The Nation Newspaper

Tag: Mantu

  • Mantu: TMG tasks civil societies on future polls

    An independent civil society election moni-toring organisation in Nigeria, the Transition Monitoring Group (TMG), has called on civil society organisations (CSOs) to build synergies, share information and massively engage in the electoral process if “desperate politicians must be deterred from compromising future elections. The call was contained in a statement signed by its Chairperson, Dr. (Mrs.) Abiola Akiyode-Afolabi.

    Reacting to the recent confession of former Deputy Senate President, Ibrahim Mantu, about using bribes to undermine the credibility of past elections, TMG, in a statement, said the confession amounts to a call to duty, “which we must heed to ensure the 2019 elections are free, fair and credible.” The group maintained that the authorities must treat Mantu’s confession with a deeper scrutiny if Nigerians are to get a sense of closure from the terrible events of the recent years.

    “Without doubt, Senator Mantu’s confession goes to the heart of the problem of morally bankrupt political leadership, which has been the bane of Nigeria’s nation building, since the return of democracy in 1999. Although we have always known that the political elite would do anything possible to undermine the electoral process, yet the stark reality of a legislator, who effectively was the nation’s number two lawmaker at some point, owning up to shady schemes to undermine the electoral process, is more worrisome.

    “The last time we checked, using bribes to tamper with the electoral process and all actions undermining the vote of the people, are crimes punishable by the extant laws of the land. Sections 124 and 130 of the Electoral Act 2010, as amended, make it punishable offences for anyone to pay or receive bribes to influence the outcome of elections. These clear provisions of the law must be invoked in addressing specific cases like these.”

    TMG also called on Mantu to go further by mentioning the particular elections, which he and his co-travellers at the time used bribes to undermine. It also charged Mantu to be patriotic by giving names of all the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) and members of the security agencies who participated in the act of subverting the votes of the people.

     

  • Mantu and culture of impunity

    The recurring ugly decimal of rigging of elections in Nigeria is one salient reason behind the emergence of the people’s enemies into the country’s most sensitive plum political positions. Given the high cost of accessing power, the do-or-die battle to win elections, the obscenely high and attractive pay package, one is not surprised about the recent confessions of the former Deputy Senate President, Ibrahim Mantu that he rigged election for the Peoples Democratic Party, PDP.

    Mantu, a member of the Board of Trustees of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), had in a television chat with Channels TV on March 30, openly admitted to have rigged elections for the party through bribing electoral officials, security agencies and party agents. Though the confession came like a bolt out of the blues to millions of Nigerians, it did not to others who have known the truth all along.

    The pain in it all is that after all the hue and cry, Mantu’s issue will suffer the Doppler Effect and he will still walk our streets as a free man! Truth be said, he belongs to the untouchables. Like several allegedly corrupt former governors and politicians, even if the case goes to court, it would be subjected to a long-winding judicial process that at the end of the day would amount to nothing!

    What do you expect in a country where we are not equal before the law of the land? Where the very reprehensible idea of amnesty for the blood-sucking Boko Haram extremists is even given flicker of thought in the high corridors of power! Where court orders are disregarded even by those who swore allegiance to the oath of office to protect the ethos of our statutory books.  That is Nigeria for you. And, sad to say, that of course, is the self-decimating culture of impunity that some of us have repeatedly decried over the years.

    As expected, the PDP in a statement issued by its National Publicity Secretary, Kola Ologbondiyan in Abuja said Mantu’s claim has nothing to do with the party. He said the PDP had never directed any of its members to rig election on its behalf at any point since its formation. Said he: “Individuals run their elections on the platform of political parties once they emerge as candidates. In the PDP, candidates are issued with the party’s Code of Conduct containing the basic rules of electioneering engagements. There is nowhere in these rules of engagement where candidates or party members are directed to rig elections on behalf of the party”.

    Well said, one would say. Or, some other critics would tell him to tell that to the marines.

    As expected, going for the jugular, the All Progressives Congress, APC, is trying to make a political capital out of it. But truth be said, election rigging has no political colours. Not because one Doyin Okupe said so but the electoral crime has become the rule rather than the exception. So, who is to blame?

    What about the compelling centripetal attraction of well-paying political offices, with all the apparatchik of office attached? This has contributed in no small measure to all manner of electoral malfeasance here in Nigeria. It would however, be foolhardy for the nation-state with a vision to right the many wrongs of the past to continue to harbour, tolerate or outright, encourage what has brought the country to this sorry political pass. Something has to be done and speedily too.

    That feeling prompted me to make a similar post on Facebook, decrying the odious fact that Mantu is still a free man. This triggered the instant responses from concerned Nigerians. Dipo Olayokun, an analyst has this to say: “Mr. Ayo Baje, if Mantu is picked up today, they would say that Buhari has continued with the persecution of PDP members. And is Mantu telling us anything new?

    Not done he went down memory lane: “A member of BOT of PDP, Chris Uba under Obasanjo addressed a world press conference in Enugu where he told the world that he rigged the 2003 election for Ngige. Let me quote him:” When I was bribing INEC officials and security agents to rig elections for him to become the governor of Anambra State, where was he? Did he know how I did it?”

