Tag: Olusegun Obasanjo

  • So long a letter

    So long a letter

    The Senegalese, Mariama Ba (1929-1981), wrote So Long A Letter, a semi-autobiographical novella, that chronicled the plight of the African woman, under the combined pressure of African and Islamic cultures.

    The male chauvinists that dominate both worlds would scoff at the late Madame Ba’s “ranting” against the marital status quo, so violently skewed against the woman in both cultures. But her 1980 classic has provided gender rights activists, determined to right these age-old wrongs, an evocative literary tool.

    On December 12, former President Olusegun Obasanjo made public his own long letter, not for any overriding public good, but a litany of woes against his estranged protégé, President Goodluck Jonathan. Obasanjo played his usual grandstand as some self-appointed overseer of Nigeria; and postured without end as the all-consuming patriot.

    Yet, it was nothing but another unabashed glorification of the Obasanjo self — that ever intrusive persona that, on the balance of fair evidence, can’t even pass the muster of the model citizen.

    Like most of Obasanjo’s hyper-reported public interventions, it was another grand show of a show-actor craving a stage and cheap applause — cynical applause at the expense of some political foe. The former military head of state (1976-1979), two-term elected president (1999-2007) and fundament of the Nigerian problem is crying wolf!

    Yes, there is indeed some “wolf”. But Obasanjo himself was its author and finisher: Goodluck Jonathan, after all, was Obasanjo’s political creation. But the creator would rather Jonathan was some tabula rasa — on which he could write and erase at will — which the protégé has resisted.

    Godson cannot, therefore, hear the godfather. Things have fallen apart, so mere anarchy, to paraphrase the Irish poet, William Butler Yeats, is loosed upon their once cosy world! But how is that a problem of Nigeria and Nigerians as Obasanjo now trumpets?

    Indeed, Yeats in his poem, “The Second Coming”, somewhat echoes the loud but empty Obasanjo interventions: “The best lack all convictions, while the worst are full of passionate intensity!”

    That brings the discourse to Obasanjo’s “permission” to share the Jonathan letter with the quad of Generals Theophilus Danjuma, Ibrahim Babangida, Abdulsalami Abubakar and 2nd Republic Vice President, Alex Ekwueme — to earn some high profile sympathy? Ah!

    But which of these, aside from Abubakar, has not tasted Obasanjo’s rather crude tongue, in his endless playing to the gallery?

    Is it Danjuma who, not long ago in a fit of media anger, dismissed Obasanjo as “Aremu of Ota”?

    Or Babangida, who earlier as self-proclaimed “military president”, endured the Jonathan treatment, the same grand hypocrisy the grim Sani Abacha could not stand and, before the infernal theatrics started, despatched the grand dramatist to gaol on phantom coup charges?

    Or is it Ekwueme that Obasanjo muscled into silence while, as president, he started destroying the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), the logical conclusion of which he now, ironically, accuses and ridicules the luckless Jonathan, though his name be Goodluck?

    If Jonathan has his Bamanga Tukur, didn’t Obasanjo have his own Garrison Commander, Ahmadu Ali, both relentless presidential puppets that smashed the ruling party so a bully president could stand tall, like some Gulliver in Lilliput?

    Yet, no tears for President Jonathan. He plunged his knife into a dead hippo, fallen by the pool; and he richly deserves his running diarrhoea. There is always a stiff price for crass opportunism!

    Besides, despite being the first Nigerian president to bear the academic prefix of PhD, Jonathan’s actions have no rigour, no grace, no gravitas, just plain humdrum! Indeed, by his actions and inactions he has, perhaps more than any other, afflicted his presidency with a rare pull him down (PHD) complex.

    His is a grand study in wilful conspiracy against self; and the resultant harsh wages of promotion beyond competence. His presidency is therefore a grand let-down, right from the beginning — and there appears no redeeming factor.

    Indeed, as one contemplates the Jonathan Presidency, with its welter of terrible constitutional infractions and heinous allegations, and the man at the vortex of it all feigning none the wiser, the disturbing image of the Biblical wolf in sheep’s skin floods the mind.

    But even as the president sweats under the crushing weight of his elephantine troubles, his feet, in fatal distraction, appear still foraging for needless troubles with ants.

