President Umaru Yar’adua died last Wednesday, May 5, 2010 at a relatively young age of 58. He was born on August 16, 1951 to the prominent Fulani family of Musa Yar’adua, Minister for Lagos Affairs under the first republic. His older brother General Shehu Musa Yar’adua was Chief of Staff, Supreme Headquarters (effectively Prime Minister and Number 2) under General Olusegun Obasanjo from February 2006 (after the assassination of Murtala Muhammed) till the handover to civilian rule in 1979.
Shehu Yar’adua vigorously sought the presidency of Nigeria. Along with Babangida, Joe Garba and Anthony Ochefu, he was a ringleader of the military coup that displaced General Yakubu Gowon in 1975, and brought in the triumvirate of Muhammed, Obasanjo and T.Y Danjuma. As deputy to Obasanjo, he appeared to have a deal with the incoming National Party of Nigeria (NPN) government of President Shehu Shagari to be made Defence Minister. Power brokers within the NPN feared the influence he would acquire as Defence Chief and failed to honour the deal. An embittered Yar’adua fought back, forming a group that attempted (unsuccessfully) to work with Chief Obafemi Awolowo in the 1983 general election.
Under the Babangida transition, Shehu Yar’adua formed the Peoples Front (PF) which included Babagana Kingibe, Lawal Kaita, Farouk Abdulazzez, Yahaya Kwande and Atiku Abubakar. PF even though less endowed in terms of electoral assets was more politically crafty and ended up seizing control of the Social Democratic Party (SDP) from the Afenifere, and Shehu became the party’s dominant leader. Umaru Yar’adua who had leaned towards the leftist Peoples Redemption Party (PRP) of Mallam Aminu Kano from 1978 to 1983, was a member of the SDP in Katsina State and sought the state governorship, losing to Alhaji Saidu Barda of the more conservative National Republican Convention (NRC). With the failure of the Babangida transition and the ascension to power of General Sani Abacha in 1993, Shehu Yar’adua continued his quest for power which inevitably got him into trouble (and jail) with Abacha. Shehu unlike his friend and boss, Obasanjo did not survive Abacha’s prison!
In 1999, Obasanjo became civilian President. Umaru Yar’adua was second time lucky, becoming Governor of Katsina, and in spite of health challenges went on to run a fairly transparent administration. After Obasanjo’s two terms, in 2007 he forced Umaru on the ruling Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) and the nation. What the older Yar’adua had lost his life seeking; Umaru was given by Obasanjo and a compliant nation, on a platter of gold. It remains one of the abiding mysteries of Nigerian politics that Umaru Yar’adua upon ascension to the Presidency appeared to regard Obasanjo as a political adversary. Interestingly apart from Yar’adua many of the influential people within his circle (Isa Yuguda, Sayyadi Abba Ruma, Tanimu Yakubu, Bukola Saraki, Danjuma Goje, Mahmud Yayale Ahmed etc) were previous Obasanjo appointees and beneficiaries as well. It was public knowledge that Umaru was in poor health-as Katsina governor, he spent months in Germany receiving medical treatment; and he collapsed and was rushed abroad during his presidential campaign.
Yar’adua’s most significant achievement was the Niger-Delta ministry and amnesty which brought respite in a region plagued by violence and lawlessness. The turmoil had cut oil production and government revenue and was affecting global oil markets. Though the programme failed to address the underlying causes of conflict, it offered temporary peace and provided an opportunity to deal with the fundamentals. He provided strong political support for Lamido Sanusi, his appointee to the Central Bank who embarked on a radical (and some argue brash) clean-up of Nigeria’s banking sector. While the reform was necessary, the Bank and the Government did not appear to have focused sufficiently on the systemic risks associated with their actions, precipitating a credit crunch and general economic slowdown. The third achievement Yar’adua is associated with-“rule of law”-is more nebulous. Some of us believe that the rule of law mandates action against corruption and obeying all laws, such as the Electric Power Sector Reform Act (EPSRA) 2005 which Yar’adua failed to do.
He did not fight corruption. Indeed many of his allies were persons with serious charges of corruption against them. His Attorney-General, Michael Aondoakaa became in effect defence attorney to such persons and the EFCC was crippled. The regime failed to address the nation’s power crisis insisting against good sense on pumping government money into the inefficient PHCN and ignoring the EPSRA which contained a rational model for ameliorating the power situation. He made no impact on our other economic priorities-improving infrastructure, investing and reforming social services, particularly health and education, resolving downstream petroleum sector deregulation and advancing economic reform. He also became half-hearted about electoral reform in spite of his inauguration-day promise, discarding most of the critical recommendations of the Justice Uwais panel. Politically he seemed to disproportionately appoint persons from his North-West zone (particularly the Katsina/Kano axis) to important offices.
Since November 2009, President Umaru Yar’adua had been very ill. His family and friends focused on retaining power, and/or preventing his deputy, Goodluck Jonathan from inheriting the office, rather than his health and well-being. But Yar’adua was a decent gentleman, a humane politician and probably a well-meaning leader. Now he is no longer an object of political schemes and manipulation and will now have his rest. May his soul rest in peace.
Thursday, May 13, 2010
Nigeria: Forward or Backward Part 2
Last week I suggested that Nigeria will benefit by searching for a new, more contemporary leadership that possesses the required ingredients of honesty and integrity, competence, vision and commitment. In my view, the usual candidates-Ibrahim Babangida, Muhammadu Buhari and Abubakar Atiku would do us no good! It is time, I argued for our nation to look forward to the future, rather than back to the past, especially in terms of selecting our President and Vice-President in 2011. However in view of ex-President Babangida’s hypothesis that his generation must continue to occupy Nigeria’s political leadership in so far as the younger generation have not proven up to the task of leading, the position I advocate would be incomplete except I can come up with names of the type of leaders I have in mind.
So let’s start from Northern Nigeria. I think Niger State Governor Babangida Aliyu is very qualified to be President of Nigeria, and he would probably (at the very least) be a better leader than any of the usual suspects. He was a very experienced federal civil servant rising to permanent secretary before his election as Governor. He espouses some admirable values (such as servant-leadership) and appears willing to engage on intellectual issues. He also comes across as somewhat of a nationalist rather than an ethnic, regional or religious jingoist. And he has more experience in management and leadership today than Babangida, Buhari or Atiku when they first occupied high office. The same argument will apply to Dr Shamsudeen Usman (former state commissioner, bank CEO, Central Bank Deputy-Governor and Finance Minister and current National Planning Minister); Mallam Abba Kyari (former UBA Managing Director); Senator Sanusi Daggash (former Representative, Senator, National Planning Minister and current Minister for Works) and numerous others.
