It is not easy to decide if Wikileaks and its leader Julian Assange are heros or villains? I support freedom of information, but is such freedom absolute or subject to some restraints or limits? Can international diplomacy, war, intelligence operations, multilateral cooperation and management of the modern corporation, be carried out in an environment in which all internal deliberations of diplomats, military commanders, intelligence agencies, multilateral organisations such as the United Nations, UNICEF or World Bank, and multinational corporations are liable to be splashed over the internet? As families and individuals, can we countenance a situation in which our private conversations with family members are splashed over public media?
On the other hand, isn’t it good for Nigerians to confirm some of our suspicions about the activities of some of our multinational corporations such as Julius Berger, Shell, Pfizer and others? Isn’t it nice that some of the stories which would have remained in the realm of speculation and deduction now have some credence-the things we wrote in our columns about say the provincial character of the Yar’adua administration; the rumours we heard about our erstwhile Attorney-General, Michael Aondoakaa’s penchant for demanding payment for official services; the allegations of corruption right at the top of the Yar’adua regime reaching according to US embassy officials right to first lady, Turai Yar’adua, Chief Economic Adviser, Tanimu Yakubu and Agriculture Minister, Sayaddi Abba Ruma. Now at least, these people have an obligation to deny the Wikileaks allegations or perhaps take them up with the US embassy? In short hasn’t wikileaks advanced the course of good governance and anti-corruption in Nigeria by these leaks?
These are the complex questions that the whole world will have to answer in the post-Wikileaks world! Surely, there are no easy answers. I would like diplomats to continue to offer accurate (and therefore sometimes unpleasant from the point of view of the subject) descriptions and evaluations of world leaders and other international actors in order that their nations can take the right decisions. If diplomats know that their vivid descriptions could one day show up in an internet blogsite, wouldn’t they circumscribe their communications? As some have pointed out, could Wikileaks inadvertently lead to a less-open and therefore less-transparent world as companies, organisations and nations carry out more and more of their internal decision-making orally rather than through diplomatic cables or fully-minuted meetings?
Concerning Nigeria, quite frankly beyond the corroboration, there is nothing that Wikileaks has revealed that should shock any observant Nigerian! Who would be surprised that Julius Berger flew the sick Umaru Yar’adua from Germany to Saudi Arabia? Didn’t they provide logistical support even for Sani Abacha’s self-perpetuation scheme? Why would anyone be surprised that Shell and the international oil companies would be dissatisfied with the initial draft of the petroleum industry bill, and would seek to improve the draft towards their own interests? Is that not what they have been doing since oil was discovered in Nigeria? Did the Nigerian government think Shell was a global do-gooder and Father Christmas when it agreed to second at its own expense several of its senior staff to our critical ministries and departments? Are there any enlightened Nigerians who are unaware of the role the British embassy played in pre-civil war Nigeria and which the US embassy played since then? Do we not know the roles played by US officials in “resolving” the “June 12” crisis? Is it strange to anyone that the US (and perhaps the EU as well) stressed their unwillingness to provide further bilateral or multilateral assistance to INEC if the discredited Professor Maurice Iwu remained its chair? For me, the really troubling revelation was the willingness of Pfizer to engage in dirty tricks and actual blackmail in order to compel Attorney-General Aondoakaa to back-off on his intended prosecution of the company.
With respect to President Goodluck Jonathan, I actually think the revelations cast him in better light than many critics have pointed out. As one newspaper analysis acknowledged, he comes across as sincere, committed to the national interest, statesmanly and not a desperate, self-seeking, politician like many of his contemporaries. When he acknowledges that he was not the best-qualified person for the vice-presidency in 2007 that is simply a statement of fact, but shows him off as high on emotional intelligence with a tendency to realistic self-assessment and self-deprecating nature. Contrary to what many Nigerian politicians believe, humility is a virtue, not a vice! While his assertion that he was selected to placate the Niger-Delta represents geo-political reality, his desire to focus on issues transcending the region casts him as a nationalist, rather than a sectional leader.
And of course, his comments about his level of experience were probably true in 2007 when he became the Vice-President. Surely since then the President has shown political dexterity in triangulating through the tension of the Yar’adua power vacuum and coming out with Nigeria in one piece. And since then Jonathan has consolidated his hold over the federal executive council, the military and security agencies and over large parts of the political space. What is interesting is to read the US ambassador’s mind as she continues to interact with Jonathan and concludes that perhaps it would not be a bad thing if he became Nigeria’s substantive president!