    Furthermore, Olayokun added the clincher: “Instead of Obasanjo arresting Chris Uba, he was made a member of the BOT. And now you want security agents to arrest Mantu. And they will start telling the world that Buhari is a dictator who wants to kill opposition”. That is food for thought.

    On his part, one Adebayo added this view: “Same for Miyetti Allah, the association of Fulani herdsmen. They claimed responsibility for genocide without anything happening under Buhari!”.

    While Hamza Jatto said: “That‘s our country for you, a young, talented writer added with a note of sadness: “Our country is a joke, Sir!”

    On my part, one cannot but join voice with an Abuja-based human rights lawyer, Ajibola Jimoh, who has called on relevant authorities to immediately begin the prosecution of a Mantu, after he confessed to election rigging. Jimoh said that under Section 28 of the Evidence Act, 2011, voluntary confessional statements were the best form of evidence to arrive at a conviction.

    Citing the Act, he said: “A confession is an admission made at any time by a person charged with a crime, stating or suggesting the inference that he committed that crime.” What more does the law state?

    In line with the Electoral Act, 2010, rigging is an offence under. It is therefore, the duty of INEC and the professional duty of lawyers as conferred by Rule 1 of the Rules of Professional Conduct for Legal Practitioners, 2007 to weigh on to the matter.

    The lawyer said private legal practitioners could also apply for fiat from the Attorney General of the Federation to conduct the prosecution according to the provisions of sections 109 (e) and 268 (1) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA), 2015.

    Should nothing be done about this critical issue of national importance, which compromises our electoral integrity and bring us crooks and criminals as our ‘heroes, it would mean that we are under Mantu’s mantra or a binding spell. We are waiting and watching!

     

    • Baje, a public affairs analyst, writes from Lagos.

  • MANTU’s confessions and matters arising

    The major threat to credible elections in the country is rigging and the failure of the electoral body and the security agencies to apprehend and prosecute suspects. If those caught in the act of rigging and their sponsors had been brought to book over the years, cases of election rigging would have reduced; our electoral process would be credible. The revelation of election rigging by the party chieftains is a wake-up call on the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to its MANTU’s confessions and matters arising responsibilities.

    The commission should invoke the various provisions in the Constitution and the Electoral Act against electoral malpractices. Electoral officers who act in concert with politicians and security agencies to commit atrocities against the ballot box should be prosecuted. Former Deputy Senate President, Sen. Ibrahim Mantu, penultimate Friday, in what was considered a bold moral move, had sparked off controversy by confessing to have helped his party, the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), to influence votes in the past. Mantu disclosed that he carried out this illicit act by providing financial inducements to election officials, including the agents of the opposition parties.

    The ‘born again’ politician, who featured on a Channels Television programme, had said: “I don’t have to go and change election (results) but when you provide money, you give money to INEC boys that if they see any chance they should favour you, you provide money to the security (personnel). “I tell you it’s not necessarily when I am contesting election but when my party sponsors a candidate, I will like that candidate to win election.” Mantu, who represented Plateau State in the Senate between 1999 and 2007, agreed ‘wholeheartedly’ with PDP national chairman, Prince Uche Secundus,on the recent public n Leke SALAUDEEN n apology he tendered on the party’s mistakes when it was in power between 1999 and 2015. He said:”We have failed the people through our ways and politics.

    It is time for us to ensure that we do not allow the wrong people to lead the people and the nation. “ As politicians, we have committed sins against the people by encouraging the things that we should not have encouraged. “God has totally blessed our country Nigeria with abundant human and natural resources but we have failed to utilize these to improve the quality of lives of the people.” He recalled, how in the PDP, names of candidates who won elections were deleted and replaced with other names. “Winners’ names were crossed out and replaced with names of those who did not win. It is bad because we imposed those who did not win on the people. It is true that we (PDP) ruled with impunity.” He asked other PDP members to also become ‘born again’, remorseful and repentant. “ We must meet the expectations of the people. It is not about changing from one party to another. It is about changing our hearts. It is about changing our attitudes.

    Let us sit down and reflect on the bad leadership that we have given to Nigerians these past years and change. Nigeria is supposed to lead Africa but we have failed.” It seems the statement made by former President Olusegun Obasanjo prior to 2017 general elections was a stimulant for election rigging. At a meeting held with PDP members and stakeholders in Abeokuta, Ogun State capital, Obasanjo had said that the April 2007 general elections would be a ‘do-or-die’ affair for the PDP. “This election is a ‘do-or-die’ affair for me and the PDP. This coming election is a matter of life and death for the PDP and Nigeria”, he stated. The threat drew criticisms from the opposition parties, civil rights organisations and intellectuals. They said such a threat was unexpected from a statesman of his status. A civil right activist described the statement as a great disservice on the part of Obasanjo to the country he had the opportunity of ruling twice, first as military head of state and as a civilian executive president. Many had concluded that the 2007 poll could neither be free and fair.

