Writing under the title ‘A season of open letters’ I had in this column last week, examined some issues arising from the open letter written by former President Olusegun Obasanjo to President Jonathan in which he raised several damaging allegations against him. That article was largely based on extant facts even as Jonathan was yet to provide his own side of the story. There was also the suggestion that even before the column is published, we could be treated with more letters.
That prediction came to pass as Jonathan’s response made the headlines the very Monday the said article was published. Since the previous one was done without the side of the accused, it is only apposite that issues are put in their proper context now we have heard both sides. This is more so given Obasanjo’s reaction to the effect that he was not going to address the new issues raised in Jonathan’s reply.
Obasanjo’s new position may have been borne out of one or two reasons. It could be to stave off the heating up of the political space and the prospects of the controversy precipitating crisis or he has taken to the caution by some other elder statesmen that issues of that nature are not sorted out the way he set out or both.
He may also have reasoned that those who live in glass houses do not have to throw stones as the outcome could be the destruction of their mighty glass edifices. This line of thought is further reinforced by some of the incontrovertible insights brought to the fore by Jonathan’s reply.
Whatever the reason, it is clear that by not rising to the new disclosures by Jonathan, Obasanjo has wittingly or unwittingly whittled down the import of the acerbic allegations he purported to have made in the overall national interest. If he was acting in the overall national interest, the minimum expectation is that he should further join issues with Jonathan so that the nation can benefit from it. But if he is not prepared to go the whole hog, why embark on a futile journey? Not with the weighty allegations Nigerians are eager to know their final outcome. Why whet the appetite of the people by raising accusing fingers if only to allow issues hanging? And of what value are allegations and counter allegations without efforts to establish their veracity?
These posers are raised given the avalanche of public demand that Jonathan should respond to the issues raised and the obvious insinuations that had gone with them. Even then, there are still those who feel Jonathan’s response has not been far-reaching enough. They would therefore want him to proceed further to investigate some of the alleged infractions he associated previous regimes with including that of his traducer. There is a valid point here.
With the volte-face by Obasanjo, it would appear nothing will be gained from this dialectics. And given the debilitating crisis this country is entangled in, the minimum expectation is that the simmering contradiction will come with some heuristic value. It is perhaps, the first time in our recent history that a former president and a sitting one will engage each other in such open accusations on the sundry ills that have buffeted this country over the years. Such a clash ought to activate the social dynamics of history. The envisaged clash between thesis and antithesis should give rise to synthesis. Its outcome ought to benefit the society better. That should be the envisaged outcome of those inquisitions. It would appear it is this historical motion that Obasanjo wants to stall by now opting to remain silent. He must not be allowed to do so at this point.
He spoke of the Arab spring and the turn of events in Egypt. He spoke of rising corruption, insecurity and the gradual slide to dictatorship in a democracy. Jonathan has responded to the issue of corruption, insecurity and the accusation that he was training snipers to assassinate his political enemies. He has even gone further to show that terrorism did not start during his regime while there has been no record of political killings.
By way of contrast, there were political killings during Obasanjo’ regime and some of the very well known cases of corruption during the same period included the scandals involving Siemens and Halliburton. Jonathan would want to know the status of these cases and what the sitting President did then. He has also challenged Obasanjo to produce the list of the 1000 people under political watch and the agencies of government detailed to monitor them. He also reasoned the allegation may be a subterfuge to embolden all manner of killers to strike only to turn round and heap the blame at the door steps of the government. This is a very grave issue.
In sum, he accused Obasanjo of instigating the crisis in the PDP to harass him out of an undeclared ambition in 2015 so as to install one of his acolytes. Even as some of Jonathan’s responses are already in the court of public opinion, Obasanjo owes it a bounden duty to this country to rise to the challenge of his self-assigned role of being the conscience of the nation. He has further been challenged by former Chief Security Officer to late Gen. Sani Abacha Major Hamza Al Mustapha to a public debate on some of the issues he raised.
The point here is that Obasanjo has set in motion a seemingly system sanitizing process. He says his motivation is to serve the overall good of this country. Given that the ills which he accused Jonathan of are at the root of stultifying this country’s efforts at meaningful development, it is only proper that we get at the root of the matter.
It would not amount to demanding too much if some of the corruption related scandals and political killings mentioned by Jonathan are now probed. The case of Bola Ige who was assassinated in his bedroom as a minister even with the retinue of security men detailed to protect him is still very fresh. There are some others also.
In effect, the nation ought to gain something from the altercations that have arisen from Obasanjo’s letter. There are issues some of these leaders know and actions they have taken they may not be willing to tell the people. Now Obasanjo has opened our eyes to the rot that can go on in the name of governance, it is time a high powered inquisition into the activities of all past regimes commenced. Most of those who have ruled the country (military or civilian) are still alive. It might not amount to demanding too much to probe such people now.
Increasingly, it is dawning on us that some of these people constitute the greatest liability to this country. They have their hands every where and in every thing in the warped thinking that without them Nigeria cannot be. But besides this claim to patriotism, is the hidden urge to gain selfish and sectional advantage. That is why Obasanjo had to insult our collective sensibilities by telling us the number of northerners he helped to power. Now he is seeking another opportunity and it appears elusive, the incumbent must be caught down. He must show all the evidence with which to prove Jonathan wrong or take the responsibility for the outcome of the dangerous issues he canvassed. It is possible to resolve our suffocating national problems from this clash depending on its handle.
