’s ever-recurring nemesis: over-centralisation in a supposed federation. By the centenary plans, each state would be proud host to a Unity Square. Did the idea emanate from the states themselves or was it a central agenda, in the federal government’s mechanical fixation with “unity”?

    And how much evidence is there that the states would go with “unity squares” and not some other investments in schools, hospitals and roads: other more pressing areas where the locals feel their shoes really pinch?

    Besides, how much of it was driven by a contract-award mentality, itself driven by illicit money to be skimmed from the projects; and how much by the actual needs of the beneficiary communities?

    But beyond rectitude and turpitude, the Centenary programmes reek of misplaced priorities. It is surprising, really, that a government that would endure closing down Nigerian universities for nearly six months, because it claims it had no money to meet the demands of the Academic Staff Union of Universities (ASUU) had, long before, proclaimed the projected centennial budget a done deal, even if many of those projects, to be fair, are nothing but white elephants.

    Besides, Budget 2014 estimates shows a Jonathan Presidency clearly in centennial spending mood!

    First, our zoologist president would, according to newspaper reports, blow N14.5 million on two brand new animals for the Aso Villa zoo! Then our nomadic president has proposed N2.3 billion for local and international travels 2014. To make these trips as comfortable as possible, the presidency is shopping for a new jet — the 11th in the fleet — for which some N1.5 billion would be deposited in the next financial year!

    Lord Lugard wired Nigeria together, not to develop the territory, but to empty it for the voracious British Empire. That is no event to celebrate, except to forge a counter-paradigm to develop Nigeria; and deliver happiness and prosperity to its people. But the Jonathan Presidency clearly thinks otherwise!

    Despite the promise of a national dialogue (hailed by presidential sympathisers but slammed by the opposition as another Jonathan dissembling antic), Nigeria moves into its centenary in a din of confusion, its structural problem getting more acute, and the state itself wobbling under its patent contradictions. Again, that is hardly anything to celebrate!

    Who will save the Lugard patch-patch from its modern day Nero, salivating for a big party, when there is virtual fire on the roof?

     

    • Despite everything, a happy new year to readers of this column.

  • The President Jonathan that we know

    The President Jonathan that we know

    SIR: When Ex-President Olusegun Obasanjo spoke in his open letter to President Goodluck Jonathan about the state of the economy and his general incompetence in office, many well-meaning and knowledgeable people did not altogether decipher the true and patriotic intention of the messenger. We cannot but tell Nigerians that we warmly agree with Obasanjo’s last open letter upon the state of the nation because he has been particularly familiar with developmental policies aside the fact that he has seen many men and things.

    The Jonathan that we know fits the description enunciated in Obasanjo’s letter because Jonathan according to the Wiki leaks revelation, had himself opened up on his lack of experience when he told Robin Sanders, the past US Ambassador to Nigeria that he was not actually so experienced in governance or more experienced than other Nigerians who were not favoured for the position but was chosen because of where he came from, Niger Delta. This statement alone should have provoked a good scrutiny of him to his clear-sightedness on issues and if he would pay attention at all to advice, if given.

    We have always been of the opinion that President Jonathan in 2009 does not have the sane cavil to lead Nigeria and our judgment still remains so, because it is truly amazing that government services are still ridiculously slow and there are feelings of distress and ill-ease wherever one goes. Meanwhile, every one discusses politics and 2015, nothing is done. The practical things of life that would help to ameliorate the conditions of our people are wholly neglected. Corruption and stealing has become good businesses amongst the ruling elite.

    Finally, we want to warn that Jonathan would have broken the law if he should take the oath of office as substantive President the third time, just as our constitution does not recognize elected President or Governor to spend above eight years in office no matter the circumstances. The ‘doctrine of necessity’ an aberration in itself was irrelevant at the time Yar’Adua died and Jonathan who had a joint mandate with him was sworn in. if Yar’Adua had died seven days after he took the oath of office in 2007, would Jonathan be qualified to contest in 2015 after taking the second oath in 2011 to make 12 years in office as against the maximum of eight years in our constitution?

