The Nation Newspaper

Tag: Jonathan

  • Okotie on Jonathan and Oritsejafor

    Okotie on Jonathan and Oritsejafor

    Last Sunday, Chris Okotie, General Overseer of the Household of God Church set the cats among the pigeons when he declared the Christian Association of Nigeria (CAN) president Ayo Oritsejafor a false prophet for allegedly predicting that ex-president Goodluck Jonathan would win the 2015 poll. Even if he was right about Pastor Oritsejafor’s prophecy, the way Rev Okotie spoke indicated he was probably gloating over the CAN president’s prophetic mishap. “Pastor Oritsejafor deceived Jonathan with a false prophecy from God that he (Jonathan) would win the election convincingly,” sneered Rev Okotie. “The man (Jonathan) became convinced to contest after Oritsejafor had told him, using CAN’s name, that God had ordained him the winner of the 2015 presidential election.”

    To underscore how badly he was dismayed by Pastor Oritsejafor’s relationship with the former president, Rev Okotie disclosed that some top CAN and Pentecostal Fellowship of Nigeria (PFN) leaders knew about the errant prophecy but kept mute for fear. “They couldn’t speak out because they were scared of being insulted,” he lamented. “They were scared of being insulted for saying rubbish. They were scared of being insulted on the pages of newspapers. So, while I continued to write and speak that Jonathan was not the man, those of them who knew the truth in what I was saying chose to keep quiet out of fear.”

    All the other statements by Rev Okotie on the CAN president’s alleged prophetic excursions were difficult to decipher. “I told CAN and PFN that Jonathan was not of God; that whosoever would win would be one that had built a tabernacle in the presence of God,” the critical preacher said. Perhaps it was not reported, and the reporter must thus be blamed for the omission, but what kind of tabernacle was the Rev referring to? Did the eventual winner, Muhammdu Buhari, build any such tabernacle? Would to God the Rev had broken his imageries down for the sake of many of his longstanding admirers who stand in awe of his often thunderous, exhausting and charming use of language, especially of the thesaurus. Still inspired and breathing scorn at the CAN president’s prophetic temerity, Rev Okotie concluded: “I told CAN and PFN that Jonathan did not belong to the House of David and that since he did not belong to the household, his winning would bring more sorrow to Nigeria.”

    Well, Dr Jonathan lost, sadly in a most humiliating fashion. Till today, he is still derided for both the manner of his loss and the general impression of his poor leadership. But as for Pastor Oritsejafor’s alleged prophetic fecundity, CAN communications officers insist prophecies were not his forte. He never prophesied before or during the elections, they said, and Rev Okotie was simply exaggerating. It is surprising CAN aides were kind to their traducer, who a few years back also forayed into the presidential race for reasons he has not fully explained. Had they questioned his ecclesiastical wisdom in contesting the presidency in 2011, and ridiculed him for lying he was God’s chosen one, and denounced his confident assertion that he would win when everything pointed to a looming electoral debacle, they would have been justified. As every Nigerian knows, it is not unusual in these parts for public officials to live in a glass house and throw stones.

    Whether Pastor Oritsejafor prophesied or not, what is clear in all this is that ecclesiastical leaders must learn to keep their distance from political leaders. By all means pray for them, counsel them, and even teach them; but do not at all costs meddle or wine with them. Pastor Oritsejafor took his fellow feeling and kindred spirit with Dr Jonathan beyond common spiritual decency. He has suffered great injuries as a result, and has found it difficult, as the Hassan Kukah National Peace Committee showed, to maintain a dispassionate and magisterial attitude towards the Buhari presidency. If his conscience, a product of the refining power of the Spirit, does not reprove him for his role in the 2015 polls, whether he prophesied or not, or whether Rev Okotie lied against him or not, that lack of amenableness to correction will shake the confidence of the flock he so grandly shepherds in their constant effort to deconstruct and assimilate the things of the spirit, let alone the deep and complex mysteries of the gospel.

