Nigeria in the Wikileaks World

It is not easy to decide if Wikileaks and its leader Julian Assange are heros or villains? I support freedom of information, but is such freedom absolute or subject to some restraints or limits? Can international diplomacy, war, intelligence operations, multilateral cooperation and management of the modern corporation, be carried out in an environment in which all internal deliberations of diplomats, military commanders, intelligence agencies, multilateral organisations such as the United Nations, UNICEF or World Bank, and multinational corporations are liable to be splashed over the internet? As families and individuals, can we countenance a situation in which our private conversations with family members are splashed over public media?

On the other hand, isn’t it good for Nigerians to confirm some of our suspicions about the activities of some of our multinational corporations such as Julius Berger, Shell, Pfizer and others? Isn’t it nice that some of the stories which would have remained in the realm of speculation and deduction now have some credence-the things we wrote in our columns about say the provincial character of the Yar’adua administration; the rumours we heard about our erstwhile Attorney-General, Michael Aondoakaa’s penchant for demanding payment for official services; the allegations of corruption right at the top of the Yar’adua regime reaching according to US embassy officials right to first lady, Turai Yar’adua, Chief Economic Adviser, Tanimu Yakubu and Agriculture Minister, Sayaddi Abba Ruma. Now at least, these people have an obligation to deny the Wikileaks allegations or perhaps take them up with the US embassy? In short hasn’t wikileaks advanced the course of good governance and anti-corruption in Nigeria by these leaks?

These are the complex questions that the whole world will have to answer in the post-Wikileaks world! Surely, there are no easy answers. I would like diplomats to continue to offer accurate (and therefore sometimes unpleasant from the point of view of the subject) descriptions and evaluations of world leaders and other international actors in order that their nations can take the right decisions. If diplomats know that their vivid descriptions could one day show up in an internet blogsite, wouldn’t they circumscribe their communications? As some have pointed out, could Wikileaks inadvertently lead to a less-open and therefore less-transparent world as companies, organisations and nations carry out more and more of their internal decision-making orally rather than through diplomatic cables or fully-minuted meetings?

Concerning Nigeria, quite frankly beyond the corroboration, there is nothing that Wikileaks has revealed that should shock any observant Nigerian! Who would be surprised that Julius Berger flew the sick Umaru Yar’adua from Germany to Saudi Arabia? Didn’t they provide logistical support even for Sani Abacha’s self-perpetuation scheme? Why would anyone be surprised that Shell and the international oil companies would be dissatisfied with the initial draft of the petroleum industry bill, and would seek to improve the draft towards their own interests? Is that not what they have been doing since oil was discovered in Nigeria? Did the Nigerian government think Shell was a global do-gooder and Father Christmas when it agreed to second at its own expense several of its senior staff to our critical ministries and departments? Are there any enlightened Nigerians who are unaware of the role the British embassy played in pre-civil war Nigeria and which the US embassy played since then? Do we not know the roles played by US officials in “resolving” the “June 12” crisis? Is it strange to anyone that the US (and perhaps the EU as well) stressed their unwillingness to provide further bilateral or multilateral assistance to INEC if the discredited Professor Maurice Iwu remained its chair? For me, the really troubling revelation was the willingness of Pfizer to engage in dirty tricks and actual blackmail in order to compel Attorney-General Aondoakaa to back-off on his intended prosecution of the company.

With respect to President Goodluck Jonathan, I actually think the revelations cast him in better light than many critics have pointed out. As one newspaper analysis acknowledged, he comes across as sincere, committed to the national interest, statesmanly and not a desperate, self-seeking, politician like many of his contemporaries. When he acknowledges that he was not the best-qualified person for the vice-presidency in 2007 that is simply a statement of fact, but shows him off as high on emotional intelligence with a tendency to realistic self-assessment and self-deprecating nature. Contrary to what many Nigerian politicians believe, humility is a virtue, not a vice! While his assertion that he was selected to placate the Niger-Delta represents geo-political reality, his desire to focus on issues transcending the region casts him as a nationalist, rather than a sectional leader.

And of course, his comments about his level of experience were probably true in 2007 when he became the Vice-President. Surely since then the President has shown political dexterity in triangulating through the tension of the Yar’adua power vacuum and coming out with Nigeria in one piece. And since then Jonathan has consolidated his hold over the federal executive council, the military and security agencies and over large parts of the political space. What is interesting is to read the US ambassador’s mind as she continues to interact with Jonathan and concludes that perhaps it would not be a bad thing if he became Nigeria’s substantive president!

The Asiwaju Phenomenon

Some analysts are ambivalent about Asiwaju Bola Tinubu, former Lagos State Governor and Action Congress of Nigeria (ACN) grandmaster. He has been embroiled in the rough and tumble of Nigerian politics such that it may be difficult to extricate him from the associated deal making, graft, cronyism and gerrymandering. While core ACN members revere him, some voters, intellectuals and civil society may resent the perception that he almost single-handedly selects majority of ACN candidates for elected and appointive officers. The suspicion that he and/or his loyalists may consider dispensing with popular Lagos State Governor, Babatunde Raji Fashola upsets many, especially non-career politicians. The old controversies about his education, background and EFCC/US legal problems lurk in some minds.
I can understand that ambivalence. On one hand, in both elections Tinubu contested as Alliance for Democracy (AD) governorship candidate, I voted for him and legislative candidates presented by the parties. Incidentally I also voted for Tinubu as Senator during the Babangida transition.I supported Fashola, his nominee for the governorship in 2007. Ideologically I consider myself a progressive social democrat and endorse the focus on education, health, urban mass transit, infrastructure and social investment, the traditional AG/UPN/SDP/AD/ACN platform. And I have always recognised especially after Obasanjo’s sleight-of-hand against the AD in 2003 that Tinubu was the sole force that could roll-back the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP’s) undemocratic control of Yoruba land, especially during the Yar’adua Presidency when the South-West became de facto political orphans!
But I was also concerned that ACN has not sufficiently distinguished itself from the PDP and ANPP-lack of internal democracy; corruption and abuse of office; electoral malpractices; and failure to institute true people-oriented politics and governance are unfortunately common to all our major political parties. In my view, while PDP clearly did not win elections in the South-West in 2003 and 2007, it got away with stealing power because the AD leadership had taken the voters for granted. Majority of AD governments were incompetent, complacent, arrogant and uninspiring thus providing space to the PDP.
With current developments, we must all re-evaluate the Bola Tinubu phenomenon. Since his entry into politics, Tinubu has exercised decisive influence on his environment. I recall a brother who participated in the Sarumi faction during the tumultuous Sarumi/Agbalajobi battles in the Lagos State Social Democratic Party (SDP), always spoke about a certain Bola Tinubu’s whose entry galvanised the group and strengthened the faction’s hand. Tinubu was subsequently elected to the Senate in 1992 reportedly with the largest votes nationwide and became one of the most influential senators as Chairman of the powerful omnibus Banking, Finance, Appropriations and Currency Committee. Another brother who attended the SDP convention at which Chief MKO Abiola was chosen as presidential candidate in 1993 spoke about a hyperactive and ubiquitous Senator from Lagos whose presence could not be missed!
Tinubu subsequently became a pillar of the “June 12 Movement” which sought to actualise Abiola’s annulled June 12 mandate and later the National Democratic Coalition (NADECO) which fought Abacha’s dictatorship. He was a foremost NADECO strategist and leader-in-exile and was compensated by the NADECO/Afenifere leadership which formed the Alliance for Democracy (AD) as Lagos State Governor in 1999. To Tinubu’s credit, he has always seemed comfortable in the midst of intellectuals and accomplished professionals, putting together a cabinet which included Yemi Osinbajo, Olawale Edun, Yemi Cardoso, Dr Leke Pitan, Dele Alake, Tunji Bello, Dr Adebayo Adewusi etc. Perhaps it is partly access to robust quality debate and strategic advice that accounts for his administration’s policy initiatives, his political survival and the ACN’s recent successes.
Tinubu took on many political battles-quarrels with his deputies-Kofo Bucknor-Akerele and Femi Pedro, and the Afenifere leadership, who then opposed his re-election in 2003 through Ganiyu Dawodu and the Democratic Peoples Alliance (DPA); since 2003 he has sponsored friends and associates seeking political positions throughout the South-West; unending political and legal battles with Obasanjo and the PDP; taking on the responsibility of building a national opposition party; and his choice of Fashola as successor angered some wealthy supporters who sponsored Jimi Agbaje to run instead. These activities may have distracted his administration from accomplishing its ambitious development goals, but they are now clearly bearing fruit!
Fashola has vindicated his judgment; relentless battles to regain the South-West from PDP has seen Kayode Fayemi and Rauf Aregbesola take over in Ekiti and Osun States respectively; the take-over of Adams Oshiomole (ACN) and Segun Mimiko (Labour Party) in Edo and Ondo States bear his imprint; PDP is now effectively a minority party in Yoruba land holding vulnerably to Oyo and Ogun States; Tinubu is believed to be aiding DPP’s efforts to win the Sokoto governorship through the courts; and ACN is gaining membership across the country. Tinubu is now undoubtedly the pre-eminent political leader in Yoruba land and effective leader of opposition nationally, in effect laying claim to the mantle of Awolowo!
How will Tinubu use this power? Will he mold ACN into a truly progressive, social democratic alternative to the PDP? Will he be an enduring transformational leader, a transitional or situational figure or tragic hero? Will his protégés deliver governance that differentiates ACN from others and attracts other Nigerians to the party? Will he make the right choices in 2011 or might he make grave strategic miscalculations? How will history record him? Whatever you think about him, there must be something about this Bola Tinubu!!!

The Atiku Consensus

The “Northern Political Leaders Forum” (NPLF) led by Mallam Adamu Ciroma did not surprise me with their choice of Alhaji Abubakar Atiku as their “Northern consensus candidate” to challenge President Goodluck Jonathan for the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) presidential ticket in 2011. I recall a senior editor friend mentioning some weeks back that the NPLF was an Atiku stratagem to outwit his likely Northern rivals and Jonathan in grabbing Nigeria’s Presidency. My own review of most of the so-called “wise men” charged with selecting the NPLF’s candidate showed in most cases a clear link with Atiku. The Forum’s selection criteria also seemed designed to produce only one outcome-Atiku’s candidacy. The surprise is that perennial National Security Adviser General Aliyu Gusau, outgoing Kwara State Governor and Chairman of the Nigerian Governors Forum Dr Bukola Saraki and particularly ex-President Ibrahim Babangida (IBB), fell for it! Has the “maradona” magic been lost or was it in reality a “maradona” myth?