    The induced Rivers crisis is an abiding case in point, with the Police not even hiding their hideous partisanship; and rogue legislators, backed by rogue “federal might”, threatening to plunge that state into anarchy.

    Then there are opposition allegations of Jonathan turning the Ecological Fund into some crony gravy — allegedly rewarding friends, punishing foes.

    Of course, there is also the abiding allegation, supported by CBN Governor, Sanusi Lamido Sanusi, that the Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation (NNPC) is undercutting the country and the president doesn’t appear to have a clue about it all.

    That these allegations are made at all show the near-hopeless depth the Nigerian presidency has plumbed under Jonathan. That is unfortunate. But even more grievous is Obasanjo’s allegation that Jonathan is arming snipers to despatch political foes.

    Though the now crusading Obasanjo had more than a fair share of unresolved politically motivated killings during his presidency, this is one allegation Jonathan must deal with, if only to clear his presidency’s sagging reputation.

    But aside from this alleged killer squad, most of Obasanjo’s charges, in his long epistle of lamentation, were pure gas. There was nothing Obasanjo accused Jonathan of that he himself did not do during his best-forgotten presidency.

    NNPC is opaque. But how open was it during Obasanjo’s term, even when he was his own oil minister?

    On corruption — what has Obasanjo to teach, after his Obasanjo Presidential Library’s bared-faced extortion? If Jonathan responded with a contractor building his village a marvel of a church, it is evidence that Jonathan is master of his political father’s rotten tactics, corruption be damned!

    Jonathan wants to run for second term — and so what? Didn’t Obasanjo do two legal terms and was plotting an illegal third? Fortunately, Jonathan is doing more than enough to be guillotined at the polls. So, let the people decide his fate.

    Therefore, to now grandstand at some ogre, hinting at some non-democratic change, under some pseudo-messianic complex, is not only cheap but outright subversive. But it is another cynical drama, for Obasanjo knows that he too would vanish without trace, should Jonathan meet his electoral waterloo. So, would his and Jonathan’s credo of power without responsibility; and lollies without service.

    Obasanjo and Jonathan are an inglorious past and ignoble present that must be electorally swept away, from polluting the future. The Ebora Owu’s long letter of tumbling adjectives, and buzz words like honour and credibility that, from Obasanjo’s own conduct in office hardly meant anything, is his way of buying time and shopping for new puppets.

    He fails — except, of course, with the gullible and the excitable!

  • Jonathan, product of Obasanjo School

    SIR: I am not holding brief for President Goodluck Jonathan, but the truth must be told. Even though most of the observations made by Chief Olusegun Obasanjo in his 18 page letter may be true, it doesn’t exonerate him for his own actions while he was in power. He is also guilty of most of the acts he accused the Goodluck administration of. History will not forget how he chased d founding fathers away from PDP and hijacked the party structures and machineries.

    In 2007 election, Obasanjo also supported the opposition candidate of the Progressive Peoples Alliance (PPA) Ikedi Ohakim in the Imo gubernatorial election against Ifeanyi Araraume of his own PDP – the same thing he claimed Jonathan did. History will not forget his proposed constitutional amendment mission which he embarked upon solely to realise his third term agenda.

    History will not forget how 16 billion US dollars was spent cumulatively on power throughout his eight years rule with no result achieved. The EFCC was used as an attack dog to go after perceived enemies who refuse to dance to the tune of the government while other corrupt officials who were in good books were allowed to walk free.

    Court judgments were influenced by the powers that be. Human Rights were violated; worthy of note is the Odi and Zaki Biam saga. Corruption also existed.

    In summary, most of what he pointed out also existed in his government only that it is in an improved form in this present government. Besides Jonathan has always referred to Obasanjo as his mentor. This may have prompted him to act like his master.

    •Halilu Hassan,

    haliluhassan@yahoo.com

  • Obasanjo’s belated blast

    Obasanjo’s belated blast

    Although former president Olusegun Obasanjo stated 10 grounds for his publicised 18-page letter to President Goodluck Jonathan, the decisive justification remains highly speculative. What was the final straw that broke the camel’s back? Whatever it was, Obasanjo’s staggering decision to publicly embarrass Jonathan by his extensive communication not only raised serious concern about the apparent deterioration of their rapport; more disturbing, it also delivered a dreadful signal about the country’s dire circumstances.