Wednesday, December 15, 2010
Thursday, December 9, 2010
The Asiwaju Phenomenon
Some analysts are ambivalent about Asiwaju Bola Tinubu, former Lagos State Governor and Action Congress of Nigeria (ACN) grandmaster. He has been embroiled in the rough and tumble of Nigerian politics such that it may be difficult to extricate him from the associated deal making, graft, cronyism and gerrymandering. While core ACN members revere him, some voters, intellectuals and civil society may resent the perception that he almost single-handedly selects majority of ACN candidates for elected and appointive officers. The suspicion that he and/or his loyalists may consider dispensing with popular Lagos State Governor, Babatunde Raji Fashola upsets many, especially non-career politicians. The old controversies about his education, background and EFCC/US legal problems lurk in some minds.
I can understand that ambivalence. On one hand, in both elections Tinubu contested as Alliance for Democracy (AD) governorship candidate, I voted for him and legislative candidates presented by the parties. Incidentally I also voted for Tinubu as Senator during the Babangida transition.I supported Fashola, his nominee for the governorship in 2007. Ideologically I consider myself a progressive social democrat and endorse the focus on education, health, urban mass transit, infrastructure and social investment, the traditional AG/UPN/SDP/AD/ACN platform. And I have always recognised especially after Obasanjo’s sleight-of-hand against the AD in 2003 that Tinubu was the sole force that could roll-back the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP’s) undemocratic control of Yoruba land, especially during the Yar’adua Presidency when the South-West became de facto political orphans!
But I was also concerned that ACN has not sufficiently distinguished itself from the PDP and ANPP-lack of internal democracy; corruption and abuse of office; electoral malpractices; and failure to institute true people-oriented politics and governance are unfortunately common to all our major political parties. In my view, while PDP clearly did not win elections in the South-West in 2003 and 2007, it got away with stealing power because the AD leadership had taken the voters for granted. Majority of AD governments were incompetent, complacent, arrogant and uninspiring thus providing space to the PDP.
With current developments, we must all re-evaluate the Bola Tinubu phenomenon. Since his entry into politics, Tinubu has exercised decisive influence on his environment. I recall a brother who participated in the Sarumi faction during the tumultuous Sarumi/Agbalajobi battles in the Lagos State Social Democratic Party (SDP), always spoke about a certain Bola Tinubu’s whose entry galvanised the group and strengthened the faction’s hand. Tinubu was subsequently elected to the Senate in 1992 reportedly with the largest votes nationwide and became one of the most influential senators as Chairman of the powerful omnibus Banking, Finance, Appropriations and Currency Committee. Another brother who attended the SDP convention at which Chief MKO Abiola was chosen as presidential candidate in 1993 spoke about a hyperactive and ubiquitous Senator from Lagos whose presence could not be missed!
Tinubu subsequently became a pillar of the “June 12 Movement” which sought to actualise Abiola’s annulled June 12 mandate and later the National Democratic Coalition (NADECO) which fought Abacha’s dictatorship. He was a foremost NADECO strategist and leader-in-exile and was compensated by the NADECO/Afenifere leadership which formed the Alliance for Democracy (AD) as Lagos State Governor in 1999. To Tinubu’s credit, he has always seemed comfortable in the midst of intellectuals and accomplished professionals, putting together a cabinet which included Yemi Osinbajo, Olawale Edun, Yemi Cardoso, Dr Leke Pitan, Dele Alake, Tunji Bello, Dr Adebayo Adewusi etc. Perhaps it is partly access to robust quality debate and strategic advice that accounts for his administration’s policy initiatives, his political survival and the ACN’s recent successes.
Tinubu took on many political battles-quarrels with his deputies-Kofo Bucknor-Akerele and Femi Pedro, and the Afenifere leadership, who then opposed his re-election in 2003 through Ganiyu Dawodu and the Democratic Peoples Alliance (DPA); since 2003 he has sponsored friends and associates seeking political positions throughout the South-West; unending political and legal battles with Obasanjo and the PDP; taking on the responsibility of building a national opposition party; and his choice of Fashola as successor angered some wealthy supporters who sponsored Jimi Agbaje to run instead. These activities may have distracted his administration from accomplishing its ambitious development goals, but they are now clearly bearing fruit!
