The Nation Newspaper

Tag: Politicising

  • ‘Stop politicising national issues’

    ‘Stop politicising national issues’

    A cleric, Prophet Albert Samson Arojah, has urged Nigerians to stop politicising serious national issues and dividing the country along religious lines.

    Arojah, who is a leader of St. Peter’s Cherubim and Seraphim Band, spoke at his 50th birthday anniversary and 30 years on the pulpit.

    The cleric, who was also honoured at the event with Exemplary Leadership Award by the Justice and Equity Forum, said political and religious sentiments portend great dangers to the nation’s unity.

    Accepting the awards in the company of his wife, Arojah thanked the forum for recognising his input in the society.

    The cleric said his major passion had always been to put smiles on the faces of families.

  • Dickson warns against politicising security funding 

    Dickson warns against politicising security funding 

    Bayelsa State Governor Seriake Dickson has asked politicians to stop playing politics with funds and equipment allocated to the military and other security agencies.

    He described as paramount, the support and provision of necessary equipment for military and security services saying such gestures should be devoid of politics.

    Dickson said that it was the responsibility of government to place priority on security to be able to develop the society.

    Dickson spoke during his tour of military and security formations in Yenagoa at the weekend whe he visited the headquarters of the 16th Brigade, and the Police Officers Mess to felicitate with the officers and men on Christmas and to encourage them to do more in combating crime in Bayelsa and the country.

    He called on the political leadership to support the military and security agencies whose efforts were required to realize the objective of developing the society.

    He said: “I want to assure you that under my leadership, the issue of security and stability will continue to be on the front burner. The first responsibility of any administration is to encourage the work for peace and stability. You can’t have development without security.

    “There should be no partisanship, no brinkmanship, no showmanship when it comes to the issue of giving necessary support and equipment to our men and women in uniform who are the only people that have volunteered to serve our nation at the risk of their life lives.”

    Commissioner of Police Amba Asuquo commended the governor for his support to police operations in the state.

    The commissioner said 72 suspects arrested after a show of force in Yenagoa at the weekend were being screened.

    He added that a suspect, who robbed a manager of a new generation bank and another robber, who shot his colleagues while attempting to shoot a victim were also in police custody.

    Commander, 16 Brigade of the Nigerian Army, Brig. Gen. Kelvin Aligbe,who also hosted Dickson thanked the governor for providing the brigade with resources that aided the realization of its operational objectives.

     

  • Police warn parties against politicising Nkpor killing

    Police warn parties against politicising Nkpor killing

    The Anambra State Police Command  has warned  residents of the state to desist from attributing the Nkpor, Idemili North Local Government Area killing and burning of vehicle to any political party.

    Since two persons died at Tarzan,  Nkpor after the flag-off campaign of the All Progressives Congress (APC),  opposition parties had linked the incident to the party supporters, to score cheap political points.

    They further alleged that it was one of the convoys of a state governor that was involved in the shooting and killing of a young man.

    But, in a statement made available to reporters, the Police Public Relations Officer (PPRO),  Nkeiruka Nwode,  said the police officers involved in the problem had been arrested and that investigations into the matter had commenced.

    She said: “Following the shooting incident and disturbance of public peace at Tarzan junction, Nkpor,  along the popular Enugu-Onitsha Expressway last Friday,  the Police Command wishes to set the records straight.

    “A team of police patrol on stop and search duties stopped the driver of a Toyota Camry car for routine check.

    “However,  the driver failed to stop as directed and he was chased by the police men from DMGS round about and consequently accosted at Tarzan junction, as a result of the traffic build up.

    “In a bid to search the vehicle properly, a melee ensued and the driver was shot by the police. Unfortunately,  he died on the spot.  A thorough search of the vehicle revealed 15 bags of weeds suspected to be indian hemp.

    “Consequently, an angry mob set ablaze a security pick up van that was seen approaching the junction,  but the driver of the van escaped unhurt.

