The Nation Newspaper

Tag: Goodluck Jonathan

  • Okupe is back … with a whinge

     Doyin Okupe, the Goodluck Jonathan presidential bull dog, is back, but with a whinge, not a bang.

    He whinges on end, like a bad artisan blaming his tool, even as he helps himself to more historical fantasies to justify the historical failure of the luckless Goodluck.

    Okupe, of course, is not new to self-induced fantasies; so the ebullient Remo prince did not disappoint in his latest release.

    It was he who said people should call him a bastard, if the newly merged opposition alliance, All Progressives Congress (APC) lived up to one year.  APC not only did that, it marked its one year with the unhorsing of Jonathan, Okupe’s principal, and the humpty-dumpty Peoples Democratic Party (PDP).

    This same Okupe went among some Nigerians in the Diaspora, boasting and bristling, perhaps on his sterling credential as “owner of Nigeria”, that Muhammadu Buhari would never become president.  Even when he was shouted down, he persisted.  Such impunity!

    He cut the sorry picture of some modern day false prophet, pushing the doomed King Ahab to his doom.  Well, his principal was game for believing Okupe’s empty histrionics.  Just as well, they both became history.

    But not even that wilful misadventure could wean Okupe from fantasies, even in his after-power life.  In analysing the misfortune he actively and wilfully brought upon Jonathan, the bull dog still appears trapped in the hellish mediums.

    Jonathan failed, he submitted, not because he was a candidate doomed to fail (as a contrite Raymond Dokpesi earlier pushed) but because Jonathan did not resort to impunity to sack Attahiru Jega, the INEC chair.  But under what laws might he have done that?  And even if he had found or confected some law, how would he have spun it that he wasn’t subverting the same democratic processes he swore by law to protect?

    He accused Jega as an “unfair and compromised electoral officer, who was allowed to conduct the election in spite of his obvious and profuse partisanship.”  Well, the trained medic is no lawyer.  But he should thank his stars Nigeria is not an especially litigious society.  Otherwise, the injured should have been suing every kobo out of him.  Jega, an obvious and profuse partisan?  That is reckless, partisan fantasy gone ga-ga!

    And, in his Okupe-istic wisdom, the erstwhile presidential bull dog growled inconsolably that even if his principal had failed to sack Prof. Jega, he should have foresworn the use of  what he called the “infamous” the card reader!  Sure, fame to some is notoriety to others, depending on their mindsets!

    But then if the card reader, the distinctive feature of the 2015 election that made a huge difference from the criminally padded polls of the past, was in Okupe’s words “skilfully manipulated to the disadvantage of the PDP presidential candidate”, then Hardball has a clear idea about the most probable beneficiaries of soulless rigging in the past!  Another Okupe-istic untruth, at its most daring and reckless!

    His final serenading of Jonathan is firmly founded on quicksand.  Okupe suggested Jonathan should have criminalised his office by subverting the election, even when it was clear he had been soundly rejected.  Thank God he didn’t buy that folly for whatever is left of his legacy would have dipped in concentrated odium.

    Jonathan sure does have them: an Edwin Clark that junked him without much ado after preening about as presidential father during the halcyon days of sweet power; and an Okupe that now serenades him with arrant falsehood.

    If history is to make anything of Jonathan’s ill-fated presidency, he had better keep his distance from the costly mirage the likes of Okupe unfazed epitomise.

     

  • Beatification of Goodluck Jonathan

    Beatification of Goodluck Jonathan

    Former president Goodluck Jonathan may have left the presidency humiliated by the wrenching defeat he suffered at the hands of the All Progressives Congress (APC) in the March presidential poll, but he has not let the loss truncate his life nor stigmatise his future. He is now resolute more than ever, preferring to see the silver lining in the cloud than the black draping in the horizon. His image may have taken a horrible beating, with his presidency variously described as clueless or outrightly incompetent, however, now, his image is soaring, and he may even be nursing the hope he will have the last laugh on those who nurtured a career ridiculing him. He is now as a matter of fact feted by important groups and individuals in Africa and beyond; and if he continues this studious and diligent rehabilitation, and manages to set up a team of experts and advisers to equip him mentally, coupled with his gentle disposition and meek accessibility, his beatification may take on added momentum.

    Fresh from his tour of duty in Tanzania as head of the Commonwealth Observer Group (COG), where he monitored the October 25 election that ended quite well, Dr Jonathan has again been appointed by the same Commonwealth to mediate the stalemate in Zanzibar consequent upon the last disputed polls in that small island nation. The former Nigerian president seems to relish the roles he has begun to play continentally and globally. He deserves his chance in the sun. After having conceded defeat in the last Nigerian election and relinquished office when every political pundit predicted doom and anarchy, his stock began to rise steadily and even furiously. It is in his power to let that stock remain bullish, if he can sustain his stamina and summon the ingenuity.