    The two years he spent as a substantive President must and should be counted against him because the constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria is not a Father Christmas or managed by Santa Claus.

     

    • Akin Malaolu

    Sec-Gen, Yoruba Ronu,

    Surulere, Lagos

     

  • Generator Government

    Generator Government

    • N.8billion to fuel generators is hardly the way to inspire citizens’ confidence in govt promise of improved power supply

    Coming barely two months after the formal handover of the assets of the erstwhile Power Holdings Company of Nigeria (PHCN), subsequent to which the Federal Government has promised Nigerians improved power supply, it must come as a shocker that the Goodluck Jonathan-led government is proposing to spend a whopping N836.6 million to fuel generators in the coming year.

    The details as reflected in the 2004 budget under consideration by the National Assembly shows that the Presidency alone plans to spend N33.47 million to fuel its generators. For the Federal Ministry of Finance, a tidy sum of N76.5 million is proposed; for the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission ( ICPC), it is N29.05 million while N16.48 million is earmarked for the Office of the Secretary to the Government of the Federation.

    For the Office of the Head of Service, the budget is N40 million; Ministry of Interior, N20.75 million. For the works ministry, it is N25.05 million, while the National Population Commission has a budget of N22.53 million set aside for same –fuelling generators.

    The above are just a few of the Federal Government’s departments expected to share in the bonanza that comes close to a billion naira.

    By way of comparison, the same Federal Government budget earmarked N654.02 million to purchase generators in 2013. Just as there may be those who may seek to rationalise the proposed expenditure on the grounds that no vote currently exists for the procurement of generators this year, even then, it is so easy to counter this by the fact that those generators purchased last year are nowhere near their replacement dates yet.

    The issue however isn’t just the absolute numbers in the proposed spend. Rather, it is the attitude of the Federal Government – its preference for the easy and convenient – that we find deplorable. Nigerians should be worried that nothing appears to have changed in any attitudinal sense for the Federal Government, despite its averments to the contrary.

    To start with, President Jonathan is on record to have made promises – not once or twice but severally – that Nigerians would by next year have no need for their generators. How does one reconcile that with the humongous allocation being proposed to fuel the generators at the seat of government for the same period?

    Isn’t it an admission that the administration cannot guarantee uninterrupted supply of electricity to anyone? So, why should citizens take the assurances of an administration that does not appear to suffer diminishing appetite for the use of generators with any pinch of salt?

    Today, despite the promises of vast improvements in services, the reality is one of acute regression. Not that Nigerians expected the new players in the power sector to wave the magic wand for the problems to disappear overnight. While the hiccups that have accompanied the take-over of the old PHCN entities by private investors may not be entirely unexpected, it would seem to have gone a shade beyond normal transition blues.

    Presently, the same recycled excuses about gas infrastructure, capacity issues and systems collapse are still being bandied despite the huge funds sunk into overhauling the chain. Even more worrisome at this time is that citizens do not even know which agency to hold responsible for the current regression.

    While it may seem impracticable to ask the Federal Government to throw away its generators, the point must be made that pooling nearly a billion of scarce public funds to fuel generators is hardly the way to inspire citizens’ confidence in the power sector’s so-called turn-around. Or, is the government saying that the delivery of uninterrupted electricity to the seat of government can only be done by generators?

  • December 2013:  A month in missives

    December 2013: A month in missives

    When the history of these tempestuous times in Nigeria comes to be written, December 2013 will go down as The Month of Missives.

    The blizzard was set off by an 18-page missive from former President Olusegun Obasanjo to Dr Goodluck Jonathan, whose dizzy rise from the obscurity of deputy governor of Bayelsa State to vice president, en route to becoming president, Obasanjo had orchestrated. Obasanjo had in the same manouevre railroaded Umaru Musa Yar’Adua, governor of Katsina State, into the office of President

    Settling for these men when far more capable aspirants were available and willing will forever cast a pall on Obasanjo’s judgment.