I hope the NPLF’s consensus marriage will live happily ever after, even though quite frankly I don’t expect it to! Ciroma and his colleagues adopted a model of leadership selection previously used by the Afenifere which in the run up to the 1999 elections picked Chief Olu Falae over Afenifere Deputy Leader, Chief Bola Ige. The parallels are striking-an ethnic grouping (NPLF/Afenifere) empanels a committee which purports to pick a candidate for a nationally-registered political party (PDP/Alliance for Democracy-AD). The aspirants are regional giants one of whom (IBB/Ige) is entitled to regard himself as presumptive nominee by virtue of seniority, long relationship with the selectors and entrenchment within the ethnic power structure. The “wise men” however select a “junior” aspirant (Atiku/Falae) and the perceived betrayal leads to accusations of treachery, bitterness and distrust which destroy the ethnic grouping’s internal cohesion. That exercise sowed the seeds for the end of Afenifere as we knew it. Let’s hope the NPLF’s fate will be different!

The other consequence was that the rest of the country declined to accept the Afenifere’s choice as national president been tainted irretrievably with an ethnic brush. President Jonathan quite wisely has started reminding the nation to “support the Nigerian consensus candidate” instead of accepting a “Northern consensus” or even the more narrow “NPLF Consensus” since it is probable that the choice of Atiku (unlike Afenifere’s choice of Falae) may not command unanimous Northern support. The NPLF’s process may also be strategically inferior to Afenifere’s in that Afenifere controlled the AD and already had an understanding with then All Peoples Party (APP) now All Nigeria Peoples Party (ANPP) that AD’s candidate would be the AD/APP alliance’s joint presidential candidate. The NPLF does not control the PDP and their nominee will yet have to overcome an incumbent president (and a Northern Vice-President) to secure the party ticket!

Having said that I hope the Goodluck-Sambo team does not overdo their jubilation over what they view as the NPLF’s sub-optimal selection of Atiku. IBB may have been formidable due to his national network of relationships; and a contest against Saraki may have been particularly unpredictable due to his hold over the Governors; but Atiku is no less formidable. Atiku has a vast political network; he is a pragmatic political strategist; and can easily build a nationwide organisation. He is good at cutting back-room political deals and while he and his Yar’adua Group have never quite built strong grassroots popularity, they have always been successful at intra-party scheming and manoeuvring. That is why General Yar’adua’s Peoples Front outwitted the Progressives within the Social Democratic Party (SDP) during the Babangida transition and the renamed Peoples Democratic Movement (PDM) led by Atiku after Yar’adua’s death, sidelined other groups in the PDP until the quarrel between Obasanjo and Atiku weakened the PDM base.

Atiku’s disadvantages-perceived lack of principle and consistency; and unending allegations of corruption are likely to be more harmful in a general election rather than intra-party primaries. Some may even argue that having a reputation for corruption may in fact be an advantage in the PDP primaries!!! If I were President Jonathan and his campaign strategists, we would cut short our celebrations, return to our war room and begin to reach out to actual convention delegates. Nevertheless while the NPLF route has strengthened Atiku’s chances as a PDP aspirant, it may have weakened his long-term positioning as a potential Nigerian president. Why should the school teacher in Oshogbo vote for Northern consensus? Why should a fisherman in Warri or Calabar accept that the Nigerian President should be selected by nine Northerners? Is the Middle-belt civil servant or Southern Kaduna farmer likely to endorse this choice? What stake has the lawyer or medical doctor in Enugu in this choice? And why should Northerners outside the NPLF accept its self-appointed role as leadership selectors for the whole region or the country?

The fear in some quarters that the NPLF is merely using the zoning argument in seeking to retain hegemony has been aided by reports of NPLF leader, Mallam Adamu Ciroma’s role as Chairman of the Governing Council of Ahmadu Bello University (ABU). Ciroma apparently sought to prevent Professor Andrew Nok (a Northerner from a minority area), who came clearly tops in the selection process for ABU’s Vice Chancellorship from been appointed in favour of an unqualified person from his own ethnic group. Can such an individual be trusted to select Nigeria’s president?

A Resurgent Nigerian State?

For more than a decade, the Nigerian state has been in retreat with multiple signs of state failure or even imminent collapse. Communal, ethnic, sectarian and religious riots in Warri, Aguleri-Umuleri, Sagamu, Ife-Modakeke, Andoni, Okrika, Bauchi, Kafanchan, Kaduna, Jos, Maiduguri and other parts of Nigeria were intermittent. The almost complete take-over of the Niger-Delta by so-called “militants”-in reality illiterate or poorly-educated, unemployed, misguided youths who had resorted to criminality partly in protests at state neglect but also for pecuniary sustenance in the absence of proper jobs illustrated state weakness. Outbreaks of religious violence across the North, most recently the “Boko Haram” crisis were recurrent.

The Niger-Delta crisis started with agitations by Ken Saro-Wiwa’s Ogonis against environmental devastation by Shell and Nigeria, but was soon followed by ethnic and communal crises as Urhobos, Itsekiris, Ijaws, Nembe etc fought against each other. Soon pure gangsterism took over as politicians deployed these veterans of inter-communal wars as political thugs and enforcers. In the Niger-Delta states, especially Rivers, Delta and Bayelsa, there was a clear link between violence and victory in the 1999 elections and thereafter. Once the politicians were settled in office, the thugs became autonomous gang leaders and later “militants”. The Nigerian government eventually offered a hastily-conceived “amnesty” basically admitting a balance of power with rag-tag armies of disparate and ill-organised “militant” groups.

Eastern Nigeria became a den of robbers and kidnappers with the Igbo elite abandoning their communities to criminal coalitions of emergency traditional rulers, kidnappers and armed robbers and their informants and watchmen (and women and children) to seek refuge in Abuja, Lagos, Port-Harcourt and Calabar. The two most important commercial centres in the East-Aba and Onitsha lost their vibrancy as banks, petrol stations and even markets closed under the onslaught of criminals. As armed robbers fled Fashola’s security measures in Lagos, they moved to neighbouring Ogun and Oyo states filling the vacuum in governance and policing, raiding banks at will and occasionally perhaps acting as part-time political assassins. In Ibadan, violent road transport workers became the state!

Highways in the North, especially around Kogi, Nasarawa, Abuja and other parts were seized by armed robbers with prominent citizens falling victim. Alhaji Abubakar Rimi died as a result of one such incident. The official response was to engage non-state vigilantes and powerful “medicine men” to keep the roads safe, again demonstrating the impotence of the state. Some years back, the Ajah area of the aspiring Lagos mega-city regularly erupted in urban warfare as “Olumegbon” and contending landowners battled for supremacy with guns, cutlasses, axes and charms usually in broad day light with residents fleeing for their lives and the police keeping a safe distance. Newspaper reports suggest a recent recurrence of the Ajah violence.

There were also more fundamental challenges to the powers of the state-declaration of Sharia by then Zamfara Governor Sani Yerima which spread across eleven states in Northern Nigeria in defiance of the Nigerian Constitution; suspicions that some “militants” and regional elite in the Niger-Delta perhaps desired not just “resource control” but may have been questioning the nation’s sovereignty and territorial integrity as well; “MASSOB” whose name made its strategic intent explicit-“Movement for the Actualisation of the Sovereign State of Biafra”; the Odua Peoples Conference (OPC) and other “self-determination” groups which in the aftermath of “June 12” and Abacha’s despotism questioned the rationale for Yorubas staying within Nigeria.

In recent times, labour (and even regional irredentists desperate for power to be “rotated” back to their “zone”) regularly threaten to “make the country ungovernable”. Power sector workers are eager to confront state policy and have shut down national electricity supply twice in the last three months. However the biggest act of contempt for the Nigerian state however was the Independence Day bombing, a dangerous escalation of the slide towards anarchy and an ineffective and impotent Nigerian state. However it does appear that the Jonathan administration and the new National Security Adviser, General Andrew Owoye Azazi may have recognised that the rationale for the existence of the Nigerian state is increasingly being lost and the introduction of bombings directed against the state may, if not checked, represent the final chapter in the process of state disempowerment and failure.

The Jonathan Presidency seems to have offered a strong response-routing kidnappers in the East who seized a bus load of school children, ensuring safe release of all the children; subsequent action by the military and police against kidnappers and criminals in eastern Nigeria that has reportedly led to the arrest of over 400 persons; the meticulous manner the State Security Services has been assembling evidence relating to the independence day (and the previously unresolved Warri) bomb blasts and arresting those implicated in these actions; detection of the Iranian armaments and heroine imports and strong security and diplomatic follow-up; and most recently the very successful (so far) military onslaught by the Joint Task Force (JTF) against the revival of “militancy” in the Niger-Delta, wiping out of militant camps, freeing of hostages and the surrender of several militant leaders and their men.

The early signs are that the Jonathan/Azazi/Petinrin/Ihejirika team is surprisingly shaping out as an effective national security team. Is it too soon to hope they can keep up this momentum and restore the powers, effectiveness and credibility of the Nigerian state?

Obama's "Shellacking"!!!