    The poll result tallied with Obasanjo’s expectation: The PDP won 26 of the 32 states, including Kaduna and Katsina states, where the results were contested by the local population. Foreign observers gave it a dismal assessment. For instance, the leader of the European Union Observer Max van den Berg, reported that the handling of the 2007 polls in Nigeria had fallen far short of basic international standards and that the procedure cannot be considered to be credible.

    The United States Department of State said it was “deeply troubled” by the polls, calling them flawed and said it hoped the political parties would resolve any differences over the election through peaceful and constitutional means. After the 2007 polls, the rot stared the country in the face. Petitions flooded the election tribunals and courts. Many of the stolen mandates were retrieved back at the courts at greater costs to the opposition parties. The courts decried the electoral horror and terrorism. The poll created a hollow in the record of Obasanjo as a citizen of the world. It was the nation that suffered the debilitating effects. The country’s image was dented. However, the beneficiary of the flawed 2007 presidential poll, the late President Umaru Yar’Adua, gave Nigeria’s a flicker of hope. In his inaugural speech, he shocked his party members when he openly admitted that the election which produced him was flawed.

    He immediately promised electoral reforms to correct the anomaly in the system. Three months after assumption of power, the late Yar’Adua inaugurated a 22-member Electoral Reforms (ERC) headed by the former Chief Justice of Nigeria, Justice Muhammed Uwais. The ERC was to specifically “examine the entire electoral process with a view to ensuring that we raise the quality and standard of our general elections and thereby deepen democracy”. Justice Uwais and his team did a good job that could have changed the face of electoral contest for better in the country. The report of the committee came in six volumes and contained three draft bills.

    The first bill was for the amendment of the 1999 Constitution; the second was for the amendment of the Electoral Act 2006 and the third was for the establishment of the Electoral Offences Commission. Unfortunately, the ERC report had been hijacked by the political elite. Giving an insight into why the report never achieved its objectives, Uwais said instead of full implementation of the recommendations of his committee, the Federal Government opted to pick and choose. For instance, the panel that reviewed the White Paper on the Uwais report threw out the recommendation for the establishment of an Electoral Offences Commission to try election offenders. A lawyer, Mr Austin, said the rejection of the establishment of election tribunal was deliberate.

    It will work against the politicians’ interest. He said those who rig elections are sponsored by politicians. It will be very difficult to bring electoral offenders to book when there is no certainty of sanctions. The regular courts are congested; where cases drag for long, it would be difficult to prove where witnesses have been compromised or disappearance of documentary evidence had taken place. He said virtually, of all the elections conducted by the PDP when they were in power, none was considered free and fear by local and foreign observers. That is why our democracy is not growing. When you don’t allow free choice of leaders, there can be no progress. The day we allow the wish of the electorate to reflect in elections result, we will start making progress. There is a hue of irony in the politician’s confessions. He was defeated in 2007 in the race for the Senate seat of Plateau Central Satti Gogwim. Pundits say his defeat might not be unconnected with his alleged role in the inglorious pursuit of the ‘third term’ agender for former President Obasanjo. The PDP has, however, disowned Mantu over his confession.

    The party was reacting to the advice by the All Progressives Congress (APC) that Nigerian’s should learn from Mantu’s claims on how he rigged elections. A statement by the National Publicity Secretary, Kola Ologbondiyan, said Mantu’s claims were personal to him and had nothing to do with the PDP. He said the party had never directed any of its members to rig election on its behalf, at any point since its formation. Mantu spoke about his personal activities and tendencies in the elections he participated in.

    “There is nowhere in the rule of engagement where candidates or party members are directed to rig elections on the party’s behalf. If any member’s conduct transgressed these basic rules of engagement, that individual did not act on behalf of the PDP, and as such the party cannot be vicariously held responsible’’, the party said. Ugboajah, however, demurred. He said: “It is uncharitable of the PDP to disown Mantu because of his confessional statement. Those years when the PDP benefitted from his rigging machine, why didn’t the party expose him and reject the poll results influenced by him? Was it only Mantu that rigged for the party? PDP should own up to its sins before Nigeria can accept their apology”. He said the quality of our leadership is a derivative of the quality control of our elections. “A credible election must reflect the will of the people. As long as we continue to find it difficult to count votes honestly, we will continue to count crises endlessly. INEC should push further for the establishment of a special tribunal where the likes of Mantu should face justice.”

  • PDP: Mantu didn’t rig elections for us

    The Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) has debunked rumours that former Senate President Ibrahim Mantu rigged elections in its favour.

    The party was reacting to the advice by the All Progressives Congress (APC) that Nigerian’s should learn from Mantu’s claims on how he rigged elections.

    A statement by the National Publicity Secretary, Kola Ologbondiyan, said Mantu’s claims were personal to him and had nothing to do with the PDP. He said the party had never directed any of its members to rig election on its behalf, at any point since its formation.

    Mantu spoke about his personal activities and tendencies in the elections he participated in.

    The statement reads: “Individuals run their elections on the platform of political parties once they emerge as candidates. In the PDP, candidates are issued with the party’s Code of Conduct containing the basic rules of electioneering engagements.