    To return to the missive: It was vintage Obasanjo – blunt as a punch to the nose. I rather like the earthy Yoruba expression a correspondent employed to describe the matter, but I cannot reproduce it here even in loose translation, this being a newspaper for the entire family, enjoined to dwell only on whatsoever is of good report.

    Let us just say that my correspondent likened the missive in all its bluntness to a kick in the groin.

    Other than the charge that the Jonathan Administration was training a squadron of snipers at a secret location, there was nothing in Obasanjo’s missive that the attentive audience does not encounter daily in the newspapers, in the so-called social media, and in their workaday lives.

    Shortly after Dr Jonathan took office, I asked one of his top advisers whether he was up to the task. His reply: “Without hesitation, no.” And the adviser reeled out instance upon instance that led him to that judgment. Several senior officials close to Dr Jonathan also concurred in that evaluation when I put the same question to them.

    Given the special scrutiny my passport has received in the past three years upon my arrival at Murtala Muhammed Airport, I have good reason to believe, as Obasanjo has charged, that the Administration maintains a Watch List. Some prominent media figures of my acquaintance are also often subjected to the same wanton attention at Passport Control

    Many have argued that even if the missive was on target, as indeed it was, the author was not morally qualified to issue it; that many of the grave deficiencies he identified in the Jonathan record could be traced to his own tenure, and that he had not merely set a ghastly example for his estranged protégé, he had also guided him to follow it through. The pupil, they maintain, has learned only too well from his tutor.

    There is some merit to that reasoning.

    Still, doesn’t every parent expect his children to transcend his or her own inadequacies, to succeed where the parent failed, and altogether to chalk up a superior record of achievement? That, I suspect is the basis of Obasanjo’s disenchantment, that Dr Jonathan has not measured up to his expectations. It is now clear that he did not know his “son” well enough to nurse such expectations

    The sandbagging proved too much even for the usually meek pupil, and he has struck back using every available platform and occasion – in a BBC interview from Paris, in Nairobi, Kenya, and at church services, naming no names but leaving no doubt about whom he has in mind – those who regard not just the Presidency but the entire country as their personal bedroom.

    The centerpiece of his response was a blockbuster missive designed to counter almost point by point Obasanjo’s charges. It is competent in part but perfunctory overall. Polemically, there is little to recommend it. In substance, it was less than a robust rebuttal. I doubt whether it changed any minds.

    What must be seen as a far more damaging response to Obasanjo’s withering missive came in the form of another missive said to have been written by his daughter Iyabo, most recently a “distinguished senator,” to employ the inflated appellation members of Nigeria’s upper house of the National Assembly have bestowed on themselves to match their obscene, self- assigned material privileges.

    For sheer scurrility, it would be hard to match. In fact, I am almost prepared to state that, if it is confirmed beyond a reasonable doubt that she wrote the missive, it will go down as one of the most contumacious ever written by a child to a parent. It is perfused with contempt, ridicule, scorn, and loathing abhorrence of the most visceral kind.

    There are reasons aplenty for doubting that she wrote the missive published by Vanguard Newspapers. The missive was typewritten, not written in longhand, the intimate, personal format one would expect most children to employ in writing to their parents. The closing line lists her academic qualifications, as if it was a letter of reference or a job application. Surely, her father would know that she has doctorates in veterinary medicine and public health?

    Nor was the missive signed. This particular omission may have been designed to allow the writer to deny authorship. But does it not also suggest that Dr Obasanjo may not have written it?

    Much of what the missive contains about how Obasanjo relates to members of his family has long been in the public domain. Anyone who has read the memoirs of Iyabo Obasanjo’s mother or her numerous press interviews and has some familiarity with gossip about the family could have written that missive.

    So, judging strictly by the rules of documentary analysis, it is not proven that Dr Obasanjo wrote it. If she wrote it, did she intend it for publication? And if she did not write it, who did?

    To the extent that she has not disavowed the missive, reasonable people may reasonably conclude that she must have written it. But if she wrote it, why has she not come out to say so?