    “Sadly,  a motor boy with an oncoming trailer vehicle, on sighting the angry mob,  jumped down from the trailer and lost his life at the spot. Some miscreants, unaware of the true facts behind the incident, took advantage of the situation and gathered for a mob action.

    “The Command wishes to use this medium to warn against spreading false rumours targeted to heat up the polity, as the incident has no connection with any political party.”

    The command has therefore called on the public to help the police with useful information that could lead to the arrest of the fleeing hit-and-run driver that killed the boy who jumped from the trailer.

  • Politicising Ibadan chieftaincy matter

    What Governor Abiola Ajimobi of Oyo State late August at the ancient Mapo Hall presided at the crowning ceremony, presentation of certificates and staff of office of Obaship to eight High Chiefs and 13 Baales in Ibadanland, is no longer news. Since that day, it has been one comment or the other on the matter from genuine to the ludicrous such that every Tom, Dick and Harry has turned themselves to an expert on Ibadan history and chieftaincy matters. It is either you are with the governor and his administration on the crowning of the Obas or you are against him.

    While it would be extremely difficult to determine the number of people with Ajimobi on the issue since no census has been taken, it would be preposterous on the part of those against him to lay claim that they have the interest of Ibadanland at heart more than him.

    For those criticising Senator Ajimobi for doing what his predecessors were not able to do, their motive could not but be politics. Because come to think of it, in crowning the High Chiefs and the Baales, the government was only implementing some of the recommendations of the Justice Akinboade-led committee which sat for more than two months before submitting its report to the government after receiving 118 memoranda from all concerned with 91 of them requesting for beaded crowns. What were those opposing today doing when the commission was sitting? Why did they not step forward to present their differing positions? One reality that those conversant with the issue at hand cannot run away from is that the present administration of Ajimobi will not be the first to embark on the Olubadan chieftaincy review journey.

    Indeed, since the event at Mapo hall, nobody has contradicted the governor who said he was following the footsteps of former governors in the state. Successive governments in Oyo State have engaged in reviewing the 1959 Olubadan Chieftaincy Declaration made pursuant to the 1957 Chiefs Laws and other related Chieftaincies in Ibadanland.

    We have on record that in 1974, the Military Government of Western State instituted a Commission of Enquiry, the recommendations of the Commission were adopted and changes effected. In 1981, there was the Justice Adenekan Ademola Commission by the then Military Government. The recommendations of the Adenekan Ademola Commission were accepted and changes effected. In 1993, Governor Kolapo Ishola set up the Oloko Commission of Enquiry to review Chieftaincy Declarations across the state. The recommendations were received by former Governor Lam Adesina. Upon becoming governor, Governor Rasheed Ladoja suspended the White Paper and abrogated the recommendations of the Oloko Commission. Ladoja later set up the Adio Commission whose recommendations did not see the light of day.

    As a human being like every other person, Ajimobi could not but have his own shortcomings; however everybody may not like his style, the sense of loyalty to Ibadanland and utmost respect for the present Olubadan, Oba Saliu Adetunji, Aje Ogungunniso 1, he displayed after the death of the late Olubadan, Oba Samuel Odulana, portrayed him as someone who will not engage in anything to undermine the authority of the Olubadan. For those who care to know, it was Ajimobi who in March 2016 ensured the coming to the throne of Oba Adetunji when the Seriki Chiefs went to court to stop his installation.

    The Seriki chiefs led by Chief Adebayo Oyediji, headed to court to stop the Oyo State government and the Olubadan-in-Council from installing the then Balogun of Ibadan, High Chief Saliu Adetunji, as the next Olubadan. Oyediji and five others filed a motion seeking an order compelling the government and then Olubadan-In-Council to install himself as the next Olubadan. The Seriki chiefs based their prayer on a 1989 Supreme Court judgment which ordered recognition of the Seriki as the third line to produce the Olubadan. In the motion filed by their lawyer, A.G. Adeniran, they stated that the Olubadan-in-Council, had since 1989 when the Seriki line obtained a Supreme Court judgment in their favour, denied them the opportunity of being admitted into the Olubadan line. While alleging corruption and disregard for rule of law on the part of the Olubadan-in-Council, the Seriki Chiefs stated that Oyediji is the next to be installed Olubadan based on the said judgment.