    “There is nowhere in the rule of engagement where candidates or party members are directed to rig elections on the party’s behalf. If any member’s conduct transgressed these basic rules of engagement, that individual did not act on behalf of the PDP, and as such the party cannot be vicariously held responsible.

    “It will therefore be misplaced for anybody, including the APC, to surmise that Senator Mantu, in the said confession of rigging, acted on behalf of the PDP. After all, in 2007, Senator Mantu lost his own senatorial election. What, then, happened to his rigging machinery, if he could not deliver himself?

    “We urge the APC to manage its manifest failures in party administration as well as its incompetency, lack-lustre and wobbling governance which has grounded the country’s economy and brought hunger and starvation to our people.”

  • Mantu’s election rigging confession personal to him – PDP

    The Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) says the former Senate President, Sen. Ibrahim Mantu’s confession that he rigged election for the party is personal to him.

    The party in a statement issued by its National Publicity Secretary, Kola Ologbondiyan, on Sunday in Abuja said that the claim has no nothing to do with the PDP.

    He said that the party had never directed any of its members to rig election on its behalf, at any point since its formation.

    Ologbondiyan dismissed the advice by the All Progressives Congress (APC) to learn from former Mantu’s claims on how he rigged elections.

    He said that Mantu spoke about his personal activities and tendencies in the elections where he participated.

    “”The PDP has never directed or had any pact with him to rig election on its behalf. Never!

    “Individuals run their elections on the platform of political parties once they emerge as candidates.

    “In the PDP, candidates are issued with the party’s Code of Conduct containing the basic rules of electioneering engagements.

    “There is nowhere in this rules of engagement where candidates or party members are directed to rig elections on behalf of the party.

    ““If any member’s conduct transgressed these basic rules of engagement, that individual did not act on behalf of the PDP, and as such the party cannot be vicariously held responsible.

    “It will therefore be misplaced for anybody, including the APC, to surmise that Sen Mantu, in the said confession of rigging, acted on behalf of the PDP.

    “After all, in 2007, Sen Mantu lost his own senatorial election. What, then, happened to his rigging machinery, if he could not deliver himself.’’ He explained.

    Ologbondiyan urged the APC to manage its failures in party administration and other problems that has affected the nation and Nigerians negatively.

    Mantu was reported to have disclosed during a programme on a television that he helped PDP to rig elections in the past election. (NAN)

  • I helped PDP to rig polls, ‘born-again’ ex-Deputy Senate President Mantu confesses

    A  chieftain of the opposition Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) last night sparked a fresh controversy in the polity.

    The former Deputy Senate President confessed on television that he helped his party win elections in the past.

    “I don’t have to go and change election (results) but when you provide money, you give money to INEC boys that if they see any chance they should favour you, you provide money to the security (personnel),” he said on Channels Television’ Hard Copy.

    “I tell you it’s not necessarily when I am contesting election but when my party sponsors a candidate, I will like that candidate to win election.”

    Mantu who represented Plateau State in the Senate between 1999 and 2007 pronounced himself a born again politician in 2017.

    He was elected on the platform of the PDP.

    He agreed ‘wholeheartedly’ with PDP national chairman,Prince Uche Secundus,on the recent  public apology he   tendered on the party’s mistakes when it was in power between 1999  and 2015.

    He said:”We have failed the people through the ways and politics. It is time for us to ensure that we do not allow the wrong people to lead the people and the nation.

    “ As politicians, we have committed sins against the people, by encouraging the things that we should not have encouraged.

    “God has totally blessed our country Nigeria with abundant human and natural resources but we have failed to utilize these to improve the quality of lives of the people.”

     

    Asked why he thought  Secundus’ apology was in order, Mantu said: “there is the need for Nigerian politicians to apologize for all the sins we have committed against the people.

    “That is because  we have shortchanged the people.”

    He recalled, how in the PDP, names  of candidates who  won elections were deleted and replaced with other names.

    “Winners names were crossed out and replaced with names of those who did not win. It is bad because we imposed those who did not win on the people,” he said.

    “It is true that we (PDP) ruled with impunity.”

    He asked other PDP members to also become “born again, remorse and repentant.

    “ We must meet the expectations of the people. It is not about changing from one party to another. It is about changing our heart. It is about changing our attitudes. Let us sit down and reflect on the bad leadership that we have given to Nigerians these past years and change. Nigeria is supposed to lead Africa but we have failed.”

  • Mantu’s shocking lack of remorsefulness

    In an interview with an online medium, Premium Times, Nasir Ibrahim Mantu shocked the public by revealing that he would have more daringly and even suicidally engineered ex-president Olusegun Obasanjo’s third term in office. He regretted his timidity, he groaned, for had he summoned the courage, in his twisted opinion, Nigeria would have been better for it. “The truth is if I had known Nigeria would find herself where we are today, I would have even taken the last drop of my blood to ensure it happened because it would have been in the greatest interest of the nation,” he had argued.  “We never envisaged we would be here. Since Obasanjo left, the way this country has been run up to this moment, I weep for Nigeria.” And had Chief Obasanjo secured a third term in office, Mr. Mantu added, his successors would have also benefited from that gratuitous political gift. He gave no further explanation for this extremely opaque reasoning, nor why it is so pressing and indispensable that it overrode the need to defend the integrity of the constitution.