    If Dr Obasanjo confirmed that she wrote the missive, she would have assured for herself a lasting place in the annals of infamy. If she repudiated it, she would have spurred those who say they have proof that she wrote it to come out with it and destroy whatever ambition she might still be nursing.

    In the circumstance, she would seem to have calculated, or more likely been led to believe that keeping mum is the best strategy for damage control.

    That, at any rate, is the theory I have come to accept.

    As the nation reeled from its impact, the blizzard of missives was upgraded to a veritable maelstrom by yet another missive, this one from the plush and sedate executive suites of the Central Bank, courtesy of its governor, Sanusi Lamido Sanusi.

    Some U.S. $50 billion or N8 trillion in oil export earnings, the missive addressed directly to President Jonathan charged, had not been remitted to the federal exchequer by the notoriously opaque Nigeria National Petroleum Corporation (NNPC).

    Back when the trouble with Nigeria was not money but how to spend it, the charge would have been explosive indeed. Now that the government is reportedly broke and the air saturated with allegations of official thieving, the charge is nothing if not incendiary.

    The NNPC moved with uncharacteristic speed to explain that the gap identified by CBN represented remittances to other agencies of the Federal Government. Sanusi stuck to his missive and renewed the charge.

    In the end he conceded that just US$10 billion remains unaccounted for. That is still a great deal of money, but a far cry from the amount alleged to be missing, in the popular imagination diverted to private pockets.

    When principal officials of the treasurer to the Federal Government and the bank of bankers cannot count, when they are unfamiliar with the mechanism for reporting oil receipts, how much confidence can the public invest in all those figures they ritually churn out?

    Finally, I bring up another missive, a 12-page excoriation of Obasanjo that qualifies only as a minor footnote, and a contemptible one at that. Its author is Ameh Ebute, who played a part in bargaining away the victory of his party’s candidate, Chief MKO Abiola, in the 1993 presidential election.

    If Ebute and his gang had not betrayed the sovereign will of the people as expressed emphatically in that election, if they had stood firm, there would have been no Shonekan Interim, no Abacha, no Obasanjo redux and probably no Jonathan.

  • The play of presidential giants

    The play of presidential giants

    SIR: Nigerians are rightfully horrified by former President Olusegun Obasanjo’s and President Goodluck Jonathan’s naked dance in the market. Everyone already knows that Obasanjo likes to unleash pent-up rage at political enemies. Ask former Vice President Atiku Abubakar. But we are just now learning that Jonathan, though gentle and genial, is not a timid guy. Jonathan’s letter to his pen pal, Obasanjo, shows that when faced with a threat to his political life, he can as well spew out venom. But the strategic intents of both individuals and their letters’ probable ramifications are beyond mere political survival, which is why Nigerians should be alarmed.

    On good authority, Obasanjo’s letter rankled Jonathan and his team who decided it was time to take off the gloves. There is no doubt that Jonathan hit Obasanjo below the belt, even acknowledging in his letter that “the grapes have gone sour.” But Jonathan took serious risks by describing the former leader’s letter as “distinctly ominous” and a “threat to national security as it may deliberately or inadvertently set the stage for subversion.” Simply put, you can’t accuse anyone of threatening national security and let them go free. If the law must apply, then the stage should be set for Obasanjo to answer a few questions from investigators. Given that no pot is big enough to cook Obasanjo (to paraphrase Tony Anenih), the President may have inadvertently weakened his hand.

    But the problem with Jonathan’s approach is that he is the President. People care less about what happened in Obasanjo’s government many years ago; people look up to the current leader to fix things. That’s why they hired him. Second, by taking on Obasanjo in a tit-for-tat manner, Jonathan elevates a citizen (it doesn’t matter if he’s an ex-President) to a level of an alternate President. Third, Obasanjo’s vituperations are good ammo for the opposition and each day that Nigerians debate this issue, he wins and Jonathan loses. Fourth, Jonathan’s letter was more defensive than substantive, appearing more like a desperate attempt to maneuver out of a rope-a-dope situation he had been boxed into. Leadership 101: when a President takes on an individual who espouses popular sentiments, there can only be one loser: the President.

