Apparently in our country public office is not supposed to accommodate accomplished professionals and persons of good character and integrity! Another example of this negative hypothesis is Senator Udoma Udo-Udoma’s recent travails as he endures some very uncharitable criticism simply because he accepted the public duty of chairing our Securities and Exchange Commission. Incidentally, Senator Udo-Udoma, the co-founder one of Nigeria’s most successful corporate law firms, Udo Udoma and Bello Osagie, is one of the few professionals who has gotten deeply involved in electoral politics and the national legislature in Nigeria and still has his integrity and reputation intact. Personally I consider him a model of the type of individuals we should encourage to get involved in policy and governance in Nigeria.
Yet it is Udoma who is now been buffeted by criticisms principally from legislators who have not been known to take up the less credible individuals who litter public office in Nigeria. Typical of this pattern of trying to bring down any one who holds himself out as standing for anything worthwhile, it is Senator Udoma who some now attempt to cast in the role of the bad guy. Senator Udo Udoma, in my view is probably one of the best qualified Nigerians to chair the Securities and Exchange Commission, if the criteria for filling that position include professional competence in a field related to Securities and Capital Markets, character and integrity, understanding of public policy issues and laws relating to securities, and independent-mindedness.
He is a partner of a leading corporate law firm with vast experience in Nigerian securities, financial transactions and capital markets; I have not heard anyone question or impugn his character and integrity, in spite of his having been an active player in the rough and tumble of Nigerian politics; he has been a Senator who is familiar with legislative procedure and rule-making; he sits on several important boards including UAC and Unilever; and he is someone who is generally regarded as objective and fair-minded. In any country, he would be an ideal Chair for a Securities and Exchange Commission.
It is necessary in line with this column’s policy that I make some disclosure so that readers can be fully informed. I sit on the board of Chemical and Allied Products Plc, which is a subsidiary of UACN Plc, now chaired by Senator Udoma. I do not however have any personal relationship with him and I do not believe we have ever had any direct personal conversation. We are not friends and have never been mutually involved in any business transactions. I make this disclosure to illustrate the expectation the law and corporate governance has of Senator Udo Udoma. The main ground canvassed by those opposed to his chairmanship of SEC is actual or potential conflict of interest between the SEC position and his UAC Chairmanship. What the law and best practice demands is that he discloses his interest in any matter involving him that come up before SEC and withdraw from decision-making on those matters. Why are the Senate and House Committee Chairs on capital markets seeking to prescribe a higher standard exclusively for Senator Udoma?
A review of global practices on the subject matter will reveal two different models. In the US, the SEC Chairman and Commissioners are executive, full time positions. Indeed S.4a of the US SEC Act 1934 provides that “…no commissioner shall engage in any other business, vocation, or employment than that of serving as commissioner, nor shall any commissioner participate, directly or indirectly, in any stock market operations or transactions of a character subject to regulation by the commission…” This is perfectly understandable since their positions are executive ones. If Senator Udoma were an executive chairman of the Nigerian SEC, he would clearly have to step down from the UAC and other boards. But he is not!
The other model is typified by the UK Financial Services Authority (FSA). Like others have pointed out, several of the non-executive members of the FSA board continue to sit on boards of publicly-quoted companies. Like the Nigerian practice, they would be required to declare their interest and excuse themselves from any matters coming before the FSA for consideration. If the legislature feels better attracted to the US model, of course they may propose legislation to that effect, or amend the current Investment and Securities Act. But they cannot write laws without first enacting them though the due process of law! Thus the hullabaloo over Udoma’s chairmanship of SEC is uncalled for. In my view, it is unlikely that any body who is worthy of appointment as SEC chairman will not sit on any public company boards. If they had to step down upon appointment, we would probably be restricting the pool of potential SEC Chairmen and Board members to neophytes who will not serve the market well.
The additional reason we must discourage the agitation against Udoma is its potential to discourage credible professionals, precisely the type of people we need in such technical positions, from accepting public office.
Tuesday, March 16, 2010
Wednesday, March 3, 2010
Back from the Brink? Part 3
Last week I predicted that the swearing-in of Goodluck Jonathan as Acting President was not likely to be the final chapter of the “interesting times” we have been experiencing since November 23 last year. I expected a counter-strategy from the clique which I have described for two weeks running as carrying out “the Turai Coup”. I had thought the primary response of the group would be through the judicial system and that they were likely to take us right back to square one. In the event, the group exceeded themselves and actually almost took us back to square zero! When I got a text early that fateful Wednesday morning warning me to expect the ill Umaru Yar’adua to show up in Abuja, I knew Nigeria was going right back TO the brink!
When I later got reports that the plotters had actually deployed soldiers in and around Abuja; and flown Yar’adua in during the thick of night without the knowledge of the Acting President, it became clear that we were dealing not just with an on-going coup attempt against the constitution as I had previously argued, but with people who are actually prepared to deploy military power in pursuit of their (treasonable) objectives. The statement issued by Segun Adeniyi referring to Jonathan as Vice-President who would hold forte while the President recuperated was the final confirmation that the group expected a return to the scenario in which instructions would be issued by them in the name of Yar’adua which Jonathan, Ministers and other senior government officials were expected to obey without reflection. Last week I likened the plotters to children who ignorant of the risks involved were recklessly playing with explosives. Now they are actually moving dangerously close to pulling the pin from the grenade!
What happened last Wednesday was a reckless attempt by this narrow group of provincial politicians largely from Katsina (Tanimu Yakubu, Sayaddi Abba Ruma, Senator Kanti Bello etc); their collaborators (e.g. James Ibori) and their surrogates (Aondoakaa in particular), their military and security operatives (which according to newspaper accounts include the Army Chief, General Abdulrahman Dambazau; the President’s ADC, Colonel Mustapha Onoyvieta, the Commander of the Brigade of Guards, Abdul Mustapha and Yar’adua’s powerful Chief Security Officer (CSO), Yusuf Muhammad Tilde and led by the First Lady, Turai Yar’adua to subvert the National Assembly’s designation of Jonathan as Acting President and in effect foist Turai on the nation as a de facto President. Implicit in their actions was a willingness and actual deployment of soldiers from the Nigerian Army in aid of their dangerous moves.
It was a complete throw back to the Abacha days when the CSO Major Mustapha and his allies including then Army Chief, General Ishaiya Bamaiyi and other military and security officers isolated the Head of State and began to run the country in his name. Like in the Abacha days, such a stratagem could only be sustained by force and terror and soon that regime unleashed terror across the nation. If the Turai group had succeeded in their audacious power grab last week, they would sooner than later have had to shed any pretences of running a constitutional government and we would soon have returned to some form of military (or otherwise unelected) despotism. In the event, their moves were aborted substantially because of the strong statement issued by the US government and Jonathan’s caution in not holding the executive council meeting that day. It is probable that there were other powerful domestic stakeholders who moved to prevent Nigeria’s slide back into confusion and maybe tragedy.