    It is not clear why nature permitted the historical conjuncture that foisted Chief Obasanjo and Mr. Mantu on Nigeria between 1999 and 2007. One had an exaggerated sense of his own importance, filling the State House to its last pore with all sorts of drama, vainglorious posturing and overwhelming political trickeries and gambit; and the other suffused the upper legislative chamber with such mercenary tendencies and mendacity that it was impossible to exaggerate its villainous impact on the society in any essay of the period. Perhaps the conjuncture was to teach Nigerians the value of real leadership when they see one; or mourn the absence of true leadership when they endure its consequential pains. After a prefatory period of needless and unproductive acrimony, both Chief Obasanjo and Mr. Mantu, who had become Deputy Senate President, entered into a convoluted executive cum legislative romance and political wantonness to the point that the pair became inseparable. That relationship, alas, was extended to its conspiratorial end in 2007 when both gentlemen intrigued unsuccessfully for more years in office.

    But at least now, the country has a confirmation, if it ever needed one, that Chief Obasanjo actually schemed for an extra term in office, an extra that could have dragged on for much longer than the foolish architects of the scheme envisaged. Though Mr. Mantu tried to insulate Chief Obasanjo from the crazy scheme, his response to a question on the failure of the conspiracy, wherein he stated that the former president was disappointed all their efforts came to nought, showed clearly that regardless of the silence shrouding it, it was something all the conspirators looked forward to eagerly. Chief Obasanjo himself has angrily rebutted allegations he schemed for an elongated tenure, claiming on one occasion that had he really pined for it, and on account of his special relationship with God, all he needed to do was just ask God for that favour, and it would have been his with a snap of the finger.

    However, except Chief Obasanjo, no one else in Nigeria really believes the lie the former president tells himself that he didn’t scheme for an extra term, at least not those who voted him into office and yearned eight years later to throw off his yoke, and certainly not his zany, the inimitable and eloquent Mr. Mantu. Though he waffled a bit in the first part of the interview published by the online medium, the former Deputy Senate President left no one in doubt he craved some absolution for his many political malfeasances. It was, therefore, surprising that he regretted not going the whole hog in the third term conspiracy, a conspiracy he canonises and excuses on the grounds that Chief Obasanjo’s successors were poor imitations of leadership.

    But much more than Chief Obasanjo, the focus should now be on the eminent Mr. Mantu who represented his Plateau State constituency for eight years in very controversial circumstances. It did not occur to the former Deputy Senate President that by owning up to the third term conspiracy, and in addition regretting its failure, he was in fact giving his countrymen a window into his dark and unfathomable soul. It was apparent he thought the scheme a noble one. It was clear he was and perhaps will continue to be proud of the scheme. In many ways, he seemed to be saying he lacked the capacity to decipher the absolute and indefensible wrongness of constitutional subversion. Indeed, in the interview, Mr. Mantu implied many disconcerting things than he actually voiced, with most of his direct answers downright deplorable and unflattering. He portrays himself the archetypal Nigerian leader: cynical, detached, undiscriminating, illogical, ideationally perverse, and tending towards hedonism and, incredibly, obscurantism. Chief Obasanjo is trapped in the past, resisting, in fact oblivious of, new ways of doing things; Mr. Mantu, on the other hand, is entombed in hideous history.

    In Mr. Mantu’s thesis, the idea of third term is justified on the grounds that Chief Obasanjo’s successors had brought the country to a horrible pass. This implies that he presumed the former president a lodestar, closer to an ideal president than any the country has ever produced. Does this thesis hold up under close scrutiny? In the first instance, with the exception of President Muhammadu Buhari, the other two presidents since 2007 have been direct products of Chief Obasanjo’s jaundiced and hubristic intervention in presidential politics and elections. Even then, in terms of democratic credentials, the late Umaru Yar’Adua was far better than he, more temperamentally suited for the highest office in the land, and more noble, methodical and generally culturally agreeable. Alhaji Yar’Adua seemed in fact set to offer a far better quality of leadership to Nigeria in four years than Chief Obasanjo gave in eight tumultuous years.

    In like manner, had ex-president Goodluck Jonathan not lacked personal discipline, opening the national treasury to all-comers as he did especially in the last few months of his presidency, he would have appeared a much more convincing democrat than Chief Obasanjo. Under the latter, elections were an invitation to war, and the opposition went into it with its arms and legs chained. Under Dr. Jonathan, he largely allowed the principle of balloting free rein, culminating in 2015 with the victory of the opposition All Progressives Congress (APC). Overall, Chief Obasanjo’s management style was appalling and disreputable. He left no lasting legacy and bequeathed no enduring political culture. If Mr. Mantu campaigned for a third term for the ex-president, it was misguided and self-serving. It had nothing to do with Chief Obasanjo’s supposed qualities, nor with his programmes and policies.