    The tone of Jonathan’s letter also suggests a siege mentality, if not insensitivity, to current economic, security and political situations in the country. Simple logic: Nigerians believe the country is not doing well. Obasanjo says things are bad. Jonathan says things are good. Therefore, Obasanjo is on the side of the people. Ask the millions of unemployed youths if they are happy with their leaders. Ask the families of those whose loved ones have been murdered in cold blood if there is security in Nigeria. Ask those who have to pay bribes everyday to get the simplest things done if there is corruption in the country.

    Jonathan has a point that previous leaders left him a mess and they are now accusing him of not cleaning the mess fast enough. But Nigerians know of only one President and his name is Goodluck Jonathan. A President soaks in insults, even those from predecessors. It’s part of the job. The popular leadership refrain is, if you can’t stand the heat, don’t get in the kitchen.

    Jonathan’s letter was ill-advised because it accentuates the key issue in the debate, which is, are Nigerians better off today than they were in the past? Unfortunately for Jonathan, there cannot be an objective response to that question because memories are often like the morning dew: they disappear in no time. Winston Churchill won World War II and lost the next election. George H. Bush won the first Iraqi war, continued Ronald Reagan’s economic prosperity policies, but he never got reelected. No one talks about how Obama liquidated Osama Bin Laden. Charles Taylor is still wildly popular in Liberia despite his despicable past. Buhari is perhaps the most popular politician in the North yet only few remember the terror he unleashed in 1985 when he became Head of State.

    • Asueliment Aisabokhala

    United States

  • Presidential profanity

    Presidential profanity

    •Jonathan’s habit of attacking political opponents from the sanctuary of churches is crude

    TWICE in 17 days this month, the famed month of goodwill, President Goodluck Jonathan has launched attacks on political opponents from virtual pulpits in the church.

    At the special memorial for Nelson Mandela, the iconic South African president on December 8 at the Aso Villa Chapel in Abuja, President Jonathan dismissed Nigerian politicians as harbouring the “vices of tiny men” rather than the “virtues of great men”, and finished the flourish with a Biblical allusion: “It is probably easier for the camel to pass through the eye of the needle than for a politician to be truly great.”

    Not a few believed the attack was aimed at the often meddlesome former President Olusegun Obasanjo, who, perhaps rattled by it, afterwards made public his own no less scathing 18-page letter, dated December 2.

    Still, at the Mandela memorial, President Jonathan was careful enough to rope in Nigerian politicians across the spectrum: mates in the troubled Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), the opposition, particularly the All Progressives Congress (APC) and even past military dictators, dismissing most of Nigeria’s public men and women, past and present, as persons of little minds.

    All such tact vanished from the presidential bazooka on Christmas Day, the peak of the Yuletide season. It was Christmas service at the Cathedral Church of the Advent in Life Camp, Gwarimpa, Abuja, where the Jonathans worshipped.

    Though Jonathan’s attack was still on the eponymous “politician”, the object of the attack was starker: Obasanjo, godfather turning nemesis — “We politicians think that we own this country and are already thinking about next elections, we are doing what we ought not to do; making statements we ought not to make, and “ — now, the real punch — “writing letters we are not supposed to write”! Aside from the president himself, and possibly the controversial missive purported to have issued from Iyabo Obasanjo, the only person who has written any letter of note is Obasanjo himself!

    In fairness, President Jonathan was reacting to the homily of Archbishop of Nigeria (Anglican Communion), Bishop Nicholas Okoh who, in his suit for national peace and harmony, not out of mood with the Yuletide season, tended to equate political dissent with alleged instigation to breach the peace. Nothing can be farther from the truth. Democracy, with its periodic but peaceful change of power, has enough safety valves to take care of political disputes, no matter how vigorous, if all players play by the rule.

    But even with that, President Jonathan ought to have been much more gracious. For good or for ill, he has replied Obasanjo’s letter; and the appropriateness of his response is in the court of public opinion. He ought to have rested it that way.