I did not expect to find “shellacking” in a conventional dictionary so I went online. Dictionary.com defined it as “an utter defeat”, “a sound thrashing” or “to defeat or trounce” while the World English Dictionary notes that it is a mainly US or Canadian slang meaning a “complete defeat” or “sound defeat”. I was subsequently surprised to find my good old New Webster’s Dictionary with essentially the same meaning-“to defeat by a very large margin”! By his own admission, that was what President Barack Obama and his fellow Democrats got from the Republicans in the recent US mid-term elections.
It was a stinging chastisement as Republicans picked up (at least) 60 House seats and 6 in the Senate taking the Republican tally to a House majority of 239 displacing Nancy Pelosi as Speaker, and narrow minority of 47 in the Senate, to the Democrats 186 and 52 respectively. It is clear that US voters delivered a categorical thumping to Obama who they had elected overwhelmingly just two years earlier. What is not so clear is why? The usual explanation is that it was about jobs and the economy; that US voters always punish incumbents for poor economic conditions; that Obama had done too little to convince voters he would restore jobs and prosperity. I would love to accept this conventional logic, but it just doesn’t seem to me like the whole truth!
I don’t believe American voters are so unsophisticated that they did not appreciate the scale of the economic and financial calamity Obama inherited from the Republicans. Did US voters really expect that the destruction of output, wealth and jobs wrought during the US Great Recession of 2008-2009 could be reversed in just two years? Could the voters have so completely forgotten that Republicans created the mess with their combination of wars, deficits and hands-off deregulation such that in anger, they would return power to the same Republicans? Could US voters be so angry about slow progress towards recovery that they would in effect vote for no progress at all that the new gridlock would lead to? Did Obama’s fundamental actions on economic stimulus, healthcare reform and financial sector regulation count for nothing at all? If this is the whole truth, would it not reflect badly on the utilitarian value of democracy and suggest that the masses may often act against their own enlightened self-interest?
But as I mentioned earlier I am not convinced this was all about jobs and the economy! For one I suspect a major failure of political strategy and communication on the part of the Democrats who appeared tentative, timid and lacking self-assurance as they abandoned the political space to the “Tea Party” onslaught. Obama himself continues in pursuit of his idealistic but elusive America that is neither red nor blue; neither Democratic nor Republican; neither liberal nor conservative. Of course political realities may be different as angry conservatives deployed everything in their vast political and financial arsenal towards undermining and destroying him.
I suspect this was also about campaign finance. The US Supreme Court may have delivered an enduring strategic advantage to the Republicans with the ruling removing caps on corporate political donations. So while individuals, who form the bulk of Democratic donors, have restrictions on their political donations, companies who favour mostly Republicans may make unlimited campaign contributions. That advantage may have had decisive impact on this race, and except that ruling is reversed, future races as well.
Deploying their financial advantage in organisation and advertising, the Republicans and their Tea Party allies successfully but unjustifiably demonised Obama as an anti-business liberal engaged in wealth re-distribution and seeking to over-tax and over-regulate businesses; a socialist who wanted to nationalise the economy and spend his way to recovery; and a statist who through healthcare and other policies would foster big government and lead a government take-over of citizens’ rights and lives. All these supported with barely-disguised racism and “we want our America back” posturing from the pulpit, conservative rallies and Fox News Channel! The Democrats never quite rose to the propaganda challenge and failed to summon the energy and enthusiasm to confront Republican and Tea Party scaremongering. Unfortunately Obama was professorial rather than engaging. He assumed that the facts would speak for him, and that reason would prevail over disinformation and fear, and failed to connect at an empathic level with independents and even Democrats.
I suspect right-wing demonization of Obama proved devastating due to a “pre-existing condition”-American voters were themselves increasingly unsure of Obama on the issue of “American values” even if they couldn’t say so to pollsters. What did Obama really believe in? Who is he? Is he an American or Kenyan? A Christian or Muslim? A centrist or far-left liberal? Why does he seem overtly focused on the Islamic world? Why does he support the “Ground Zero” mosque? Why did he bow waist-level before the Saudi King? Will he abandon Israel under pressure? Is he determined to elevate the place of gays and lesbians in US society? I suspect that not being sure of where Obama seeks to lead US society on these “cultural” issues, American Republicans and Independents voted to impose restraints on his power. And many Democrats, acquiesced by staying at home!

Fela's Foresight

I have always wanted to write about Fela! Fela Anikulapo-Kuti. In the wake of this year’s “Felabration”, I found enough incentive so to do, even though politics and business disturbed my timeline. Why would an otherwise serious column dedicated to “Economy, Polity, Society” find Fela a worthwhile subject? The answer is that Fela transcended all of these spheres. Indeed my basic thesis is that Fela was ahead of his time and his generation in his pioneering thinking in relation to Nigeria’s socio-political development, and oftentimes in relation to global politics as well.

Consider Fela’s song, “Zombie”, a stinging rebuke of the Nigerian military institution and rejection of military rule which had turned Nigeria and many other African and third world nations into huge military garrisons. At this time when Fela found military incursion into civilian life and national leadership an abominable desecration, professors of law, political science and other intellectuals, lawyers and civil servants were happily serving under the military. It was not until the progressive (or rather regressive) march of military rule turned full circle with the Abachas that intellectual thought in our universities, professional associations and chambers of commerce evolved into a consciousness that military rule could no longer be tolerated-decades after Fela!

Or consider Fela’s “Authority Stealing” which was a frontal assault on corruption and the selfish abuse of office by Nigerian political office holders and civil servants. Fela recognised that “…authority stealing pass armed robbery” in its destruction of the national economy, denial of social services and infrastructure to millions of Nigerians and its ultimately deleterious impact on the nation and the destiny of its masses. As Fela argued while one armed robber could destroy one or two lives at a time, a pen robber by one stroke could destroy a million lives, denying them schools, hospitals, social welfare, power and other necessities of a fulfilled life. It took us several decades after Fela before corruption came unto the national agenda with the ICPC and EFCC.

Our people’s docility and lack of political activism also engaged Fela’s attention long before NGOs and so-called “civil society organisations” and at a time when the foreign ministries of the western powers thought the best way to protect their interests was through African strong men or their corrupt civilian counterparts. In “Suffering and Smiling”, Fela railed against the abject conditions of public transportation (“…49 sitting 99 standing…”) and other aspects of the standard of living of our people and wondered why they continued to smile and tolerate the wickedness of their rulers. But then Fela understood. As he sang, our people will do anything to stay alive, even if they were living an existence which was next to sub-human. “I no wan die, mama dey for house; papa dey for house; I wan build house; I wan buy car”, Fela sang, recognising the endless, sometimes unrealistic hope for a better tomorrow which push our people against radical political or social action to improve their conditions. Fela anticipated the peculiar bastardisation of “demo-crazy” that we would later see from 1999 to date. He regarded the mockery of democracy that we witnessed during the Shagari regime and the Babangida experiments as a demonstration of madness (craze).

Fela’s thinking also explored economics, international relations and even aspects of sociology. He sang for instance about inflation and its effects on the purchasing power and living standards of the people, illustrating with the story of the unfortunate Nigerian who was saving to buy some appliance, whose price kept moving up, as our victim manages to assemble enough funds to buy the coveted item. He sang about the menace of multinational corporations which encouraged corruption in third world countries using MKO Abiola’s ITT as the example. “International Thief Thief” he parodied. At this time the US and other developed nations had no problems with their corporations bribing and corrupting third world nations. It is significant that such activities as Fela sang about are now illegal under the US Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and even private sector organisations from developed nations are obliged under laws such as Sarbannes-Oxly to adopt higher and more noble standards of conduct. Many years after Fela!

Fela sang about the United Nations, about the oddity of the veto wielded by the US, UK, China, Russia and France, wondering how united an assembly that harboured Britain and Argentina; Libya and the US; and Iran and Iraq could be. Fela of course dismissed the UN as a “disunited United Nations”! He sang about Africa as the “centre of the world” projecting the mantra later adopted by our foreign policy establishment as “Africa as the centre piece of our foreign policy”. Fela also sang about social phenomenon-the inferiority complex and neo-colonial mindset fostered by “colonial mentality”; about the penchant of ladies to do “shakara" when propositioned by men; the critical role of water in human existence in “water no get enemy” (today global NGOs are also on to that); about the desire of Africans to look fair-skinned (still that inferiority complex) in “yellow fever” and other social tensions in “palava”!

Fela was ahead of his time. Unfortunately as happens to geniuses who can’t understand why the environment around them can’t see what they see, Fela may have snapped and become a social, economic and political rebel. His ultimate vindication is that decades after his songs, we have finally found our way to accept all his arguments.

Which "MEND" is this?

Several readers have wondered why I have had nothing to say (till now) about the Independence Day bomb blasts in Abuja on October 1, 2010. The answer is not far-fetched-it was clear to me that whoever planned the incident was selling us a storyline which they hoped we would swallow uncritically. I can detect choreography when I see one, and I can tell the difference between truth and propaganda! So it was wise and prudent in my view to suspend judgment, analyse the facts and see what pattern emerges.

A pre-bomb warning and post-bomb claim of responsibility was attributed to the so-called “Movement for the Emancipation of the Niger-Delta” (“MEND”). The objectives of MEND should thus include economic emancipation (in terms of resources, employment and wealth creation, infrastructure and economic development), environmental remediation and advancing political interests of the Niger-Delta. It is difficult to see how the Abuja bomb blasts could have been in pursuit of these objectives! For the first time in Nigeria’s history, a Niger-Delta indigene was at the helm of affairs in the country, and had been in that position for less than six months, a period in which he had appointed Niger-Deltans to the petroleum, foreign affairs and Niger-Delta ministries and had already awarded major infrastructural contracts in the region.

What can we deduce instead as the strategic objectives of the Abuja bombers? It would seem these were to prevent the 50th independence anniversary celebrations from holding and thus prevent Jonathan from having his day in the sun; discredit the Jonathan administration; undermine Jonathan politically by seeking to show that he lacked home support in the Niger-Delta and would be unable to resolve the Niger-Delta crisis; and weaken his chances of winning the 2011 presidency. How on earth can these be consistent with the interests of the Niger-Delta? Why would a movement seeking Niger-Delta emancipation pursue these objectives? I think we can dismiss altogether the possibility that the bombings had anything to do with the Niger-Delta!

But it appears clear that Henry Okah was involved in the bombings. From my investigations (information which is at least one year old) Henry Okah was an arms dealer who sold arms to all the militant factions in the Niger-Delta. His primary motivation appears always to have been commercial though by virtue of his positioning as “logistics supplier” to the less-educated militants, he may have secured some influence over them. It is thus not inconceivable (especially as the Niger-Delta amnesty has in effect undermined his thriving arms sales operation) that Okah’s involvement was motivated by commerce rather than any emancipatory considerations! So the focus of enquiry perhaps should be who has the motives, incentives and capacity to engage Okah’s services if indeed he had been contracted to provide terrorist services by some employers? Alternatively was Okah attempting to blackmail the Jonathan presidency into providing him an “amnesty subsidy” to replace the revenue flow from the sales of weapons and ammunition to militants?

There are concerns however beyond Henry Okah. There does seem, as I mentioned earlier some choreography around the bomb blasts in particular involving Al Jazeerah, which broadcast a news item purporting to show a MEND camp and demonstrate that MEND was re-arming around the time of the blasts; and followed up with an interview with Henry Okah in which he claimed that President Jonathan had tried to induce him to implicate “Northerners” in the bomb blasts. Who organised and facilitated these Al Jazeerah activities? Was the correlation between the timing of the bomb blasts and the Al Jazeerah story “happenstance, co-incidence or enemy action”? Why would Okah who is purportedly seeking Niger-Delta emancipation (presumably from Nigerian hegemony exercised mostly by “Northerners”) become the spokesperson and defender of “Northerners” against a Niger-Delta President? Why would Okah appear to be going out of his way to seek to destroy the Jonathan presidency? Who will be the beneficiaries if the Jonathan presidency is destroyed? MEND? The Niger-Delta? Who? Again the focus of enquiry should also be around these questions.