     

  • Jonathan was never an option

    Jonathan was never an option

    Critics and notable columnists who scoff at the March 28 dethronement of ex-President Goodluck Jonathan have continued to belittle the coronation of President Muhaammadu Buhari.  Before the presidential election, they had argued that while Dr Jonathan was not perfect, and could in fact be trusted to improve considerably in his second term should he get it, President Buhari’s democratic, suprapersonal  and secularist credentials would remain fettered by his background and limited exposure. Recent political developments, especially the bitter and frenetic jostling for presidency positions and key federal appointments, have given more ammunition to the critics. It is, however, now no longer clear where genuine criticism begins and where rabid partisanship stops. More baffling, the said critics and columnists have turned round to accuse critics and columnists who denounced Dr Jonathan in favour of then candidate Buhari of embracing mindless propaganda and heedless partisanship.

    Some of these notable columnists like Femi Aribisala and Yinka Odumakin of course have the right to pursue and prosecute private and public agenda. There is indeed no constitutional impediment to the bitter manifestation of their detestations, no hindrance at all to their sometimes bewildering characterisation of the political objects of their pet revulsion. As the columnists and critics indulge their craft and acidic views, it is, however, also urgent to explode some of the myths that underscore their opinions and conclusions. It will be helpful if they present their detestations in civil, logical and persuasive language. President Buhari, they have concluded, cannot change. Fine.  All Progressives Congress (APC) leaders from the Southwest may have been mistaken in their support for the ossified president. Again, fine. But both viewpoints can in fact be rendered in persuasive arguments and reasoning without wrapping and encumbering them with private and bitter loathing.

    But the first obstacle the critics will encounter is attempting to demolish President Buhari in terms of comparatively elevating Dr Jonathan. The two, even by the most liberal and empathetic arguments, are incomparable. In the March 2015 polls, Nigeria  was presented with two difficult  choices: candidate Buhari who, to the South, was insular, ethnocentric, intemperate, inflexible, and mildly Jihadist; and candidate Jonathan who, to the North, was inept, ethnocentric, unfeeling, distracted, facetiously evangelical, and irredeemable. It was not quite Hobson’s choice; but whatever choice was made had its manifold drawbacks. Almost like Kogi State, where a lethargic incumbent will be facing an abrasive builder-challenger in next month’s governorship poll, Nigeria had to choose last March between Dr Jonathan who was bringing the country to a frenzied ruin, and a disciplined leader of admittedly doubtful depth and  suspect democratic credentials. Except in the opinion of the pro-Jonathan critics and columnists, there was absolutely no contest.

    President Buhari doubtless has his weaknesses, some of them provocative. His appointments to presidency positions have remained skewed and indefensible, and his cabinet list, though technocratic and scholarly, is largely apolitical and mystifying in a country so compulsively political and querulously nitpicky. His appreciation of complex and modern issues, especially economic, is deeply unnerving. His conception of society has not gone beyond the strange dualism of his younger days as a military officer and northerner in which he sees society as we against them, and good against evil. Nor does he seem capable of the rapid and comprehensive regeneration the decaying Nigerian society urgently needs. Yes, he has all these unenviable weaknesses. But he has his strengths, largely his disciplined outlook, frugality and ethical soundness far beyond cavil.

    Dr Jonathan brought little or nothing to the table before and during the 2015 polls. He was the simplistic product, if not culmination, of the crazy meddlesomeness and insufferable arrogance of past Nigerian presidents and military heads of state. Like most of his predecessors, he was neither equipped for the job of leadership nor capable of the grandness and nobility which the job calls for and the office yields to. He professed Christian ethics and baited southerners with ethnic crumbs, but on a grand scale he showed no discipline in managing the affairs of the country or its economy. On his watch, helped by government officials who had stolen the country blind, he was bringing the country to ruination and raising the prospect of a revolution. Until he lost the election and some of his ministers triggered the unpalatable disclosures of the past few months, few believed he was capable of superintending such appalling breakdown of law, order and common sense.