    Interestingly, Obasanjo’s epistle had elements of political science, history, sociology, psychology, economics, and even theology. It was a revealing roller coaster, exposing Jonathan’s dark underbelly as well as Obasanjo’s self-righteousness. It would appear that the essential objective of Obasanjo’s correspondence was to nail the coffin of Jonathan’s possible desire for a second four-year term in office. After taking self-flattering credit for the actualisation of the Jonathan presidency, Obasanjo accused him of “deceit and deception” concerning his denial of interest in a second term and indicated that there was an understanding that Jonathan, who became president in 2011, would govern for only one term and shun the 2015 presidential election.

    Even if such a deal was sealed, which Jonathan has consistently contradicted, it is perceptible that the conditions are different now and a review is on the cards. As Obasanjo rightly pointed out, “the signs and measures on the ground” do not support Jonathan’s alleged disinterest. However, his recommendation that Jonathan should “pursue a more credible and more honourable path,” suggested that Obasanjo might be living in a fool’s paradise. His counsel was evidently incongruous, given the litany of complaints signifying an irredeemable rot and the possibility that Jonathan is already at the proverbial point of no return.

    Not surprisingly, Obasanjo located the responsibility for the probable implosion of the ruling People’s Democratic Party (PDP) within Jonathan’s realm, a weighty denunciation coming from an overwhelmingly influential voice in the party. However, it is a measure of Obasanjo’s delusions that he expressed the obviously objectionable belief that his party, known for its abject vacuity and lack of vision, is good for the country. His words: “I believe strongly that a united and strong PDP at all costs is in the best interest of Nigeria.” What a misguided sentiment!

    Prominent among the centrifugal forces, according to Obasanjo, are Jonathan’s control tactics, ethnicity-driven insularity and politics of exclusion to the disadvantage of “most of the rest of Nigerians.” In the country’s pluralistic space, there is no doubt that the extreme promotion of Ijaw identity on account of Jonathan’s leadership has exacerbated the national question, quite apart from worsening power relations within PDP.

    It is intriguing and tragic that Obasanjo tried to establish a parallelism between the Jonathan presidency and perhaps the country’s most murderous administration symbolised by the late Gen Sani Abacha who ruled with an iron fist from 1993 to 1998. Obasanjo’s allegation about an existing killer squad designed by Jonathan for “political purposes” and the surveillance of presumed opponents is so brutally unsettling and sadly cements the suspicion that the 2015 elections hold a promise of bloodshed. It is most unlikely that Obasanjo would flippantly make claims of such malevolent magnitude without a shred of evidence because that would be reprehensibly irresponsible.

    It was predictable that Obasanjo would mention the unconscionable heights of official corruption, and he didn’t disappoint, specifically highlighting the sleaze associated with the Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation (NNPC). It is a mighty wonder that this particular organisation, which operates at the heart of the country’s oil-based economy, has been the butt of scandalous publicity over the years; yet successive administrations have failed to carry out any thorough cleaning of the Augean stable, which makes a penetrating statement about the hypocrisy of the powerful.

    Shockingly, Obasanjo displayed double standards in his offensive against Jonathan, seeming to conveniently overlook his own role in originally backing an individual who, in his reviewed estimation, has turned out to be inappropriate for the presidency after all. His misjudgement, if that was indeed the case, is loudly damning, particularly on account of the fact that his support controversially defied an alleged party zoning formula which excluded Jonathan. It is revealing of his sense of personal infallibility that there was no hint of shame in Obasanjo’s blame game. The logical truth is that if Obasanjo enjoys the image of kingmaker, he should also appreciate the idea of vicarious blameworthiness. He crowed in his letter, “Mr. President, you have on a number of occasions acknowledged the role God enabled me to play in your ascension to power. You put me third after God and your parents among those that have impacted most in your life.”

    However, with the benefit of hindsight and the picture of the critical path not taken, it is apt to contemplate the country’s trajectory had PDP in 2011 been faithful to its said informal arrangement in determining who should be its presidential candidate. The negative consequences of that great betrayal of decency are regrettably evident in the party, and by extension, in the polity.