    To the Seriki chiefs, the marginalization of the Seriki line began since the last Otun Seriki, Chief Adisa Akinloye, was denied the opportunity before he died in 2007. They explained that  Seriki was the third line in the chieftaincy of Olubadan, and that upon the denial, the Supreme Court in 1989 ordered that Seriki line be included as the third line to the appointment of Olubadan.

    They further claimed that the problem with the Seriki line started with the making of the 1959 Ekerin Balogun of Ibadan Chieftaincy Declaration which put Seriki under the Ekerin Balogun of Ibadan and provided for the first time that Seriki can only be promoted to Ekerin Balogun only if there are two simultaneous vacancies in the Ashipa and Ekerin Balogun titles.

    The      Seriki     Chiefs also explained that ýupon winning against the then Olubadan of Ibadan, Oba Oloyede Asanke and all the chiefs in Balogun and Olubadan line, after challenging the said chieftaincy declaration, the then Olubadan prevailed on the Seriki chiefs not to insist on three lines for the Olubadan chieftaincy, but that rather chiefs in the Seriki line should cross to Ekerin Balogun and Ekerin Olubadan on the two lines whenever there is a vacancy in any of the two lines. According to them, the out-of-court agreement was that the Balogun and Olubadan lines          would   each have two steps of promotion from Ekarun to Ekerin in their respective lines before the Seriki line shall have its own promotion to Ekerin in any of the two lines. And having been denied the opportunity for long, and following the consecutive deaths of High Chiefs Sulaimon Omiyale and Omowale Kuye from both sides in November and December 2015, Chief Oyediji maintained that it was the time of Seriki line to have a shot at the Olubadan, saying “when the agreement was reached, the late Odulana was the only senior ranking High Chief in the Olubadan line and we were on the same rank. If that agreement is followed, I am the next person to succeed him.”

    The Seriki Chiefs then sought an amendment to reflect the earlier order of the court and also sought a declaration that “by the provision of the consent judgment delivered by the High Court in suit No. I/313/88, it is the turn of the Seriki line to produce the next Olubadan of Ibadan on both the Olubadan line and the Balogun line”.

    For the critics of Ajimobi, one fact that they cannot deny is that it is the governor that can give or deny the approval for the installation of any traditional ruler especially a first class monarch like the Olubadan, but while the Seriki chiefs are still in court till today, the governor approved the installation of Oba Adetunji as the 41st Olubadan of Ibadanland and subsequently gave him the staff of office on Friday, March 4, 2016. The government has also, based on the recommendations of the Justice Akinboade-led panel, scrapped the Seriki line which those who believed that they have more stakes in Ibadan are not talking about.

    In the history of the state whether old or new, five indigenes of Ibadanland, Dr. Omololu Olunloyo, late Chief Kolapo Ishola, late Alhaji Lam Adesina, Senator Rasheed Ladoja and Senator Abiola Ajimobi, have occupied the Agodi Government House as governor. The achievements in changing the face of Ibadanland cannot be wished away. Apart from being the only one elected twice as governor, the place of Ajimobi in the history of the ancient city of Ibadanland cannot be easily erased as he is the only one among the governors that was bestowed with two chieftaincy titles by two different Olubadans, first as Aare Atunluse by late Oba Odulana and Aare of Ibadanland by Oba Adetunji.

    Nevertheless, the various suits already instituted and the ones to be instituted by those who feel that Senator. Ajimobi has “committed suicide” with the elevation of the High Chiefs and Baales in Ibadanland to Oba, it will not be out of place to leave them with the famous words of former President Barack Obama as clearly stated in Governor Ajimobi’s speech on Mapo Hill at the coronation of the newly elevated Obas: “Change will not come if we wait for some other person or some other time; we are the ones we’ve been waiting for, we are the change that we seek”.