    To now take to the virtual pulpit and start attacking people was sheer lack of grace. It paints the president as agitated, grumbling, frazzled, ruffled and troubled. That does great harm to the majesty of the presidential office. It also reeks of lack of confidence, class and panache. The Nigerian presidency, the highest symbol of authority in the land, can do without such starkness.

    But that is even on the secular plane. On the spiritual side, hurling political stones from churches is a profanity tantamount to what the Christ himself decried as “my father’s house of worship has become a den of thieves”, a rare occasion of ire from the ever meek and gentle Jesus, as he chased traders and money doublers from the temple. Ironically, Jonathan made an allusion to this episode during his address at that service.

    Let Jonathan confront his opponents on acceptable platforms. The media, seminars, symposia and other platforms are wide enough to contain all contending political voices. But let church authorities too desist from making their sacred grounds available for profanities, not the least presidential ones.

    Both the president and their lords spiritual must remember to keep the house of God holy; and immune from political impurities. The church is not a place to even political scores.

  • Politics of letters and the unlettered

    Politics of letters and the unlettered

    President Goodluck Jonathan’s belated and rather inconsequential response to ex-president Olusegun Obasanjo’s criticism of his administration naturally sought to dismiss the allegations of corruption, insecurity and religious division. The effort is wasted on an already sensitised public. A weak leader presides, and the foundations of Nigerian democracy quake.

    More than his reply, Dr Jonathan’s treatise on the Nigerian politician’s failure to reflect the virtues of humility, dignity and patriotism espoused by departed South Africa icon and former president Nelson Mandela sorely missed the point. But it was just as well that the president chose the occasion of the late icon’s memorial service on December 15 at Aso Villa Chapel, Abuja, to deliver the wrong speech, for it allowed us a comprehensive peek into his opposition-troubled soul. His depiction of local politicians as ‘tiny men’ appeared aimed at Chief Obasanjo who weighed in with a pointy missive that all but took his protégé to the cleaners.

    Earlier, Obasanjo regaled long-suffering compatriots with anecdotal rendition of Mandela’s response to his suggestion of a second term. “Show me a place in the world when an 80-year-old man is running the affairs of his country,” asked the clearly more cerebral leader. By the gleeful retelling, Obasanjo accentuated error of judgment common with Nigerian leaders. While we yet rued our luck, the now-famous 18-page letter titled ‘Before it is too late’ made the headlines later than its December 2 date. As conjecture ripened, a livid Aso Rock managed a muffled protest. Obasanjo, who acknowledged grooming the ailing Umaru Musa Yar’Adua and his successor Jonathan as president and vice president, affected genuine concern for the national drift. Did he smart from Jonathan’s “tiny men” allusion? Did the former president fear the imminent extinction of his ‘baby’, the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP)? Or did he move to claim a deferred place in history in the wake of Mandela’s passing? Or perhaps his motive combined all possibilities?

    Still, Obasanjo’s poorly-worked and often contradictory letter taxed Jonathan on the anti-corruption fight earlier questioned by Speaker of the National Assembly, Aminu Tambuwal, and Central Bank of Nigeria, (CBN) governor, Sanusi Lamido Sanusi. In another letter to the president, Sanusi urged a probe of the missing $49.8 billion from the Nigeria National Petroleum Corporation (NNPC) accounts between January 2012 and July 2013. While Finance Minister and Coordinating Minister for the Economy, Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala, has since clarified aspects of the accounts to the detriment of Sanusi’s professional judgment, the affair reinforces public perception of NNPC as a house of sleaze.

    The Obasanjo epistle alleged the existence of a sniper training school and a political watch-list as well as schism between the mainly Muslim North and largely Christian South stretched by the president’s re-election plans. Yet, Jonathan’s dictatorial tendency scarcely makes news. A show of kneeling down before the clergy barely inspires the nation, for he is not president of Christians alone. Nor is he a regional head as militants; youth groups and elders from his Ijaw ethnic group regularly convey via veiled threats at security breach if their principal is assailed by the opposition and Armageddon once he is denied a second term.