From the South-South, we can list former Cross-River State governor, Donald Duke, Mr Atedo Peterside and Senator Udoma Udo-Udoma. Duke was a very successful state governor for eight years. His state, along with Edo, was the poorest in the South-South. Fortunately for his people, while Edo had the misfortune of Lucky Igbinedion, Cross-River had Duke. During his tenure, his state became associated with tourism and entertainment (Obudu Ranch, Christmas Carnival) and the TINAPA Resort, which remains his enduring legacy. The state government under Duke was reasonably efficient and delivered social services to his citizens. Atedo Peterside founded IBTC Bank, built it into a strong domestic investment banking giant; engineered its merger with the former Chartered Bank thus emerging from the consolidation exercise a fairly strong universal bank; and then forged the merger with Stanbic Bank to create today’s Stanbic IBTC. He is associated with competence, sound judgment, professionalism and ethics. He has on two critical occasions-the June 12, 1993 and the recent Yar’adua crises spoken out in favour of the national interest, rather than cower quietly like many of his colleagues in the business community. I have written about Udo-Udoma in the context of the SEC Chair. I remain convinced that his professional qualifications and achievement, political and legislative experience and impeccable reputation make him a model of a public servant.
We can add to this South-South contingent, Acting President Goodluck Jonathan. Jonathan has acquitted himself excellently through the recent crisis and since he became de facto President. His education, calmness under pressure and emerging charisma make him an obvious candidate for national leadership. And his tentative record in office, though short, is admirable. I would certainly prefer to be led by Jonathan, Duke, Peterside and Udo-Udoma than Buhari, Atiku or Babangida!
From the South-East, you have the impeccable possibility of Dr Mrs Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala, Nigeria’s most successful Minister for Finance since Chief Awolowo’s war-time performance. A graduate of both Harvard and MIT, Okonjo-Iweala came to the finance ministry from a glittering career in the World Bank to which she returned as Managing Director after her ministerial tenure. Her record of Nigeria’s macroeconomic management and the reforms achieved between 2003 and 2006 is unmatched and the Paris Club debt forgiveness is an abiding testament to her competence (and the leadership of her boss, Olusegun Obasanjo before things fell apart). Professor Bartholomew Nnaji (current member of the Presidential Advisory Committee, former minister and CEO of Geometric Power) and Engineer Earnest Ndukwe (who as Nigerian Communications Commission (NCC) Executive Vice-Chairman revolutionized our telecommunications sector) are also excellent prospects.
I can confidently assert that all of the names I have mentioned in this article would make better leaders than most, if not all of those who have led this nation. I have no doubt that these individuals, and indeed many others possess the attributes required to transform our nation. We should desist from negative self-fulfilling stereotypes which appear to have become ingrained in the psyche of our people that only corrupt politicians or retired generals are qualified to lead this country. That formula has not worked. It’s time to try something different!
So let’s start from Northern Nigeria. I think Niger State Governor Babangida Aliyu is very qualified to be President of Nigeria, and he would probably (at the very least) be a better leader than any of the usual suspects. He was a very experienced federal civil servant rising to permanent secretary before his election as Governor. He espouses some admirable values (such as servant-leadership) and appears willing to engage on intellectual issues. He also comes across as somewhat of a nationalist rather than an ethnic, regional or religious jingoist. And he has more experience in management and leadership today than Babangida, Buhari or Atiku when they first occupied high office. The same argument will apply to Dr Shamsudeen Usman (former state commissioner, bank CEO, Central Bank Deputy-Governor and Finance Minister and current National Planning Minister); Mallam Abba Kyari (former UBA Managing Director); Senator Sanusi Daggash (former Representative, Senator, National Planning Minister and current Minister for Works) and numerous others.
From the South-South, we can list former Cross-River State governor, Donald Duke, Mr Atedo Peterside and Senator Udoma Udo-Udoma. Duke was a very successful state governor for eight years. His state, along with Edo, was the poorest in the South-South. Fortunately for his people, while Edo had the misfortune of Lucky Igbinedion, Cross-River had Duke. During his tenure, his state became associated with tourism and entertainment (Obudu Ranch, Christmas Carnival) and the TINAPA Resort, which remains his enduring legacy. The state government under Duke was reasonably efficient and delivered social services to his citizens. Atedo Peterside founded IBTC Bank, built it into a strong domestic investment banking giant; engineered its merger with the former Chartered Bank thus emerging from the consolidation exercise a fairly strong universal bank; and then forged the merger with Stanbic Bank to create today’s Stanbic IBTC. He is associated with competence, sound judgment, professionalism and ethics. He has on two critical occasions-the June 12, 1993 and the recent Yar’adua crises spoken out in favour of the national interest, rather than cower quietly like many of his colleagues in the business community. I have written about Udo-Udoma in the context of the SEC Chair. I remain convinced that his professional qualifications and achievement, political and legislative experience and impeccable reputation make him a model of a public servant.
We can add to this South-South contingent, Acting President Goodluck Jonathan. Jonathan has acquitted himself excellently through the recent crisis and since he became de facto President. His education, calmness under pressure and emerging charisma make him an obvious candidate for national leadership. And his tentative record in office, though short, is admirable. I would certainly prefer to be led by Jonathan, Duke, Peterside and Udo-Udoma than Buhari, Atiku or Babangida!
From the South-East, you have the impeccable possibility of Dr Mrs Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala, Nigeria’s most successful Minister for Finance since Chief Awolowo’s war-time performance. A graduate of both Harvard and MIT, Okonjo-Iweala came to the finance ministry from a glittering career in the World Bank to which she returned as Managing Director after her ministerial tenure. Her record of Nigeria’s macroeconomic management and the reforms achieved between 2003 and 2006 is unmatched and the Paris Club debt forgiveness is an abiding testament to her competence (and the leadership of her boss, Olusegun Obasanjo before things fell apart). Professor Bartholomew Nnaji (current member of the Presidential Advisory Committee, former minister and CEO of Geometric Power) and Engineer Earnest Ndukwe (who as Nigerian Communications Commission (NCC) Executive Vice-Chairman revolutionized our telecommunications sector) are also excellent prospects.
I can confidently assert that all of the names I have mentioned in this article would make better leaders than most, if not all of those who have led this nation. I have no doubt that these individuals, and indeed many others possess the attributes required to transform our nation. We should desist from negative self-fulfilling stereotypes which appear to have become ingrained in the psyche of our people that only corrupt politicians or retired generals are qualified to lead this country. That formula has not worked. It’s time to try something different!
Nigeria: Forward or Backward?
In my last article, I raised questions around the lack of clarity about what our national paradigms are as a people. It was my way of re-directing our national debate back to the fundamental issues as we approach our fiftieth independence anniversary. In continuing my examination of our challenges and prospects as we approach half a century of post-colonial nationhood, today I ask, are we as a people looking forward to the future, or looking backward to the past?