    The opposition is borne out of politics. Nothing more, nothing less.

     

    • Mariam writes from Ogbomoso, Oyo State.

  • ‘Stop politicising Buhari’s health’

    The National Committee of Yoruba Youths (NCYY) and Coalition of Civil Society Organisations Against Terrorism have warned those politicising President Muhammadu Buhari’s health to desist.

    NCYY President Comrade Odeyemi Oladimeji and CCSOAT Secretary Comrade Olufemi Lawson spoke yesterday in Ibadan, Oyo State capital.

    Odeyemi said: “We are worried that the threat to our corporate existence may not be from Boko Haram insurgents, but the activities of tribal war leaders, ethnic jingoists, religious zealots and overzealous self-acclaimed activists, who feel they can play politics with Buhari’s health.”

    He condemned rumour of the President’s health.

    His words: “Instead of spreading rumour about Buhari’s health, we must appreciate the determination, focus and compassion of the President and the leadership of security agencies, especially the Army, led by Gen. Tukur Buratai, which resulted in the recent release of 82 of the Chibok schoolgirls.

    “The Buhari administration is plugging loopholes through the Treasury Single Account. It has shown courage to tackle corruption and insurgency.”

    Odeyemi urged Nigerians to support the Buhari government to salvage the country.

    He implored them to pray for the President’s recovery.

  • Politicising (in)security

    Politicising (in)security

    Whoever is in doubt about the self-regarding interest behind the opposition of the federal government, the party in power at the centre, and their agents to the decentralisation of policing and the establishment of state and local police by the 36 states of the country even after the events of the last two weeks is either naive, mischievous or in total denial.

    The major argument against the establishment of state police has been the untenable one that governors and parties in control of the states will abuse their authorities and exploit the police for their political advantage against their opponents. The second argument, which is not quite different from the first, is that our democracy is not mature enough to recommend the decentralisation of the system of policing the state.

    It doesn’t matter to the proponents of these arguments that since the return of democratic rule in 1979, when the federal civilian government took control of the police, we have witnessed an increasing abuse of authority on the part of the centre. It is common knowledge that in the Second Republic, the Nigerian Police was a potent instrument of oppression and harassment of opposition governors by the federal government. The Inspector General at the time was very clear about whose agent he was and whose interest he served.

    The various military regimes need not come into this discussion because of the nature of the military unified command system. Needless to add, however, such a system is an anomaly in a civilian regime. But that is exactly what our milito-politicians have decided to embrace because it benefits them. Reasonable citizens should be concerned and alarmed. There are multiple levels of the alarm system that ought to sound off now: First, when you embrace the unified command system of law enforcement, and you embrace the military as part of that scheme in a civil regime, aren’t you sending them the wrong signal? Second, when you present your civilian regime as incapable of maintaining internal law and order without the involvement of the military, what message are you sending to the military? Third, when the centre exploits its authority with the use of law enforcement against the opposition, with a view to making peaceful change impossible, what kind of change is it encouraging?

    From Friday, June 6, till Sunday, June 8, our armed forces staged a comeback to their old game of intimidation and harassment. They laid siege on the media, disrupting the free flow of information. As widely reported by all the major media houses, the army placed soldiers in strategic locations throughout the country, especially in Abuja, Ibadan, Lagos, Benin, Jos  and other northern cities, detained newspaper distribution vans and their drivers, and confiscated the newspapers they were to deliver. Apart from costing the publishers and distributors enormous losses, the exercise also caused many vendors and distributors legitimate means of livelihood.

    What was the excuse of the soldiers and the presidency? On the part of the soldiers, it was not difficult to figure out that they were acting on orders. The reason for the order had to do with security. Of course, the army is concerned about security and if and whenever it has intelligence reports about the activities of a segment of the public with a great potential for causing harm to the country, it must take action. So the story goes. And it is not a new one. We heard it before during the era of brutal dictatorship. That we are hearing it now reminds us of those days when media houses were forcefully searched and editors and journalists were brutalised. Do we need to be reminded of those days that ought to be conveyed to historical infamy?