Fashola has vindicated his judgment; relentless battles to regain the South-West from PDP has seen Kayode Fayemi and Rauf Aregbesola take over in Ekiti and Osun States respectively; the take-over of Adams Oshiomole (ACN) and Segun Mimiko (Labour Party) in Edo and Ondo States bear his imprint; PDP is now effectively a minority party in Yoruba land holding vulnerably to Oyo and Ogun States; Tinubu is believed to be aiding DPP’s efforts to win the Sokoto governorship through the courts; and ACN is gaining membership across the country. Tinubu is now undoubtedly the pre-eminent political leader in Yoruba land and effective leader of opposition nationally, in effect laying claim to the mantle of Awolowo!
How will Tinubu use this power? Will he mold ACN into a truly progressive, social democratic alternative to the PDP? Will he be an enduring transformational leader, a transitional or situational figure or tragic hero? Will his protégés deliver governance that differentiates ACN from others and attracts other Nigerians to the party? Will he make the right choices in 2011 or might he make grave strategic miscalculations? How will history record him? Whatever you think about him, there must be something about this Bola Tinubu!!!
I can understand that ambivalence. On one hand, in both elections Tinubu contested as Alliance for Democracy (AD) governorship candidate, I voted for him and legislative candidates presented by the parties. Incidentally I also voted for Tinubu as Senator during the Babangida transition.I supported Fashola, his nominee for the governorship in 2007. Ideologically I consider myself a progressive social democrat and endorse the focus on education, health, urban mass transit, infrastructure and social investment, the traditional AG/UPN/SDP/AD/ACN platform. And I have always recognised especially after Obasanjo’s sleight-of-hand against the AD in 2003 that Tinubu was the sole force that could roll-back the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP’s) undemocratic control of Yoruba land, especially during the Yar’adua Presidency when the South-West became de facto political orphans!
But I was also concerned that ACN has not sufficiently distinguished itself from the PDP and ANPP-lack of internal democracy; corruption and abuse of office; electoral malpractices; and failure to institute true people-oriented politics and governance are unfortunately common to all our major political parties. In my view, while PDP clearly did not win elections in the South-West in 2003 and 2007, it got away with stealing power because the AD leadership had taken the voters for granted. Majority of AD governments were incompetent, complacent, arrogant and uninspiring thus providing space to the PDP.
With current developments, we must all re-evaluate the Bola Tinubu phenomenon. Since his entry into politics, Tinubu has exercised decisive influence on his environment. I recall a brother who participated in the Sarumi faction during the tumultuous Sarumi/Agbalajobi battles in the Lagos State Social Democratic Party (SDP), always spoke about a certain Bola Tinubu’s whose entry galvanised the group and strengthened the faction’s hand. Tinubu was subsequently elected to the Senate in 1992 reportedly with the largest votes nationwide and became one of the most influential senators as Chairman of the powerful omnibus Banking, Finance, Appropriations and Currency Committee. Another brother who attended the SDP convention at which Chief MKO Abiola was chosen as presidential candidate in 1993 spoke about a hyperactive and ubiquitous Senator from Lagos whose presence could not be missed!
Tinubu subsequently became a pillar of the “June 12 Movement” which sought to actualise Abiola’s annulled June 12 mandate and later the National Democratic Coalition (NADECO) which fought Abacha’s dictatorship. He was a foremost NADECO strategist and leader-in-exile and was compensated by the NADECO/Afenifere leadership which formed the Alliance for Democracy (AD) as Lagos State Governor in 1999. To Tinubu’s credit, he has always seemed comfortable in the midst of intellectuals and accomplished professionals, putting together a cabinet which included Yemi Osinbajo, Olawale Edun, Yemi Cardoso, Dr Leke Pitan, Dele Alake, Tunji Bello, Dr Adebayo Adewusi etc. Perhaps it is partly access to robust quality debate and strategic advice that accounts for his administration’s policy initiatives, his political survival and the ACN’s recent successes.
Tinubu took on many political battles-quarrels with his deputies-Kofo Bucknor-Akerele and Femi Pedro, and the Afenifere leadership, who then opposed his re-election in 2003 through Ganiyu Dawodu and the Democratic Peoples Alliance (DPA); since 2003 he has sponsored friends and associates seeking political positions throughout the South-West; unending political and legal battles with Obasanjo and the PDP; taking on the responsibility of building a national opposition party; and his choice of Fashola as successor angered some wealthy supporters who sponsored Jimi Agbaje to run instead. These activities may have distracted his administration from accomplishing its ambitious development goals, but they are now clearly bearing fruit!