I have always been struck by our penchant for looking backwards rather than forward in our national life. When we want an indigenous football coach, we go back to Amodu Shuaibu or Austine Eguavoen, who have done the job previously rather than for instance trying Sunday Oliseh or Samson Siasia. We continually re-call old grandees out of retirement, rather than create a new pool of talent who can serve the nation-Theophilus Danjuma, General Aliyu Gusau, Olusegun Obasanjo, Chief Ernest Shonekan, Gamaliel Onosode, Jubril Martins Kuye, Shettima Mustapha, Ufot Ekaette, Adamu Ciroma, Ibrahim Lame etc are recent illustrations of this backward-looking inclination, the consequence of which is that we do not develop new leadership capacity in our nation.
The perpetrators of this syndrome, (who invariably are also the beneficiaries!) then justify their continuous recycling based on the absence of substitute leadership capacity, thus creating a vicious cycle (of mediocrity) and self-fulfilling prophesy (of leadership deficiency). The contemporary example of this trend is of course the emerging profile of possible contenders for the 2011 presidential contest. Look at the list of supposed front liners-former military President Ibrahim Babangida, ex-military Head of State, General Muhammadu Buhari, former Vice-President Atiku Abubakar are the leading Northern contenders. None of the numerous former Governors, Ministers and Senators from the North (and South) is courageous enough to join the race as the system is configured to assume that only these political dinosaurs (as one commentator described them) are eligible to contest and win.
Indeed Babangida has sought to justify his return to the presidency after leaving the office seventeen years ago on the basis of an absence of younger leaders. He has not attempted to flaunt a sparkling performance record (perhaps an admission that he doesn’t have one?); he has not put forward any intelligent analysis of the nation’s current challenges; and he has not proffered any solutions to the nation’s myriad problems. He left office with the nation in disarray, plunging us into five years of terror under his comrade and friend, General Sani Abacha due to the unending transition games his government played. Even though he seemed at first to have an understanding of economic policy, his government soon lost its way as oil prices recovered and corruption undermined structural adjustment. His government’s impact on the educational system, national ethics and societal value system however remains his most damaging legacy! Yet he audaciously returns to ask for the same job!!!
Buhari left office as military head of state in 1985, twenty five years ago! His reign was characterised by abuses of fundamental human rights, press censorship and ignorance on economic policy (the best illustration of which was his counter-trade policy-effectively a return to Stone Age trade-by-barter). His regime imprisoned journalists, executed drug traffickers and jailed politicians without trial. The same government however released the very head of the regime it overthrew, arguing that all wrong-doing in the government was ascribed to the Vice-President! Since then, Buhari has never been heard to discuss economic policy or national development. His record on human rights has not changed as he was a key functionary of the murderous Abacha regime (with which in spite of the regime’s national and international notoriety, Buhari remained a staunch ally) and he has not in any way expressed any regrets about his record in office. Yet he is touted as a serious candidate for presidency!
Atiku Abubakar is probably the Nigerian public office holder (apart from his friend and ally, James Ibori) with the highest number of allegations of official corruption levelled against him. He has had to confront graft allegations both domestically and internationally. Atiku, in spite of having been at the top of Nigerian politics for several decades, is not associated with any ideological, policy or developmental platforms. When his mentee, Bonnie Haruna held forth in Adamawa State, after Atiku relinquished the state governorship for the vice-presidency, that government was remarkable for nothing! Absolutely nothing! He has since then established a reputation as a politician completely lacking in principles in the pursuit of power-in PDP today; off to AC the next day in order to contest for presidency; and desperately seeking a return to PDP thereafter, once it seemed clear to him that PDP is where the presidential action is! These, fellow Nigerians, are not the stuff of which leaders are made!!!
The challenge we face is to decide whether we would look forward, carefully and meticulously for a new, more promising leadership. Babangida, Buhari and Atiku and such “blasts from the past” will not take this nation forward. It is time to search across the political, business, academic and professional spectrum of Nigerian society for committed, honest and visionary leaders. Looking backwards will not deliver that quality of leaders.
I have always been struck by our penchant for looking backwards rather than forward in our national life. When we want an indigenous football coach, we go back to Amodu Shuaibu or Austine Eguavoen, who have done the job previously rather than for instance trying Sunday Oliseh or Samson Siasia. We continually re-call old grandees out of retirement, rather than create a new pool of talent who can serve the nation-Theophilus Danjuma, General Aliyu Gusau, Olusegun Obasanjo, Chief Ernest Shonekan, Gamaliel Onosode, Jubril Martins Kuye, Shettima Mustapha, Ufot Ekaette, Adamu Ciroma, Ibrahim Lame etc are recent illustrations of this backward-looking inclination, the consequence of which is that we do not develop new leadership capacity in our nation.
The perpetrators of this syndrome, (who invariably are also the beneficiaries!) then justify their continuous recycling based on the absence of substitute leadership capacity, thus creating a vicious cycle (of mediocrity) and self-fulfilling prophesy (of leadership deficiency). The contemporary example of this trend is of course the emerging profile of possible contenders for the 2011 presidential contest. Look at the list of supposed front liners-former military President Ibrahim Babangida, ex-military Head of State, General Muhammadu Buhari, former Vice-President Atiku Abubakar are the leading Northern contenders. None of the numerous former Governors, Ministers and Senators from the North (and South) is courageous enough to join the race as the system is configured to assume that only these political dinosaurs (as one commentator described them) are eligible to contest and win.
Indeed Babangida has sought to justify his return to the presidency after leaving the office seventeen years ago on the basis of an absence of younger leaders. He has not attempted to flaunt a sparkling performance record (perhaps an admission that he doesn’t have one?); he has not put forward any intelligent analysis of the nation’s current challenges; and he has not proffered any solutions to the nation’s myriad problems. He left office with the nation in disarray, plunging us into five years of terror under his comrade and friend, General Sani Abacha due to the unending transition games his government played. Even though he seemed at first to have an understanding of economic policy, his government soon lost its way as oil prices recovered and corruption undermined structural adjustment. His government’s impact on the educational system, national ethics and societal value system however remains his most damaging legacy! Yet he audaciously returns to ask for the same job!!!
Buhari left office as military head of state in 1985, twenty five years ago! His reign was characterised by abuses of fundamental human rights, press censorship and ignorance on economic policy (the best illustration of which was his counter-trade policy-effectively a return to Stone Age trade-by-barter). His regime imprisoned journalists, executed drug traffickers and jailed politicians without trial. The same government however released the very head of the regime it overthrew, arguing that all wrong-doing in the government was ascribed to the Vice-President! Since then, Buhari has never been heard to discuss economic policy or national development. His record on human rights has not changed as he was a key functionary of the murderous Abacha regime (with which in spite of the regime’s national and international notoriety, Buhari remained a staunch ally) and he has not in any way expressed any regrets about his record in office. Yet he is touted as a serious candidate for presidency!