    What about the presidency? Never short of excuses presidential spokespersons quickly tried to parry the allegation of dirty tricks against the presidency. They reminded us that President Jonathan signed the Freedom of Information Act. How can a President who was so magnanimous with such a gift to journalists now turn around to scuttle the free flow of information? The President had nothing to do with the action of the military. But as Commander-in-Chief, he supports the action if it was the result of intelligence. This is double-speak at its worst: The president does not support the obstruction of information. The president supports military intelligence-based action against the free flow of information.

    But what intelligence could be behind such harassment?  Credible reports suggested, we were told, that newspaper distribution vans were being used to smuggle and distribute arms in the country! Incredible! Assume that this is the case. The military (not the police) swung into action. What should be the objective? Search suspicious vehicles for arms. Release them if nothing incriminating is found. Let them go about their legitimate business. But that was not what happened. All media reports suggested that vans were detained. Distribution centres were raided. Drivers were detained. What was the reason for detention of those vehicles and their drivers if nothing was found on them? What was the reason for the siege on distribution centres and vendors? Were distribution centres also implicated in the intelligence report?

    The Nigerian Police is not left out. Kano has a new Emir and the sky is still blue. There has been no earthquake. HRH Sanusi Lamido Sanusi, the Emir of Kano, received his instrument of office from the Kano State Governor. The kingmakers who included him on top of the list of three nominees for the governor paid him the traditional homage. The princes and princesses paid their obeisance. But the Emir cannot enter his palace because a contingent of the federal police has laid siege on the place since Sunday. What is the excuse? It is to protect the Emir. But why does the Emir need protection and protection from whom? The presidency is unhappy. How can a person removed from office by the President be liked by his people to such an extent that they make him their Emir?

    The President ought to have known better. He should have known that this is not something he can control. Political naivety brings unhappy consequences. We are still a federation. Traditional institutions are still local. The President doesn’t control the state government and given the relationship between him and the Kano State Governor, he shouldn’t have expected anything different. It stands to reason that what Jonathan hates, Kwankwaso would like. If Jonathan didn’t want Sanusi to be Emir of Kano, a more revered position than the CBN governor, the President should have left him to complete his term. What to do now? It is clear that Sanusi is the ultimate winner. The President must count his losses, lift the siege on the palace and let the Emir be. Ranka de de, Your Royal Highness!

    On Sunday, June 8, Ado-Ekiti was the scene of another in the familiar episode of federal security agents run amok. Since the days of its ACN precursor, APC has consistently engaged in a funny but symbolic act of sweeping off the footprints of opposition parties, especially PDP after the rallies organised by the latter in states controlled by the APC. That was what happened in Ado-Ekiti after the PDP rally on Saturday, June 7. APC masses assembled at the stadium with their brooms. But the Mobile Police detachment would have none of that effrontery. The Vice President was still in town and an opposition had organised a rally to sweep off his feet from the soils of Ado-Ekiti? How can any authoritarian regime allow that?

    That is the root of our challenge as a democracy. We are not mature to have any other state security system because no one must challenge the authority of the President and his party. The Mobile Police actually disarmed a unit of the Nigeria Police that was assigned to Governor Fayemi. That was to demonstrate the superiority of the Vice President over the Governor.The circle will remain unbroken when a new party takes over in the centre. It will have its own authority to protect because the constitution that we have embraced since 1979 ensures that this vicious circle will be unbroken.

  • ASUU: Jonathan is politicising lecturers’ strike

    ASUU: Jonathan is politicising lecturers’ strike

    • SSANU starts indefinite strike

    The Academic Staff Union of Universities (ASUU) has criticised President Goodluck Jonathan for criticising the strike by the university teachers.

    ASUU, in a statement by the Chairman of the University of Ibadan chapter, Dr Olusegun Ajiboye entitled “Nigeria at 53: No message of hope for Nigerians Yet”, said the Presidential Media Chat was empty.