    Two apocalyptic images deserve particular attention in Obasanjo’s missive. His reference to a possible military intervention based on opportunism amounted to a subtle sowing of seeds of subversion, which is highly condemnable. Then he pronounced magisterially and with unbecoming posturing, “May it not be the wish of majority of Nigerians that Goodluck Jonathan, by his acts of omission and commission, would be the first and last Nigerian President ever to come from Ijaw tribe.”

    In reacting to Obasanjo’s blast, it certainly won’t be enough to argue ad hominem, that is, just attacking his character rather than responding strictly to the contentions. Such an unproductive approach would be too easy, for there are clearly multiple charges that Obasanjo is open to, perhaps even weightier than the ones he has tried to pin on Jonathan.

    It is food for thought that Jonathan reportedly directed his spokesmen to keep mute while he prepares to “at the appropriate time, offer a full personal response,” according to his Special Adviser on Media and Publicity, Dr. Reuben Abati, who nevertheless described the letter as “highly provocative.”

    Although the title of Obasanjo’s letter, Before it is too late, carries some optimism, it is ironically a sad reminder that Jonathan has advanced far in the course of unravelling. Indeed, it would appear belated, and only the miraculous can mediate.

  • Kukah faults Obasanjo over letter to Jonathan

    Bishop of Sokoto Catholic diocese, Most Rev. Matthew Hassan Kukah Sunday carpeted former President, Chief Olusegun Obasajo over his letter to President Goodluck Jonathan saying there is always a rule to every game.
    Speaking at the memorial service in honour of the late governor of Kaduna state, Patrick Ibrahim Yakowa, Kukah said that there are always process in removing a President from office, adding that apart from staging a coup, the only way to acquire political power is through election.
    Kukah who said he has only read the first page of the letter and its conclusion said that the issues of interest to him was not about President Jonathan because even if he remains in power for 20 years, he will leave office one day.
    The clergyman said “I am sure some of you have read Obasanjo’s letter. I was one of the first people to get the letter, but not from Obasanjo. I read page one and the conclusion. I have not read the rest. You hear politicians tell you about the threat of doom and bloodshed.
    “When food is almost ready, very bitter political enemies who have not been talking will begin to talk because food is almost ready. So far, the corruption, the erosion of integrity the corrosion that passes authority in Nigeria, we have not even come close to what politics is. We have bandits and all kinds of people who want only the key.
    “We must continue to pray for Nigeria because we are rescinding and has forgotten what our overall objective should be. Mandela is dead and Nigeria had better adjust itself very quickly to take its rightful position.
    “There are rules to every game. You want to be President, there is a date. You don’t want somebody to be President, there is a process. Short of a coup, there is no other way of accessing power except through election. For me, what lies before us is not about President Goodluck Jonathan because even if he stays for 20, he will go one day. But really, we should wake up.
    “The very idea that somebody move from this party to that party or going and coming from Abuja, all of us who are fooling ourselves will soon be left stranded when the matter is settled. Somehow, people are imagining that you can fall in love and fall out of love.
    “But if people think that the rest of us will join a political party or come out because somebody say so, we should purse and begin to think; not about ourselves or interest, but about our nation. We should not be where we are in Nigeria, but I think we should come to a point in Nigeria when we should not be repeating mistakes even if that is the only legacy we can take from what Yakowa has done.
    “Yakowa is gone and we will never forget him. But the only tribute we can pay to him is to say never again to the politics of hatred, never again to the politics of deceit, never again to the politics of insincerity; never again shall we shed blood in our state and in our country. We have a country to build. God has given us all these resources.
    “I am looking forward to the day when a governor will be elected in Kaduna or others of the federation on the basis of his merit. I was among the first people to hear of this Yakowa that because popular. Yakowa came as a symbol and God does not make mistakes. It is interesting that nobody has ever challenged Mandela.
    “What he did when he was campaigning was that he will build one million houses; but at the time he left office, he had not built 200,000 houses. There are certain leaders that come and their achievement is not measured by the material things. At the time Yakowa died, he was becoming very unpopular among his people”.

     

  • Calabar Carnival:  Ita-Giwa to  dazzle with  Seagull Band

    Calabar Carnival: Ita-Giwa to dazzle with Seagull Band

    NIGERIANS, foreigners and tourists planning to attend the forthcoming Calabar Festival will be thrilled by scintillating performances from the Seagull Band of Senator Florence Ita-Giwa, who was President Olusegun Obasanjo’s Special Adviser on National Assembly Matters.