Atiku Abubakar is probably the Nigerian public office holder (apart from his friend and ally, James Ibori) with the highest number of allegations of official corruption levelled against him. He has had to confront graft allegations both domestically and internationally. Atiku, in spite of having been at the top of Nigerian politics for several decades, is not associated with any ideological, policy or developmental platforms. When his mentee, Bonnie Haruna held forth in Adamawa State, after Atiku relinquished the state governorship for the vice-presidency, that government was remarkable for nothing! Absolutely nothing! He has since then established a reputation as a politician completely lacking in principles in the pursuit of power-in PDP today; off to AC the next day in order to contest for presidency; and desperately seeking a return to PDP thereafter, once it seemed clear to him that PDP is where the presidential action is! These, fellow Nigerians, are not the stuff of which leaders are made!!!
The challenge we face is to decide whether we would look forward, carefully and meticulously for a new, more promising leadership. Babangida, Buhari and Atiku and such “blasts from the past” will not take this nation forward. It is time to search across the political, business, academic and professional spectrum of Nigerian society for committed, honest and visionary leaders. Looking backwards will not deliver that quality of leaders.
Thursday, April 15, 2010
Nigeria: Which Paradigm?
As Nigeria approaches fifty years of nationhood, any sincere observer will agree that we have not fulfilled our potential as a people. This fact has been stark in the way we have conducted our affairs since November 23, when President Umaru Yar’adua took ill. We make the country look foolish in the eyes of the world, and other nations and peoples must often wonder what sort of people we are? Like Hillary Clinton wondered, why should we have so much crude oil and import refined petroleum products? Why is it difficult to conduct credible elections in Nigeria? Why in deed do our elections get worse at every run? Why are we so self-destructive that we steal all our national wealth, only to hide them in other nations while we don’t have good hospitals, roads and airports? Why do we kill ourselves every now and then in the name of ethnic, communal or religious conflict?
I am convinced that one explanation for our national drift is that we have not answered some basic questions about what we want as a nation. Or perhaps our answers to those questions are so different, varied or inconsistent that as a group of people, we become dysfunctional? Our perhaps seeing that we have different perspectives to these questions, we agree to do nothing about them and continue in an inefficient compromise in which every thing is open to negotiation, and nothing is resolved. Can we progress as a nation, if we don’t resolve on our basic corporate vision and strategy? Is it possible to achieve development without a shared sense of purpose, nationhood and direction? Some will say we have Vision 2020; or that we had Vision 2010 in the past; or National Economic Empowerment and Development Strategy (NEEDS) or Structural Adjustment Programme (SAP) before then; or a national anthem and national pledge all of which include lofty pronouncements on the issues I claim are unanswered.
My answer is that as a strategist, I know very well that strategy is not what you say; or what you write in your plan or strategy document; or the declarations contained in your vision and mission statement. Strategy is what you do, and do consistently! I have identified at least seven fundamental questions which our actions reveal we either do not have settled answers to, or our perspectives are so inconsistent or irreconcilable as to leave us hobbled and immobile as a nation.
Do we seek to be a modern, democratic nation-state, organised as a constitutional democracy based on the rule of law or are we a pre-modern, traditional, communalist or neo-feudal society ruled by men, negotiation, consensus or customs? Can we be both these things as we evidently seek to be? There is much evidence in favour of both of these conceptions of organising society in Nigeria. Yes we have a constitution, but we have difficulty obeying it, and are always looking for “political solutions” like our pre-colonial towns and villages in which when a conflict arises, every one assembles in the village square or traditional rulers palace to agree some consensus. We have governors, but mention one governor in Nigeria who does not defer to Obas, Emirs, Obis and other traditional institutions in matters of governance and policy?
Do we desire a competitive, free enterprise, private-sector led, entrepreneurial and transparent society or a prebendal, rent-allocating, state-controlled, dependent economy? Are we agreed on this question? Why do we for instance have difficulty privatising PHCN or the refineries in spite of the clear failure of these entities in government hands? Even our so-called private sector leadership turn into opponents of privatisation once they are in government only to rediscover the virtues of such liberalising polices after they leave their very rewarding government positions. Why in spite of the overwhelming evidence from telecommunications, broadcasting, financial services, aviation etc are we unwilling to deregulate power, downstream petroleum and solid minerals?
Do we want to build a progressive, dynamic, enlightened, forward-looking society in which everyone has access to qualitative health, education, employment and social protection or we are a conservative, archaic society in which everyone fends for himself and the poor are condemned to a sub-human existence? Why then have our leaders refused to invest in our human capital? Why do we leave over fifty per cent of our people in poverty? Why do we ignore the looming crisis of unemployment, illiteracy and social dislocation that threatens our society’s social fabric? What will be the relationship between the leaders and the citizens in Nigeria? Do we want a bottom-up society, a participatory democracy with access to information, free, transparent elections, fundamental freedoms and a free and ethical press or we are a top-down society ruled by cabals, cliques, oligarchs, patriarchs, chieftains or other unelected or unaccountable leaders? Why can’t our political parties-all of them-organise transparent party primaries? Why must our elections be rigged or violent? Why do we refuse freedom of information to the citizens?
There are others as well. Do we want a secular society in which we separate state and religion or we are a sectarian society? What we have today is a fudge that threatens to one day explode in our faces. Do we desire ethnic harmony or hegemony? Are we a nation or a group of peoples? Do we have one national interest or a set of (often conflicting) sub-national interests? As a people, are we interested in politics or policy? Do we seek development or decay?
I am convinced that one explanation for our national drift is that we have not answered some basic questions about what we want as a nation. Or perhaps our answers to those questions are so different, varied or inconsistent that as a group of people, we become dysfunctional? Our perhaps seeing that we have different perspectives to these questions, we agree to do nothing about them and continue in an inefficient compromise in which every thing is open to negotiation, and nothing is resolved. Can we progress as a nation, if we don’t resolve on our basic corporate vision and strategy? Is it possible to achieve development without a shared sense of purpose, nationhood and direction? Some will say we have Vision 2020; or that we had Vision 2010 in the past; or National Economic Empowerment and Development Strategy (NEEDS) or Structural Adjustment Programme (SAP) before then; or a national anthem and national pledge all of which include lofty pronouncements on the issues I claim are unanswered.
My answer is that as a strategist, I know very well that strategy is not what you say; or what you write in your plan or strategy document; or the declarations contained in your vision and mission statement. Strategy is what you do, and do consistently! I have identified at least seven fundamental questions which our actions reveal we either do not have settled answers to, or our perspectives are so inconsistent or irreconcilable as to leave us hobbled and immobile as a nation.
Do we seek to be a modern, democratic nation-state, organised as a constitutional democracy based on the rule of law or are we a pre-modern, traditional, communalist or neo-feudal society ruled by men, negotiation, consensus or customs? Can we be both these things as we evidently seek to be? There is much evidence in favour of both of these conceptions of organising society in Nigeria. Yes we have a constitution, but we have difficulty obeying it, and are always looking for “political solutions” like our pre-colonial towns and villages in which when a conflict arises, every one assembles in the village square or traditional rulers palace to agree some consensus. We have governors, but mention one governor in Nigeria who does not defer to Obas, Emirs, Obis and other traditional institutions in matters of governance and policy?