    In a long line of unsuitable Nigerian leaders, Dr Jonathan sat on the acme. Ibrahim Babangida, army general and former head of state, began the craze. The heavens gifted him a great political transition programme, but he spurned it in favour of his own misconceived contraption, enthroning Ernest Shonekan by a strange and unearthly steeplechase succession, and undergirding it with a rapacious and power-hungry Sani Abacha, a general and late head of state. Abdulsalami Abubakar, another general and former head of state, followed hard on their heels and relinquished power after he and other generals similarly played God and in their supposed wisdom installed ex-President Olusegun Obasanjo. Abjuring the democratic practice of letting the people choose their own leaders, which he gleefully propounded in 1978 and 1979, Chief Obasanjo unilaterally and contemptuously foisted the late Umaru Yar’Adua on the country. The latter’s dramatic death in turn foisted Dr Jonathan on Nigeria, unprepared mentally and ideologically.

    It is shocking that in their frustrations, the pro-Jonathan critics and columnists ignore the value of pluralism and continue to assail the political contributions of those who championed the amalgamation of APC and President Buhari’s victory. Defending Dr Jonathan and denouncing President Buhari is an irrational exercise. The president has his weaknesses, and is still committing many faux pas and egregious policy and appointment blunders. But rather than pine over Dr Jonathan’s loss, and assail those who triggered the country’s political rebirth through the peaceful change of power from one party to another, President Buhari should be criticised for his shortcomings. It is time to quit mourning APC’s victory, notwithstanding the party’s clumsiness in managing the legislature, the executive and the economy.  So far, an awkward Buhari has proved far better than a sprightly Jonathan.  Indeed, President Buhari is probably the single most important factor in arresting the country’s drift towards the precipice.

    It is also time for critics, analysts and columnists to avoid the bitter and vexatious essays of the pre-election period and begin to focus on more germane national issues. President Buhari, his cabinet and his policies are the issues. These should be addressed. If, as seems apparent, the president is unable to impress the Southwest or the Southeast or even the South-South before the next elections, then these will become something to talk about, notwithstanding how well he pleases the North. The president announced with flourish at his inauguration that he belonged to everybody and to nobody. The next polls will determine whether that delicate phrase is worth its weight in gold. In a matter of months, the Buhari government will clock one year, even as the president has proceeded very slowly and very gingerly. If he does not gather speed, if he continues along the sanctimonious line and idealism of being his own man, and if he fails to recognise the political environment in which he operates, he will discover only too late that elections and the electorate can be very cruel indeed.

    President Buhari will need to pay close attention to the alliances he built before the election if he is not to come to grief. And going by the crippling poverty assailing the country, and beyond the anti-corruption campaign and some desultory recovery of stolen public funds, it is even more urgent for him to quickly articulate and adopt a multidimensional approach to the country’s multifarious problems. The problems are huge and have developed into an octopus, and are determined to resist his panaceas.  President Buhari may be regarded as part of the country’s problems on account of his inability to quickly and efficiently respond to the exigent issues of the day, however, Dr Jonathan was never an option. It is time to move on and focus on President Buhari. For, as it now seems, the country’s fate is intertwined with his.

  • Jonathan to Tanzanian politicians: concede defeat if you lose

    Jonathan to Tanzanian politicians: concede defeat if you lose

    Commonwealth election observer mission to Tanzania’s Chairman and former President Goodluck Jonathan yesterday urged whoever loses Sunday’s presidential election to concede defeat for the sake of the country’s peace and unity.

    He said it was important to that for the poll to be free and fair, the  National Electoral Commission (NEC), political parties, police and voters must play their part.

    “If you lose, accept defeat,” he said, warning that any attempt to reject the will of the people could only lead to chaos.

    Since he arrived in Tanzania last Monday, the former president has been receiving briefing from many parties in Dar es Salaam, including chairman of the electoral commission, leaders of political parties, journalists, youth organisations and representatives of civil societies.