    In a statement made available to newsmen, Ita-Giwa said that her band was prepared to stage a performance that would be memorable, owing to adequate preparation and rehearsals that the group had gone through.

    She added that movie stars and celebrities, who are also members of her band, would also feature prominently in the parade that would blow peoples’ minds with unique costumes and glamour.

    Ita-Giwa also thanked the State Governor, Senator Liyel Imoke, for sustaining the carnival till date and also adding spices to its organisation with local and international presence.

    The statement reads in parts: “Africa’s biggest carnival will hold again this year in Calabar on December 27. As usual, my Seagull Band that has prominently won the King and Queen contest will be hot in grandeur and style this time around. It will catch the eyes of our spectators with unique costumes and dance steps. It is going to be a show of a life time because we have completed rehearsals and they can be assured to see movie stars who are also members of the Seagull Band on parade with me.

    “My band has always won the King and Queen contest and this year, we are ready to repeat the feat; and certainly, we shall blow people’s minds with our sterling performance. I want to also thank the Governor, Senator Liyel Imoke, for sustaining the festival till date.”

  • Jonathan, Obasanjo meet in Kenya

    Despite the war of words between President Goodluck Jonathan and former President Olusegun Obasanjo, they were among the dignitaries that attended the 50th Independence Anniversary celebration of Kenya in Nairobi on Thursday.

    While Obasanjo had written a letter with grave allegations against Jonathan, the latter had dismissed the letter as self-serving and highly-provocative.

    But prior to the commencement of ceremony at the Safaricom Stadium in Kasarani, Nairobi, Kenya, Obasanjo paid a surprise visit to Jonathan.

    He visited Jonathan at the Intercontinental Hotel, Nairobi where they had a private breakfast together.

    At the venue of the event, Obasanjo, who sat quietly, was making calls on his mobile telephone at interval throughout the event.

    Speaking at the event, Jonathan called on all Kenyans to unite together.

    He said that there was no alternative to unity if Kenyans must move their nation forward.

    The destiny of Kenya, he said, lies with its people and as such the people must strive hard to take their country to a greater height.

    Expressing happiness that Rhaila Odinga was present at the event and working with President Uhuru Kenyatta, he said: “Nobody can love you more than Kenyans, so you all have to jointly develop your country. All Kenyans should come together to form an inclusive society.

    “Africa since 2007, many African countries like Kenya have been celebrating 50 years of independence and freedom, our founding fathers talked of political freedom to be followed by economic freedom.”

    “The present generation of African leaders must work hard on science and technology as well as industrialisation, so that there could be economic development and freedom.” He said.

  • Obasanjo’s letter unbecoming, self-serving, says Presidency

    The Presidency has confirmed  receiving  a letter from former President Olusegun Obasanjo which it described as unbecoming, self-serving and highly-provocative.

    According to a statement on Wednesday by Special Adviser on Media and Publicity, Dr. Reuben Abati, the Presidency will at a later date respond to the various allegations levelled against President Goodluck’s administration.

    He said that the letter was deliberately leaked to the in an attempt to impugn the integrity of President Jonathan and denigrate his commitment to giving Nigeria the best possible leadership.

    He said: “We have noted the publication on several websites today of a letter recently written by Chief Olusegun Obasanjo to President Goodluck Ebele Jonathan. The Presidency acknowledges that it has indeed received the said letter from Chief Obasanjo.”

    “We however find it highly unbecoming, mischievous and provocative that a letter written by a former Head of State and respected elder statesman to President Jonathan  has been deliberately leaked to the mass media in a deplorable effort to impugn the integrity of the President and denigrate his commitment to giving Nigeria the best possible leadership.”

    He went on: “While many patriotic, objective and well-meaning Nigerians have already condemned the leaked letter as self-serving, hypocritical, malicious, indecent, and very disrespectful of the highest office in the land, President Jonathan has directed that none of his aides or any government official should join issues with Chief Obasanjo over it.”