    Dr. Ajiboye said the president ‘is politicising the ASUU strike’ , saying it was unfortunate for the president to treat the sector with such ‘hatred and disfavour’.

    He said: “It was clear that Mr. President was just rehearsing the positions of his aides. He said ASUU strike has been politicised. The question is by who? It is evident that rather than ASUU, the president and his team are the ones politicising education and playing with the future of the teeming youths of this country. ASUU members successfully midwifed the 2011 general elections and they were not accused of playing politics then! It is only now some people are waking up to label members of ASUU of playing politics with strike.

    “ASUU members are not politicians. When ASUU members risked their lives to conduct free and fair elections in 2011, they were not referred to as politicians. Now that they are fighting for universities, they have become politicians. We reject that position; we believe that that position is not correct and it does not represent our motivation.

    “ASUU members are patriotic Nigerians who believe in the emancipation and development of education in this country. We cannot play politics with Nigeria’s future. The 2009 agreement is sacrosanct. It is aimed at re-fertilsing and rejuvenating the Nigerian University System (NUS).”

    Ajiboye also said it was wrong for President Jonathan to say state universities should not be part of the agreement.

    “The President hasn’t got a good grasp of reality. It is JAMB that regulates admissions into both federal and state universities – including private universities. It is the NUC (National Universities Commission) that oversees accreditation in all universities. It is The President does not realise that the Nigerian Universities System is one system. For him to be talking about federal or state universities is an anomaly and I believe he will go back and study the issue from a different dimension.”

    The chairman of ASUU at the Lagos State University (LASU), Dr Fikayo Idris, said it was wrong of the Federal Government to complain about state universities’ involvement in the strike.

    He said: “It will be mischievous of any official, especially those who have knowledge about the negotiations that took place ahead of the MOU ASUU signed with Federal Government last year.

    “The NEEDS Assessment Report ,which government itself conducted, highlighted the rots in the universities system at both the state and federal levels. That was why both parties agreed Federal Government’s intervention should be for both federal and state universities.”

    The Senior Staff Association of Nigeria Universities (SSANU) yesterday began an indefinite strike until the Federal Government accedes to the 2009 agreement signed with it.

    The Chairman of the union in UI, Wale Akinremi said: “We have been short-changed by the government on the area of subventions and we cannot take it again.”

    He spoke yesterday at a congress held by the chapter at the Arts Theatre, UI, Ibadan.

    The union leader said: “Non-teaching members of staff are wrongly placed in the education system, and these issues must be holistically addressed.”

     

     

     

     

     

     

  • Politicising justice

    Politicising justice

    Justice”, as philosopher John Rawls declares, “is the first virtue of social institutions.” After this opening statement to his 1971 classic, Rawls goes on to suggest that “in a just society the liberties of equal citizenship are taken as settled; the rights secured by justice are not subject to political bargaining or the calculus of social interests.” I take it that we, perhaps with the exception of the most highly placed among us, can articulate the reasoning of Rawls and indeed find ourselves in total agreement with him.

    I raise the issue of the possible exception of the most highly placed for obvious reasons. First, though we claim to have a republican constitution, the most highly placed act as if ours is a feudal institution with their good selves as the Lords. Therefore, what the constitution proclaims is for others, and is hardly applicable to them. Second, even when they reluctantly concede that we operate a republican constitution, they do not see themselves as bound by its essential remedies and restraints because with their position, they can manipulate the system to suit their interests.

    The upshot of the position of the most highly placed is that the system of justice that marks out a republican from a feudal or monarchical institution is brutally skewed in their favor and it becomes a “just-us” system.