It is now time for all those who have allowed this shameful set of circumstances to persist since November to step up and put an end to the unending manipulation of the destiny of 150 million Nigerians. It should be obvious now that we are not dealing with rational people. They are so consumed in their ambition and greed that they can’t understand what is possible and what is not achievable. They do not understand that Nigeria has changed since 1966, 1983, 1985 or 1993 when military coups were in vogue. The world itself has changed and in this age of global broadcasting and communications, international criminal courts and genocide indictments for sitting Presidents, no nation can be completely detached from the rest of the world.
But all this game-playing has continued for over three months because the National Assembly, the Courts and the Executive Council of the Federation have all failed in their responsibility towards Nigeria. Justice Dan Abutu of the Federal High Court had several opportunities but failed; the Ministers in the Executive Council (minus Dora Akunyili) continue to cower in cowardice and shirk their duty to the nation; the House Speaker, Dimeji Bankole is seemingly more interested in protecting Yar’adua rather than the nation; the ruling PDP leadership is afraid to act in the interest of the nation lest they lose their benefits from the ailing Presidency; the National Assembly remains timid and half-hearted-they left the loophole that power would return to Yar’adua once he returned to Nigeria, which Senator Iyabo Obasanjo actually pointed out to no avail; and the Governors continue to make selfish individual political calculations rather than recognise the collective threat to our democracy. While all others remain lily-livered, Turai and her group, continue to scheme and plot in so far as they see any glimmer of opportunity.
It is time for Nigeria to put an end to this shame.
When I later got reports that the plotters had actually deployed soldiers in and around Abuja; and flown Yar’adua in during the thick of night without the knowledge of the Acting President, it became clear that we were dealing not just with an on-going coup attempt against the constitution as I had previously argued, but with people who are actually prepared to deploy military power in pursuit of their (treasonable) objectives. The statement issued by Segun Adeniyi referring to Jonathan as Vice-President who would hold forte while the President recuperated was the final confirmation that the group expected a return to the scenario in which instructions would be issued by them in the name of Yar’adua which Jonathan, Ministers and other senior government officials were expected to obey without reflection. Last week I likened the plotters to children who ignorant of the risks involved were recklessly playing with explosives. Now they are actually moving dangerously close to pulling the pin from the grenade!
What happened last Wednesday was a reckless attempt by this narrow group of provincial politicians largely from Katsina (Tanimu Yakubu, Sayaddi Abba Ruma, Senator Kanti Bello etc); their collaborators (e.g. James Ibori) and their surrogates (Aondoakaa in particular), their military and security operatives (which according to newspaper accounts include the Army Chief, General Abdulrahman Dambazau; the President’s ADC, Colonel Mustapha Onoyvieta, the Commander of the Brigade of Guards, Abdul Mustapha and Yar’adua’s powerful Chief Security Officer (CSO), Yusuf Muhammad Tilde and led by the First Lady, Turai Yar’adua to subvert the National Assembly’s designation of Jonathan as Acting President and in effect foist Turai on the nation as a de facto President. Implicit in their actions was a willingness and actual deployment of soldiers from the Nigerian Army in aid of their dangerous moves.
It was a complete throw back to the Abacha days when the CSO Major Mustapha and his allies including then Army Chief, General Ishaiya Bamaiyi and other military and security officers isolated the Head of State and began to run the country in his name. Like in the Abacha days, such a stratagem could only be sustained by force and terror and soon that regime unleashed terror across the nation. If the Turai group had succeeded in their audacious power grab last week, they would sooner than later have had to shed any pretences of running a constitutional government and we would soon have returned to some form of military (or otherwise unelected) despotism. In the event, their moves were aborted substantially because of the strong statement issued by the US government and Jonathan’s caution in not holding the executive council meeting that day. It is probable that there were other powerful domestic stakeholders who moved to prevent Nigeria’s slide back into confusion and maybe tragedy.
It is now time for all those who have allowed this shameful set of circumstances to persist since November to step up and put an end to the unending manipulation of the destiny of 150 million Nigerians. It should be obvious now that we are not dealing with rational people. They are so consumed in their ambition and greed that they can’t understand what is possible and what is not achievable. They do not understand that Nigeria has changed since 1966, 1983, 1985 or 1993 when military coups were in vogue. The world itself has changed and in this age of global broadcasting and communications, international criminal courts and genocide indictments for sitting Presidents, no nation can be completely detached from the rest of the world.
But all this game-playing has continued for over three months because the National Assembly, the Courts and the Executive Council of the Federation have all failed in their responsibility towards Nigeria. Justice Dan Abutu of the Federal High Court had several opportunities but failed; the Ministers in the Executive Council (minus Dora Akunyili) continue to cower in cowardice and shirk their duty to the nation; the House Speaker, Dimeji Bankole is seemingly more interested in protecting Yar’adua rather than the nation; the ruling PDP leadership is afraid to act in the interest of the nation lest they lose their benefits from the ailing Presidency; the National Assembly remains timid and half-hearted-they left the loophole that power would return to Yar’adua once he returned to Nigeria, which Senator Iyabo Obasanjo actually pointed out to no avail; and the Governors continue to make selfish individual political calculations rather than recognise the collective threat to our democracy. While all others remain lily-livered, Turai and her group, continue to scheme and plot in so far as they see any glimmer of opportunity.
It is time for Nigeria to put an end to this shame.
Sunday, February 28, 2010
Back from the Brink? Part 2
Has the “system” recognised that it was walking dangerously close to the precipice? Is the pull-back from the brink a decisive change in strategy by our ruling class, or is what we have seen just a temporary tactical reprieve? Will we like drunken sailors lunge once again towards self-destruction? I do not regard the current “acting” presidency of Goodluck Jonathan as the final chapter in our crisis over presidential health and succession. First of all, any “acting” state is by definition temporary-an interim arrangement while an enduring solution is investigated and implemented. Secondly there are substantive political considerations which suggest a need to resolve the larger question of whether Yar’adua is able to continue to function in the Presidency.