Fashola has vindicated his judgment; relentless battles to regain the South-West from PDP has seen Kayode Fayemi and Rauf Aregbesola take over in Ekiti and Osun States respectively; the take-over of Adams Oshiomole (ACN) and Segun Mimiko (Labour Party) in Edo and Ondo States bear his imprint; PDP is now effectively a minority party in Yoruba land holding vulnerably to Oyo and Ogun States; Tinubu is believed to be aiding DPP’s efforts to win the Sokoto governorship through the courts; and ACN is gaining membership across the country. Tinubu is now undoubtedly the pre-eminent political leader in Yoruba land and effective leader of opposition nationally, in effect laying claim to the mantle of Awolowo!
How will Tinubu use this power? Will he mold ACN into a truly progressive, social democratic alternative to the PDP? Will he be an enduring transformational leader, a transitional or situational figure or tragic hero? Will his protégés deliver governance that differentiates ACN from others and attracts other Nigerians to the party? Will he make the right choices in 2011 or might he make grave strategic miscalculations? How will history record him? Whatever you think about him, there must be something about this Bola Tinubu!!!
Wednesday, December 1, 2010
The Atiku Consensus
The “Northern Political Leaders Forum” (NPLF) led by Mallam Adamu Ciroma did not surprise me with their choice of Alhaji Abubakar Atiku as their “Northern consensus candidate” to challenge President Goodluck Jonathan for the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) presidential ticket in 2011. I recall a senior editor friend mentioning some weeks back that the NPLF was an Atiku stratagem to outwit his likely Northern rivals and Jonathan in grabbing Nigeria’s Presidency. My own review of most of the so-called “wise men” charged with selecting the NPLF’s candidate showed in most cases a clear link with Atiku. The Forum’s selection criteria also seemed designed to produce only one outcome-Atiku’s candidacy. The surprise is that perennial National Security Adviser General Aliyu Gusau, outgoing Kwara State Governor and Chairman of the Nigerian Governors Forum Dr Bukola Saraki and particularly ex-President Ibrahim Babangida (IBB), fell for it! Has the “maradona” magic been lost or was it in reality a “maradona” myth?
I hope the NPLF’s consensus marriage will live happily ever after, even though quite frankly I don’t expect it to! Ciroma and his colleagues adopted a model of leadership selection previously used by the Afenifere which in the run up to the 1999 elections picked Chief Olu Falae over Afenifere Deputy Leader, Chief Bola Ige. The parallels are striking-an ethnic grouping (NPLF/Afenifere) empanels a committee which purports to pick a candidate for a nationally-registered political party (PDP/Alliance for Democracy-AD). The aspirants are regional giants one of whom (IBB/Ige) is entitled to regard himself as presumptive nominee by virtue of seniority, long relationship with the selectors and entrenchment within the ethnic power structure. The “wise men” however select a “junior” aspirant (Atiku/Falae) and the perceived betrayal leads to accusations of treachery, bitterness and distrust which destroy the ethnic grouping’s internal cohesion. That exercise sowed the seeds for the end of Afenifere as we knew it. Let’s hope the NPLF’s fate will be different!
The other consequence was that the rest of the country declined to accept the Afenifere’s choice as national president been tainted irretrievably with an ethnic brush. President Jonathan quite wisely has started reminding the nation to “support the Nigerian consensus candidate” instead of accepting a “Northern consensus” or even the more narrow “NPLF Consensus” since it is probable that the choice of Atiku (unlike Afenifere’s choice of Falae) may not command unanimous Northern support. The NPLF’s process may also be strategically inferior to Afenifere’s in that Afenifere controlled the AD and already had an understanding with then All Peoples Party (APP) now All Nigeria Peoples Party (ANPP) that AD’s candidate would be the AD/APP alliance’s joint presidential candidate. The NPLF does not control the PDP and their nominee will yet have to overcome an incumbent president (and a Northern Vice-President) to secure the party ticket!
Having said that I hope the Goodluck-Sambo team does not overdo their jubilation over what they view as the NPLF’s sub-optimal selection of Atiku. IBB may have been formidable due to his national network of relationships; and a contest against Saraki may have been particularly unpredictable due to his hold over the Governors; but Atiku is no less formidable. Atiku has a vast political network; he is a pragmatic political strategist; and can easily build a nationwide organisation. He is good at cutting back-room political deals and while he and his Yar’adua Group have never quite built strong grassroots popularity, they have always been successful at intra-party scheming and manoeuvring. That is why General Yar’adua’s Peoples Front outwitted the Progressives within the Social Democratic Party (SDP) during the Babangida transition and the renamed Peoples Democratic Movement (PDM) led by Atiku after Yar’adua’s death, sidelined other groups in the PDP until the quarrel between Obasanjo and Atiku weakened the PDM base.