    But just when it seemed his acclaim could not transcend the continental level, the United States Presidential Precinct, Charlottesville, Virginia, a consortium uniting six American landmark institutions – four of America’s most important historic sites and two of that country’s most outstanding public universities, is hosting him for the role he played in fostering Nigeria’s democracy. Other strategic pro-democracy institutions in the United States will also be hosting him. So far, in the visit, Dr Jonathan has spoken well and shared important lessons from Nigeria’s electoral experience. He will not need to preach to the converted, for, apparently, the world appreciates the role he played in that election more than Nigerians have.

    In the coming months, Dr Jonathan will be busy. The feting will of course stop or peter out. But global assignments will beckon to him much more than they will beckon to any other Nigerian leader, including ex-president Olusegun Obasanjo. Partly because of the recency of the last polls, the world remembers fondly the role Dr Jonathan played; but despite the passage of time, since 2007 in fact, the world has not forgotten the obnoxious part Chief Obasanjo played in unconstitutionally foisting a bad government on Nigeria. Consequently, Dr Jonathan will be celebrated, invited and consulted. The world will ignore analyses of the fortuitousness of that celebrated concession of defeat, or of the desperate and half-hearted ploys by Dr Jonathan’s diehards to thwart the outcome of the polls. The safe and sweet conclusion of the presidential poll in particular weighs heavily on the minds of world leaders relieved that Nigeria was kept safe and stable by one simple, noble and overarching act.

    Notwithstanding the accolades he is receiving globally, it is also perhaps time for Dr Jonathan to reflect on his life and presidency. His beatification may be deserved, but if he is not careful, it could also turn premature or short-lived. Surely, his time in office cannot be defined by just one act of concession of defeat— desperate, coerced or willing. His economic policies were a veritable and festering shambles, and like his predecessors, he had no social or political policies, nothing substantial by way of affecting future generations, in attitudes, beliefs and ideologies. He was unable to think on his feet, and lacking discipline of the most ennobling sort, he transferred that obnoxiousness to his aides and acolytes who simply went ahead to feather their nests. These things call for his reflections, and should sober whatever recognition he may receive continentally or globally.

    However, nothing should take away from the modest fame he is beginning to acquire. More than any other Nigerian leader, he deserves it. Let him revel in it. And let him travel and discourse, despite his elocutionary limitations, on Africa’s democratic struggles with the world’s best and brightest.

  • Clark the father, Jonathan the son, and Abati the …

    Folks, let’s do a gospel parallel on Nigeria’s ever boisterous political terrain.

    God the Father, goes that inviolate classification, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit.  That is the Holy Trinity, right?

    Well, apply that to the fiercely contrasting tirades from the Goodluck Jonathan presidential camp: one, from Edwin Clark, political father; the other, from Reuben Abati, political aide; but both fallen on barren political times.

    Abati dubbed his riposte to Clark’s Jonathan putdown, “Clark the father, Jonathan, the son”.  Did he have the holy trinity in mind?

    If he did, it probably would have panned out thus: “Clark, the father; Jonathan, the son; and Abati, the …

    “Holy Spirit!” the repressed but relieved ex-presidential camp would have blurted, given the spectacular way Clark had chucked his one glorious godson, saying he was feckless.

    But “Evil Spirit”, the other camp would have countered, particularly given Epa Clark’s latest riposte to the Abati holier-than-thou challenge, in the defence of Goodluck Jonathan.

    Now, both reactions could be credible, for it appears a classic clash between political and media merchandising, in the vigorous defence of an extant political order; and its aftermath, when that order went extinct.

    For Epa Clark, political merchandising has been something like careerism.  Well, you call it merchandising.  But Epa calls it patriotism.  Both views are not incorrect.  It just depends on from which side you’re commenting.

    From Gen. Yakubu Gowon to every other order in Nigeria’s chequered, if troubled, political history, Epa Clark had been there, giving his patriotic support.  Why? He was a long time Gowon federal commissioner (now called minister) for Information.  That was way back when Hardball was in primary school!

    Now, if Epa was that patriotic for the North, why won’t he be even more, for his own Niger Delta “son”, for whom he was rightly and patriotically well pleased?  Or, in Nigeria’s political hypocrisy, is patriotism inversely proportional (to borrow a jargon from basic chemistry) to one’s nativity?  In other words, do you get less patriotic, simply because you support your own, when the principle — patriotic support for central power — is constant?

    Hell, no, Epa’s supporters would yell!  Yeah right, valid proof of political merchandising, the contrasting camp would equally bawl!

    It’s nothing but where you’re coming from, see?

    Now, to Abati — holy or evil spirit?  Not a doubt, holy spirit — not with the way he, a mere aide, rallied for his fallen principal, when the father virtually threw him to the dogs.

    But what of Abati’s pre-Aso Rock days, which the Epa, not illegitimately, dredged up in the virtual roforofo fight?  Back then, Jonathan was plain Ahab (again, back to a Biblical allusion) and his spouse, the very Jezebel.  But progression to Aso Rock, and everything changed: Jonathan, from Ahab, morphed sharp-sharp to David and Solomon combined, the very best in all of Israel!

    Now, who are Abati, the media analyst; and Abati, the presidential spinner? The political equivalent of the two-faced Janus, whose being harbours two fiercely contrasting essences?  Or the Nigerian contemporary equivalent of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde — one sweet; the other sinister?