Our constitution envisages a presidency that includes a President and a Vice. In this acting scenario, there is only Goodluck Jonathan. The current situation holds its own dangers as the entirety of the political, regional and religious constituencies which Yar’adua represents may begin to feel wholly schemed out of the Presidency. It is thus in the interest of these constituencies to quickly resolve the issue, if as it appears clear now, Yar’adua is unlikely to return to power. The Hausa-Fulani political leadership thus has a clear interest in persuading Yar’adua to resign from office so that a Vice-President can be appointed to complete the Presidency. If he (or in effect the first lady) refuses to furnish the required letter of resignation, I imagine it would be imperative that the Executive Council of the Federation take action in conjunction with the National Assembly to declare him permanently incapacitated or as a last resort, the National Assembly should commence impeachment proceedings.
Indeed I recall that as we awaited the judgment of the Supreme Court over the electoral petitions of Muhammadu Buhari and Atiku Abubakar, my personal analysis made it very clear to me that it was in the interest of the North to have that election nullified and a new one (in which relatively healthier Northern candidates could re-contest) conducted. In the event, the Supreme Court decided otherwise. I recall proclaiming then to a friend, prophetically now it seems, that the Supreme Court judgment merely removed the last obstacle to a Goodluck Jonathan Presidency! Another reason to find a permanent constitutional solution to the current situation is the tenuous legal basis for the resolutions of the National Assembly which declared Jonathan as Acting President. I argued last week that the actions of the Turai clique (which held on to power for 78 days in defiance of the constitution) and the National Assembly response (which proclaimed Jonathan acting President on the basis of the doctrine of necessity and his BBC interview), amounted to a coup and counter-coup respectively; even though the National Assembly actions are more legitimate having been effected by elected representatives of the citizens in order to restore constitutional rule.
In the circumstances, we may expect agents of the disaffected Turai clique to resort to the courts to test the legality of Jonathan’s Acting Presidency. If, as is possible, a federal high court in any part of Nigeria obliges then with a declaration that the National Assembly resolutions were unconstitutional, we would be right back to square one! The events in Niger Republic right next door to Nigeria, remind us once again of the dangerous possibilities when a political class acts in defiance of the will of the people and overriding national interest. Unfortunately we have a political leadership today many of whom are so lacking in a strategic appreciation of the political, social, economic, military and international dynamics of Nigerian history and evolution that they endanger the state itself. Imagine our nation being recklessly manipulated by a house wife, some second-rate provincial politicians and middle-level protocol and security officers who obviously have a very shallow understanding of power and its complexities and dangers in a multi-ethnic, multi-religious state like Nigeria! Like children playing with explosives, they do not understand the risk factors and minefields; all they see is a huge commercial opportunity!!!
Remember also that the issue of Yar’adua’s health and incapacitation has merely added another layer of complication to an electoral cycle which already contained elevated political risks. How would the 2011 elections be conducted? Will the elections be free and fair? Who would be the candidate of the ruling PDP? How will the opposition parties contest the elections? Will the opposition manage to build a credible opposition platform? Can the nation accept another rigged election in 2011, after the very flawed polls of 2003 and 2007? Will the conduct of governance and policy be re-invigorated to reduce public disaffection before the general elections? How will the international community react in the event of a 2011 election that is generally believed to lack credibility? Will the Niger-Delta crisis be resolved before the elections? What of concerns about religious conflict in Northern Nigeria?
All these unresolved issues mean there may still be challenges along the path to 2011 even if the Yar’adua obstacle is removed. The “system” still has some serious thinking to do!
Our constitution envisages a presidency that includes a President and a Vice. In this acting scenario, there is only Goodluck Jonathan. The current situation holds its own dangers as the entirety of the political, regional and religious constituencies which Yar’adua represents may begin to feel wholly schemed out of the Presidency. It is thus in the interest of these constituencies to quickly resolve the issue, if as it appears clear now, Yar’adua is unlikely to return to power. The Hausa-Fulani political leadership thus has a clear interest in persuading Yar’adua to resign from office so that a Vice-President can be appointed to complete the Presidency. If he (or in effect the first lady) refuses to furnish the required letter of resignation, I imagine it would be imperative that the Executive Council of the Federation take action in conjunction with the National Assembly to declare him permanently incapacitated or as a last resort, the National Assembly should commence impeachment proceedings.
Indeed I recall that as we awaited the judgment of the Supreme Court over the electoral petitions of Muhammadu Buhari and Atiku Abubakar, my personal analysis made it very clear to me that it was in the interest of the North to have that election nullified and a new one (in which relatively healthier Northern candidates could re-contest) conducted. In the event, the Supreme Court decided otherwise. I recall proclaiming then to a friend, prophetically now it seems, that the Supreme Court judgment merely removed the last obstacle to a Goodluck Jonathan Presidency! Another reason to find a permanent constitutional solution to the current situation is the tenuous legal basis for the resolutions of the National Assembly which declared Jonathan as Acting President. I argued last week that the actions of the Turai clique (which held on to power for 78 days in defiance of the constitution) and the National Assembly response (which proclaimed Jonathan acting President on the basis of the doctrine of necessity and his BBC interview), amounted to a coup and counter-coup respectively; even though the National Assembly actions are more legitimate having been effected by elected representatives of the citizens in order to restore constitutional rule.
In the circumstances, we may expect agents of the disaffected Turai clique to resort to the courts to test the legality of Jonathan’s Acting Presidency. If, as is possible, a federal high court in any part of Nigeria obliges then with a declaration that the National Assembly resolutions were unconstitutional, we would be right back to square one! The events in Niger Republic right next door to Nigeria, remind us once again of the dangerous possibilities when a political class acts in defiance of the will of the people and overriding national interest. Unfortunately we have a political leadership today many of whom are so lacking in a strategic appreciation of the political, social, economic, military and international dynamics of Nigerian history and evolution that they endanger the state itself. Imagine our nation being recklessly manipulated by a house wife, some second-rate provincial politicians and middle-level protocol and security officers who obviously have a very shallow understanding of power and its complexities and dangers in a multi-ethnic, multi-religious state like Nigeria! Like children playing with explosives, they do not understand the risk factors and minefields; all they see is a huge commercial opportunity!!!
Remember also that the issue of Yar’adua’s health and incapacitation has merely added another layer of complication to an electoral cycle which already contained elevated political risks. How would the 2011 elections be conducted? Will the elections be free and fair? Who would be the candidate of the ruling PDP? How will the opposition parties contest the elections? Will the opposition manage to build a credible opposition platform? Can the nation accept another rigged election in 2011, after the very flawed polls of 2003 and 2007? Will the conduct of governance and policy be re-invigorated to reduce public disaffection before the general elections? How will the international community react in the event of a 2011 election that is generally believed to lack credibility? Will the Niger-Delta crisis be resolved before the elections? What of concerns about religious conflict in Northern Nigeria?
All these unresolved issues mean there may still be challenges along the path to 2011 even if the Yar’adua obstacle is removed. The “system” still has some serious thinking to do!