    “The President himself will, at the appropriate time, offer a full personal response to the most reckless, baseless, unjustifiable and indecorous charges levied against him and his administration by the former Head of State.” He stated

  • Okonjo-Iweala, two others sued over ‘forced’ retirement

    Okonjo-Iweala, two others sued over ‘forced’ retirement

    The Minister of Finance and the Coordinating Minister for the Economy, Dr. Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala, has been sued with two others for alleged unlawful termination of the employment of a civil servant who allegedly published a story about the minister.

    The applicant, Yushau Shuaibu, until his compulsory retirement on June 26, was the Chief Information Officer (SGL 14) at the Federal Ministry of Information.

    In the suit filed before the National Industrial Court, Abuja, the applicant faulted the process leading to his forced retirement.

    Sued with the minister are: the Federal Civil Service Commission (FCSC) and the Federal Ministry of Information.

    The plaintiff, in a statement of claim, said he was called sometime in April by the minister, demanding apologies and a retraction over one of his writings published by Premium Times, titled: Still on Okonjo-Iweala over Controversial Appointments. Shuaibu said he would rely on same at the trial of the case.

    The plaintiff said he refused to apologise to the minister because he had written similar articles on President Goodluck Jonathan and other past leaders when they were in government, especially President Olusegun Obasanjo, Vice President Atiku Abubakar, Nasir El-rufai, Femi Fani-Kayode, among others.

    Shuaibu averred that many rejoinders and commentaries were published in reaction to the write-up concerning the minister.

    According to him, he had even written articles praising the minister on the same issues.

    The plaintiff argued that despite not contravening any known law of the civil service, Okonjo-Iweala allegedly influenced his forceful retirement.

    Shuaibu is praying the court to, among others, grant an order directing the FCSC to reinstate him to the civil service and his post as the Chief Information Officer in his former ministry without any loss on seniority, salaries, position and other emoluments.

    He is also praying for an order directing the FCSC and the Ministry of Information to compute and pay him all his salaries, allowances and other emoluments due to him from July 2013 up to the date of judgment, including interest at the prevailing commercial banks’ rates on the sum arrived at.

    The plaintiff is also other reliefs.

     

     

     

    wseeking:

    *A declaration that the Public Service Rules (2008 edition) is applicable for the purposes of determining the employment of the Claimant and other matters relating to his employment in the Civil Service of the Federation.

    * A declaration that the letter of the 1st Defendant dated the 26th day of June 2013 with Reference No FC/6138/S.1/ 69/220 received by the Claimant on the 4th of October 2013 which purports to retire the claimant, a statutory employee, from the Civil Service of the Federation from the 26th of June 2013 has no force of law and is therefore illegal, unconstitutional, null and void and of no effect whatsoever being in flagrant violation of Rules 030302, 030303, 030304, 030305, 030306 and 030601 of the Public Service Rules (2008 Edition).

    *A declaration that the decision of the 1st Defendant to retire the Claimant at its meeting held on the 26th of June 2013 with effect from the same date without conducting any investigation, without giving the claimant an opportunity to defend himself and without complying with the conditions precedent for retirement is contrary to Section 36 of the Constitution, Article 7 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (Ratification and Enforcement) Act, cap A9, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004 and the Public Service Rules 030305 and 030601 (2008 Edition) and is therefore illegal, unlawful, unconstitutional, null and void and of no effect whatsoever.

    * A declaration that the Iwuala unduly instigated the 1st Defendant to unlawfully retire the Claimant in violation of his freedom of expression guaranteed by the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 and the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, cap A9, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004

  • The Mandela oxymoron

    The Mandela oxymoron

    Writing about Nelson Mandela in the heat of this moment is like praying to God: there is a million and one thing unsaid yet everything has been said. It is infinitude – that state of endless magnitude; a greatness that is of infinite nature. Everything about Mandela is a story, an anecdote or a positive lesson that humanity must do well to learn. Hardball was thus stuck finding a fresh entrée in the Mandela repertoire. What more is there to be said? Everything has been said yet so much remained unsaid about this unusual bird flying out of Africa.

    As I pounded my gray matter an old adage came to me. The living in mourning the dead, mourns but his self. And yet another saying that your very life is your funeral; that is the way you live your life is a foretaste of the kind of funeral you will ‘enjoy’. Put more plainly, in living you are drawing up your burial progamme. As the world stand as one eulogising Mandela in cities and towns, churches and mosques it is not the fact of his death that stirs the human community but his life.