    Whether patriotism or merchandise, the driver would appear basic economics.  That seems to logically explain why Epa Clark would fiercely turn against his lifetime allies, briefly rally for a co-native, but quickly revert to his default setting, immediately that co-native ran into storm.

    For Abati, the columnist’s conversion from Paul to Saul, on the patriotic road to Damascus, explains no less.

  • ‘Born to rule’ syndrome and Nigerian elite

    ‘Born to rule’ syndrome and Nigerian elite

    Last week in this column, entitled: “Jonathan’s fair-weather friends,” I said Dr. Reuben Abati, former spokesman for ex-President Goodluck Jonathan, was wrong to subscribe to the popular belief that a section of this country, specifically the North – for which read the so-called Hausa/Fulani – believed it is, to use the hackneyed expression, “born to rule.” Abati did not use exactly those words in his well-publicised sharp reprimand of Chief Edwin Clark over the godfather’s recent denunciation of his erstwhile godson, Jonathan. But the difference between the words he used and the hackneyed phrase was more or less like that between half a dozen of one and six of the other. The only difference this time was that Abati stretched the presumed northern superiority complex to include others outside the region.

    The betrayal of Jonathan’s confidence by the likes of Clark, Abati said in his putdown of the old man, was one reason “why the existent power blocs that consider themselves most fit to rule, continue to believe that those whose ancestors never ran empires can never be trusted with power.”

    Abati’s reference to “those whose ancestors never ran empires” obviously would include at least the Jukun, who once ran the mighty Kwararafa Empire, the Yoruba who ran the Oyo Empire and the Edo, who ran the Benin Empire. Abati, I am sure, knows very well that none of these three nationalities, or for that matter any other nationality, would agree that it suffers from any superiority complex, along with the Hausa/Fulani. But then even the Hausa/Fulani themselves would deny they suffer from this complex and even go further to accuse others of the same complex.

    The fact is that every nationality in the world, no matter how small, thinks it is superior to others – hence its faith in preserving its language and culture – but paradoxically also accuses others of the same complex. This clearly makes the notion of ethnic superiority, and by the same token, ethnic inferiority complex, more subjective than objective.

    Take, for example, Nigeria’s political-economy, which has rested on a tripod of its three biggest ethnic groups, the Hausa/Fulani in the North, the Yoruba in the West and the Igbo in the East. In his 1987 autobiography, the late Alhaji Babatunde Jose, post independent Nigeria’s greatest newspaperman, provided what I believe is probably the greatest insight into the country’s tripod-based politics.

    This was in Chapter 7 where he shed some light in what led to the infamous Kano Riots of May 18, 1953, which started from Sabon Gari, the mainly Igbo settlement on the city’s outskirts. Jose was at that time on tour of the North as a senior reporter of Daily Times. He had, he said, arrived Zaria from Kano by train when he heard that a riot had broken out in Kano following a campaign rally addressed by Chief Ladoke Akintola, then Deputy Leader of Action Group, in which he disparaged the Northern leadership “in fluent Hausa” for opposing the independence motion that had been moved in parliament in Lagos by his party.

    As a resourceful reporter, Jose persuaded a senior railway officer to allow him to double-back to Kano on a goods train that night. He then filed an eyewitness account of the riot in which he reported that it was one between the Hausa and the Yoruba. “Somehow,” Jose said, “it appeared in the Daily Times as a riot between the Hausa and the Igbo, a very different matter, and potentially a very dangerous error.” So dangerous that Percy Roberts, the expatriate boss of the newspaper, was summoned by the Chief Secretary of the Government (today’s equivalent of Secretary of the Government of the Federation) and persuaded to withdraw the entire edition and reprint it with the correct story.

    “We,” Jose said, “never found out how the mistake occurred. Was it an accident or was it a deliberate attempt to foment trouble?”

    Whatever it was, the incident provided an insight into how politics in this country has revolved around the three biggest ethnic groups in the country. As Jose pointed out in that chapter: “The Yoruba had literally ruled Nigeria since the British came, to the exclusion of the Hausa and the Igbo. While the Yoruba had produced the second generation of graduates in law, medicine and engineering, the Igbo were just starting with the first generation. But the Hausa had not started at all… Lagos was Nigeria and there was resistance to the backward provincials coming to share power in Lagos.”

    So Nigeria’s predicament has been one in which democracy, as essentially a game of numbers, has pitched the elite of one big ethnic group who think they have the numbers to dictate the shots against the elite of the other two big groups who believe they have the Western education to be the rightful heirs to the departing colonialists. And until Jonathan, an Ijaw, came along in 2011, the other smaller ethnic groups were supposed to be little more than bit players in the country’s political drama.