Back from the Brink?
Nigeria has this dangerous habit of perpetually getting close to the edge of the precipice before stepping or being dragged back. Our political leaders have elevated brinkmanship to an art form, and sometimes their stunts blow up in all our faces. In the first republic, the imposition of the Akintola Premiership on the West against the ruling of the Privy Council in England and against the will of the majority of his Action Group members; the subsequent declaration of state of emergency in that region; the controversy over the organisation of the 1964 Census; the dissolution of the NPC/NCNC federal coalition; attempts to suppress the Tiv and other minority elements in Northern Nigeria; and the blatant rigging of the 1964 federal elections and 1965 Western region voting eventually resulted in a disastrous civil war.
The dribbles of the clever General Ibrahim Babangida over the return to civil rule programme between 1989 and 1993 (and Organisation of Islamic Countries (OIC) membership) eventually resulted in the Orkar Coup of April 1990 and later Abacha’s ascension to power. Abacha himself was an expert at brinkmanship. He seemed to get his high from danger and confrontation and soon took Nigeria very close to a second civil war, or perhaps an implosion of the country itself. Even President Obasanjo, perhaps the most senior member of a clique which may be regarded as self-appointed guarantors of Nigeria national unity (along with Generals T.Y Danjuma, Abdulsalam Abubakar, IBB and Aliyu Gusau-and others on the periphery) also practiced the art with his “third term” bid and the conduct of the 2007 general elections.
Now the latest people to take us close to the brink is a small clique of Turai Yar’adua, Tanimu Yakubu, Sayyadi Abba Ruma and others around the President. Probably the narrowest power clique to attempt a monopoly over power in Nigeria’s history, the group mostly hails from Katsina. They are essentially defined by personal ties to President Umaru Yar’adua (UMY)-his wife, his ex-appointees while he was Katsina State Governor who have followed him into the federal government, his personal security aides and child hood friends and his business man friend. Their power base derives completely from their dependency on the president-on their own they do not have any political legitimacy, and in a sense, it is this knowledge that without presidential cover they are politically naked that explains their determination to preserve UMY’s regime beyond its medical expiry date!
In constitutional terms, the rule by this clique beyond a point at which it was clear that UMY was in control of his faculties amounted to a coup-an unconstitutional take-over of power by persons, and in a manner not envisaged by the constitution. The constitution does not recognise a first lady, any minister or other appointee of a president and certainly not his personal security aides and childhood friends as legitimate inheritors of political power in the event of the absence, indisposition, medical leave or incapacitation of a president. In this understanding, what the Senate and House of Representatives then did by their actions of last week, to the extent that it also did not accord strictly with the terms of the 1999 Constitution may also be interpreted as a counter-coup! Of the two coups, the one by the Turai Clique and the National Assembly one, it is clear which ought to enjoy better legitimacy!!!
At least the actions of the National Assembly restore constitutional rule in Nigeria after 78 days of the Turai Coup. Clearly the interpretation of the purported interview on BBC by a voice resembling Yar’adua as amounting to a transmission of a letter under the terms of Section 145 of the Constitution was an innovative stretch designed to outwit the Turai Clique and beat them at their game. The invocation of the doctrine of “necessity” rather than the explicit terms of the constitution confirms the stretch of the intendment of the framers of the 1999 constitution. But then, as I said earlier, that action of the National Assembly may be supported as helping to restore constitutional rule as others constitutionally entitled to act-the Executive Council of the Federation (under section 144) and the President (under Section 145) had wilfully refused to do so. The only other option open to the National Assembly-impeachment (under Section 143) may have been politically unfeasible. While I support the insistence of civil society elements on full observance of the constitution, they must do nothing that puts them unknowingly in support of the Turai Coup.
I regarded the tensions we were enduring since November 23 2009 as perhaps a move towards self-destruction by Nigeria’s corrupt ruling class. It may have been interesting as I wrote in a recent article to watch the “system” prepare its own wake-keeping. Perhaps that is why everyone-Obasanjo, Shagari, Shonekan, Bola Tinubu, media owners and editors, Justice Kutigi (who a few weeks earlier had become a de facto accomplice in the Turai Coup) and everyone else sought to exculpate themselves from the dangerous direction the country was drifting towards. Perhaps the “system” has stepped back from the brink? Perhaps not?
The dribbles of the clever General Ibrahim Babangida over the return to civil rule programme between 1989 and 1993 (and Organisation of Islamic Countries (OIC) membership) eventually resulted in the Orkar Coup of April 1990 and later Abacha’s ascension to power. Abacha himself was an expert at brinkmanship. He seemed to get his high from danger and confrontation and soon took Nigeria very close to a second civil war, or perhaps an implosion of the country itself. Even President Obasanjo, perhaps the most senior member of a clique which may be regarded as self-appointed guarantors of Nigeria national unity (along with Generals T.Y Danjuma, Abdulsalam Abubakar, IBB and Aliyu Gusau-and others on the periphery) also practiced the art with his “third term” bid and the conduct of the 2007 general elections.
Now the latest people to take us close to the brink is a small clique of Turai Yar’adua, Tanimu Yakubu, Sayyadi Abba Ruma and others around the President. Probably the narrowest power clique to attempt a monopoly over power in Nigeria’s history, the group mostly hails from Katsina. They are essentially defined by personal ties to President Umaru Yar’adua (UMY)-his wife, his ex-appointees while he was Katsina State Governor who have followed him into the federal government, his personal security aides and child hood friends and his business man friend. Their power base derives completely from their dependency on the president-on their own they do not have any political legitimacy, and in a sense, it is this knowledge that without presidential cover they are politically naked that explains their determination to preserve UMY’s regime beyond its medical expiry date!
In constitutional terms, the rule by this clique beyond a point at which it was clear that UMY was in control of his faculties amounted to a coup-an unconstitutional take-over of power by persons, and in a manner not envisaged by the constitution. The constitution does not recognise a first lady, any minister or other appointee of a president and certainly not his personal security aides and childhood friends as legitimate inheritors of political power in the event of the absence, indisposition, medical leave or incapacitation of a president. In this understanding, what the Senate and House of Representatives then did by their actions of last week, to the extent that it also did not accord strictly with the terms of the 1999 Constitution may also be interpreted as a counter-coup! Of the two coups, the one by the Turai Clique and the National Assembly one, it is clear which ought to enjoy better legitimacy!!!