Do we desire a competitive, free enterprise, private-sector led, entrepreneurial and transparent society or a prebendal, rent-allocating, state-controlled, dependent economy? Are we agreed on this question? Why do we for instance have difficulty privatising PHCN or the refineries in spite of the clear failure of these entities in government hands? Even our so-called private sector leadership turn into opponents of privatisation once they are in government only to rediscover the virtues of such liberalising polices after they leave their very rewarding government positions. Why in spite of the overwhelming evidence from telecommunications, broadcasting, financial services, aviation etc are we unwilling to deregulate power, downstream petroleum and solid minerals?
Do we want to build a progressive, dynamic, enlightened, forward-looking society in which everyone has access to qualitative health, education, employment and social protection or we are a conservative, archaic society in which everyone fends for himself and the poor are condemned to a sub-human existence? Why then have our leaders refused to invest in our human capital? Why do we leave over fifty per cent of our people in poverty? Why do we ignore the looming crisis of unemployment, illiteracy and social dislocation that threatens our society’s social fabric? What will be the relationship between the leaders and the citizens in Nigeria? Do we want a bottom-up society, a participatory democracy with access to information, free, transparent elections, fundamental freedoms and a free and ethical press or we are a top-down society ruled by cabals, cliques, oligarchs, patriarchs, chieftains or other unelected or unaccountable leaders? Why can’t our political parties-all of them-organise transparent party primaries? Why must our elections be rigged or violent? Why do we refuse freedom of information to the citizens?
There are others as well. Do we want a secular society in which we separate state and religion or we are a sectarian society? What we have today is a fudge that threatens to one day explode in our faces. Do we desire ethnic harmony or hegemony? Are we a nation or a group of peoples? Do we have one national interest or a set of (often conflicting) sub-national interests? As a people, are we interested in politics or policy? Do we seek development or decay?
Sunday, April 11, 2010
Interesting Times Part 2
Contrary to whatever you may have thought, our nation’s interesting times are far from over. As it begins to seem like the worst of our days of living dangerously are drawing to a close, new ploys emerge to remind us that perhaps some of the protagonists consider this a “fight to finish”.
Akunyili and the Angry Senator
In re-constituting his cabinet, political imperatives appeared to weigh more on Acting President Goodluck Jonathan’s mind. This is mildly understandable given the complex politics surrounding his position and the unfinished work of political consolidation. Even though merit and competence may not have been completely dispensed with, political calculations are more evident. We hope however that Jonathan would now focus the ministers on delivering value to the Nigerian people. The nomination of Murtala Yar’adua, nephew of the ill older President Yar’adua and son of late General Shehu Musa Yar’adua was a politically significant entry into the cabinet; Governor Daniel in Ogun State would obviously be very uncomfortable with his former mentor, Senator Jubril Martins Kuye’s re-appointment; all of the core Yar’adua clique have been displaced with only one or two of their moderate allies making it into the new team.
Clearly the highlight of the screening of the Ministers was the intemperate haranguing of Professor Dora Akunyili by Senator Kanti (“it’s not Kanta”) Bello, the Senate Majority Whip from Katsina. The angry Senator did not have any questions of policy or national development for the ministerial nominee. His only grouse with her was that she had betrayed his cabal by turning against Turai Yar’adua, for whom according to the Senator, she previously used to cook! Thankfully Kanti Bello’s senatorial colleagues took a much more matured approach to the issue and did not turn the ministerial confirmation process into an occasion for throwing emotional brick bats! Indeed the Senate President, David Mark and his colleagues appear to have acquitted themselves as Statesmen through these difficult times.
Yar’adua and the Imams
It emerged last week that four prominent Northern (Hausa-Fulani) Islamic Clerics had visited with ailing President Umaru Yar’adua. The four-Ustaz Musa Mohammed, Chief Imam of the Abuja National Mosque; Dr Sheik Datti Ahmed, President of the “Supreme Council for Sharia in Nigeria”; Sheik Yakubu Musa, leader of the Izala Muslim Sect in Katsina; and Sheik Isa Pantami of Bauchi-claimed to have visited Yar’adua on behalf of the Muslim Community in (Northern?) Nigeria. Ustaz Mohammed thereafter announced details of the meeting to Friday worshippers at the Abuja Mosque. The Acting President, Senate President, Speaker of the House of Representatives and Chief Justice of the Federation are yet to see the President! Additional reports indicated that the clerics had previously presented several complaints all relating to concerns of Northern Muslims to Acting President Goodluck Jonathan and the National Security Adviser, General Aliyu Gusau. They reportedly advised Jonathan “to be sensitive in his appointments to reflect religious and ethnic balance in the country” (I wonder if they ever gave Umaru Yar’adua the same advice?) and warned the re-constituted Executive Council of the Federation against attempting to remove Yar’adua from office, threatening “serious crisis whose ramification cannot be comprehended” according to THISDAY of Sunday April 4, 2010. Anyone attempting Yar’adua’s removal would according to Ahmed be “playing with fire”! Interesting!!!
The previous Friday, word had been spread around Abuja of Yar’adua’s intention to show up at Friday Islamic prayers. The Sultan of Sokoto has also warned against the removal of Muslim Service Chiefs. Increasingly Yar’adua’s loyalists are moving their ambitions from the realms of politics, to an ethic cum regional power struggle and are now recasting it as a religious issue. Interesting? No! Very dangerous!!!
Switching Cabals
Meanwhile there have been a lot of publications inciting Nigerians against those perceived to be the strategic backbone of the Jonathan regime-Generals Obasanjo, Danjuma, Aliyu Gusau and Babangida. Suddenly the advertisers and their sponsors abhor cabals of any hue and colour. Interestingly these people did not have any problems with the Katsina mafia of Turai, Dahiru Mangal, Tanimu Yakubu, Sayaddi Abba Ruma and others when they held sway but all their democratic instincts have been aroused now that there has been a switch in cabals. Even Alhaji Umaru Shinkafi, a former National Security Chief and prominent politician has joined the fray. He complains about the “pervasive influence of cliques, cabals, kitchen cabinets and what have you on constitutional government” and seems to have a grouse with Jonathan’s Presidential Advisory Council chaired by General T.Y Danjuma. Now I would rather have a proper democracy in which the will of the people, rather than “godfathers”, “cabals” and “chieftains” prevails, (and the sooner we establish that real democracy the better) but compared to the Turai cabal of third rate provincial politicians, middle-level security officers and housewives, I suspect Nigerians should be more comfortable with the new “cabal”!
Danger Signals
The bottom line is that there is a strenuous effort to transform what should have been a simple matter of a president proceeding on medical leave of absence after forwarding a letter to the National Assembly as required by section 145 of the 1999 Constitution into a simmering national crisis that seeks to re-open all our political, ethnic, regional and religious fault lines. The blame for all this is squarely that of Yar’adua and/or his advisers and handlers who blatantly refused to comply with the dictates of sections 144 and 145 of the constitution. It is not yet clear where all this will end.