    Second, and more crucially, there is no record anywhere, not even in his scathing autobiographies, of Chief Obasanjo’s original contributions to the concept of democracy, federalism, constitutionalism and the rights and privileges of citizens. Indeed, rather than contribute something original and relevant, Chief Obasanjo introduced disharmony and disarticulation into the polity, leaving his country reeling under the weight of political impositions and economic ephemerality. It was expected that more than eight years outside the Senate would have led Mr. Mantu to a keen study of the Nigerian condition and a substantial reflection on the policy miscarriages of the past decades. It seems all but clear that the former Deputy Senate President spent his years in pasture chewing the cud on his own superficial understanding of what it means to preside over the affairs of a complex and modern nation. It is little wonder that, like his adopted mentor and other fading legislators and former governors, he must struggle very hard to be heard or seen because he had neither done nor said anything profound for anyone to enthuse over.

  • How Lar rebuffed attempt to stop Tambuwal, by Mantu

    How Lar rebuffed attempt to stop Tambuwal, by Mantu

    More facts emerged yesterday on how the leadership of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) and the presidency attempted to stop Aminu Tambuwal from becoming the Speaker of the House of Representatives.

    Former Deputy Senate President, Ibrahim Mantu, revealed the pioneer chairman of the PDP and second republic governor of Plateau State, the late Solomon Lar, rebuffed attempts to stop the emergence of Tambuwal as Speaker of the House of Representatives.

    Mantu made the disclosure while receiving the Speaker at the Abuja’s residence of the late Lar on behalf of the family last Friday.

    Mantu, in a statement yesterday by Special Adviser to the Speaker on Media and Publicity, Imam Imam, said: “There were moves to draft the late politician to persuade Tambuwal and his supporters in the House to jettison his interest to contest for the speakership and support the PDP’s decision that zoned the position to the South-West.

    “When you were elected as Speaker, I was with the late Lar when they came to this house telling him that you had violated the party’s decision, and he should intervene and advise you to toe the line of the party.

    “He not only expressed disappointment with the request but insisted that you did nothing wrong as it was democracy in action and vowed never to intervene. He later went to the Villa and asked them to allow the wish of the majority to prevail.”

  • Jonathan has been ambushed by non-politicians – Mantu

    Jonathan has been ambushed by non-politicians – Mantu

    Senator Nasiru Ibrahim Mantu was Deputy Senate President from 2003 to 2007. He was Director-General, defunct National Republican Convention Presidential Campaign, 1993; National Chairman of the defunct Peoples Democratic Alliance and National Publicity Secretary, defunct United Nigerian Congress Party, UNCP. He was also Chairman, National Assembly Committee on Constitution Review. Senator Mantu, in this interview with Assistant Editor, LINUS OBOGO, went down memory lane on his alleged role in former President Olusegun Obasanjo’s botched third term project and expressed his views on President Goodluck Jonathan, among other issues. Excerpts:

    One of the harshest criticisms today against your party, the PDP, is that it is heading a government that has elevated corruption to an art and as a cardinal principle of governance. Just like insecurity, is it not also a serious challenge to governance?

    My friend, please say it louder. Indeed, let me say that it is corruption that has given birth to the insecurity in the country today. If we had not been corrupt, we would have been able to manage our resources very well, and in turn, provide social security to the nation’s teeming populace. It is this absence of social insecurity that has consequently given rise to the various agitations across the country.

    Corruption, like you rightly stated, has been the foundation of all our problems. If we are able to fight corruption, and I can tell you that even if we are not able to solve all problems immediately, we will no longer have the kind of crisis that we are having today. If we sincerely and judiciously channel all our money that is being cornered by corrupt political officials, we will be able to have good roads, hospitals, schools, electricity and potable water as well as put in place social security for our people and make life worth living.

    Sincerely speaking, anyone who is enjoying good life will not like to die. It is the absence of good life that is pushing the people to the wall to act the way they are acting. Corruption is the basis of everything that is happening to us today. No government has been able to successfully fight corruption to a standstill. It is only in Nigeria that when you are fighting corruption, corruption fights back. In fact, they have just been scratching the surface and paying lip-service to the war on corruption.

    There is no denying the truth that today, every facet of our society is corrupt. From the judiciary to the executive and the legislature, corruption is pervasive. People have lost faith in the judiciary because of corruption. Why will you run to the judiciary when you know that the man whom you are taking to court will engage a SAN who is going to be given certain privileges by the judge simply because he is a SAN? The entire country is engulfed in various dimensions of corruption. It is so endemic in our system and I am of the opinion that we have not really got our act together to fight corruption.

    The All Progressives Congress (APC), an amalgam of four opposition parties, has finally become a reality after the initial confusion that threatened its registration. With your party, the PDP, literally becoming a “Fuji House of Commotion”, how much threat does APC pose ahead of 2015?

    For someone like me who has been around the political terrain for over three decades, I hope and pray that the emergence of the APC or the merger itself becomes a reality after all. I have witnessed three failed mergers in this country, and I pray earnestly that this latest merger does not go the way of others before it.

    Recall that in the First Republic, the opposition came together to wrest power from the NPC which was the ruling party then, but when the time came to choose their candidate for the prime ministerial position, everybody wanted to be the candidate. When they could not agree on a consensus choice, the merger crumbled like a pack of cards.