At least the actions of the National Assembly restore constitutional rule in Nigeria after 78 days of the Turai Coup. Clearly the interpretation of the purported interview on BBC by a voice resembling Yar’adua as amounting to a transmission of a letter under the terms of Section 145 of the Constitution was an innovative stretch designed to outwit the Turai Clique and beat them at their game. The invocation of the doctrine of “necessity” rather than the explicit terms of the constitution confirms the stretch of the intendment of the framers of the 1999 constitution. But then, as I said earlier, that action of the National Assembly may be supported as helping to restore constitutional rule as others constitutionally entitled to act-the Executive Council of the Federation (under section 144) and the President (under Section 145) had wilfully refused to do so. The only other option open to the National Assembly-impeachment (under Section 143) may have been politically unfeasible. While I support the insistence of civil society elements on full observance of the constitution, they must do nothing that puts them unknowingly in support of the Turai Coup.
I regarded the tensions we were enduring since November 23 2009 as perhaps a move towards self-destruction by Nigeria’s corrupt ruling class. It may have been interesting as I wrote in a recent article to watch the “system” prepare its own wake-keeping. Perhaps that is why everyone-Obasanjo, Shagari, Shonekan, Bola Tinubu, media owners and editors, Justice Kutigi (who a few weeks earlier had become a de facto accomplice in the Turai Coup) and everyone else sought to exculpate themselves from the dangerous direction the country was drifting towards. Perhaps the “system” has stepped back from the brink? Perhaps not?
Wednesday, February 3, 2010
Absurdity in Lagos
What is wrong with Nigeria? Are our people allergic to progress and development? Do we actually abhor goodness and anything with any trace of the positive? Why do we struggle so hard to subvert, abort or destroy any person, group or movement that shows any signs of departing from the retrogressive norms that we have become so accustomed? Are we actually cursed?
When we had Chief Awolowo, they threw him into jail, and then waited until he was safely in the grave before declaring him “the best president Nigeria never had”. As a secondary school student, I recall watching General Obasanjo in a national television interview just before the 1979 elections actually telling Nigerian voters that they did not have to vote for the best candidate! When Murtala Muhammed showed signs that he was breaking with a developing pattern of drift and corruption, determined to move Nigeria down a more radical and progressive path, we quickly shot him dead after only six months! Very recently we saw how Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala was first removed from the finance ministry, and then from headship of the economic team in 2006 forcing the lady to bow out honourably before she was disgraced from office. That was her reward for getting Nigeria the landmark debt forgiveness deal from our creditors!
The latest example of the Nigerian abhorrence for progress is the strenuous efforts being made to rubbish the highly-acclaimed Lagos State Governor, Babatunde Raji Fashola (SAN). While the Governor was receiving an international award from the Martin Luther King Foundation in the US for outstanding leadership, some adversaries were putting finishing touches to a carefully scripted effort to impugn his reputation. It is increasingly difficult to dispel the view that powerful forces probably within the governor’s own Action Congress party are determined at the very least, to tarnish his reputation, possibly remove him from office through impeachment or forced resignation, and as a strategic objective ensure he does not run for a second term in 2011. If this absurd strategising is true, it will amount to a disrespect and disregard for the citizens and voters in Lagos!
We have observed the absurdity of a Speaker of the House of Assembly from the same party acting as if he was in effect leader of opposition to the Governor! While the media, citizens, professionals, and even opposition politicians acknowledge the Governor’s excellent performance, the speaker is constantly sniping at the governor, and recently complained about “praise singers” who were celebrating BRF’s administration. According to the speaker, Fashola is not the only performing governor as others were also doing well. Apparently the AC Speaker in Lagos is prepared to advertise Governors elected on the platform of opposing parties as a counterpoise to that of his own fellow party member? Absurd politics, I dare say!
Last week some people calling themselves “The True Face of Lagos” published allegations of financial impropriety against Fashola. Almost immediately, the House set up a committee to probe the allegations. Some newspaper reports suggest that the committee is the first stage of impeachment proceedings against Fashola! Now I do not support corruption and no allegations of corruption should be ignored. And I am sure Fashola and his administration is perfectly capable of defending itself against the specific allegations. But isn’t it incongruous that Fashola, by all standards the best-performing governor since the return to civil rule in 1999 is the only governor facing a trial for corruption by his state assembly? Of course we know it is all politics! The Speaker implies in his comments that the citizens and voters in Lagos do not matter-only members of the party do. That is why he constantly complains about people who are not members of their party who are praising the governor, as if only party members are entitled to comment about governance. May be he thinks the citizens exist only to vote and pay taxes so that the party members can live a worthy existence, and when we appreciate a governor who is making life better for Lagos residents, we are stepping beyond our bounds. Quite Absurd!!!
Fears that there is indeed some disaffection between the Governor and his predecessor, Asiwaju Bola Tinubu have been fuelled by the adverts placed by Dele Alake, Tinubu’s former Commissioner for Information and Strategy. Why was it necessary two and a half years after Tinubu left office to re-advertise his achievements while in office? And to do so on so many pages, in so many newspapers? What was the point? Some of us fear the AC in Lagos State may be preparing for a classic “unforced error” which should gladden the hearts of the PDP as we draw closer to 2011! Lagos voters may decide as all this unfolds that it is all politics; they don’t care about us; it is all about themselves, and their interests. And in politics, as in life, pride comes before a fall! That is how the AD/AC lost Ogun, Ondo, Oyo, Ekiti, Ondo and Osun. They got arrogant and over-confident and took the people and voters for granted, such that when the PDP stole their coveted offices, our people left them to fight for themselves. Now Lagos?
We pray that good sense will prevail and the AC in Lagos will reconcile themselves for the greater battle ahead in 2011 rather than dissipate the goodwill of the people of Lagos State.
When we had Chief Awolowo, they threw him into jail, and then waited until he was safely in the grave before declaring him “the best president Nigeria never had”. As a secondary school student, I recall watching General Obasanjo in a national television interview just before the 1979 elections actually telling Nigerian voters that they did not have to vote for the best candidate! When Murtala Muhammed showed signs that he was breaking with a developing pattern of drift and corruption, determined to move Nigeria down a more radical and progressive path, we quickly shot him dead after only six months! Very recently we saw how Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala was first removed from the finance ministry, and then from headship of the economic team in 2006 forcing the lady to bow out honourably before she was disgraced from office. That was her reward for getting Nigeria the landmark debt forgiveness deal from our creditors!
The latest example of the Nigerian abhorrence for progress is the strenuous efforts being made to rubbish the highly-acclaimed Lagos State Governor, Babatunde Raji Fashola (SAN). While the Governor was receiving an international award from the Martin Luther King Foundation in the US for outstanding leadership, some adversaries were putting finishing touches to a carefully scripted effort to impugn his reputation. It is increasingly difficult to dispel the view that powerful forces probably within the governor’s own Action Congress party are determined at the very least, to tarnish his reputation, possibly remove him from office through impeachment or forced resignation, and as a strategic objective ensure he does not run for a second term in 2011. If this absurd strategising is true, it will amount to a disrespect and disregard for the citizens and voters in Lagos!