    Dear reader, you must have noticed the oxymoronic tendencies of this piece, the emerging contradictory words and phrases so far deployed. For instance, “your life is your funeral” and “the living mourns but his self.” But the Mandela oxymoron is of deeper import. How about black Africa, the dungeon of the modern world; a world of strive, poverty, hunger and ugliness sprouting an exquisitely beautiful flower named Mandela? And as we say in Africa, “the greenest sukuma wiki grows in the rubbishest dump” (Kenyan) and “from the blackest pot comes the whitest pap” (Nigerian/Yoruba).

    And as we relish our repertoire of Mandela-inspired oxymoron, how about the seeming endless streaming of eulogies by leaders from across the world, especially African leaders? Let us take just three here and see if could detect any hint oxymoronic contradictions in them. Robert Mugabe, the 89-year- old President of Zimbabwe is a contemporary of Mandela’s. While Mandela did one term as president of South Africa and turned down another term of five years when he was 76, Mugabe is on his seventh term as president and he does not seem ready to go yet. In his tribute, he described Mandela as the great African icon of liberation… a humble and compassionate leader. Say, when Mugabe transits someday, would the world hail him as a great African leader, humble and compassionate even though he stayed on the throne for almost eternity?

    Here in Nigeria, former President Olusegun Obasanjo narrated how he had asked Mandela why he would not do a second term and how the great man had retorted: How many 80-year-olds do you see still ruling a country? This was shortly before Obasanjo returned to office as president. But what did Obasanjo do after serving for two terms of eight years? He was desperate to go for a third term having forgotten Mandela’s homily so soon. He corrupted the system in his bid to suborn the constitution and he set the polity almost on a spin. Though Obasanjo cumulatively ruled Nigeria for 13 years did he win the hearts of his people? Did he achieve world acclaim? How does he compare to Mandela who did just five years?

    Lastly, we take President Goodluck Jonathan’s epic tribute to Mandela in which he said “Nigeria politicians were tiny men” compared to Mandela. Let us hear Jonathan: “Read newspapers, listen to radio and television or go to the social media and see how politicians talk. Some of us even think we are gods. We intimidate, we threaten, we show hate in our communication. These are definitely not the virtues of great men. They are shockingly the vices of tiny men.” Leaders like Jonathan (according to him,) cannot be great like Mandela because they are “tiny men.” This must be our classic, screaming Mandelan oxymoron.

  • The Mandela files (1): The legend lives

    The Mandela files (1): The legend lives

    As rumours of the imminent release of Nelson Mandela gained ground, several nagging questions must have assailed even his most ardent admirers.

    What if the man turned out to be but a shadow of the legend? What if he emerged stooped and walked with tentative steps and a shuffling gait after 27 years in prison, most of them in the unspeakably inhospitable conditions on Robben Island? What if his shoulders drooped and his clothes hung on him as if on a peg?

    What if his speech was slurred and he could not give the rousing orations to the crowds that were sure to gather wherever he stopped? What if his memory no longer served him well? What if he was wizened and could not even withstand the strain of a brief address to the teeming crowd of chanting admirers? What if he had to be helped up and down the dais?

    His remarkable strength of character and indomitable will are of course well known. But what if prison had sapped his will, his vigour and his spirit, and there was no fight left in him? And surely, he is not superior to the laws of biology?

    Questions, questions, and more questions.

    True, the Commonwealth Eminent Persons Group, of which our own General Olusegun Obasanjo was co-chairman, had reported some four years earlier that they found him in remarkably good physical shape, in full possession of his faculties and enormously well-informed. But anything could have happened since then to a person of Mandela’s age.

    Besides, sheer surprise at finding that the man was not so derelict as they had expected might have led them to exaggerate his condition. And, in any case, did they interact with him long enough to be able to make valid judgments about his physical and mental condition?

    Doubts, doubts, and more doubts.

    But the answers to the questions and the doubts came when he stepped out of the Victor Verster Prison, near Paarl, in the Western Cape, on February 11, 1990.

    Age and the prison regimen had taken their toll. The robust frame that once belonged to South Africa’s leading amateur middleweight boxer, the tireless people’s lawyer and guerrilla chieftain had yielded to a spare body. The cherubic face of the heydays of the resistance was now deeply lined. The hair was freckled with grey.