Subsequent to the bomb blasts, over 60 former MEND field commanders including all the known militant leaders visited Jonathan and disclaimed any connection to the bombing. “Tompolo” in particular asserted categorically that he was the leader of MEND, and that MEND had nothing to do with the blasts.

Any doubts about the explicitly political objectives of the independence day “MEND” appear to have been dissolved by the latest “MEND” statement issued a few days ago which sought to scare people away from Goodluck Jonathan/Namadi Sambo campaigns and accused Jonathan of disuniting the country. It is very probable from the language and content of that release that the writer was not even from the Niger-Delta! The mind-set is of an individual or group aggrieved by the Jonathan presidency and his intent to contest in 2011!!!

So while it has been politically correct to blame President Jonathan for trying to delink the bomb blast and MEND from the bomb blast, I would in fact affirm strongly that even though Jonathan was angered, rattled or incensed by the bomb blasts and therefore spoke prematurely, his basic instincts were correct! It is impossible based on rational analysis to conclude that the bombs were detonated on behalf of the Niger-Delta.

The truth may be closer to Abuja than Port Harcourt, Warri or Yenagoa!!!

Another 50 Years of Elite Failure???

On October 1, 2010 Nigeria celebrated fifty years of national independence. What should we celebrate? Success? The absence of failure? That we did not break up and remain one (dis) united country? We are better than Liberia, Sierra Leone, Burundi, Haiti etc? We always step back from the brick? We have huge size, large population, big cities, many states, capital market, NNPC, many universities, polytechnics, teaching hospitals, general hospitals, airlines, seaports and airports, refineries and industries?

But then what is the point of many universities which don’t teach much? And whose graduates can hardly find jobs? Hospitals without drugs? Refineries which don’t work? A poorly-regulated capital market? Big unplanned urban slums? Large population, seventy percent of whom live in poverty and semi-poverty? Why stay as one country if every decision is subject to “zoning”, “federal character”, “quota” or “rotation”? Why stay together and kill yourselves every now and then? In short even those things which we claim to celebrate are questionable! Nevertheless I think we can celebrate our RESILENCE as a people …OUR SELF –CONFIDENCE, UNBROKEN SPIRIT …OUR ABILITY TO LAUGH AT OURSELVES. And to keep going!!!

Unfortunately, we celebrate SUB-OPTIMALITY! Why not channel these attributes to achieving success, rather than merely avoiding failure, disaster or even tragedy? My fundamental diagnosis is that Nigeria’s problem is ELITE FAILURE!!! A bureaucratic elite that merely stepped into the shoes of departing colonial civil servants; A political elite that retained all trappings of colonial government and failed to build an integrated national elite; A traditional elite who traded off their people’s interests first to slave traders…then colonial masters… and now their new indigenous political elite; A professional elite that adapted quickly to the demands of the new rulers-for bribes, complicity, silence, co-option…whatever!; A military elite that regarded their compatriots as “bloody civilians” just like the colonial army regarded us as “bloody natives”; a business elite that is rent-seeking rather than entrepreneurial; Ethnic and regional elites who prevented the creation of a nation and sense of national purpose; An academic elite that allowed its will to be crushed, its dignity to be eroded and became civil servants or politicians!

Are the elite the president, legislators and governors, politicians and civil servants, and the very wealthy? No. That failed elite includes all those who can read this article!!! As the Bible says, “For all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God” (Romans 3: 23). We all think in ethnic, nepotistic and self serving perspectives! Most do not vote or even register to vote! We all do not want to die so we compromise, or keep quiet! As Fela sang, ‘I no wan die, mama dey for house; papa dey for house; pickin dey for house; I wan build house; I wan buy car’’. Most pay and receive bribes. We all go for holidays in London, NY, Dubai and never take local holidays! We accept mediocre services from public and private sector organisations! Most shun politics, civil society, NGO s etc and dismiss those who do as “social critics” We all acquiesce (and some actively participate) in election rigging!!! People embezzle IKOYI CLUB, Residents Association, PTA or other community funds! Most do not know their councillors, LG chairmen, House of Assembly members, Representatives or Senators! Some bribe teachers, swimming instructors at Ikoyi Club, school principals etc to favour our children! I hear some spend immense resources on primary and secondary school prefects’ elections to ensure their children win! We send our kids to school in other countries, and complain about the quality of education in Nigeria. At the very least, we usually do nothing except complain, or worse still just keep quiet.

In 2060, will we “celebrate’’ 100 years of avoiding failure, stepping back from the brick, being big and populous or just remaining one nation? Will our elite remain blind to its own self –interest and destructive in its short-termism and selfishness? Will we still embezzle health and education budgets hoping to send our family members to school or hospitals abroad? Will we refuse to put in place train systems and free up the roads for our exotic cars? Buy the latest jeeps and salons, but drive them on potholed roads because another jeep owner has stolen the money meant for road maintenance? Destroy financial and capital markets through sharp practices making everyone, rich and poor, loose massive amounts of capital in the process?

That is the challenge of the Nigerian elite as we ‘celebrate’’ this 50 year independence anniversary. Will the next 50 years be different……and better? Whether we like it or not, we are a part of that elite. By parenthood, education, professional attainment, employment, income and social status, we are part of the upper 5% of the Nigerian population that has failed to lead this nation in the right direction, The Bible says, ‘ By their fruits, you shall know them’’ So far, after 50 years, our fruits are not savoury. May be we can pull out the bad seeds, and plant again…. this time better seeds? Or may be, as usual, we will pray that somehow, miraculously, God will transform the bad seeds into goods fruits, which I believe he can choose to do, but I also know he says “faith without works is nothing!” Or may be we will just complain, or keep quiet and do NOTHING. Or MAY BE NOT!

Questions for the Candidates

As my contribution towards refocusing the 2011 elections towards the candidates qualifications, antecedents, policies and programmes, I have developed some questions which I (and I am sure many Nigerians) will like addressed by the candidates. I urge the media, civil society and all Nigerians to direct these questions to them and invite the candidates and their campaign organisations to provide responses.

General Muhammadu Buhari

1. Do you regret the killing of drug traffickers under retroactive legislation during your regime? 2. Do you now agree that retroactive criminal laws are an abuse of human rights? 3. Why did you lock up all political office holders, and set their leader, President Shehu Shagari free? 4. How did you arrive at the decision that you announced then that Vice President Alex Ekwueme and not President Shagari was responsible for the corruption witnessed during the 1979-1983 civilian regime? 5. What is your view about the Late General Sani Abacha’s regime? 6. Do you still hold the view which you and your other military colleagues announced sometime back at Abacha’s memorial that he did no wrong? 7. Why did you serve in the regime of General Abacha? 8. Did you ever complain to Abacha about corruption, human rights abuses, murder of Kudirat Abiola, or the jailing of your former Commander-in Chief, General Obasanjo? 9. Did you discuss the death of General Shehu Yar’adua with Abacha? 10. Do you think there is any veracity to allegations of corruption in the PTF which you headed during Abacha’s reign? 11. As Minister of Petroleum Resources during the so-called $2.8 billion affair, can you shed light on what really happened? 12. Do you believe in press freedom? 13. Do you regret enacting Decree 4 which restricted press freedom? 14. Do you regret jailing Nduka Irabor and Tunde Thompson of the Guardian under that obnoxious decree? 15. Do you agree that Decree 4 was obnoxious? 16. As military Head of State, you ruled out a transition to civil rule; indeed you are the only military ruler Nigeria has ever had, who never announced a transition to civil rule. Do you now believe in democracy? 17. Can you assure Nigerians that you will not abolish democracy in place of rule by Decree if you become President? 18. Is it a coincidence that you have been involved in Nigeria’s two most repressive military regimes- yours and Abacha? 19. Are you a democrat by instinct? 20. Do you believe in fundamental human rights? 21. During your regime, you showed little understanding of the economy. Are you now better equipped to deal with economic issues? 22. What is your economic philosophy? 23. Why have you never outlined a concrete economic or policy programme in your previous attempts at running for the Presidency? 24. Can you explain the”53 suit cases” matter which happened during your regime? 25. Your regime embarked on a controversial “counter-trade” scheme which reportedly became an avenue for corruption. Can you shed light on what really happened? 26. Why is it that you have never commented on the annulment of the June 12, 1993 elections? 27. Do you believe the annulment was wrong? 28. Did you ever discuss Abacha’s self-perpetration scheme with him? 29. Why is it that while Obasanjo and Yar’adua got into trouble with Abacha, you retained his confidence and trust, evidenced by the fact that you served in his government without any conflict between two of you? 30. How do you reconcile your reputation as incorrupt with your tenure as Minister of Petroleum under General Obasanjo; PTF Chairman, (PTF in particular was allegedly riddled with corruption) under General Abacha’a corrupt government; and the regime you headed as Head of State’s counter-trade scandal?