We have observed the absurdity of a Speaker of the House of Assembly from the same party acting as if he was in effect leader of opposition to the Governor! While the media, citizens, professionals, and even opposition politicians acknowledge the Governor’s excellent performance, the speaker is constantly sniping at the governor, and recently complained about “praise singers” who were celebrating BRF’s administration. According to the speaker, Fashola is not the only performing governor as others were also doing well. Apparently the AC Speaker in Lagos is prepared to advertise Governors elected on the platform of opposing parties as a counterpoise to that of his own fellow party member? Absurd politics, I dare say!
Last week some people calling themselves “The True Face of Lagos” published allegations of financial impropriety against Fashola. Almost immediately, the House set up a committee to probe the allegations. Some newspaper reports suggest that the committee is the first stage of impeachment proceedings against Fashola! Now I do not support corruption and no allegations of corruption should be ignored. And I am sure Fashola and his administration is perfectly capable of defending itself against the specific allegations. But isn’t it incongruous that Fashola, by all standards the best-performing governor since the return to civil rule in 1999 is the only governor facing a trial for corruption by his state assembly? Of course we know it is all politics! The Speaker implies in his comments that the citizens and voters in Lagos do not matter-only members of the party do. That is why he constantly complains about people who are not members of their party who are praising the governor, as if only party members are entitled to comment about governance. May be he thinks the citizens exist only to vote and pay taxes so that the party members can live a worthy existence, and when we appreciate a governor who is making life better for Lagos residents, we are stepping beyond our bounds. Quite Absurd!!!
Fears that there is indeed some disaffection between the Governor and his predecessor, Asiwaju Bola Tinubu have been fuelled by the adverts placed by Dele Alake, Tinubu’s former Commissioner for Information and Strategy. Why was it necessary two and a half years after Tinubu left office to re-advertise his achievements while in office? And to do so on so many pages, in so many newspapers? What was the point? Some of us fear the AC in Lagos State may be preparing for a classic “unforced error” which should gladden the hearts of the PDP as we draw closer to 2011! Lagos voters may decide as all this unfolds that it is all politics; they don’t care about us; it is all about themselves, and their interests. And in politics, as in life, pride comes before a fall! That is how the AD/AC lost Ogun, Ondo, Oyo, Ekiti, Ondo and Osun. They got arrogant and over-confident and took the people and voters for granted, such that when the PDP stole their coveted offices, our people left them to fight for themselves. Now Lagos?
We pray that good sense will prevail and the AC in Lagos will reconcile themselves for the greater battle ahead in 2011 rather than dissipate the goodwill of the people of Lagos State.
Interesting Times
Why are the cornerstones of the present system beginning to reposition themselves on the side of the people of Nigeria? Do they sense that change is around the corner? A few months ago, General David Mark in effect told off the US Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, and those of us who he obviously regards as unpatriotic and disgruntled Nigerians who continue to insist that things were not right with Nigeria. According to the retired officer, Nigeria was doing very well and things were going in the right direction. I am not so sure Senator Mark has not recently modified his position.
Certainly our friend, Ojo Maduekwe has! I did not watch his BBC interview but those who did, appear to have been thoroughly unhappy after the episode. From newspaper reports, it appears that Maduekwe was not his usual articulate self and appears to have had some difficulty rationalising and justifying the present state of affairs in our country. The Guardian (Friday, January 22, 2009) reports Ojo as admitting that Nigeria is passing through tough times and quoted him thus “ the leadership will no longer act in denial…We must accept that all is not well with us and that we missed opportunities to turn the corners”. Interesting times! So the leadership were in denial? After the Christmas day Detroit terror incident involving Umar Farouk Abdul Muttalab, we proclaimed that terrorism is not in our character. Less than thirty days later, over thirty people have died in religious violence in Bauchi and now perhaps up to a thousand in Jos. Interesting!
When Professor Wole Soyinka, Pastor Tunde Bakare and others in the “Save Nigeria Group” organised their Abuja rally, our ruling class as usual brimming with false and unfounded confidence would typically have ignored them. Spokespersons of the system would have derided them as unpatriotic elements and perpetual agitators who did not command the support of the people. But guess what, the Speaker of the House of Representatives attempted to actually address the rally. And then the establishment rallies its own assemblage of “currently displaced ex-politicians” led by Anyim Pius Anyim and gets them to address the Senate President and Federal Speaker. Yet this group, even while seeking to discredit protest as a means of ending the present crisis, made essentially the same points the protesting group were making.
The biggest sign yet that something is about to give is General Olusegun Obasanjo’s call on the President he essentially forced on Nigerians, Umaru Yar’adua to toe the path of honour and resign from office due to his health challenges. Does Obasanjo know something we don’t know? Or why do you think Obasanjo, who would otherwise have insisted “I dey Kampe” in response to any criticisms by those he would have dismissed as ignorant Nigerians, is now bothering to extricate himself from the possible backlash from the present contrived crisis and explaining himself? Even our Senators and Representatives are now hedging their bets, as reportedly many of them are getting worried that the present drift is dangerous and unsustainable.
The usually shadowy and silent Yarádua Clique is also explaining itself to Nigerians through “anonymous” media briefings even though their narrative is strange. Banking on Obasanjo’s unpopularity, they claim that the reason they don’t want to hand over to Goodluck Jonathan is because of him. They remind us that Obasanjo does not believe in democracy, and that once Jonathan takes office, Obasanjo will be the de facto power behind the throne. Pray, is this not the same Obasanjo who put their principal in power? Is this not the same Obasanjo, Turai Yar’adua went to thank in Abeokuta immediately her husband was successfully imposed on Nigerians? Is that not the same Obasanjo who appointed Sayaddi Abba Ruma as Minister of State for Education, and Tanimu Yakubu as CEO of Federal Mortgage Bank of Nigeria? When and why did Obasanjo become their enemy? When did they become the apostles and protectors of democracy? I tell you fellow Nigerians, these are indeed interesting times!
Even President Umaru Yar’adua (UMY) is evidently rattled. He had no choice but to issue an official explanation for his absence that apparently has some basis in reality even though clearly not the whole truth-acute pericarditis. And then he would have liked to ignore all the complaints from civil society and opposition elements about the resultant power vacuum but when his office appears threatened by protesters and an imminent debate in the National Assembly, he quickly appears on BCC (well he doesn’t really appear, but his voice does “appear”) to pre-empt any adverse actions and deflate the momentum building against him. I interpret UMY’s action to mean that contrary to the impression of many observers that he is being forced by his inner circle to hang on to power contrary to his personal desire, perhaps he actually will do whatever is possible to remain president.