    Numbers may have trumped Western education in the politics of this country since independence, but neither the West (Yoruba) nor the East (Igbo) have the moral right to accuse the North (Hausa/Fulani) of thinking it is “born to rule.” If nothing else, the victory of Chief M. K. O. Abiola, a Yoruba, against Alhaji Bashir Tofa, a “Hausa” in the now famous June 12 1993 presidential election even in the North, and the support his victory got from leading Northern elite like the late Major-General Hassan Usman Katsina, Malam Adamu Ciroma and Alhaji Balarabe Musa, has since debunked the notion that northerners alone believe they are born to rule.

    Of course, a northerner, military president, General Ibrahim Babangida, annulled the election and another northerner, General Sani Abacha, buried the struggle for its realisation as military head of state. But none of them had any one’s mandate to do so. And they only succeeded with the active support of elite from all over the country.

    The fact is that few of our elite, whatever their ethnicity, believe in democracy as a means to power through the popular will. Fewer still are prepared to work long and hard to cultivate any reasonable level of popular support across ethnic, regional and religious lines. Instead, they’ll sooner use all three, and others more, to divide us in order to rule us.

    Anyone inclined to accuse only the North of a “born to rule complex” should remember how, in an interview in Sunday Vanguard of July 21, 2002, Mr. Femi Fani-Kayode, then a spokesman for ex-President Olusegun Obasanjo, declared that whether anyone liked it or not, the South would rule Nigeria for “close to 50 years.” He even argued that the North would “actually be better-off being ruled by people from the South” because the benefits of good governance, which, presumably, was a southern preserve, would “flow down.”

    It should also be remembered that three years after Fani-Kayode’s declaration, the Southern Leaders Forum met in Enugu and demanded that power should remain in the South beyond the 2007 elections and threatened otherwise to boycott the elections.

    So if the so-called Hausa/Fulani, and by extension, the North, appear more guilty of a “born to rule” syndrome than the other big ethnic groups – and remember as we have seen in several multi-ethnic states, such as Benue, Kogi, Delta and Bayelsa, one man’s minority group is another’s majority – it is not because it is the veritable truth. It is simply because as Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. the American historian once said: “Karl Marx held that history is shaped by those who control the means of production. In our times history is shaped by those who control the means of communication.”

    In Nigeria’s information and communication order, the North has clearly been grossly disadvantaged historically and has remained so even today. For this, however, the region can have only itself to blame because it has had more than 50 years to catch up or at least narrow the gap significantly, but has failed to do so.

  • Clark, the father, Jonathan, the son- Reuben Abati

    Clark, the father, Jonathan, the son- Reuben Abati

    I have tried delaying the writing of this piece in the honest expectation that someone probably misquoted Chief E.K. Clark, when he reportedly publicly disowned former President Goodluck Jonathan. I had hoped that our dear father, E.K. Clark, would issue a counter statement and say the usual things politicians say: “they quoted me out of context!”  “Jonathan is my son”. That has not happened; rather, some other Ijaw voices, including one Joseph Evah, have come to the defence of the old man, to join hands in rubbishing a man they once defended to the hilt and used as a bargaining chip for the Ijaw interest in the larger Nigerian geo-politics. 

     

    If President Jonathan had returned to power on May 29, 2015, these same persons would have remained in the corridors of power, displaying all forms of ethnic triumphalism. It is the reason in case they do not realize it, why the existent power blocs that consider themselves most fit to rule, continue to believe that those whose ancestors never ran empires can never be trusted with power, hence they can only be admitted as other people’s agents or as merchants of their own interests which may even be defined for them as is deemed convenient. Mercantilism may bring profit, but in power politics, it destroys integrity and compromises otherwise sacred values.

     

    President Jonathan being publicly condemned by his own Ijaw brothers, particularly those who were once staunch supporters of his government further serves the purpose of exposing the limits of the politics of proximity. Politics in Africa is driven by this particular factor; it is at the root of all the other evils: prebendalism, clientelism and what Matthew Kukah has famously described as the “myownisation of power”.  It is both positive and negative, but obviously, more of the latter than the former. It is considered positive only when it is beneficial to all parties concerned, and when the template changes, the ground also shifts. As in that song, the solid rock of proximity is soon replaced by shifting sands. Old worship becomes new opportunism. And the observant public is left confounded.

     

    Chief E.K. Clark? Who would ever think, Chief E.K. Clark would publicly disown President Jonathan?  He says Jonathan was a weak President. At what point did he come to that realization? Yet, throughout the five years (not six, please) of the Jonathan Presidency, he spoke loudly against anyone who opposed the President. He was so combative he was once quoted as suggesting that Nigeria could have problems if Jonathan was not allowed to return to office. Today, he is the one helping President Jonathan’s successor to quench the fires. He always openly said President Jonathan is “his son”. Today, he is not just turning against his own son, he is telling the world his son as President lacked the political will to fight corruption. He has also accused his son of being too much of a gentleman. Really? Gentlemanliness would be considered honourable in refined circles.  Is Pa E.K. Clark recommending something else in order to prove that he is no longer a politician but a statesman as he says?

     

    As someone who was a member of the Jonathan administration, and who interacted often with the old man, I can only say that I am shocked.  This is the equivalent of the old man deleting President Jonathan’s phone number and ensuring that calls from his phone no longer ring at the Jonathan end. During the Jonathan years, Chief E. K. Clark was arguably the most vocal Ijaw leader defending the government. He called the President “my son”, and both father and son remained in constant touch.