    There is something grand and pleasing about knowing that the liberties of equal citizenship are settled in a just society. I am assured that my right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness cannot be violated with impunity. I can count on the system of justice to take up my case and plead my cause. The understanding that the rights that accrue to me on the grounds of my membership of the society cannot be bargained away is compellingly reassuring. What I have a right to is mine and is not subject to “political bargaining or the calculus of social interests.” The consequence of such a system for social life is incalculable. It allows for the thriving of citizens and for the flourishing of human lives. Yet the alternative universe with a de facto hierarchical ordering of persons with different access to the system of justice is as dreadful as it is real. It is our universe.

    The alternative universe which is the negation of a just system is the reality for most of us in this clime. It used to be that the dispossessed and disenfranchised among us are the victims. For unlike the well-placed, they do not have the means to negotiate their rights in an unjust system. But now it is turning out that even the so-called shakers and dealers are not immune from the “political bargaining” and “the calculus of social interests” that chip away “the rights secured by justice.” Rather than this trend being a solace for the dispossessed, it should ring the alarm bell and warn reasonable people of the dangers of politics run amok.

    It is politics run amok when every sphere of social life is politicised, when every action and every policy decision is moderated and modulated by considerations of political interest. It is not a recent phenomenon. Indeed it has been part of our story since the birth of the republic, reaching the crescendo of lunacy in the Second Republic. In 1991, I had the opportunity of contributing to and editing a volume on The Politicisation of Society During Nigeria’s Second Republic, 1979-83, in which my fellow contributors succeeded in demonstrating how virtually all sectors of the society, from religion to ethnicity, law and order, and the economy, were highly politicised. It was the view of my colleagues in that volume that the system buckled in 1983 under the unbearable weight of blatant politicisation.

    Fast forward almost three decades later and we have perfected the art of politicisation to the point of regarding it as an essential aspect of social life. It is what politics is supposed to be about. Even when we have a constitution that grounds the separation of powers in the age-old tradition of republicanism, we see politics as the be-all and end-all of our nation-space and other spheres have to bow under its domineering presence.

    The case of Justice Isa Salami comes readily to mind as an illustration of this scenario. It has just become clear that the constitution itself is a victim of the ugly game of political savagery that has gone on for far too long without any of the protagonists giving room for the intervention of reason. Articles 237 to 238 of the Constitution are very clear about the role of the President of Nigeria (PON) and the National Judicial Council (NJC) in the hiring and/or firing of the President of the Court of Appeal (PCA). The President cannot appoint, suspend, or dismiss without the recommendation of the NJC. And where the NJC recommends firing or suspending the PCA and the PON appoints the most senior Justice of the Court of Appeal to perform the functions of the PCA, the Constitution is also clear about the duration of such appointment.

    Article 238 Section (5) states: “Except on the recommendation of the National Judicial Council, an appointment pursuant to the provisions of subsection (4) of this section shall cease to have effect after the expiration of three months from the date of such appointment, and the President shall not reappoint a person whose appointment has lapsed.” This is as clear as it gets. But the President, who swore to a sacred oath to protect the Constitution, has allegedly reappointed the Acting PCA without the recommendation of the NJC.

    Whatever position anyone holds concerning the injustice of the decision to suspend President Salami from office, it is clearly a deficit of integrity to support an act of illegality that is being promoted by the continuation of the Acting President of the Court of Appeal in office.

    Integrity implies principled action and wholeness. It is the ability to follow up a commitment with action that realises the commitment. If you commit to protect the constitution, it is deficit of integrity to do anything to jeopardise the health of the constitution. Integrity is especially realised—it shines forth—when difficult situations of self interest present themselves as obstacles to the pursuit of or the realisation of our commitments. If you made me a promise to help me out of trouble and then you face some personal difficulties of your own, yet in the face of your difficulties, you fulfil your promise; that is the height of integrity. When political interests present a conflict that militates against the pursuit and realisation of our commitments and we buckle, we have demonstrated a deficit of integrity.

    In the matter on hand, the President must redeem his integrity. So must the Acting President of the Court of Appeal. The appeal of office should not be an obstacle for a man of integrity to show his moral muscle. If those who are in positions of leadership cannot lay good examples in the matter of the ethics of leadership, pray, what is the moral justification for their leadership?