Akunyili and the Angry Senator
In re-constituting his cabinet, political imperatives appeared to weigh more on Acting President Goodluck Jonathan’s mind. This is mildly understandable given the complex politics surrounding his position and the unfinished work of political consolidation. Even though merit and competence may not have been completely dispensed with, political calculations are more evident. We hope however that Jonathan would now focus the ministers on delivering value to the Nigerian people. The nomination of Murtala Yar’adua, nephew of the ill older President Yar’adua and son of late General Shehu Musa Yar’adua was a politically significant entry into the cabinet; Governor Daniel in Ogun State would obviously be very uncomfortable with his former mentor, Senator Jubril Martins Kuye’s re-appointment; all of the core Yar’adua clique have been displaced with only one or two of their moderate allies making it into the new team.
Clearly the highlight of the screening of the Ministers was the intemperate haranguing of Professor Dora Akunyili by Senator Kanti (“it’s not Kanta”) Bello, the Senate Majority Whip from Katsina. The angry Senator did not have any questions of policy or national development for the ministerial nominee. His only grouse with her was that she had betrayed his cabal by turning against Turai Yar’adua, for whom according to the Senator, she previously used to cook! Thankfully Kanti Bello’s senatorial colleagues took a much more matured approach to the issue and did not turn the ministerial confirmation process into an occasion for throwing emotional brick bats! Indeed the Senate President, David Mark and his colleagues appear to have acquitted themselves as Statesmen through these difficult times.
Yar’adua and the Imams
It emerged last week that four prominent Northern (Hausa-Fulani) Islamic Clerics had visited with ailing President Umaru Yar’adua. The four-Ustaz Musa Mohammed, Chief Imam of the Abuja National Mosque; Dr Sheik Datti Ahmed, President of the “Supreme Council for Sharia in Nigeria”; Sheik Yakubu Musa, leader of the Izala Muslim Sect in Katsina; and Sheik Isa Pantami of Bauchi-claimed to have visited Yar’adua on behalf of the Muslim Community in (Northern?) Nigeria. Ustaz Mohammed thereafter announced details of the meeting to Friday worshippers at the Abuja Mosque. The Acting President, Senate President, Speaker of the House of Representatives and Chief Justice of the Federation are yet to see the President! Additional reports indicated that the clerics had previously presented several complaints all relating to concerns of Northern Muslims to Acting President Goodluck Jonathan and the National Security Adviser, General Aliyu Gusau. They reportedly advised Jonathan “to be sensitive in his appointments to reflect religious and ethnic balance in the country” (I wonder if they ever gave Umaru Yar’adua the same advice?) and warned the re-constituted Executive Council of the Federation against attempting to remove Yar’adua from office, threatening “serious crisis whose ramification cannot be comprehended” according to THISDAY of Sunday April 4, 2010. Anyone attempting Yar’adua’s removal would according to Ahmed be “playing with fire”! Interesting!!!
The previous Friday, word had been spread around Abuja of Yar’adua’s intention to show up at Friday Islamic prayers. The Sultan of Sokoto has also warned against the removal of Muslim Service Chiefs. Increasingly Yar’adua’s loyalists are moving their ambitions from the realms of politics, to an ethic cum regional power struggle and are now recasting it as a religious issue. Interesting? No! Very dangerous!!!
Switching Cabals
Meanwhile there have been a lot of publications inciting Nigerians against those perceived to be the strategic backbone of the Jonathan regime-Generals Obasanjo, Danjuma, Aliyu Gusau and Babangida. Suddenly the advertisers and their sponsors abhor cabals of any hue and colour. Interestingly these people did not have any problems with the Katsina mafia of Turai, Dahiru Mangal, Tanimu Yakubu, Sayaddi Abba Ruma and others when they held sway but all their democratic instincts have been aroused now that there has been a switch in cabals. Even Alhaji Umaru Shinkafi, a former National Security Chief and prominent politician has joined the fray. He complains about the “pervasive influence of cliques, cabals, kitchen cabinets and what have you on constitutional government” and seems to have a grouse with Jonathan’s Presidential Advisory Council chaired by General T.Y Danjuma. Now I would rather have a proper democracy in which the will of the people, rather than “godfathers”, “cabals” and “chieftains” prevails, (and the sooner we establish that real democracy the better) but compared to the Turai cabal of third rate provincial politicians, middle-level security officers and housewives, I suspect Nigerians should be more comfortable with the new “cabal”!
Danger Signals
The bottom line is that there is a strenuous effort to transform what should have been a simple matter of a president proceeding on medical leave of absence after forwarding a letter to the National Assembly as required by section 145 of the 1999 Constitution into a simmering national crisis that seeks to re-open all our political, ethnic, regional and religious fault lines. The blame for all this is squarely that of Yar’adua and/or his advisers and handlers who blatantly refused to comply with the dictates of sections 144 and 145 of the constitution. It is not yet clear where all this will end.
Wednesday, March 31, 2010
The Church in Nigeria
Archbishop Peter J Akinola recently retired as Primate of the Anglican Church of Nigeria after a very eventful and evidently successful tenure. He was also Bishop of Abuja; Chairman of the Council of Anglican Provinces in Africa; Chairman of the “South-South Encounter” of the Anglican Communion and President of the Christian Association of Nigeria”. Bishop Akinola was most known worldwide for his opposition to the ordination of homosexuals within the Anglican Communion. In 2003, he led a revolt against the planned ordination of Jeffrey John and Gene Robinson as Bishops of Reading and New Hampshire respectively precipitating a crisis in the Communion when the US Episcopals proceeded with Gene Robinson’s ordination. He became leader of a newly formed Convocation of Anglicans in North America, Anglicans who preferred to join with Akinola and the African Bishops who were irrevocably opposed to the ordain these homosexuals in the face of the explicit condemnation of homosexuality in several parts of the Bible.
Many true Christians in Nigeria, including non-Anglicans (and this columnist) were justifiably proud of, and encouraged by the leadership and principled position taken by Akinola. TIME Magazine was also impressed and nominated the Bishop as one of the 100 most influential people in the world in 2006, recognising him in the category of leaders and revolutionaries. Bishop Akinola chose fidelity to the scriptures rather than bending to the will of the western Anglican Church, which appears to have lost its way. I have however wished that Bishop Akinola would devote the same zeal he put to work against homosexuality towards issues which plague the church and society in Nigeria such as witchcraft and occultism, polygamy, election rigging, poor governance and most importantly corruption!