     

    There is something about having the President’s ears in a Presidential system, elevated to the level of a fetish in the clientilist Nigerian political system. Persons in the corridors of power who have the President’s ear- be they cook, valet, inlaws, wife, cousin, former school mates, priests, or whatever, enjoy special privileges. They have access to the President and they can whisper into his ears. That’s all they have as power: the power to whisper and run a whispering campaign that can translate into opportunities or losses for those outside that informal power loop around every Presidency, that tends to be really influential.

     

    Every President must beware of those persons who come around calling them “Daddy”, “Uncle”, na my brother dey there”, “my son”, “our in-law”: emotional blackmailers relying on old connections. They are courted, patronized and given more attention and honour than they deserve by those looking for access to the President or government. Even when the power and authority of the whispering exploiters of the politics of proximity is contrived, they go out of their way to exaggerate it. They acquire so much from being seen to be in a position to make things happen.

     

    Chief E. K. Clark had the President’s ears. He had unfettered access to his son. He was invited to most state events.  And he looked out for the man he called “my son”, in whom he was well pleased. Chief Clark’s energy level in the service of the Jonathan administration was impressive. Fearless and outspoken, he deployed his enormous talents in the service of the Jonathan government.  If a press statement was tame, he drew attention to it and urged a more robust defence of “your boss”. If any invective from the APC was overlooked, he urged prompt rebuttal. If the party was tardy in defending “his son”, he weighed in.

     

    If anyone had accused the President of lacking “the political will to fight corruption” at that time, he, E.K. Clark, would have called a press conference to draw attention to the Jonathan administration’s institutional reforms and preventive measures, his commitment to electoral integrity to check political corruption, and the hundreds of convictions secured by both the ICPC and EFCC under his son’s watch. So prominent and influential was he, that ministers, political jobbers etc etc trooped to his house to pay homage.

     

    In due course, those who opposed President Jonathan did not spare Chief E. K. Clark either. He was accused of making inflammatory and unstatesman-like statements. An old war-horse, nobody could intimidate him. He was not President Olusegun Obasanjo’s fan in particular. He believed Obasanjo wanted to sabotage his son, and he wanted Obasanjo put in his place. Beneath all of that, was an unmistaken rivalry between the two old men, seeking to control the levers of Nigerian politics.

     

    Every President probably needs a strong, passionate ally like Chief E. K. Clark. But what happened? What went wrong? Don’t get me wrong. I am not necessarily saying that the Ijaw leader should have remained loyal to and defend Goodluck Jonathan because they are both Ijaws, patriotism definitely could be stronger than ethnic affinities, nonetheless that E. K. Clark tale about leaving politics and becoming a statesman is nothing but sheer crap.  If Jonathan had returned to office, he would still be a card-carrying member of the PDP and the “father of the President” and we would still have been hearing that famous phrase, “my son”. Chief E. K. Clark, five months after, has practically told the world that President Buhari is better than “his own son”.

     

     It is the worst form of humiliation that President Jonathan has received since he left office.  It is also the finest compliment that President Buhari has received since he assumed office. The timing is also auspicious: just when the public is beginning to worry about the direction of the Buhari government, E. K. Clark shows up to lend a hand of support and endorsement. Only one phrase was missing in his statement, and it should have been added: “my son, Buhari.” It probably won’t be too long before we hear the old man saying “I am a statesman, Buhari is my son.”  I can imagine President Obasanjo grinning with delight. If he really wants to be kind, he could invite E.K. Clark to his home in Ota or Abeokuta to come and do the needful by publicly tearing his PDP membership card and join him in that exclusive club of Nigerian statesmen! The only problem with that club these days is that you can become a member by just saying so or by retiring from partisan politics. We are more or less being told that there are no statesmen in any of the political parties.  

     

    It is not funny. Julius Ceasar asked Brutus in one of the famous lines in written literature: “Et tu Brutus?” President Jonathan should ask Chief E. K. Clark: “Et tu Papa?” To which the father will probably tell the son: “Ces’t la vie, mon cher garcon.”  And really, that is life. In the face of other considerations, loyalties vanish; synergies collapse. The wisdom of the tribe is overturned; the politics of proximity dissolves; loyalties remain in a perpetual process of construction.  Thus, individual interests and transactions drive the political game in Nigeria, with time and context as key determinants.

     

    These are teachable moments for President Jonathan. Power attracts men and women like bees to nectar, the state of powerlessness ends as a journey to the island of loneliness. However, the greatest defender of our work in office is not our ethnic “fathers and “brothers” but rather our legacy. The real loss is that President Jonathan’s heroism, his messianic sacrifice in the face of defeat, is being swept under the carpet and his own brothers who used to say that the Ijaws are driven by a principle of “one for all and all for another”, have become agent-architects of his pain. The Ijaw platform having seemingly been de-centered, Chief E.K. Clark and others are seeking assimilation in the new power structure. It is a telling reconstruction of the politics of proximity and mimicry.