    He told them that he immediately conceded defeat after losing his re-election bid early this year because he did not want personal ambition to derail democracy in Nigeria.

  • Jonathan to Tanzanians: Accept election results

    Jonathan to Tanzanians: Accept election results

    The Chairman of the Commonwealth Election Observer Mission to Tanzania, Dr. Goodluck Jonathan, on Wednesday urged whoever loses next Sunday’s presidential election to promptly concede defeat for the sake of peace and unity in the country.

    The ex-Nigerian president said it was equally important to realise that for the poll to be free and fair, all stakeholders, including the National Electoral Commission (NEC), political parties, police and voters must play their part.

    “If you lose, accept defeat,” he said, warning that any attempt to reject the will of the people will only lead to chaos.

    Since arriving Tanzania last Monday, Jonathan has been receiving briefing from a broad spectrum of stakeholders in Dar es Salaam, including chairman of the electoral commission, leaders of political parties, journalists, youth organisations and representatives of civil societies.

    He told them that he immediately conceded defeat after losing his re-election bid early this year because he did not want personal ambition to derail democracy in Nigeria.

    “I was concerned about allowing my personal ambition to scuttle a democratic system I had helped to nurture.”

  • Jonathan advises Tanzanians on peaceful polls

    Jonathan advises Tanzanians on peaceful polls

    Former President Goodluck Jonathan has advised the Tanzanian National Electoral Commission, political parties and civil society organisations to ensure peaceful and transparent elections.

    He added that only a credible voting process could confer legitimacy on a democratic government.

    Jonathan stated this yesterday in Dar Es Salaam, Tanzania, while addressing reporters as the chairperson of the Commonwealth Observer Group (COG) to Tanzania’s October 25 general elections.

    The former President, who was flanked by other members of the COG drawn from different parts of the Commonwealth, stressed that “success of these elections depends on every stakeholder playing their part in a peaceful, inclusive and transparent manner.”

    He added that the Commonwealth had “every confidence in the people of Tanzania to achieve that.”

    According to Jonathan, “during our time in Tanzania, we will seek to assess the pre-election environment, polling day activities and the post-election period, against the backdrop of Tanzania’s national legislation, regional and international commitments”.

    The group, he said, “will perform our observation role with impartiality, independence and transparency”.

  • Clark, the father, Jonathan, the son – Ex-President’s Media Adviser Reuben Abati

    Clark, the father, Jonathan, the son – Ex-President’s Media Adviser 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 realisation? 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, patronised 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.

     

  • I would not have been president without Alamieyeseigha, says Jonathan

    I would not have been president without Alamieyeseigha, says Jonathan

    Former Nigeria President, Dr. Goodluck Jonathan, yesterday declared that but for the support he enjoyed from the late Ijaw leader and former Bayelsa State governor, Chief Diepriye Alamieyeseigha, he would not have become the nation’s president.

    Jonathan made the declaration when he paid a condolence visit to Alamieyeseigha family at Opolo in Yenagoa yesterday.

    Assuring the Alamieyeseighas, especially the widow and children, of his continued support, Dr. Jonathan acknowledged that without the role the late Governor-General of the Ijaw nation played in his life, he would not have risen to become the President of Nigeria.

    Jonathan said: “I knew Alamieyeseigha during the UNCP days, when we were working for him. I never knew I was going to be his deputy governor because that was not my interest then.

    “From that time, the political evolution in the country and the state brought me to run with him

    ‘From 1999, we’ve been together. He always took me as his younger brother.

    “Our relationship was not that of a governor and his deputy but that of an elder and a younger brother.

    “Alamieyeseigha meant well for Bayelsans; stood very firmly for the Ijaw people and wanted to advance the South-South. He’s somebody we’ve collectively missed.”

    He assured the Bayelsa State Government and members of the family of the late former Bayelsa State governor of his commitment to the efforts geared towards giving the departed Ijaw leader a befitting state burial.