General Ibrahim Babangida

1. Your regime announced a transition to civil rule for 1990. Why did you shift it to 1992? 2. Why did you shift again from 1992 to 1993? 3. Do you believe Nigerians are entitled to know why the June 12, 1993 elections were annulled? 4. Will you explain that now? 5. You were Military President when Dele Giwa was killed through a parcel bomb, an unprecedented and unusual development in Nigeria. Was your government interested in finding out who killed him? 6. What did you discover and what can you tell Nigerian about the death of Dele Giwa? 7. When you were “stepping aside” you retired all the service chiefs but left General Sani Abacha in office. Why did you do this? 8. Why do you think Nigerians accuse you of institutionalising a culture of “settlement” in Nigeria? 9. Can you shed light to Nigerians and the family of Major-General Mamman Vatsa the events leading to his death? 10. The educational sector was virtually crippled due to strikes, cultism, brain drain and poor funding during your regime. Why did this happen? 11. The same factors in the education sector manifested in the health sector. Again can you shed light on why this happened? 12. Do you believe at 69 years of age, you are strong and sufficiently mentally alert to rule a complex and dynamic nation like Nigeria? 13. Why are you predicating your claim to power on an ethnic or regional claim to power, rather than policies and programmes? 14. Will you have a First Lady as President? 15. Your son’s generation are leaders in USA and UK. Why do you believe Nigeria’s case should be different? 16. Can you shed light on this vexed issue of the Okigbo Report and so-called Gulf war windfall? 17. General Salihu Ibrahim described the Nigerian Army under you, as “an army of any thing is possible” .Do you believe you contributed to de-professionalising the army when you were in power? 18. Many commentators accuse your regime of eroding national values. Why do you think phenomena such as corruption, 419, etc are traced and associated in popular consciousness with your regime? 19. What is your view about corruption? 20. Do you think you will have the credibility with Nigerians and the international community to fight corruption? 21. During your regime, professional and civil society institutions such as NBA, NMA, NANS, NLC and the media appeared to have been systematically subverted. Do you accept this viewpoint? 22. Do you accept responsibility for our present un-ideological party system due to the strenuous effects of your government to banish “extremists” and “old breed” politicians from the political space? 23. Do you believe in democracy? 24. Why did you ban certain categories of politicians from politics? 25. You threatened many times that you know those who will not succeed you and decreed into existence government sponsored political parties. Do you believe such actions are compatible with democracy? 26. You were referred to as “Maradona”, “evil genius” and you seemed to relish such characterizations. Do you believe a leader should dribble and manipulate the citizens? 27. Do you believe in transparency, openness and accountability in government? 28. In your view, why is it that in spite of relative domination of power by “Northern” leaders, such as yourself, poverty and illiteracy remains predominant in the Northern States? 29. You have ruled Nigeria for 8 years. Why do you want to rule again? 30. What is your vision for Nigeria? Is it different from the one you had while you were in power?

General Aliyu Gusau

1. Your entire career has been in the military and security services and Nigerians know very little about you or what you believe in. Do you think it is necessary in a democracy for the people to know who their prospective leaders are? 2. Can you share your social, political, economic and other views and programmes with us? 3. Your ambition seems predicted entirely on “zoning” and the “North’s” entitlement to the presidency. Why are you not basing your ambition on your competences, qualifications and programmes for the presidency? 4. There was a recent newspaper report which stated that there was an agreement between you, IBB and Abacha for each of you to rule Nigeria in turns. Is this claim true? 5. Can you shed light in your role in the events leading to, and the aftermath of the June 12 1993 elections? 6. You were a major player in the Murtala/Obasanjo, Buhari, Babangida, Abdulsalam and Obasanjo regimes even though Nigeria know little about your role in these governments. Can you explain what actions, policies and initiatives you carried out during these regimes? 7. Do you believe military rule was a disservice to Nigeria? 8. Would you support, in any circumstances, a return to military rule in Nigeria? 9. Do you think your advocacy of power returning to the north as a MUST can compromise the unity of Nigeria? 10. What concrete policies and programmes can Nigeria expect from your government?

Dr Bukola Saraki

1. You were defacto CEO in your family bank, Societe Generale Bank which is now distressed. Can you explain to Nigerians what happened to that Bank? 2. There are allegations that the EFCC conducted an investigation which indicted you and some other members of your family regarding management of the Bank. Is there any truth to these allegations? 3. You are the out going governor of Kwara state. Do you consider Kwara State a democracy? 4. Most Nigerians perceive Kwara state as ruled exclusively by your family. Is this a fair allegation? 5. Can Nigerians expect that as President you will seek to replicate the system of politics in Kwara state all over Nigeria? 6. Some analysts suggest that you have indeed attempted through your activities as Chairman of the Governors Forum to export the “Kwara Style” of politics to the national level. How would you react to this accusation? 7. Do you believe in openness and transparency in governance? 8. If yes, can you explain in details the structure, ownership, operations and financing of the so –called” Zimbabwean White farmers” transaction? 9. As a “new generation” aspirant, do you believe leaders should be selected on the basis of their character, qualifications, antecedents and performance? 10. If yes, why are you joining the coalition of “Northern aspirants in the PDP in coming out with a “Northern” consensus candidate to oppose President Jonathan? 11. Do you believe such actions advance unity and cohesion in the Nigeria Federation? 12. Do you believe such actions reflect a new way of thinking? 13. Many Nigerians regard you as a member of the “Cabal” that tried to prevent President Jonathan from taking office doing the late President Yar’adua’s illness. Can you shed light on your role during this trying period in Nigeria is history? 14. How do you think the issue of your successor in Kwara state should be handled? 15. Do you believe your sister is the best person to succeed you as Kwara state Governor?

Mallam Nuhu Ribadu

1. What are your plans and programmes if you are elected President of Nigeria? 2. As a lawyer, do you respect human rights and fundamental freedoms of the citizens? 3. While your commitment to the anti-corruption crusade in Nigerian is commendable, can you defend all your activities as EFCC chairman? 4. Do you believe it was right to use EFCC as a tool for securing impeachment of Governors as you once did? 5. Do you think it was right to use the EFCC to attempt to bar ex-President Obasanjo‘s “enemies” from contesting elections? 6. Can you assure Nigerians that as President, you would not abuse the power of the office in dealing with your opponents and critics? 7. What criteria would you adopt in selecting your running mate, ministers and other appointees? 8. What is your vision for Nigeria? 9. Do you believe you have the maturity and disposition to govern Nigeria? 10. Why did you select the ACN as your platform for seeking the Presidency?

Alhaji Abubakar Atiku

1. You were elected Governor of Adamawa State, before your elevation to the Vice Presidency, whereupon your Deputy and protégé, Bonnie Haruna took over as Governor. What were the achievements of the PDP government of Haruna, which you established in Adamawa State during its 8- year tenure? 2. Do you agree that as then leader and inspiration for the PDP in Adamawa, the performance or non-performance of Haruna’s government in Adamawa reflects on you? 3. It is curious that in spite of having been at or near top of Nigeria’s politics and government for almost two decades, Nigerians cannot clearly define your political philosophy, principles, policies and programmes. What do you believe in as a leader and politician? 4. Do you believe you are a principled politician? 5. Can you be validly accused of expediency, opportunism and lack of principle given your movement from PDP to AC and back to PDP again? Does this suggest that you will do anything or go anywhere to get power? 6. Why do you think you have a reputation with most Nigerians as a corrupt politician? 7. How did you amass, what is believed to be your vast wealth? 8. What is your net worth as an individual? 9. Do you believe Nigerians are entitled to know how rich you are and how you obtained your wealth? 10. Do you believe in the Freedom of Information Bill? 11. Do you believe in openness, transparency and accountability in governance? 12. Some analysts believe that predicating your 2011 presidential ambition on “Northern” claim to power has damaged your reputation as a nationalist. Will you govern as a national or “Northern” president if elected as president? 13. Do you believe corruption is probably Nigeria’s most important challenge? 14. How will you deal with the issue of corruption? 15. Nigerians remain unclear about the “Jefferson Affair” in the US in which you were mentioned. Can you clarify what happened? 16. What is your vision for Nigeria? 17. What policies, programmes and initiatives will you pursue if elected Presidents? 18. Some analysts argue that the Obasanjo regime made more progress in the second term when you were more-or-less marginalised. Do you agree with this observation? 19. Nigerians believe the customs service is a corrupt organisation. As a former customs officer, how will you reform this vital institution? 20. Why should Nigerians elect you President?

President Goodluck Jonathan

1. What were your achievements as Deputy Governor and Governor of Bayelsa State and as Acting President and Substantive President? 2. What programmes and policies would you execute if elected in 2011? 3. I personally believe your power sector roadmap is credible. What assurance can you give Nigerians on its implementation? 4. What criteria will you adopt in selecting your ministers and other appointees if elected? 5. Why did you acquiesce in the demands by Governors to deplete the “excess crude account”? 6. When will the Sovereign Wealth Fund which you promised be established? 7. How do you propose to tackle crime, insecurity, kidnapping and other vices that detract from security in Nigeria? 8. What is your programme on anti-corruption? 9. Do you believe the current EFCC is doing a good job? How will you re-invigorate the activities of the organisation? 10. Your appointment of Professor Jega as INEC Chair and the prompt release of funds to him are commendable. What assurances can you give Nigerians on the 2011 elections? 11. You have taken a good step towards government openness, transparency and communication with citizens by engaging with Nigerians through facebook. Do you believe the freedom of Information Bill will further entrench public communication and accountability? 12. What are your programmes for the social sector -Education, Health, Employment Generation, Social Welfare, etc? 13. What are your thoughts on leveraging Nigeria’s potential as a transportation hub in West Africa and Africa? Do you have any plans to revitalise the rail sector? 14. Have you read the Mines and Minerals Act 2007? Do you agree that if properly administered, solid minerals can bring huge amount of investments, jobs and public revenue? What are you doing to realize this potential? 15. What are your views on modernising agriculture and land reform? 16. Do you have a plan for urban housing and mass transit? 17. What are your views on Nigeria’s foreign policy and national defence strategy? 18. Some commentators have accused you of making changes in the armed forces, police and SSS for political reasons. Can you explain why you changed the service chiefs? 19. In your view, what should be the role of “first ladies” in national life? 20. What is your vision for Nigeria by 2015?

Nigeria: Forward or Backward? Part 3

I wrote parts 1 and 2 of this series on April 28 and May 5 2010 concerned at our predilection for “looking backwards rather than forward in our national life”. I reviewed the interest of different candidates in the post-2011 presidency and challenged Nigerians to “look forward, carefully and meticulously for a new, more promising leadership” as looking backwards will not provide the quality of leaders we need. Don’t they say that madness is doing the same thing continuously and hoping to get different results? Now as 2011 electoral battlefield formations become clear, I have chosen to return to the subject.

The Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) presidential line-up may be complete-incumbent President Goodluck Jonathan, former military ruler General Ibrahim Babangida, former Vice-President Atiku Abubakar; former Chief of Army Staff and two-time National Security Adviser General Aliyu Gusau and outgoing Kwara State Governor Dr Bukola Saraki. The Congress for Progressive Change (CPC) is the only party whose candidate is certain-former military dictator, General Muhammadu Buhari! The renamed Action Congress of Nigeria (ACN) may feature Dr Usman Bugaje or Mallam Nuhu Ribadu but Ribadu may also opt to contest through another party. The All Nigeria Peoples Party (ANPP) may feature MKO Abiola’s opponent in the 1993 election Alhaji Bashir Tofa, Kano State Governor Alhaji Ibrahim Shekarau, or Babangida, Atiku or Gusau if, as seems likely they lose the PDP’s nomination to Jonathan. Others in the frame may be ex-Governor Donald Duke, Professor Pat Utomi (who may also make the controversial move of running as Buhari’s deputy), Pastor Kris Okotie, Mr Dele Momodu and Mrs Sarah Jubril.