     

    Chief E.K. Clark once defended the rights of ethnic minorities to aspire to the highest offices in the land, his latest declaration about his son reaffirms the existing stereotype at the heart of Nigeria’s hegemonic politics. The same hegemons and their agents whom Clark used to fight furiously will no doubt find him eminently quotable now that he has proclaimed that it is wrong to be a “gentleman”, and that his son lacks “the political will to fight corruption”. There is more to this than we may ever know. Chief Clark can insist from now till 2019,  that he has spoken as a statesman and as a matter of principle. His re-alignment,  is curious nonetheless. 

  • FG to ban rice importation in two years

    FG to ban rice importation in two years

    Zamfara State Governor, Abdulaziz Yari on Wednesday disclosed that the Federal Government will ban importation of rice into the country in the next two years.

    He disclosed while speaking with State House correspondents at the end of a meeting on the new policy on agriculture and food sustainability at the Vice President’s conference room.

    The governor also said that ex-President Goodluck Jonathan’s administration did not export any locally-produced rice from the country.

    He said: “We discussed how we can boost rice production in Nigeria and start thinking about how we are going to put policy in place on how rice importation will be banned in the country.

    “We have the potential; we have the human resources; we have the arable land to grow rice.

    “In the next two years, we will not need to bring rice from outside Nigeria. We are going to ban it.

    “It is only in Nigeria, a country of millions of people, that there is no food security.

    “We discussed the policy with the relevant permanent secretaries and CBN governor.

    “The policy is going to be in place and we gave our commitment that we are ready to support the government policy in ensuring that Nigeria becomes self-sufficient in food production in the next two years.

    “Nigeria is currently a major importer of rice. Now, the political will is in place to stop it. We in about nine states are going to be seriously engaged in massive rice production.

    “We are hoping that in the next two years, rice importation into Nigeria will be banned.  We are committed and the political will is in place,” he stated.

  • Why Nigerians must support Army

    Why Nigerians must support Army

    I just watched the Chief of Army Staff (COAS), Lt. General Tukur Buratai on Television after he visited troops in Geidam Community of Yobe State, as a result of Wednesday’s attack by Boko Haram militants who over-ran the military.

    Tn the attack, the insurgents killed 3 soldiers, carted away many weapons and ammunition abandoned by the military on the run and looted mostly food and petroleum products from the popular Wednesday market.

    I was particularly touched by the honesty of General Buratai who was obviously angry with the troops who had run away from Geidam town.

    In his words, the General said “How can you allow these criminals over-run you? How can you run away from this rag-tag and untrained criminals? You allowed them to operate here for 12hours unchallenged. You refused to come back until they withdrew.”

    On the surface, the words of COAS Buratai are very hurtful to the image of the Nigerian Army but this is the painful reality today.

    The Nigerian Army seems to be overwhelmed and demoralized.

    The image of the Nigerian Army has suffered so much damages in the eyes of Nigerians and the international community mainly because of the way they have handled the war against Boko Haram in the past 3years.

    These insurgents have repeatedly, for over 2years, embarked upon massive propaganda using social media to demonize the Nigerian Army.

    They have through so many online propaganda and campaigns portrayed our army as a weak and a cowardly army that cannot stand to fight.

    Many online media and personalities helped the insurgents to achieve their propaganda campaigns either intentionally or otherwise.

    It is important for us to know that all wars are fought both on ground, air, sea, land and in the minds of all parties involved in the war and most importantly in the psyche of the citizens. To win this war against Boko Haram, we must conquer the minds of Boko Haram with fear, win over our allies and friends by convincing them our army is capable and reliable and also boost the confidence of our troops through citizenry support since the morale of our troops are boosted when they know the citizens of their country are solidly behind them.

    The Nigerian Army and our other security agencies are our last line of defense against these barbarians since we cannot defend ourselves against their satanic attacks. If not for the efforts of the Nigerian Military and our other security agencies, these barbarians would have taken over the entire nation, enforced their barbaric and misguided religious tenets on all of us, restricted us to their false Sambisa sharia law system, forced our Sisters into sex slavery like they have done to the Chibok Girls and make us live in perpetual fear of terror.

    [quote font_size=”18″ font_style=”italic” bgcolor=”#000000″ bcolor=”#e2e2e2″]We sleep safely at night because rough men stand ready to visit violence on those who would harm us.”  ― Winston S. Churchill[/quote]

    If not for the Nigerian Army and other security agencies, many Muslims and Christians across our country would not be able to go to the mosque on Fridays or the church on Sundays.

    Boko Haram seeks to destroy Christianity and Islam and do not wish any of us well, Nigerians, irrespective of religious consideration, party affiliation and tribal affinity, must realize that Boko Haram are our common enemies and not just the Nigerian Army’s.

    The Army means well and are doing their very best to protect us all despite the overwhelming odds, they need our support at all times.

    This was what the opposition party in the days of President Goodluck Jonathan was admonished with but they refused to listen. They politicized everything.