    The former President, who is scheduled to travel to Tanzania where he is expected to spend about 12 days, promised to be fully involved in the burial arrangements, as soon as he returns to the country.

    Accompanied by Governor Seriake Dickson, his deputy, Rear Admiral Gboribiogha John Jonah (rtd) and other dignitaries, Jonathan said the news of Alamieyeseigha’s death was a rude shock.

    He stressed that the deceased leader stood firmly for Bayelsa, the Ijaw people and the South-South geo-political zone.

    Jonathan traced his relationship with Alamieyeseigha to the days of the United Nigeria Congress Party (UNCP), one of the five political parties formed during the administration of the late former head of state, Gen. Sani Abacha.

    Highlights of the visit included the signing of the condolence register by Dr. Jonathan and consolatory prayers offered by the Bishop of the Royal House of Grace International Church, Bishop Peter Leghemo for the state, the Ijaw nation and the deceased’s immediate family.

  • Without Alamieyeseigha nobody would have known me – Jonathan

    Without Alamieyeseigha nobody would have known me – Jonathan

    Former President Goodluck Jonathan almost broke down in tears on Friday over the death of a former Governor of Bayelsa State, Chief Diepreye Alamieyeseigha.

    Jonathan in an emotional voice said he remained indebted to Alamieyeseigha, noting that without the former governor nobody would have known him in the world.

    Lamenting the sudden demise of Alamieyeseigha, the ex-president said he had lost an elder brother.

    Jonathan, who started his political journey by serving as Alamieyeseigha’s deputy from 1999 to 2005, said he was saddened by the unexpected demise of his former boss.

    The former president spoke when he paid a condolence visit to the family of Alamieyeseigha at their residence in Opolo, Yenagoa.

    In his entourage were the Governor of the state, Mr. Seriake Dickson, his deputy, John Jonah, Secretary to the State Government (SSG), Edmund Allison-Oguru, other officials of government and elder statesmen.

    Alamieyeseigha’s widow, Margaret, on sighting Jonathan broke down in tears and wept uncontrollably.

    Jonathan said his relationship with Alamieyeseigha was not that of a governor and a deputy governor but that of an elder brother and a younger brother.

    He said: “It is sad. I directly worked as a deputy governor to Alamieyeseigha. I knew Alamieyeseigha during the UNCP days when we were working for him.

    “I never knew I was going to be his deputy because that was not my interest then. From that time, the political evolution in the country and the state brought me to work with him.

    “And from 1999, we have been together. He always took me as his younger brother. Our relationship was not that of a governor and a deputy but it was that of a younger brother and an elder brother.”

     

  • No regret supporting Jonathan, says Ubah

    No regret supporting Jonathan, says Ubah

    Businessman and politician Dr.Ifeanyi Ubah yesterday reflected on the activities of the Transformation Ambassadors of Nigeria (TAN) during the last election, saying that he has no regret supporting former President Goodluck Jonathan.

    He also rejected the popular view that TAN is a tool of propaganda, stressing that the group only showcased the achievements of the former President before Nigerians.

    Ubah, the Chairman of Capital Oil and gas Limited, also dismissed insinuations that the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) is hunting him, following the arrest in London of former Petroleum Minister Mrs. Diezani Aloson-Madueke, for alleged financial crimes.

    He told reporters in Lagos that, during the Jonathan administration, he neither received oil bloc nor sought government contracts.

    Ubah also said the allegation that the Nigerian national Petroleum Corporation (NNPC) was used to siphon crude oil totally N1.2 trillion through Capital Oil and Gas Limited to fund Dr. Jonathan’s campaign was spurious and falacious. He said the falsehood was concocted to rope him and TAN.

    He said: “Some fifth columnists are using the current political climate and the anti-corruption war by the Federal Government to blackmail their real and inaginary enemies to score cheap political gains. This invidious war of attrition is inadvertently being promoted in the media by idle and jobless psychopaths who see blackmail as their only means of retaining economic and political relevance. I have no skeleton in my cupboard. The idea of fabricating allegations against a law abiding citizen without facts and substance can erode the confidence of the public reposed in the media.