In this line-up, Babangida, Atiku, Gusau, Buhari and Tofa represent backward-looking options. I would argue that Nigeria has since July 1998, when General Abdulsalam Abubakar became transitional military head of state, being engaged in a transition from an old to a new Nigeria. Abdulsalam played his part by returning the country swiftly to civilian rule in May 1999. President Obasanjo contributed by embarking on telecommunications deregulation, pension reform, banking consolidation, securing the Paris Club debt write-off thus giving the nation a new economic lease of life and restoring Nigeria to its place in the comity of nations after our Abacha-induced international isolation. Obasanjo of course also set us back some steps with the quality of elections conducted in 2003 and 2007.

Late President Yar’adua chipped in through the Niger-Delta amnesty. He however failed to advance economic development, particularly the power sector where he abandoned the Electric Power Sector Reform Act 2005 in favour of a failed state-led strategy designed by Rilwanu Lukman. In his short stay in office, President Goodluck Jonathan has moved ahead through his power sector roadmap; the prospect of credible elections and constitution of a credible INEC led by Professor Attahiru Jega and its increased financial autonomy; fostering government-citizen communication and accountability through his Facebook page and other actions; equalisation of opportunities in political, military and security positions for all geo-political regions in the country through balanced appointments and particularly with his appointment of an Igbo officer as Chief of Army Staff.

The biggest error Nigeria can make is to take forward movement for granted and risk reversal with the election of IBB, Buhari, Atiku, Gusau and Tofa! And this is not about their age!!! These candidates have a template for thinking about Nigeria that is shaped by the regional/ethnic politics and turmoil of the first republic; the bloody 1966 coup and its aftermath; the civil war of 1967 to 1970; military rule and the development of the unitarist Nigerian state; oil boom and revenue “sharing”; contractor-capitalism and the prebendal, distributive, consumption economy; and the lack of political and citizen accountability of the Buhari, Babangida and Abacha years. They seem incapable of relating to the new Nigeria as evidenced by for instance, defence of regional platforms; power claims based on irredentist paradigms; and the arrogance involved in their assumption that they can intimidate President Jonathan out of the race. They appear not to understand the changes in Nigeria’s civil society, impact of telecommunications, broadcast, internet and social networking revolutions on Nigeria’s emerging politics and emerging role of youth, media and civil society in defining national direction.

Unfortunately even a young candidate like Bukola Saraki demonstrates similar failure to understand the emerging new Nigeria, when he joins in building a “Northern” coalition with other anti-Jonathan candidates within the PDP. That mindset is set in Northern Peoples Congress (NPC) and National Party of Nigeria (NPN) politics and not in the Nigeria of 2010! Not surprisingly accomplices in such out-dated strategy include Adamu Ciroma, Lawal Kaita, Tanko Yakassai, Bello Kirfi and other pre-millennial, septuagenarian, regional champions!!! Such attitudes reflect a fixation on the unhelpful and discredited ways of our past!

I think Nigerians should move on and refuse to acquiesce in the abortion of the transition to a new Nigeria by ignoring those steeped in the old one. When Ambassador John Campbell writes about a “Muslim North” and “Christian South” and exaggerates the possibility of a military coup, he talks about the old Nigeria. Yes the new is still emerging, but Nigerians have no reason to accept a return to the fading old Nigeria!

Operation Sweep!!!

President Jonathan carried out a clean sweep of the military and security leadership on Wednesday September 8, 2010 replacing the Army, Navy, Air Force, Police and State Security Service (SSS) heads and promoting the former Air Force Chief Air Marshall Oluseyi Petinrin to Chief of Defence Staff. With that action, Jonathan’s transition to the full powers of the executive presidency of Nigeria, which started when his predecessor took ill in November 2009, is now complete. Some might argue, with some justification that the transition actually began in 2007 when the PDP named a candidate with a known history of serious illness as presidential candidate and selected a young and healthy Jonathan as his running mate.

The military and the security system represent the ultimate manifestation of state power anywhere in the world. In the US, the power to wage war is perhaps the most potent and historically significant (for good or for bad) a president can exercise. President Barrack Obama had no choice but to fire his Afghanistan war commander General Stanley McChrystal in June 2010 when he made comments which appeared to disparage the country’s civilian leadership. Ultimately what separates mature democracies from unstable or evolving ones and military dictatorships is civilian control over the military and security. In “Memo to Goodluck Jonathan” (March 24, 2010), I wrote in this column “…I am sure you recognise that there are some critical institutions whose leadership you must still replace for your hold on power to be complete and assured.” The President has now followed that advice!!!

President Jonathan’s presidency, especially in a period of complex and tense transition could not be said to be fully established if he is unable to replace the service chiefs inherited from his predecessor. This is so especially as it was clear that he could not be assured of the loyalty of some of them, indeed perhaps the most critical ones. Observers will remember how the security services kept then Acting President Jonathan in the dark about late Yar’adua’s health status; flew him back into Abuja from Saudi Arabia without Jonathan’s knowledge, deploying military troops in Abuja and environs in the process; and prevented Jonathan from seeing the dying Yar’adua in Aso Rock after his return. The president has indeed been gracious in leaving some of the military chiefs in place for four months after he assumed the full presidency! But then that is consistent with the President’s emerging calm, conciliatory and consensus-building approach. It is a style as I have pointed out earlier that is liable to be interpreted as evidence of fear or weakness, but the decision regarding the military chiefs proves that Jonathan can be tactical, strong and decisive when the occasion demands. I suspect that the man’s opponents may now understand that they underrate him at their own peril!

The three most strategically important of the appointments relate to the choice of Major-General A. O Ihejirika as Chief of Army Staff; Alhaji Hafiz Ringim as Inspector-General; and Mr Ita Ekpenyong as SSS Director-General. General Ihejirika is the first Igbo after General J. T. U Aguiyi-Ironsi and the civil war to be appointed as army chief. As many have pointed out, his gratifying elevation represents the final shattering of the glass ceiling over Igbo officers in the military establishment. Coming after Ogbonnaya Onovo, another Igbo earlier appointed by Jonathan as Inspector General of Police (IGP), we may now be seeing the final levelling of career opportunities in the military and security for all Nigerians. Alhaji Ringim as IGP will have the duty of reducing crime and insecurity and helping to organise credible elections in 2011. Having worked with Jonathan as Bayelsa Governor, he is likely to enjoy the President’s trust and confidence. The fact that the Air and Navy Chiefs, Air Vice Marshall Mohammed Dikko Umar and Rear Admiral Ola Sa’ad Ibrahim, as well as the IGP are Northerners communicates the fact that the president retains (or intends to retain) the trust and support of the North and will work to establish inclusive governance. Mr Ekpenyong, a Niger-Deltan will now take charge of the security services. Air Marshall Petinrin is now the most senior military chief with oversight over all the services.

The appointments will have important political consequences. They strengthen the president’s hand and send the signal that he takes seriously the duty of maintaining law, order and constitutional government in Nigeria. Jonathan now fully holds the levers of state power and can deploy them in the unfolding power game. Many will now think more carefully about attempting to intimidate him! His action is likely to have sent some jitters down the spine of his political adversaries who might have imagined that they were dealing with a president who is naive about power, and who can be confronted, cowed and overawed. He communicates to the Igbos that he is prepared to complete the re-integration of the Igbo into the Nigerian state and may have scored points in that geo-political zone by this action. The appointments represent the equalisation of opportunities for Nigerians of all ethnic groups and geo-political zones not just in the military and security establishment, but in all other government positions.

This action cannot hurt the president’s effort to stay in office beyond 2011!

Bypassing Principle and Reason

Those familiar with Dr Chidi Amuta’s antecedents would not be surprised that his THISDAY article of Thursday, August 26 2010 titled “Babangida and the Western Bypass” amounted to probably the most extensive public advocacy in defence of his “friend” Babangida since the annulment of the June 12, 1993 election. Amuta is the author of the IBB apology, “Prince of the Niger” and intelligent contemporary readers may have already discerned some not-so-hidden agenda in his recent canvassing amongst others for “the imperative of zoning” and a “governors’ party”. The unexpected dimension this time is the wholesale vilification of an entire ethnic group, who Amuta derided as “the Western Bypass”; his glancing blows at the media (especially the so-called “Lagos Press”-a group I thought he belongs to!!!) who he accuses of acting “often at the instance of the Yoruba elite”; and talk of an “oppositional agenda of the media”.
Amuta lists virtually all Yorubas who in his words “benefitted” from IBB and accuses the South-West of ingratitude, for appearing not to support IBB’s 2011 presidential ambition. For a public intellectual which Amuta is or used to be, this is a curious charge. Is public service a favour to be dispensed by a kingly benefactor? What is wrong with Wole Soyinka for instance, availing the nation his services in creating the Federal Road Safety Corps, something he had done previously in Oyo State? Does serving his nation require him to remain eternally grateful and supportive of IBB’s leadership irrespective of principles and IBB’s subsequent actions? Can a Nigerian leader elect to exclude any ethnic group from public offices? For every Yoruba person who served or “benefitted” from IBB, couldn’t one produce an equivalent name from other “geo-political” zones?
(South-East-Ebitu Ukiwe, Kalu Idika Kalu, Chu S P Okongwu, Ike Nwachukwu, Professor Nzimiro, Iwuanyanwu, Clement Akpamgbo (SAN), Sunny Odogwu, Professors Eme Awa and Humphrey Nwosu and I presume Chidi Amuta! South-South-General Ogbemudia, Tam David-West, Admiral Aikhomu, A.K Horsfall, Tonye Graham-Douglas, Sam Oyovbaire, Raymond Dokpesi, Admiral Porbeni, Paul Omu, Anthony Ikhazobor, Larry Koinyan, Tony Momoh, Patrick Dele-Cole and Mike Akhigbe; Middle-Belt names-John Shagaya, Joshua Dogonyaro, Jerry Gana, General Domkat Bali, David Mark, Jerry Useni, Stephen Ikya, John Inienger etc; The “core” Northern zones-Ibrahim Dasuki, Coomasie, Umaru Shinkafi, Justice Muhammed Bello, AVM Hamza Abdulahi, Bamanga Tukur, Aliyu Attah, Muhammadu Gambo, Halilu Akilu, Umaru Ndanusa, Ibrahim Alfa, Murtala Nyako, Shehu Musa, General Abacha, Alhaji Abubakar Alhaji, AVM Nura Imam, Gado Nasko, Jubril Aminu, General Aliyu Gusau and numerous others.) Does it not amount to intellectual sophistry for anyone to present one group as having “benefitted” from Babangida’s regime requiring some life-long payback? The accusation in any event, proceeds from a certain mindset about the nature of public office, one that has been described as “come and eat” mentality!
Beyond this unfortunate ethnic arithmetic, Amuta dismisses the annulment of the 1993 election as done “for reasons of higher national security”; mocks Yorubas for Awolowo’s failure to attain national power; and attributes Abiola and Obasanjo’s subsequent victories exclusively to IBB’s grace and favour! Amuta’s closing argument is the most intriguing. He derides the ethnic group’s “oppositional essence”; describes the region as a “political bypass”; and threatens IBB will win without Yoruba votes. There may be some method behind the intellectual strangeness! The strategy (as with “June 12”) may be recast opposition to IBB as a Yoruba phenomenon, turn others against them, and isolate anger against IBB’s presidential run to the South-West. No one should fall for this tactic. Many Hausa-Fulanis are not passionate about “zoning” because IBB is positioned as beneficiary; Many Nigerians from South-South or South-East argue vehemently against IBB; And very few in the middle-belt are looking forward to an IBB presidency!
Anyone in opposition in Nigeria, given the very poor results after fifty years of independence should be proud of himself! There is no pride in being in the mainstream of corruption, election rigging, absence of vision and planning, infrastructure decay, power shortages, crime and insecurity, poverty, illiteracy, unemployment and profligacy! The media should be proud of acting in line with its moral and constitutional duty of opposing these tendencies. Unfortunately for IBB, I think Amuta’s pre-emptive strike at the PDP South-West meeting in Ibadan on August 28 which adopted Jonathan, was in fact a disservice to his campaign. I don’t think Yorubas hate IBB personally. They may oppose him (just like Obasanjo and even MKO Abiola), but that is based on some principles. They supported Murtala Muhammed and once supported IBB himself! Candidates for political office engage with opposing viewpoints (and as MKO proved they sometimes succeed) and not write them off or threaten to “bypass” them. If IBB wants the votes of all ethnic nationalities in Nigeria, his duty is to address their objections and present his record in office in as best a light as he can!
Instead of reason, Amuta resorts to power and expediency-“since you can’t stop us, you better join us”. It is a tragedy that this argument is presented not by some ex-military officer, policeman or customs officer friend of IBB, but a former university lecturer and newspaper columnist who earned a PHD! Perhaps proximity to the Nigerian brand of prebendal state power and its “benefits” has affected Dr Amuta’s notions about national values and how a people exercise their choices about their leadership.