    Besides the soured political father-and-son relationship, the rudimentary conduct of Jonathan’s supporters and the deification of Mandela by khaki-clad former despots illuminate the poverty of thought that bogs Nigeria. It raises, at the juncture of Mandela’s passing and a lacuna in continental leadership, the question of the country’s intelligence quotient average. Apart from sterility of ideas and general fascination with the mediocre, official performance and the quality of discourse seem most pedestrian under the government of Nigeria’s most certificated leader. But our leaders are not from outer space. They merely reflect, and deepen, common values.

    Contrast the antecedents of Nigeria’s ruling political class with Mandela’s. The fiery lawyer and former boxer in 1990 surmounted 27 years in jail for the liberation struggle to forgive his hard-hearted jailers and earn international renown. He resumed his affiliation with the African National Congress (ANC) and subsequently led the party to victory in South Africa’s first multiracial elections four years after. As the country’s first black President, Mandela cut a dignified figure, delegated power and resisted the continent-wide ‘tradition’ of a second and possibly life term as president. His weary, septuagenarian self probably yearned for relief or he may have set out to establish democratic ethos, but Mandela enhanced racial integration by pointing his long-suffering people towards nationhood and healing of racial tension with the Truth and Reconciliation Committee he instituted and the 1993 Nobel Peace Prize he shared with Frederik Willem de Klerk for jointly ending segregation and setting up a peaceful transition to majority rule.

    Compared to haughty, siren-blaring, horsewhip-brandishing leaders here, Mandela delivered an enduring lesson in humanity with rare simplicity. The cascade of tears that trailed his demise at 95 on December 5 and the memorial service in Johannesburg confirmed adulation from all corners of the globe including the apartheid-propping western world led by the United States of America, whose president, Barack Obama, highlighted the tributes possibly at Nigeria’s expense.

    As acknowledged by Mandela, Nigeria, on account of its human and material resources, should lead the continent despite a history of graft, indiscipline and violent elections. With Nigerian officials locked in denial after the Johannesburg rebuff, however, it wounds deeply to think that a president now known for taking ill at world events preferred the backstage when ‘reward’ for the costly support for South African brethren beckoned. They let the chance slip, yet ignorant aides hardly kick themselves for wasting the mileage a short speech linking Nigeria’s role in the struggle against apartheid to Mandela’s emergence and the future of the Rainbow Nation would have fetched the country.

    How the glory days of Nigeria’s founding fathers and stimulating parliamentary debates haunt. For want of a Mandela to trump, we may invoke the zeitgeist of the 50s and 60s to stem the affliction of today. With their consultation by the political class, ‘distribution’ of oil blocks and near-domination of corporate Nigeria, ex-generals rule politics and the economy, but they bungled the country’s prospects and left an inchoate mass that ill-motivated politicians strain to decipher. The greatest indictment of the era of jackboots must, however, be over-centralisation of government, institution of the retrogressive quota system and a general disdain for education. The military skewered the value system, in other words.

    Obasanjo shared the contents of his letter with Generals Ibrahim Babangida and Abdulsalami Abubakar, when his opinion or their reactions need not carry national import. After all, M.K.O. Abiola died in detention fighting for the 1993 presidential election mandate denied by Babangida, who credited the annulment to dictates of the time. And Abdulsalami in 1999 ushered in Obasanjo and his do-or-die methods.

    Of Nigeria’s raucous power-wielding lot, how many indeed can bear a fraction of Mandela’s cross? Not in beating the path of freedom-fighting and lengthy incarceration, for that is rendered trite by the collapse of apartheid and the age of political correctness. A handful, by progressive affiliation, indicates promise, but it will take more than association to right a wrong course. With its history of perilous political scheming, the country may never allow its best near power, nor would its fossilised kingmakers be as receptive. The alternative is to cultivate a desirable crop: leaders at home in the north as in the south, leaders less prone to religious and sectional considerations, and leaders given to deeper thought and nobler deeds.

     

    • Fagbemi is a staff of The Nation