    Reflecting on the activities of TAN, Ubah said: “TAN is a non-governmental organisation that elevated political discourse and activities in Nigeria to another level. No money from government was used in running TAN activities. But, those who are intimidated by the achievement of the public advocacy group have been trying to drag it into an unnecessary controversy.”

    The former Labour Party (LP) governorship candidate in Anambra State also said that the election taught him a bitter lesson, which made him to return to his business.

    He said: “After losing the governorship election, I declined to contest for the Senate. I did’t come second. I was given a third position. But, I have since returned to my business.”

     

  • Independence anniversary: Jonathan’s govt spent only N332.6m, ex-minister tells el-Rufai

    The former Minister of National Planning, Dr. Abubakar Olanrewaju Sulaiman, yesterday said the administration of Dr. Goodluck Ebele Jonathan spent over N332.6m on independence anniversary and not N64billion.

    The former minister joined issues with Governor Nasir el-Rufai and denied  the alleged spending of N64billion on independence anniversary in five years.

    But the details released by the ex-minister only covered three years from 2012 to 2014.

    He said the independence anniversary budgets for 2010 and 2011 were “not handy now.”

    Sulaiman, who made the clarifications in a statement in Abuja, warned el-Rufai against abusing his immunity.

    He said: “We were taken aback by the recent comment reportedly credited to Governor Nasir el-Rufai claiming that the Dr. Goodluck Ebele Jonathan’s administration spent N64billion to cover the country’s independence anniversary spending in five years.

    “The break down, according to the governor showed that N13billion was spent in 2011, N15billion in 2012 and N14billion in 2013 and N22billion allegedly spent in 2014.

    “This tissue of lies was contained on his facebook comment on Thursday.

    “Ordinarily, we would have allowed this to go as just ranting of a favour seeker, but for the sake of ordinary Nigerians who were abreast of happenings under the administration and those who never did, we will like to set the records straight.

    “It is important to correct the misinformation so that the public would not be misled.

    “For the record,  a breakdown of our anniversary  spending between 2012 to 2014 amounted  to N332.6million. We challenge the Office of the Government of the Federation (OSGF) to publish these details for the consumption of the public.

    “For the record, a breakdown of our spending for this event between 2012 and 2014 goes thus; 2012-107.6million; 2013-45million and 2014 had 180million.”

    The ex-minister asked el-Rufai to provide evidence to back up the allegation of the N64billion expenditure.

    He added: “So, the question here is where did the billions as claimed by el-Rufai emanate from? Even though that of 2010 and 2011 are not handy now, but it should be known that they  all fall within the same bracket as the one stated, except  that the 2010 anniversary was a golden one  when the country marked its 50 years of independence. But even then , not such outrageous sum was either budgeted or expended .

    “Again, it is germane  to explain the increase in the 2013 anniversary spending for the purpose of accountability. The National Honours Award Investiture was incorporated into the celebration, thus making it two events in one, hence the  N174,800,000.00 budget.

    “We also want to add that the award investiture could not hold in 2013 and the approved budget rolled over and was utilised to organise the investiture in 2014.”

    The ex-minister warned el-Rufai against abusing his immunity and fabricating history.

    He said: “It  is high time government functionaries desisted from abusing their immunity by destroying history and trading on lies just to gain cheap popularity or curry one favour or the other from certain quarters.

    “Perhaps President Olusegun Obasanjo was right in his assessment of el-Rufai when he said in his latest memoir, My Watch that his vivid recollection of him (el-Rufai) is his penchant for lying, for unfair embellishment of stories and his inability to sustain loyalty for long.

    “That exactly is what el-Rufai has done with his ungodly fabrication of lies against the Jonathan government.

    “One hopes that  President Buhari would be on guard against being misled by the likes of el-Rufai who are hell bent on misinforming the Nigerian public.”