Jonathan's Route to Power!

President Goodluck Jonathan unveiled his “Roadmap for Power Sector Reform” last Thursday August 26, 2010 at the Eko Hotel and Suites in Lagos. Sitting in the hall watching proceedings, I got a feeling that I had experienced on two previous occasions in the last decade-at the dawn of the digital mobile license (GSM) auctions in 2001 and the launch of the pension reforms in Abuja in 2006. If the president and his team succeed, he will go down in history as the person who removed the last major obstacle on the path to Nigeria’s economic liberation! At the launch, Jonathan seemed to recognise what was as stake as he proclaimed an imminent “revolution” in the power sector. In the roadmap document, he declared “We have the will. This Roadmap shows the way”. We hope this bold talk will be matched with swift and effective execution!
To be fair, there are indeed signs of strong commitment by the regime to solve this power conundrum once and for all. The implementation mechanism is one such indicator. Consistent with his decision to take direct responsibility for the power ministry, President Jonathan personally chairs the Presidential Action Committee on Power (PACP) which includes the Vice-President, Secretary to Government of the Federation, Head of Service, Ministers of Finance, Petroleum Resources and National Planning, Minister of State for Power, CBN Governor and the Special Adviser on Power, Professor Barth Nnaji. Professor Nnaji heads the Presidential Task Force whose membership includes the Permanent Secretary in the Power Ministry, NNPC Group Managing Director, DG Bureau of Public Enterprises, DG Bureau of Public Procurement, Senior Special Assistant to the President on Special Projects and selected CEOs of PHCN unbundled entities amongst others.
The policy and legal underpinning of the roadmap is the 2001 National Electric Power Policy and the Electric Power Sector Reform Act 2005 (EPSRA) while the Roadmap now provides an (updated) policy and implementation approach. The fact that it took four years for the 2001 policy to become law in 2005, and another five years for effective implementation of the law to commence suggests the existence of strong vested interests determined to perpetuate the status quo. Interestingly the power sector labour unions chose to go on strike two days before the launch of the road map, in spite of the government’s release of N57billion to pay the arrears of payments demanded by them, confirming that the enemies of power reform are yet to give up! The labour unions should not expect any sympathy from Nigerians. As one post on facebook asked, “haven’t they been on strike all the while?” If Nigerians had allowed NITEL workers to stall telecommunications sector deregulation, would we have moved from 400,000 telephone lines to over 100 million in nine years? I view their strike as an act of economic (and perhaps political) sabotage!
The Roadmap will resume implementation of EPSRA by corporatizing the unbundled PHCN companies (constituting boards of directors, appointing company secretaries, auditors etc), privatising the distribution and generating entities and concessioning the transmission company which will remain a government-owned natural monopoly, but under private management and management contracts. The government will cede at least 51 percent of the equity of the generation and distribution companies to core investors, but will adopt a concession approach for the hydro power stations due to the water resources involved in their operation. At the post-launch dialogue, the BPE DG, Ms Bolanle Onagoruwa indicated an audacious intention of completing the privatisations and concessions by May 2011! I endorse the need to complete at least that part of the process next year since much of the groundwork had been done before the process was stalled in 2007.
The Roadmap clearly envisages a private-sector driven power sector. There is no sensible alternative to this approach if you note that Nigeria as at August 2010 only generates 3,804 MW of power for 150 million people contrasted with South Africa which generates 40,000 MW (50 million population) and Brazil (100,000 MW for 201 million people). Nigeria’s per capita electricity consumption is thus 3 percent of South Africa and 7 percent of Brazil! The vision 20: 2020 target of 40,000 MW according to the Roadmap requires annual investment of $3.5billion for the next ten years!!! Beyond finance, we also know our experience with value-for-money, managerial incentives and competence, and service delivery in the public sector. The cost of alternative power generation in financial and environmental terms, and the opportunity cost in terms of manufacturing output, jobs, industrialisation and quality of life of the present power deficit, is a major hindrance to development.
In order to encourage private investment, the president proposes to improve tariffs, establish a government-guaranteed bulk purchaser of electricity to carry out contract management and bulk trading until the industry develops its own settlement, accounting, managerial and governance mechanisms and government will also offer credit enhancements to simulate investment. Pricing and investment incentives will be offered for gas sector investments as well. The government seeks to improve service delivery, reduce aggregate distribution losses, and improve collection efficiency in the interim. The president also promised to immediately reconstitute the board of the regulator, Nigerian Electricity Regulatory Commission (NERC). And government will ensure speedy completion of NIPP, PHCN and IPP power projects as well as repairs of existing infrastructure. All these measures are expected to yield about 7,000MW of power by 2012 and 14,000MW by December 2013. We are holding our breath!

Does Nigeria Need A Revolution?

In the last two years, I have noticed that discussions about Nigeria frequently end with someone mentioning the word “Rawlings”! If I was a Nigerian political office holder, given the number of times I have heard compatriots conclude, after searching interminably and in vain for a solution to Nigeria’s crisis of governance, that the only way out is the “Rawlings Solution”, I would be afraid to go to bed at night, wondering if that night some middle level officer or group of officers might hearken to their countrymen’s call for a radical way out.
I suspect that our Governors, Ministers, Senators, Members of the House of Representatives may of course not be privy to such discussions. Naturally such conversations may not take place in their vicinity either due to the Nigerian penchant for sycophancy or just timidity. Or perhaps their “excellencies” and “honourables” are not usually in the company of people likely to harbour such “pro-Rawlings” sentiments. They are more likely to be surrounded by their personal assistants, legislative assistants, commissioners, civil servants, and political hangers-on who are at least picking some crumbs from their masters’ tables and may actually wish that the status quo should endure. Unfortunately all political office holders from the local government to the federal level and such hangers-on are not quite up to two million people, less if you care to do the numbers than one percent of our population. Unfortunately too, most military officers, security personnel, policemen, students, youths, farmers, factory workers and para-military personnel are part of the remaining ninety-nine percent along with columnists (such as yours truly!), journalists, the vast number of unemployed people, the 54 percent of Nigerians who officially live in poverty, and the additional 25 percent or so who may live in semi-poverty, all of whom do not benefit from our corrupt and unsustainable status quo.
If our political leadership was previously unaware that more and more Nigerians are loosing faith in the ability of the establishment to transform their circumstances, lives and country and may be looking towards more radical solutions, I thought the “Boko Haram” crisis in Northern Nigeria and the attempted suicide bombing by Farouk Abdul-Mutallab should have caused some introspection on why so many in Northern Nigeria would so lose faith in western education and values (and implicitly secular governance) that they would be prepared to confront and attempt to overthrow the state; or wonder why the well-educated son of a billionaire banker and businessman would be prepared to attempt a suicide bombing.
If these signals still proved remote and obscure, the public declaration by a professor of constitutional law, Ben Nwabueze that Nigeria requires a revolution should have registered in the minds of our political rulers. Professor Nwabueze was never known to be an anarchist. He made his reputation as a pro-establishment intellectual advocating constitutionalism, rule of law, democracy and an end to military rule. He spent part of his working career in the banking sector advising on corporate law. As a post-graduate student of constitutional law in 1988/89, Professor Nwabueze’s articles were my bible (even though he shocked me soon after as he joined Babangida’s transitional military government as Secretary of Education and acted more like a military man than democrat!) and his whole academic career was devoted to constitutional rule and democracy. What would drive such a person to call for a revolution?
Is spite of all these warnings, our political establishment continues to press harder on the self-destruct button! They continue to act as if blissfully unaware of the danger to our democracy from a citizenry becoming more and more disconnected and disaffected from its rulers. Instead they seek to increase their already over-bloated remuneration while poverty increases in the land; they ignore public demands for a freedom of information bill; they regularly dismiss public interest in their ïntra-party affairs” as if the parties are no longer vehicles for engaging the citizenry; and they continue to act as if democracy was instituted for their own benefit while the citizens are spectators. When a provision for independent candidacy is suggested by some to allow excluded persons some room for political participation, they block it showing they don’t understand the principles of democracy; and they increase taxes, duties and charges on citizens and businesses without increasing public transparency, accountability or responsibility! Perhaps this is the case of the Yoruba dog that refuses to hear the hunter’s whistle!!!
I believe democracy represents the best and most rational route to empowering our people and transforming our nation. However unfortunately what we now have is democracy without democrats; democracy without a real political party system; democracy without accountability; and power without responsibility! My review of history and politics tells me such is not sustainable. They also say that those who make peaceful change impossible, make violent change inevitable! In choosing candidates for 2010, I suggest that all the parties look for credible reformist candidates who understand the need for a democracy centred on people, rather than one that seeks to institutionalise a master-servant relationship with the citizens.