    The same scenario played out again in the Second Republic, and what appeared then like a foregone conclusion failed woefully. So, this time around, I am praying for them to succeed so that we can have a formidable opposition party as an alternative to the ruling party. I feel strongly that Nigerians need an alternative party to put the PDP on its toes.

    The emergence of a viable alternative party will nudge the party in power from its slumber. That is the culture all over the world, and Nigeria cannot be an exception. Nigerians will have a well informed choice, if there is a credible and viable opposition party in the country.

    But the only way an opposition party can be successful is to put national interest above personal and narrow interest. But I hope and pray that this time around, the merger arrangement works. Nigerians need an alternative party, especially when they are tired of the PDP.

    Would you also subscribe to an alternative to President Goodluck Jonathan in 2015, as Nigerians are tired of what they consider as his leadership failure, nearly three years in the saddle?

    I want to answer your question by saying that Jonathan’s presidency is divinely ordained. Today, nobody can say with all sense of conviction that he was responsible for bringing President Jonathan to power. Only God can take that glory. Power is from God and not from man. If it was not the will of God, nothing any man or woman would have done to install Jonathan as President.

    Frankly speaking, as I said before, Jonathan is a good man and he has a good heart. But people are taking advantage of his good nature by not carrying out some of the fantastic programmes he has laid down for implementation as he would have had them executed.

    Part of the problem I have identified in the system is the fact that Jonathan is surrounded by ministers and aides who are not politicians. A lot of people are of the wrong notion that it is only when you go and bring those in the Diaspora in the name of technocrat to form your cabinet that your government can succeed. If I were an engineer and I have been practising in Nigeria, does that not qualify me as a technocrat? And if I were a lawyer and I have been practising in Nigeria all through the years, am I not a technocrat? Does the fact that you have been holed up in America or one European country confer on you technocracy? My answer is no. An economist in Nigeria and an economist in Britain are economists. The two are economists.

    These are some of the problems that Jonathan is actually facing because he is surrounded by people who are not politicians and do not know how Nigerians live and survive beyond Abuja. The greatest problem of Jonathan is that he is surrounded by people who are supposed to implement his policies and programmes, but who are not doing that because they are not politicians. I really do not have any problem in bringing experts into the government, but they can be brought in as advisers. You will agree with me that not many of his ministers or advisers went out with him during his campaign for his presidency. So they may not be bothered whether he wins the next election or not because they are not politicians in the real sense of the word. Many of them do not seem to appreciate the fact that they owe the electorate an obligation to deliver on the President’s promises. But if these people were like politicians, they would know what it means by making promises to the people and not fulfilling them. As election is drawing nearer. I think the President must have learnt his lessons, and I am sure he is going to address some of these issues because we still need him.

    Some of your staunch critics who think they have watched keenly your brand of politics tend to pass you off as one they jocularly would refer to as “Any Available Government in Power” or “Any Government in Power”. They cite your alleged role in the adoption of the late General Sani Abacha for the presidency and former President Olusegun Obasanjo’s botched third term, among others. While the label of “AGIP” may be untrue, would you be available for President Jonathan, should he need you as one of his foot soldiers in 2015?

    Let me say that the greatest perpetrators of ignorance in this country today are the media. The media are expected to be better informed than any other segment of the society. It is only in Nigeria that the media will write anything and go scot-free. It does not happen anywhere else except in Nigeria.

    Some media have accused me of going to Ota to lobby Obasanjo to contest election in 1999. It is not true. I was never in the PDP, rather I was in the ANPP where I contested for the Senate and won. So how would I have been part of the lobby group to bring Obasanjo to contest election in 1999? In 1999, we had our own presidential candidate. Therefore, there was no way I would have canvassed for Obasanjo or anyone in the PDP for the presidency.

    With regards to the alleged third term bid, I will come to that presently. But of note is, when have I ever been in government in appointive or elective position in this country in my 35 years in politics? I have only been in government for once from 1999 to 2007 in an elective capacity. So, how many governments have I actually participated in to deserve the label, “AGIP”? I am asking you. If I were like my friend who has served so many different military and civilian regimes and is still serving, I would not take offence at the appellation.

    My only presence in government has been the legislature which is elective and not appointive. Now you can understand that I have been in government only with the mandate of my people. Throughout my political career, I have never been appointed into government.

    During the time of the late Sani Abacha, I remember forming my own party, the Peoples Democratic Alliance, PDA. Later we merged and became the Nigeria Centre Party( NCP). After the merger, I was elected as the National Deputy Chairman of the NCP. Three days later, I told them thank you and left the party. The NCP was not formed by Abacha. It was an amalgamation of 23 political parties.

    So if you are following someone’s track record, you should follow him correctly in order to analyse him in correct perspective. That is what I expect of the media. For instance, if you had not come to interview me, you would have viewed me as “AGIP “. If you had not come here to interview me today, you would never have got my own side of the story.