Atiku’s disadvantages-perceived lack of principle and consistency; and unending allegations of corruption are likely to be more harmful in a general election rather than intra-party primaries. Some may even argue that having a reputation for corruption may in fact be an advantage in the PDP primaries!!! If I were President Jonathan and his campaign strategists, we would cut short our celebrations, return to our war room and begin to reach out to actual convention delegates. Nevertheless while the NPLF route has strengthened Atiku’s chances as a PDP aspirant, it may have weakened his long-term positioning as a potential Nigerian president. Why should the school teacher in Oshogbo vote for Northern consensus? Why should a fisherman in Warri or Calabar accept that the Nigerian President should be selected by nine Northerners? Is the Middle-belt civil servant or Southern Kaduna farmer likely to endorse this choice? What stake has the lawyer or medical doctor in Enugu in this choice? And why should Northerners outside the NPLF accept its self-appointed role as leadership selectors for the whole region or the country?
The fear in some quarters that the NPLF is merely using the zoning argument in seeking to retain hegemony has been aided by reports of NPLF leader, Mallam Adamu Ciroma’s role as Chairman of the Governing Council of Ahmadu Bello University (ABU). Ciroma apparently sought to prevent Professor Andrew Nok (a Northerner from a minority area), who came clearly tops in the selection process for ABU’s Vice Chancellorship from been appointed in favour of an unqualified person from his own ethnic group. Can such an individual be trusted to select Nigeria’s president?
I hope the NPLF’s consensus marriage will live happily ever after, even though quite frankly I don’t expect it to! Ciroma and his colleagues adopted a model of leadership selection previously used by the Afenifere which in the run up to the 1999 elections picked Chief Olu Falae over Afenifere Deputy Leader, Chief Bola Ige. The parallels are striking-an ethnic grouping (NPLF/Afenifere) empanels a committee which purports to pick a candidate for a nationally-registered political party (PDP/Alliance for Democracy-AD). The aspirants are regional giants one of whom (IBB/Ige) is entitled to regard himself as presumptive nominee by virtue of seniority, long relationship with the selectors and entrenchment within the ethnic power structure. The “wise men” however select a “junior” aspirant (Atiku/Falae) and the perceived betrayal leads to accusations of treachery, bitterness and distrust which destroy the ethnic grouping’s internal cohesion. That exercise sowed the seeds for the end of Afenifere as we knew it. Let’s hope the NPLF’s fate will be different!
The other consequence was that the rest of the country declined to accept the Afenifere’s choice as national president been tainted irretrievably with an ethnic brush. President Jonathan quite wisely has started reminding the nation to “support the Nigerian consensus candidate” instead of accepting a “Northern consensus” or even the more narrow “NPLF Consensus” since it is probable that the choice of Atiku (unlike Afenifere’s choice of Falae) may not command unanimous Northern support. The NPLF’s process may also be strategically inferior to Afenifere’s in that Afenifere controlled the AD and already had an understanding with then All Peoples Party (APP) now All Nigeria Peoples Party (ANPP) that AD’s candidate would be the AD/APP alliance’s joint presidential candidate. The NPLF does not control the PDP and their nominee will yet have to overcome an incumbent president (and a Northern Vice-President) to secure the party ticket!
Having said that I hope the Goodluck-Sambo team does not overdo their jubilation over what they view as the NPLF’s sub-optimal selection of Atiku. IBB may have been formidable due to his national network of relationships; and a contest against Saraki may have been particularly unpredictable due to his hold over the Governors; but Atiku is no less formidable. Atiku has a vast political network; he is a pragmatic political strategist; and can easily build a nationwide organisation. He is good at cutting back-room political deals and while he and his Yar’adua Group have never quite built strong grassroots popularity, they have always been successful at intra-party scheming and manoeuvring. That is why General Yar’adua’s Peoples Front outwitted the Progressives within the Social Democratic Party (SDP) during the Babangida transition and the renamed Peoples Democratic Movement (PDM) led by Atiku after Yar’adua’s death, sidelined other groups in the PDP until the quarrel between Obasanjo and Atiku weakened the PDM base.