PDP, Zoning and Jonathan

Opening the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP’s) National Executive Committee (NEC) meeting last Thursday (12/08/10), President Jonathan (GEJ) mocked non-PDP members joining their debate over “zoning” of the presidential ticket forgetting that but for non-PDP members in civil society, media, opposition groups, military and the international community, perhaps the PDP cabal who did not (and still don’t) want him as President may have succeeded in shunting him aside. He may yet need these groups again! More interesting were the decisions affirming zoning (without clarifying to whom and when); declaring Jonathan free to run for presidency (being part of the subsisting joint ticket with Yar’adua); and conceding the right of every party member “from any part of the country” to contest the presidential primary.
These decisions are consistent with 2003 when then Vice-President Atiku Abubakar (North-East), Dr Alex Akwueme (South-East), Chief Barnabas Gemade (North-Central) and Alhaji Abubakar Rimi (North-West) contested against then President Olusegun Obasanjo (South-West) and 2007 when Peter Odili and Donald Duke (South-South), Abdullahi Adamu (North-Central) Sam Egwu and Rochas Okorocha (South-East), General Aliyu Gusau (North-West) and others contested the PDP primaries before most were forced to step down for Umaru Yar’adua by Obasanjo (and Nuhu Ribadu!)! By several accounts, but for that intervention, Peter Odili may have been on course to winning. In effect since 2003, the PDP presidential ticket has been available to any party member from any geo-political zone who could win the primaries!
I consider the argument that a president in his 50s (providentially thrust into office for only thirteen months by virtue of constitutional provisions consequent on the death of the earlier occupant) should not contest his party primaries insulting and contemptuous of GEJ’s person and political stature! As I once asked on this page, would Atiku Abubakar as Vice-President have abandoned the Presidency in favour of South-West candidates in similar circumstances? The argument is more presumptuous given that Jonathan is from the Niger-Delta which supplies all the resources sustaining the federation and which has never provided a Nigerian leader! In my view GEJ’s sole obligation is to conduct free and fair elections and to govern well in the interim!
Democracy guarantees that presidential candidates must engage the whole country. Moreover the constitution requires a winning president to score at least 25 per cent of the votes in two-thirds of Nigeria’s states apart from winning the plurality of votes. The reality of politics is that no serious contender for presidency can ignore the votes of the Hausa/Fulani, Kanuri, Northern Middle-Belt, Yoruba, Igbo, Ijaw, Edo, Urhobo, Ibibio or other ethnic groups. The constitution mandates “federal character” in government positions to reflect Nigeria’s ethnic and religious diversity and requires appointment of at least one minister from every state of the federation. Many federal statutes now require representation from the six geo-political zones on the boards of federal institutions. Zoning or not, the North has not been, and is unlikely to ever be disadvantaged in Nigeria’s politics!
Even though the second republic National Party of Nigeria (NPN) introduced zoning into our political lexicon between 1978 and 1983, we must remember that MKO Abiola won the SDP primaries and Nigeria’s presidency during the aborted 1990-1993 transition without zoning! It was the soldier-politicians who re-introduced “zoning” first by picking Ernest Shonekan as Head of the Interim Government to weaken Abeokuta, Ogun State and Yoruba resolve over the annulled “June 12” election and having failed, pushed for an Obasanjo compensatory presidency in 1999. Chief Emeka Anyaoku has reminded us all that with the way the PDP zoning debate was going, we might as well commence arrangements for the voluntary winding-up (my words) of the Nigerian federation!
There is no virtue in President Jonathan stepping away from the challenge of repairing Nigeria and opting for early retirement! Obasanjo in 1979 was a military leader who had to make way for a democratic transition. Mandela was an old man who had accomplished his life mission-ending apartheid and creating a harmonious state for South Africans of all races. In Nigeria, corruption, ethnic divisions (we have since seen Babangida and Atiku Abubakar become “Northern leaders”), power shortages, undemocratic elections, unaccountable governments, poverty and dilapidated infrastructure all remain with us. Why should a fresh hand who has an opportunity to confront these challenges abdicate in favour of persons who had opportunities in the past to remedy the situation and failed or neglected so to do?
The PDP NEC has essentially cleared the way for GEJ to obtain its ticket for the general elections in 2011. But Jonathan must now alter his approach. In politics, naivety is not a virtue and tentativeness is a vice! Both traits are perceived as signs of fear and weakness and they embolden your adversaries. If Jonathan wants to be President, he would have to be bold, seize the initiative and project himself as a formidable politician and leader. While he should negotiate with all groups and constituencies, he must not be intimidated by any. His easy-going style and consensual approach has its uses (navigating through the power struggle during Yar’adua’s illness for instance), but winning the Presidency in competitive PDP primaries and general elections may be a different matter altogether!
The PDP cannot presume that once their candidate is selected, the presidency is his. I suspect that General Buhari’s CPC and the new ACN may mount a stronger-than-expected challenge!

PDP, Zoning and Jonathan

Opening the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP’s) National Executive Committee (NEC) meeting last Thursday (12/08/10), President Jonathan (GEJ) mocked non-PDP members joining their debate over “zoning” of the presidential ticket forgetting that but for non-PDP members in civil society, media, opposition groups, military and the international community, perhaps the PDP cabal who did not (and still don’t) want him as President may have succeeded in shunting him aside. He may yet need these groups again! More interesting were the decisions affirming zoning (without clarifying to whom and when); declaring Jonathan free to run for presidency (being part of the subsisting joint ticket with Yar’adua); and conceding the right of every party member “from any part of the country” to contest the presidential primary.
These decisions are consistent with 2003 when then Vice-President Atiku Abubakar (North-East), Dr Alex Akwueme (South-East), Chief Barnabas Gemade (North-Central) and Alhaji Abubakar Rimi (North-West) contested against then President Olusegun Obasanjo (South-West) and 2007 when Peter Odili and Donald Duke (South-South), Abdullahi Adamu (North-Central) Sam Egwu and Rochas Okorocha (South-East), General Aliyu Gusau (North-West) and others contested the PDP primaries before most were forced to step down for Umaru Yar’adua by Obasanjo (and Nuhu Ribadu!)! By several accounts, but for that intervention, Peter Odili may have been on course to winning. In effect since 2003, the PDP presidential ticket has been available to any party member from any geo-political zone who could win the primaries!
I consider the argument that a president in his 50s (providentially thrust into office for only thirteen months by virtue of constitutional provisions consequent on the death of the earlier occupant) should not contest his party primaries insulting and contemptuous of GEJ’s person and political stature! As I once asked on this page, would Atiku Abubakar as Vice-President have abandoned the Presidency in favour of South-West candidates in similar circumstances? The argument is more presumptuous given that Jonathan is from the Niger-Delta which supplies all the resources sustaining the federation and which has never provided a Nigerian leader! In my view GEJ’s sole obligation is to conduct free and fair elections and to govern well in the interim!
Democracy guarantees that presidential candidates must engage the whole country. Moreover the constitution requires a winning president to score at least 25 per cent of the votes in two-thirds of Nigeria’s states apart from winning the plurality of votes. The reality of politics is that no serious contender for presidency can ignore the votes of the Hausa/Fulani, Kanuri, Northern Middle-Belt, Yoruba, Igbo, Ijaw, Edo, Urhobo, Ibibio or other ethnic groups. The constitution mandates “federal character” in government positions to reflect Nigeria’s ethnic and religious diversity and requires appointment of at least one minister from every state of the federation. Many federal statutes now require representation from the six geo-political zones on the boards of federal institutions. Zoning or not, the North has not been, and is unlikely to ever be disadvantaged in Nigeria’s politics!
Even though the second republic National Party of Nigeria (NPN) introduced zoning into our political lexicon between 1978 and 1983, we must remember that MKO Abiola won the SDP primaries and Nigeria’s presidency during the aborted 1990-1993 transition without zoning! It was the soldier-politicians who re-introduced “zoning” first by picking Ernest Shonekan as Head of the Interim Government to weaken Abeokuta, Ogun State and Yoruba resolve over the annulled “June 12” election and having failed, pushed for an Obasanjo compensatory presidency in 1999. Chief Emeka Anyaoku has reminded us all that with the way the PDP zoning debate was going, we might as well commence arrangements for the voluntary winding-up (my words) of the Nigerian federation!
There is no virtue in President Jonathan stepping away from the challenge of repairing Nigeria and opting for early retirement! Obasanjo in 1979 was a military leader who had to make way for a democratic transition. Mandela was an old man who had accomplished his life mission-ending apartheid and creating a harmonious state for South Africans of all races. In Nigeria, corruption, ethnic divisions (we have since seen Babangida and Atiku Abubakar become “Northern leaders”), power shortages, undemocratic elections, unaccountable governments, poverty and dilapidated infrastructure all remain with us. Why should a fresh hand who has an opportunity to confront these challenges abdicate in favour of persons who had opportunities in the past to remedy the situation and failed or neglected so to do?
The PDP NEC has essentially cleared the way for GEJ to obtain its ticket for the general elections in 2011. But Jonathan must now alter his approach. In politics, naivety is not a virtue and tentativeness is a vice! Both traits are perceived as signs of fear and weakness and they embolden your adversaries. If Jonathan wants to be President, he would have to be bold, seize the initiative and project himself as a formidable politician and leader. While he should negotiate with all groups and constituencies, he must not be intimidated by any. His easy-going style and consensual approach has its uses (navigating through the power struggle during Yar’adua’s illness for instance), but winning the Presidency in competitive PDP primaries and general elections may be a different matter altogether!
The PDP cannot presume that once their candidate is selected, the presidency is his. I suspect that General Buhari’s CPC and the new ACN may mount a stronger-than-expected challenge!