    Sadly, they politicized the attempt by the former president to list Boko Haram as a Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO); they politicized the procurement of arms to prosecute the war; they politicized appointments of service chiefs; they politicized State of Emergency in the North East; they politicized Chibok and turned it into a campaign tool against Jonathan.

    The PDP-led Federal Government and the Nigerian Army, for inexplicable reasons, chose to see issues as an appendage of the PDP rather than the federal government.

    Mallam Nasir El-Rufai, now governor of Kaduna State and many leading APC chieftains then referred to the Nigerian army as Jonathan’s army. They politicized everything as regards the fight against the deadly sect.

    At some point in time, their presidential candidate now President Muhammadu Buhari called an attack against Boko haram an attack against Northern Nigeria.

    If the political class and all Nigerians had supported the then Federal Government and our security agencies in the fight against Boko Haram, may be we would have long won the war.

    The politicization of the war against Boko Haram caused more damage than good on the whole nation. Those who saw the war against Boko Haram as an avenue for them to keep scoring needless and cheap political points in the North, sabotaged the efforts of our security agencies.

    They got the Arewa Consultative Forum (ACF) to issue endless press releases kicking against the ban on Boko Haram and the plan of the then FG to list Boko Haram as an FTO which was needed to get arms from our allies to effectively prosecute the war.

    And finally, when Boko Haram was listed as an FTO, they began another campaign against the army saying former Chief of Army staff, Lieutenant General Ihejirika was also a sponsor of Boko Haram and was the one supplying arms to Boko Haram on the orders of former president Jonathan.

    Their allegations were so scary and consistent that our allies became skeptical of supplying us with arms, and the United States and Israel refused selling arms to us to fight the deadly sect.

    We had to turn to Russia for help. As if that was not enough, the former governor of Adamawa State, Murtala Nyako even did the unbelievable, accusing the FG of genocide against Northern Nigeria and suggested that federal troops were the ones dropping arms for Boko Haram with helicopters.

    Furthermore, it was Mallam El-Rufai that built a propaganda foundation which suggested that former President Jonathan was the one sponsoring Boko Haram against the North.

    He also tried to bring in the Christian Association of Nigeria, CAN, Ex-Niger Delta Militants and others as possible sponsors of the terrorist group. El-rufai ensured he poisoned the minds of young people from the North and many of his followers on social media against the then president Jonathan by maintaining this lie. He further justified this lie when he spoke at Chatham House by presenting a table to justify his propaganda theory.

    The questions all Nigerians must now begin to ask those who refused to support the former administration of Goodluck Jonathan and our security agencies in their fight against Boko Haram then and who are suddenly supporting the Federal Government and the army now is, what has changed? Is Goodluck Jonathan still the one sponsoring Boko Haram with the help of his Niger Delta ex-militants? Is CAN still the one sponsoring Boko Haram? Explanations were offered to APC on why they should see the battle against the terrorists as a national issue rather than treated as a political one just for parochial and mundane reasons, that where national security is concerned, we must not play politics with it but they did not listen.

    They threw caution to the wind and were playing loudly to the gallery. Now see where that has gotten us to, in just 120 days of president Buhari taking over, the deadly group has killed more than 1,300 Nigerians and bombed Abuja twice.

    The message here is this, the enemy is Boko Haram, not the Federal Government, not president Buhari, and definitely not our ever caring Nigerian Army and the security agencies who daily spend their days in the heat and their nights in the cold while the rest of us spend times with families in the comfort of our homes.

    The military deserves our respect and support as they remain in the forefront in the fight against these barbarians.

     

    Deji Adeyanju is a Member of the PDP

    He writes from Abuja and can be contacted:

    Twitter: @adeyanjudeji

    Email: dejiadeyanju_1979@yahoo.co.uk

    [news_box style=”2″ display=”tag” link_target=”_blank” tag=”Boko Haram” count=”8″ show_more=”on” show_more_type=”link” header_background=”#dd0808″ header_text_color=”#42a7b5″]

  • Hide-and-seek

    Why would ex-President Goodluck Jonathan, by his own admission, choose to go into hiding? True, his reelection dream proved to be a fantasy. But that is no reason to play hide-and- seek.

    When he surfaced at the home of the late Mrs. Hannah Idowu Dideolu Awolowo in Ikenne, Ogun State, on a condolence visit, he was accompanied by his wife, Patience, and a few loyalists. Jonathan was quoted as saying: “Within this period, my wife and I have been hiding; we don’t even go out. We thought we’ll be hiding for at least 12 months. But in this particular case, we could not hide. So, we’ve come here to console and encourage our brothers and sisters that we are together.”

    Jonathan did not provide any details about his hiding place, or perhaps more precisely, their hideout, since he included his wife. That would have been interesting information.

    Wherever they might have been holed up before their Ikenne appearance and performance, they must have enjoyed the advantages of domestic adequacy. Jonathan’s words, “we don’t even go out,” painted a picture of internal sufficiency that stretches the imagination. Also, it is food for thought that the former first couple planned to stay in the indoor paradise “for at least 12 months”.