It is clear that there is a spiritual dimension to the problems we face in Nigeria! We have heard of politicians many of whom profess Christianity who kill hunchbacks, pregnant women and engage in other forms of human sacrifice to secure victory in elections! How can anything good come out of the reign of such a person if he indeed gets elected into office? How can an office holder who “won” his election through violence and intimidation of his constituents leading to the death and maiming of several govern in a manner acceptable to God or even men? Corruption has subverted Nigerian society and the church appears complicit in this regard. No one asks where the funds donated at Church events by political office holders, civil servants and even bankers come from. We shout “Praise the Lord…The Lord is good”, receive the fruits of corruption into the house of God (and thus defile the temple of God) and pray that God will replenish the (corrupt) source from which the resources came. Incidents of corruption, whether in banks or publicly-quoted companies, involve Christians, regrettably especially of the Pentecostal variety. When there is talk about an abuse of import duty waivers, the Church is implicated. When Ministers are accused of padding budgets, Christians are well-represented. In contemporary Nigerian Christianity, there seems to be no conflict between corruption and our faith!
An Anglican in the US or UK may scoff at our Bishops’ fervent denunciation of homosexuality and wonder why their voices are not heard in respect of many of these social problems bedevilling our own society and militating against the physical and spiritual well-being of our people. Fortunately towards the end of his tenure, Bishop Akinola began to speak strongly and powerfully against corruption, which is more than we can say about many of his ecclesiastical colleagues. At one event, where virtually the entire national political leadership elite were present, the Bishop railed and cursed those involved in corruption, much like Jesus Christ would have done against the Pharisees. Some others in the Church are also beginning to confront these issues and seeking to reclaim the credibility of the Church. Otherwise on-lookers would assume the Church is silent because it is compromised. Recently at the ceremony at which Bishop Akinola’s successor, Nicholas Okoh was installed as Primate, Acting President Goodluck Jonathan challenged the Church on such matters. He recounted an incident in which some crime was committed by an individual and the fellow’s church members immediately rallied to bail him out. Jonathan wondered whether the church had any moral duty to examine the allegations against the “brother” before the church got itself involved in the matter.
I have written before that the purpose of the Church is not to be conformed to the world, but to be the light or salt of the earth. That transformational role of the Church is not being fulfilled in our times. This Easter, as we reflect on the life of Christ who transformed mankind in his short mortal existence, perhaps we should seek to reclaim that mandate for societal transformation. Happy Easter!
Many true Christians in Nigeria, including non-Anglicans (and this columnist) were justifiably proud of, and encouraged by the leadership and principled position taken by Akinola. TIME Magazine was also impressed and nominated the Bishop as one of the 100 most influential people in the world in 2006, recognising him in the category of leaders and revolutionaries. Bishop Akinola chose fidelity to the scriptures rather than bending to the will of the western Anglican Church, which appears to have lost its way. I have however wished that Bishop Akinola would devote the same zeal he put to work against homosexuality towards issues which plague the church and society in Nigeria such as witchcraft and occultism, polygamy, election rigging, poor governance and most importantly corruption!
It is clear that there is a spiritual dimension to the problems we face in Nigeria! We have heard of politicians many of whom profess Christianity who kill hunchbacks, pregnant women and engage in other forms of human sacrifice to secure victory in elections! How can anything good come out of the reign of such a person if he indeed gets elected into office? How can an office holder who “won” his election through violence and intimidation of his constituents leading to the death and maiming of several govern in a manner acceptable to God or even men? Corruption has subverted Nigerian society and the church appears complicit in this regard. No one asks where the funds donated at Church events by political office holders, civil servants and even bankers come from. We shout “Praise the Lord…The Lord is good”, receive the fruits of corruption into the house of God (and thus defile the temple of God) and pray that God will replenish the (corrupt) source from which the resources came. Incidents of corruption, whether in banks or publicly-quoted companies, involve Christians, regrettably especially of the Pentecostal variety. When there is talk about an abuse of import duty waivers, the Church is implicated. When Ministers are accused of padding budgets, Christians are well-represented. In contemporary Nigerian Christianity, there seems to be no conflict between corruption and our faith!
An Anglican in the US or UK may scoff at our Bishops’ fervent denunciation of homosexuality and wonder why their voices are not heard in respect of many of these social problems bedevilling our own society and militating against the physical and spiritual well-being of our people. Fortunately towards the end of his tenure, Bishop Akinola began to speak strongly and powerfully against corruption, which is more than we can say about many of his ecclesiastical colleagues. At one event, where virtually the entire national political leadership elite were present, the Bishop railed and cursed those involved in corruption, much like Jesus Christ would have done against the Pharisees. Some others in the Church are also beginning to confront these issues and seeking to reclaim the credibility of the Church. Otherwise on-lookers would assume the Church is silent because it is compromised. Recently at the ceremony at which Bishop Akinola’s successor, Nicholas Okoh was installed as Primate, Acting President Goodluck Jonathan challenged the Church on such matters. He recounted an incident in which some crime was committed by an individual and the fellow’s church members immediately rallied to bail him out. Jonathan wondered whether the church had any moral duty to examine the allegations against the “brother” before the church got itself involved in the matter.
I have written before that the purpose of the Church is not to be conformed to the world, but to be the light or salt of the earth. That transformational role of the Church is not being fulfilled in our times. This Easter, as we reflect on the life of Christ who transformed mankind in his short mortal existence, perhaps we should seek to reclaim that mandate for societal transformation. Happy Easter!
Tuesday, March 23, 2010
Memo to Goodluck Jonathan
Dear Acting President
I have refrained from offering my views on what your priorities should be as President until you offered signals that your Presidency would be a real and not notional one. The strategy of your adversaries has been to delay or diminish your ascension to power in order to render you at best a transitional leader-a regent who occupies the throne in a caretaker and ceremonial manner until a substantive head is chosen. Please Dr Jonathan, do not accept this job description! Irrespective of how long or short your reign is, you are the defacto Head of State and Government of Nigeria, and history would judge you on that basis.
Some of your initial actions demonstrate that you understand what is required-removing Michael Aondoakaa as Attorney General; constituting an Advisory Council headed by General T.Y Danjuma (giving you credibility within the military) and composed generally of accomplished persons; replacing General Sarki Muhktar with Lt. Gen Aliyu Gusau as National Security Adviser; and now dissolving the cabinet, all suggest that you understand the dynamics of power in Nigeria. 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. In reconstituting the cabinet, while you cannot ignore political constituencies, you must not allow yourself to be blackmailed into appointing as Ministers persons whose loyalties are to other people.
Apart from loyalty, the critical criteria should be performance and integrity. The time left is short, and so you cannot afford to have ministers who will not hit the ground running. Your ministers should be people with a clear understanding of the sectors to which they would be posted. This condition will be particularly critical for power, Niger-Delta, defence, finance, education, health, aviation, transportation, solid minerals and agriculture ministries. You may also need someone with a credible international voice for the external affairs ministry. Many commentators are advising you to forget about running for office in 2011. I think you should ignore such advice, which is probably offered at the behest of persons who intend to discourage you from running in order that they or their sponsors might run! However your actions in this stint in power must be motivated not by any desire to contest for office, but by the desire to transform Nigeria. The irony will be that transform Nigeria, and all options may be open to you!!!