These indeed are interesting times. Sad; depressing sometimes; possibly moving towards a comedy, tragedy or tragic-comedy; embarrassing as the world looks at us in amazement wondering what sort of people or nation we are; and increasingly resembling a farce. The system has put its thumb on the self-destruct button, and despite all admonition continues to press down hard. It will be interesting to see how all these resolves itself.
Certainly our friend, Ojo Maduekwe has! I did not watch his BBC interview but those who did, appear to have been thoroughly unhappy after the episode. From newspaper reports, it appears that Maduekwe was not his usual articulate self and appears to have had some difficulty rationalising and justifying the present state of affairs in our country. The Guardian (Friday, January 22, 2009) reports Ojo as admitting that Nigeria is passing through tough times and quoted him thus “ the leadership will no longer act in denial…We must accept that all is not well with us and that we missed opportunities to turn the corners”. Interesting times! So the leadership were in denial? After the Christmas day Detroit terror incident involving Umar Farouk Abdul Muttalab, we proclaimed that terrorism is not in our character. Less than thirty days later, over thirty people have died in religious violence in Bauchi and now perhaps up to a thousand in Jos. Interesting!
When Professor Wole Soyinka, Pastor Tunde Bakare and others in the “Save Nigeria Group” organised their Abuja rally, our ruling class as usual brimming with false and unfounded confidence would typically have ignored them. Spokespersons of the system would have derided them as unpatriotic elements and perpetual agitators who did not command the support of the people. But guess what, the Speaker of the House of Representatives attempted to actually address the rally. And then the establishment rallies its own assemblage of “currently displaced ex-politicians” led by Anyim Pius Anyim and gets them to address the Senate President and Federal Speaker. Yet this group, even while seeking to discredit protest as a means of ending the present crisis, made essentially the same points the protesting group were making.
The biggest sign yet that something is about to give is General Olusegun Obasanjo’s call on the President he essentially forced on Nigerians, Umaru Yar’adua to toe the path of honour and resign from office due to his health challenges. Does Obasanjo know something we don’t know? Or why do you think Obasanjo, who would otherwise have insisted “I dey Kampe” in response to any criticisms by those he would have dismissed as ignorant Nigerians, is now bothering to extricate himself from the possible backlash from the present contrived crisis and explaining himself? Even our Senators and Representatives are now hedging their bets, as reportedly many of them are getting worried that the present drift is dangerous and unsustainable.
The usually shadowy and silent Yarádua Clique is also explaining itself to Nigerians through “anonymous” media briefings even though their narrative is strange. Banking on Obasanjo’s unpopularity, they claim that the reason they don’t want to hand over to Goodluck Jonathan is because of him. They remind us that Obasanjo does not believe in democracy, and that once Jonathan takes office, Obasanjo will be the de facto power behind the throne. Pray, is this not the same Obasanjo who put their principal in power? Is this not the same Obasanjo, Turai Yar’adua went to thank in Abeokuta immediately her husband was successfully imposed on Nigerians? Is that not the same Obasanjo who appointed Sayaddi Abba Ruma as Minister of State for Education, and Tanimu Yakubu as CEO of Federal Mortgage Bank of Nigeria? When and why did Obasanjo become their enemy? When did they become the apostles and protectors of democracy? I tell you fellow Nigerians, these are indeed interesting times!
Even President Umaru Yar’adua (UMY) is evidently rattled. He had no choice but to issue an official explanation for his absence that apparently has some basis in reality even though clearly not the whole truth-acute pericarditis. And then he would have liked to ignore all the complaints from civil society and opposition elements about the resultant power vacuum but when his office appears threatened by protesters and an imminent debate in the National Assembly, he quickly appears on BCC (well he doesn’t really appear, but his voice does “appear”) to pre-empt any adverse actions and deflate the momentum building against him. I interpret UMY’s action to mean that contrary to the impression of many observers that he is being forced by his inner circle to hang on to power contrary to his personal desire, perhaps he actually will do whatever is possible to remain president.
These indeed are interesting times. Sad; depressing sometimes; possibly moving towards a comedy, tragedy or tragic-comedy; embarrassing as the world looks at us in amazement wondering what sort of people or nation we are; and increasingly resembling a farce. The system has put its thumb on the self-destruct button, and despite all admonition continues to press down hard. It will be interesting to see how all these resolves itself.
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
The Seeds of Terror Part 2
In the face of overwhelming evidence that our politics is defined by violence, intimidation and coercion; that we have a history of intermittent religious conflicts in Northern Nigeria (which in fact is becoming more regular); and that our communities are riven with violence, it is simply astounding how we arrived at the unfounded consensus that terror is somehow incompatible with the Nigerian, illustrating that oftentimes popular opinion may be grounded not in facts and rational analysis, but in collective amnesia. Let’s again re-examine the evidence.
Our post-independence politics was very violent-“operation wetie” in Western Nigeria” (political opponents and perceived traitors were doused with inflammable liquids and set on fire); Tiv riots in the Middle-Belt; the January 15, 1966 military coup which appeared to have disproportionately targeted victims from Northern Nigeria, and in some cases needlessly killed even their spouses; revenge attacks of a genocidal nature launched across the North against Southerners, especially those from Eastern Nigeria; the counter-coup of July 1966 which sought to equalise the body count; and civil war which reportedly led to the death of over a million people. During the civil war, we know of the massacre of males carried out in Asaba and surrounding towns and villages by federal troops led by General Murtala Muhammed on October 7, 1967.
We have regular religious crisis in Northern Nigeria-Kano, Bauchi, Jos, Maiduguri, Kafanchan, Zaria etc in which thousands of Nigerians have lost their lives. Most states in Nigeria’s North, we would recall have officially adopted the Sharia legal system, a direct assault on Nigeria’s secular constitution. Our politics is by definition, terror! How do you describe what happened in Ekiti State in the name of elections some months ago? Election observers, civil society representatives and opposition party agents were battered, bruised and thrown into jail for their temerity to stand in the way of those with superior firepower. How about the kidnap of Governor Ngige and the violent raping of Awka during the Obasanjo regime? Or the late Adedibu’s reign of terror in Ibadan, Oyo State which both the then ruling party chairman (Ahmadu Ali) and the President of the nation justified? We have a long list of intra or inter-communal violence-Aguleri/Umuleri, Ife/Modakeke, Sagamu, Warri, Ago-Iwoye, Tiv/Jukun, Ogoni/Andoni, Zangon-kataf etc. The contemporary Niger-Delta militancy indeed also adopted terrorist methods in pursuing its objectives, even though the underlying complaints may have been legitimate.