    I have been in politics since the First Republic. This was when Abacha had not dreamed of becoming the head of state. Even when he became the head of state, I was not a member of his regime. I have always followed my path as a politician, seeking elective office. I won an election as a senator during Abacha’s regime. In 1990, I also won an election as senator. I have never been minister or commissioner throughout my political career. I have always done it the hard way, contesting and winning elections so that I can open my mouth as wide as I want and talk on behalf of the people who offer me their mandate. I prefer to toe that path.

    Now, on the issue of me going to Ota, the only time I went to Ota to ask Obasanjo to contest was during his second term bid. Again, this is one area that Nigerians have got it wrong and I blame the media in particular. In case you have forgotten, I was the Chairman of the National Assembly Joint Committee on the Constitution Review. In case you may have also forgotten, I took over that assignment from somebody. I was not the pioneer Chairman, may be people thought I assumed that position because of my perceived relationship with Obasanjo at that time.

    Nigerians are quick to forget that in the entire National Assembly, nobody attacked Obasanjo the way I did. When I was Chairman of the Senate Committee on Information, Obasanjo was my breakfast, my lunch and my dinner because I was always attacking him. My attack on Obasanjo was so fierce that former President Nelson Mandela was in this house to beg me to soften my attack on Obasanjo who was his friend. As if that was not enough, former President Jimmy Carter personally invited me to Hilton for a dinner with him where he pleaded with me to reduce my attack on his friend, Obasanjo.

    When I was attacking him, nobody was clapping for me. No one remembers that. It is only when it comes to the issue of the third term that people are quick to remember. I became close to Obasanjo after I was elected Deputy President of the Senate. My election as Deputy Senate President was based on the fact that the National Assembly wanted somebody who was anti-Obasanjo. They wanted someone who hated Obasanjo with passion. To a very large extent, my perceived hatred for Obasanjo became part of my qualification for the Deputy Senate presidency. Owing to my position as Deputy Senate President, we were meeting with the executive weekly and that was the closest I came in contact with Obasanjo. For the first six months of our closeness during those sessions with the executive, both of us maintained our hostility to each other. But after a while, he came to appreciate the fact that I was criticising him objectively and not out of hate. One day, he called me and said to me that we should reconcile our differences. Nobody initiated it. It was Obasanjo’s own idea. He told me that even if I did not agree with his ideas or policies, it was good that I respected his age and office, and I agreed with him.

    As Deputy Senate President, I was also the Chairman of the National Assembly Joint Committee on the review of the constitution. My duty was to collate the views of Nigerians on the clauses of the constitution we wanted to amend. The Speaker of the House of Representatives was my deputy.

    The clauses we wanted to amend were based on the views expressed by Nigerians regarding them. By this time, people refused to differentiate my relationship with Obasanjo and my role as Chairman of the Constitution Review Committee. There were those who felt that Obasanjo must have appointed me. But Obasanjo had no power over appointment in the Senate or the entire National Assembly.

    After collating the views of Nigerians, one of the committees headed by Senator Ham Batsa came back with a report to the effect that some Nigerians were of the position that instead of two terms of four years, we should have three terms of four years in the constitution. According to them, Nigeria was on the same economic pedestal with China, India, Singapore and Malaysia. And since these countries have leaders who have stayed so long in office, much longer than Nigeria’s, they have been able to make tremendous progress, while we remained where we were. They felt that we should give more time to our presidents to be long in office in order to fast-track our developmental strides.

    We conceded to them as Nigerians to hold and express their views. There was nothing wrong with that. So we included that aspect under “Tenure Elongation” clause. After collating all the reports from the various sub-committees, I presented a report to the Senate, and it was accepted. From the moment my report was accepted, I had finished my job. The document presented became that of the National Assembly.

    When I had concluded my assignment, many people felt that I was actually behind Obasanjo’s third term ambition. I have said this time and time again and for the umpteenth time, I will love that this be presented factually. Obasanjo did not tell Ibrahim Mantu that he wanted to continue in office. But in the course of my job as the Chairman of the National Assembly Constitution Review Committee, I received a report from one of the sub-committees on tenure elongation which I presented to the National Assembly public hearing. The assignment of my committee was to collate views of Nigerians, whether bitter or sweet. I was just a mere umpire or referee. And as a referee, if you scored or committed a foul, I blew the whistle. But my assignment terminated the first day I collated all the views of Nigerians and submitted same to the National Assembly.

    The issue was that some people did not want Obasanjo to elongate his tenure, and so they started using the press. But in a democracy, no one has the right to deny another from expressing his own views. That is why I still describe the third term issue as a mere storm in a teacup. It was amplified by people who were more interested in going to Aso Rock than Obasanjo. People who were burning with the desire to occupy Aso Rock and at the end, they made us to throw away the baby with the bath water. One of our recommendations was to have two vice-presidents, one from where the president hails and another from the vice-president’s zone. The thinking was that if the president dies, the vice-president from the president’s zone will be sworn in as his replacement to complete his term.

    What was wrong in anybody saying he wanted Obasanjo to continue? Even after saying that, was that enough to have made Obasanjo to continue after his second term? If Obasanjo wanted a third term and he subjected himself to the due process of the constitution, what was wrong with that? As long as anybody subjects himself to the constitution to seek for what he or she wants, as far as I am concerned, I have no axe to grind with that person.