    It is unclear when they took the decision to restrict themselves to strictly private space, and when it took effect. When Jonathan left office on May 29, he left the federal capital, Abuja, and reportedly returned to his country home in Otuoke, Ogbia local government area of Bayelsa State.

    But on August 17, there was Jonathan, looking animated, in a newspaper picture with this caption: “Dr. Jonathan alighting from the aircraft in Kenya…at the weekend. Standing on his left is his wife Dame Patience and other officials”

    The accompanying report said: “Ex-President Goodluck Jonathan at the weekend stormed Kenya’s Maasai Mara Games Reserve in two chartered planes. One of the planes carried Kenya State security and the second was occupied by Jonathan, his wife Patience and two of their children. He is at the reserve for a three-day tour to witness the wildebeest migration. Jonathan was booked at the new Angama Mara Lodge at the Oloololo conservancy. The ex-president was received by Narok Governor Samuel Tunai.”

    The report continued: “Tunai, who is also the Council of Governors tourism committee chairman, said more than 500,000 tourists from all over the world are expected to witness the spectacular crossing of wildebeest across the crocodile-infested Mara River. Jonathan, who refused to speak with reporters on his arrival to the reserve, according to Kenya media, is the second dignitary to visit the reserve in less than a fortnight after the King of Swasiland, Mswati III. The king was booked in the same lodge six days ago. The owner of the hotel, Nicky Fitzgerald, said this tourism peak season is different from the past as prominent personalities from across the world have been calling for bookings. “We have received Mr Jonathan, King Mswati III, a Chinese prominent family and we are expecting other royalties,” said Ms Fitzgerald.”

    Is this Jonathan’s idea of going into hiding?

  • Bayelsa : PDP delegates affirm Dickson’s candidacy

    Bayelsa : PDP delegates affirm Dickson’s candidacy

    Delegates of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), Bayelsa State chapter, Thursday affirmed the sole candidacy of the state Governor, Mr. Seriake Dickson, for the December 5 governorship election.
    Dickson was officially confirmed the PDP candidate at a primary election supervised by the Ekiti State Governor, Ayo Fayose and the South-South National Vice-Chairman of the Party, Mr. Cairo Oujuoguo.
    Dickson, the sole aspirant, sealed his victory at the Samson Siasia Sports Complex with 447 votes from 452 accredited delegates.
    The exercise was peaceful and devoid of rancour as the delegates and conducted themselves orderly.
    The former President, Dr. Goodluck Jonathan and the former Governor of the state,s Chief Diepreye Alameisegha, were among the PDP dignitaries at the event.
    Fayose insisted that it was wrong for President Muhammadu Buhari to appoint his in-law as the chairman of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC).
    He urged Dickson not to entertain any fears over the forthcoming election, adding that the governor had all the credentials to defeat the All Progressives Congress (APC).
    Speaking as the chairman PDP National Electoral Panel, Fayose said the party was closely monitoring the activities of INEC and was ready to expose its hidden agenda at the appropriate time.
    He said: “I have complained very clearly about the choice of the INEC chairperson. Nobody can give us an INEC chairman that is his daughter or in-law. This is our Country and nobody can run out of Nigeria.

    “Therefore, we are watching INEC and its activities. We will not allow you to play pranks. This is an Ijaw state and so they are going nowhere. This is a PDP controlled state. No hidden agenda will work in Bayelsa.”
    Insisting that the APC was not a threat, he added: “In our place, it is one stone that scatters so many birds. Your (Dickson) stone will scatter their birds. I’ve worked with them before. I know their style and antics. So fear not.

    “If you read the book of Joshua chapter one, it says, fear not. So don’t be afraid but be courageous because their armies will bow to your army.
    “I am conducting this PDP primary in Bayelsa transparently in line with the PDP guidelines. I am not ready to dodge out of this stadium to run away. The truth will stand the test of time and speak for itself.
    Describing Dickson as a great fighter, he said: “You have won the battle already. This is not a party where they will do one primary today and cancel it tomorrow. In this our own, there will be no cancellation. This is an authority in Bayelsa.

  • HID’s death forced my wife and I out of hidding, says Jonathan

    HID’s death forced my wife and I out of hidding, says Jonathan

    Former President Goodluck Jonathan has disclosed that he opted to remain out of public glare since leaving office last May 29 but was forced along with the wife to come out due to death of Mama HID Awolowo.
    Jonathan made this known in Ikenne home of the Awolowos after he led a delegation to the family over the death of HID Awolowo.
    “Within this period, myself and my wife have been hiding; we don’t even go out. We thought we’ll be hiding for at least twelve months. But in this particular case, we cannot hide. So, we’ve come for the condolence and to encourage our brothers and sisters that we are together.”
    The ex – President was accompanied to Ikenne by his wife, Patience Jonathan, the former chairman of Federal Road Maintenance Agency, FERMA, Jide Adeniji, former Leader, House of Representatives, Hon. Mulikat Adeola, former governor of Ogun state, Gbenga Daniel and Mrs. Kuku from Bayelsa state.
    According to Jonathan, Mama’s death was so powerful that it shook both him and his wife out of hiding.