Given the limited term, you need to be focused on a narrow agenda. I suggest that your priorities have been defined by providence-resolving the crisis in the Niger-Delta; finding a sustainable solution to our embarrassing power shortages; and conducting credible, free and fair elections in 2011. I will personally hope you can also accommodate strong action on the anti-corruption front. This does not mean that other areas of governance will be immaterial, but your priorities will have to be limited to these few to maximise your impact. Your best bet will be to appoint extremely competent and honest ministers so that they may also deliver progress across the board.
As a Niger-Deltan, you are well-placed to deal with the situation in the region. I have written several times that the crisis requires massive investment in infrastructure, especially road, rail and marine transportation, provision of skills training and jobs for the youths, better governance by the state and local governments in the region and security and law enforcement. But the fundamental problem relates to the structure of our federalism which arguments about “resource control”, “true federalism”, revenue allocation etc hint of. I suspect however that dialogue around these fundamentals are better deferred till the post-2011 environment. Concerning power, please be assured that there is no mystery about solving our self-imposed crisis. In 2001, a power policy was produced at the Bureau of Public Enterprises (BPE) at around the same time a Telecommunications Policy was also produced.
Both the telecommunications and power policies in fact became laws-the NCC Act 2003 and the Electric Power Sector Reform Act (EPSRA) 2005 respectively. Nigeria has implemented the telecommunications policy almost to the letter and transformed its communications sector. In contrast, entrenched interests first delayed promulgation of the power policy into law by four years (!) and thereafter frustrated the implementation of the law even after its passage. Instead they have thought up several ruses-National Integrated Power Projects (NIPP) and huge government sponsored spending all of which have made no impact. The model in EPSRA will work-privatise the generation and distribution units in PHCN; appoint a credible management for the transmission company, encourage private investment in generation and distribution and allow the regulator, National Electricity Regulatory Commission (NERC) to function. Since 2007, the government has pretended EPSRA does not exist and wasted national resources in a fake search for alternative solutions!
Your other challenge is to conduct a free and fair election in 2011. Many in your party will put you under pressure to reject such a notion. I am convinced that Nigeria cannot survive another rigged election in 2011 after the 2003 and 2007 fiascos. Do not let history record you as the one who presided over the final nail in our nation’s coffin. Conducting credible elections requires you to immediately reconstitute INEC with fair-minded persons of integrity. Professor Iwu and his colleagues cannot command the trust of Nigerians and the international community.
As I mentioned earlier I hope you can also accommodate effective action against corruption. Without that, the resources, will power, as well as local and international support to transform Nigeria will not be available. I wish you and our nation well.
I have refrained from offering my views on what your priorities should be as President until you offered signals that your Presidency would be a real and not notional one. The strategy of your adversaries has been to delay or diminish your ascension to power in order to render you at best a transitional leader-a regent who occupies the throne in a caretaker and ceremonial manner until a substantive head is chosen. Please Dr Jonathan, do not accept this job description! Irrespective of how long or short your reign is, you are the defacto Head of State and Government of Nigeria, and history would judge you on that basis.
Some of your initial actions demonstrate that you understand what is required-removing Michael Aondoakaa as Attorney General; constituting an Advisory Council headed by General T.Y Danjuma (giving you credibility within the military) and composed generally of accomplished persons; replacing General Sarki Muhktar with Lt. Gen Aliyu Gusau as National Security Adviser; and now dissolving the cabinet, all suggest that you understand the dynamics of power in Nigeria. 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. In reconstituting the cabinet, while you cannot ignore political constituencies, you must not allow yourself to be blackmailed into appointing as Ministers persons whose loyalties are to other people.
Apart from loyalty, the critical criteria should be performance and integrity. The time left is short, and so you cannot afford to have ministers who will not hit the ground running. Your ministers should be people with a clear understanding of the sectors to which they would be posted. This condition will be particularly critical for power, Niger-Delta, defence, finance, education, health, aviation, transportation, solid minerals and agriculture ministries. You may also need someone with a credible international voice for the external affairs ministry. Many commentators are advising you to forget about running for office in 2011. I think you should ignore such advice, which is probably offered at the behest of persons who intend to discourage you from running in order that they or their sponsors might run! However your actions in this stint in power must be motivated not by any desire to contest for office, but by the desire to transform Nigeria. The irony will be that transform Nigeria, and all options may be open to you!!!
Given the limited term, you need to be focused on a narrow agenda. I suggest that your priorities have been defined by providence-resolving the crisis in the Niger-Delta; finding a sustainable solution to our embarrassing power shortages; and conducting credible, free and fair elections in 2011. I will personally hope you can also accommodate strong action on the anti-corruption front. This does not mean that other areas of governance will be immaterial, but your priorities will have to be limited to these few to maximise your impact. Your best bet will be to appoint extremely competent and honest ministers so that they may also deliver progress across the board.
As a Niger-Deltan, you are well-placed to deal with the situation in the region. I have written several times that the crisis requires massive investment in infrastructure, especially road, rail and marine transportation, provision of skills training and jobs for the youths, better governance by the state and local governments in the region and security and law enforcement. But the fundamental problem relates to the structure of our federalism which arguments about “resource control”, “true federalism”, revenue allocation etc hint of. I suspect however that dialogue around these fundamentals are better deferred till the post-2011 environment. Concerning power, please be assured that there is no mystery about solving our self-imposed crisis. In 2001, a power policy was produced at the Bureau of Public Enterprises (BPE) at around the same time a Telecommunications Policy was also produced.
Both the telecommunications and power policies in fact became laws-the NCC Act 2003 and the Electric Power Sector Reform Act (EPSRA) 2005 respectively. Nigeria has implemented the telecommunications policy almost to the letter and transformed its communications sector. In contrast, entrenched interests first delayed promulgation of the power policy into law by four years (!) and thereafter frustrated the implementation of the law even after its passage. Instead they have thought up several ruses-National Integrated Power Projects (NIPP) and huge government sponsored spending all of which have made no impact. The model in EPSRA will work-privatise the generation and distribution units in PHCN; appoint a credible management for the transmission company, encourage private investment in generation and distribution and allow the regulator, National Electricity Regulatory Commission (NERC) to function. Since 2007, the government has pretended EPSRA does not exist and wasted national resources in a fake search for alternative solutions!
Your other challenge is to conduct a free and fair election in 2011. Many in your party will put you under pressure to reject such a notion. I am convinced that Nigeria cannot survive another rigged election in 2011 after the 2003 and 2007 fiascos. Do not let history record you as the one who presided over the final nail in our nation’s coffin. Conducting credible elections requires you to immediately reconstitute INEC with fair-minded persons of integrity. Professor Iwu and his colleagues cannot command the trust of Nigerians and the international community.
As I mentioned earlier I hope you can also accommodate effective action against corruption. Without that, the resources, will power, as well as local and international support to transform Nigeria will not be available. I wish you and our nation well.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)