    But the gait was erect. His steps were measured, firm. His voice resonated with authority. He read from prepared texts with the unaided eye. The fighting spirit that had led his associates and admirers to call him the Black Pimpernel had not waned.

    Apartheid had got to go. The state of emergency must be lifted. The armed struggle would continue until conditions for meaningful negotiations were created. All political prisoners, including most of those whom the apartheid regime was holding on trumped-up charges, must be released. Sanctions must be sustained. Far too many people had died in communal violence. The killings must stop. Students should go back to their school; workers to their mines and factories

    White domination must end, but it would not be replaced by black domination. South Africa would be a home to all who want to live in a democratic, just, non-racial society.

    By one account, Mandela gave in a single day nine interviews to television crews from across the world. Nobody could have judged from his performance that he had never until a month or two before, seen a television camera. Without the slightest trace of unease, he responded calmly and confidently to questions that ranged from the personal to the public, and from the past to the future.

    Whether he was sitting in front of television cameras or addressing a huge crowd or receiving endless streams of visitors that poured into his Soweto home, he displaced, according to The New York Times, “the measured dignity” that the ancient Romans called “gravitas.” In a perceptive essay for The Observer, South Africa’s eminent journalist Allister Sparks described him as a “patriarch.”

    Even The Economist, that consummate master of the elegant putdown, especially of persons and institutions that do not regard capitalism in its rawest form as something divinely ordained, allowed that Mandela “turned out a finer man than South Africa” – by which it probably meant the racists “had a right to expect,”

    Mandela is an authentic martyr who chooses not to come across as one. He is the symbol of the struggle of justice and freedom in South Africa and without question its most authentic spokesman, but he insists that he is only a member of the African National Congress.

    Even when the rusty Iron Lady was again putting to ridicule whatever pretensions Britain still makes to greatness by calling for an end to sanctions, Mandela said he would have to clear with the ANC before answering her.

    Mandela’s travel plans also reflect a deliberate sunning of the limelight. His first port of call will be Liusaka, Zambia, to renew ties with ANC leadership and cadres. From there, he will proceed to Sweden to greet Oliver Tambo, his comrade-in-arms, who is recovering from stroke. While Mandela was in jail, it was Tambo who animated and kept the struggle alive from outside.

    Then, on to India and Canada, perhaps the two most unyielding protagonists of sanctions.

    A lesser man would have headed straight to Britain and the United States, for sumptuous banquets under glittering lights; he would have jumped at the opportunity to be photographed with those we have been conditioned to regard as the high and the mighty.

    Not Mandela.

    By now Mandela has shattered all the stereotypes, the fears, the greed, and all the ignorance that have sustained for almost half a century one of the most inhuman systems of government the world has ever known.

    I hope, for the sake of the apartheid regime that South African television has been presenting a faithful portrait of the man. The disciples of apartheid should study and understand and appreciate him. For, as matters now stand, he is probably the only person who can liberate them from the incomparable prison that is apartheid.

    First published in The Guardian (Lagos) on February 27, 1990, this is the first installment of a three-part retrospective on Nelson Mandela.

     

    Thumbs up for our GEJ

    Remembering especially his dismal performance in an interview with CNN’s Christiane Amanpour and other unflattering outings, many Nigerians must have fretted when the BBC announced that President Goodluck Jonathan was going to favour its global audience with his reflections on Nelson Mandela’s legacy.

    They need not have worried.

    It was a lexical triumph for Dr Jonathan.  He delivered himself with semantic and syntactic aplomb, even taking a dig at those leaders who, instead of voluntarily relinquishing office like Mandela, sit tight and plunge their countries into chaos – no need for him to name them, said Dr Jonathan; you know them — and those leaders who leave office but continually lurk in the corridors of power.

    Is this perchance an indication that he intends to “play Mandela” by seeking neither a second term nor an elongation of his current term?

    In whatever case, I hope he is not scheduled to be in the same room anytime soon with Zimbabwe President Robert Mugabe.  I can assure him that Mugabe, one of the most gifted polemicists in Africa and indeed anywhere, will respond in kind at the earliest opportunity,  and most likely with compound interest.

    When it came to naming an example of those who, according to Jonathan, vacated office but carry on as if they are still in power, I was stuck.  Can you help?