And then let’s examine the behaviour of individuals and communities. What do you think will happen if a petty thief is caught picking three hundred Naira (two dollars) from a trader’s pocket in Oshodi, Onitsha, Wuse market in Abuja or Kano? Uniformly in all of these places, the outcome is likely to be similar-the trader shouts “Ole Ole” (Thief, Thief); a crowd set upon the petty thief; he is stripped naked, beaten and mobbed; tires are draped around his neck and petrol or kerosene is added and then (except the police arrive before the sequence is completed) he is set on fire! And what happens when the police themselves arrest some armed robbers in the course of an anti-crime operation? Well if Amnesty International is to be believed, they simply shoot them to death! How do our road transport workers select their leaders and conduct their affairs, whether in Lagos, Abeokuta, Ijebu-Ode, Aba or Calabar? Well they fight it out-with guns, cutlasses, axes, cudgels, amulets and charms and other implements of war.
And how do we resolve disputes over land and chieftaincy? Well ask the residents of Ajah, Lekki in Lagos about their experience during the urban warfare between the Olumegbon and his adversaries! And our university campuses? Campus cults of all varieties spread terror and fear among students and lecturers with frequent shoot-outs and many deaths. So for those who may have missed last week’s instalment, let us remind ourselves of the definition of terror. The Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary defines “terror” as “a feeling of extreme fear”, “terrorism” as “the use of violent action in order to achieve political aims or to force a government to act”, “terrorist” as “a person who takes part in terrorism and to “terrorize” is “to frighten and threaten people so that they will not oppose sth or will do as they are told”. Based on the evidence outlined above, is it debatable that our politics, social and communal affairs are regularly characterised by fear and violence? And in terms of religion, isn’t it clear that Northern Nigeria in particular has a problem with religious intolerance and recurrent violence?
As a Nigerian I do not support the US classification of Nigeria as a “country of interest” necessitating strict searches and airport clearance procedures for Nigerian travellers passing through international airports. I believe the preponderance of victims of such a policy indeed are unlikely to ever contemplate acts of terror on airplanes. But shouldn’t we address the fundamental issues? Frankly the trend of religious violence in Northern Nigeria is troubling. Additionally, in Somalia, Afghanistan, Yemen and Pakistan, there was first a weakening of government and a power vacuum which Islamist terror seized upon. Any one observing the on-going absence of governance in Nigeria will worry about where all this will lead.
Our post-independence politics was very violent-“operation wetie” in Western Nigeria” (political opponents and perceived traitors were doused with inflammable liquids and set on fire); Tiv riots in the Middle-Belt; the January 15, 1966 military coup which appeared to have disproportionately targeted victims from Northern Nigeria, and in some cases needlessly killed even their spouses; revenge attacks of a genocidal nature launched across the North against Southerners, especially those from Eastern Nigeria; the counter-coup of July 1966 which sought to equalise the body count; and civil war which reportedly led to the death of over a million people. During the civil war, we know of the massacre of males carried out in Asaba and surrounding towns and villages by federal troops led by General Murtala Muhammed on October 7, 1967.
We have regular religious crisis in Northern Nigeria-Kano, Bauchi, Jos, Maiduguri, Kafanchan, Zaria etc in which thousands of Nigerians have lost their lives. Most states in Nigeria’s North, we would recall have officially adopted the Sharia legal system, a direct assault on Nigeria’s secular constitution. Our politics is by definition, terror! How do you describe what happened in Ekiti State in the name of elections some months ago? Election observers, civil society representatives and opposition party agents were battered, bruised and thrown into jail for their temerity to stand in the way of those with superior firepower. How about the kidnap of Governor Ngige and the violent raping of Awka during the Obasanjo regime? Or the late Adedibu’s reign of terror in Ibadan, Oyo State which both the then ruling party chairman (Ahmadu Ali) and the President of the nation justified? We have a long list of intra or inter-communal violence-Aguleri/Umuleri, Ife/Modakeke, Sagamu, Warri, Ago-Iwoye, Tiv/Jukun, Ogoni/Andoni, Zangon-kataf etc. The contemporary Niger-Delta militancy indeed also adopted terrorist methods in pursuing its objectives, even though the underlying complaints may have been legitimate.
And then let’s examine the behaviour of individuals and communities. What do you think will happen if a petty thief is caught picking three hundred Naira (two dollars) from a trader’s pocket in Oshodi, Onitsha, Wuse market in Abuja or Kano? Uniformly in all of these places, the outcome is likely to be similar-the trader shouts “Ole Ole” (Thief, Thief); a crowd set upon the petty thief; he is stripped naked, beaten and mobbed; tires are draped around his neck and petrol or kerosene is added and then (except the police arrive before the sequence is completed) he is set on fire! And what happens when the police themselves arrest some armed robbers in the course of an anti-crime operation? Well if Amnesty International is to be believed, they simply shoot them to death! How do our road transport workers select their leaders and conduct their affairs, whether in Lagos, Abeokuta, Ijebu-Ode, Aba or Calabar? Well they fight it out-with guns, cutlasses, axes, cudgels, amulets and charms and other implements of war.
And how do we resolve disputes over land and chieftaincy? Well ask the residents of Ajah, Lekki in Lagos about their experience during the urban warfare between the Olumegbon and his adversaries! And our university campuses? Campus cults of all varieties spread terror and fear among students and lecturers with frequent shoot-outs and many deaths. So for those who may have missed last week’s instalment, let us remind ourselves of the definition of terror. The Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary defines “terror” as “a feeling of extreme fear”, “terrorism” as “the use of violent action in order to achieve political aims or to force a government to act”, “terrorist” as “a person who takes part in terrorism and to “terrorize” is “to frighten and threaten people so that they will not oppose sth or will do as they are told”. Based on the evidence outlined above, is it debatable that our politics, social and communal affairs are regularly characterised by fear and violence? And in terms of religion, isn’t it clear that Northern Nigeria in particular has a problem with religious intolerance and recurrent violence?
As a Nigerian I do not support the US classification of Nigeria as a “country of interest” necessitating strict searches and airport clearance procedures for Nigerian travellers passing through international airports. I believe the preponderance of victims of such a policy indeed are unlikely to ever contemplate acts of terror on airplanes. But shouldn’t we address the fundamental issues? Frankly the trend of religious violence in Northern Nigeria is troubling. Additionally, in Somalia, Afghanistan, Yemen and Pakistan, there was first a weakening of government and a power vacuum which Islamist terror seized upon. Any one observing the on-going absence of governance in Nigeria will worry about where all this will lead.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)