Atiku’s disadvantages-perceived lack of principle and consistency; and unending allegations of corruption are likely to be more harmful in a general election rather than intra-party primaries. Some may even argue that having a reputation for corruption may in fact be an advantage in the PDP primaries!!! If I were President Jonathan and his campaign strategists, we would cut short our celebrations, return to our war room and begin to reach out to actual convention delegates. Nevertheless while the NPLF route has strengthened Atiku’s chances as a PDP aspirant, it may have weakened his long-term positioning as a potential Nigerian president. Why should the school teacher in Oshogbo vote for Northern consensus? Why should a fisherman in Warri or Calabar accept that the Nigerian President should be selected by nine Northerners? Is the Middle-belt civil servant or Southern Kaduna farmer likely to endorse this choice? What stake has the lawyer or medical doctor in Enugu in this choice? And why should Northerners outside the NPLF accept its self-appointed role as leadership selectors for the whole region or the country?
The fear in some quarters that the NPLF is merely using the zoning argument in seeking to retain hegemony has been aided by reports of NPLF leader, Mallam Adamu Ciroma’s role as Chairman of the Governing Council of Ahmadu Bello University (ABU). Ciroma apparently sought to prevent Professor Andrew Nok (a Northerner from a minority area), who came clearly tops in the selection process for ABU’s Vice Chancellorship from been appointed in favour of an unqualified person from his own ethnic group. Can such an individual be trusted to select Nigeria’s president?
Wednesday, November 24, 2010
A Resurgent Nigerian State?
For more than a decade, the Nigerian state has been in retreat with multiple signs of state failure or even imminent collapse. Communal, ethnic, sectarian and religious riots in Warri, Aguleri-Umuleri, Sagamu, Ife-Modakeke, Andoni, Okrika, Bauchi, Kafanchan, Kaduna, Jos, Maiduguri and other parts of Nigeria were intermittent. The almost complete take-over of the Niger-Delta by so-called “militants”-in reality illiterate or poorly-educated, unemployed, misguided youths who had resorted to criminality partly in protests at state neglect but also for pecuniary sustenance in the absence of proper jobs illustrated state weakness. Outbreaks of religious violence across the North, most recently the “Boko Haram” crisis were recurrent.
The Niger-Delta crisis started with agitations by Ken Saro-Wiwa’s Ogonis against environmental devastation by Shell and Nigeria, but was soon followed by ethnic and communal crises as Urhobos, Itsekiris, Ijaws, Nembe etc fought against each other. Soon pure gangsterism took over as politicians deployed these veterans of inter-communal wars as political thugs and enforcers. In the Niger-Delta states, especially Rivers, Delta and Bayelsa, there was a clear link between violence and victory in the 1999 elections and thereafter. Once the politicians were settled in office, the thugs became autonomous gang leaders and later “militants”. The Nigerian government eventually offered a hastily-conceived “amnesty” basically admitting a balance of power with rag-tag armies of disparate and ill-organised “militant” groups.
Eastern Nigeria became a den of robbers and kidnappers with the Igbo elite abandoning their communities to criminal coalitions of emergency traditional rulers, kidnappers and armed robbers and their informants and watchmen (and women and children) to seek refuge in Abuja, Lagos, Port-Harcourt and Calabar. The two most important commercial centres in the East-Aba and Onitsha lost their vibrancy as banks, petrol stations and even markets closed under the onslaught of criminals. As armed robbers fled Fashola’s security measures in Lagos, they moved to neighbouring Ogun and Oyo states filling the vacuum in governance and policing, raiding banks at will and occasionally perhaps acting as part-time political assassins. In Ibadan, violent road transport workers became the state!
Highways in the North, especially around Kogi, Nasarawa, Abuja and other parts were seized by armed robbers with prominent citizens falling victim. Alhaji Abubakar Rimi died as a result of one such incident. The official response was to engage non-state vigilantes and powerful “medicine men” to keep the roads safe, again demonstrating the impotence of the state. Some years back, the Ajah area of the aspiring Lagos mega-city regularly erupted in urban warfare as “Olumegbon” and contending landowners battled for supremacy with guns, cutlasses, axes and charms usually in broad day light with residents fleeing for their lives and the police keeping a safe distance. Newspaper reports suggest a recent recurrence of the Ajah violence.
There were also more fundamental challenges to the powers of the state-declaration of Sharia by then Zamfara Governor Sani Yerima which spread across eleven states in Northern Nigeria in defiance of the Nigerian Constitution; suspicions that some “militants” and regional elite in the Niger-Delta perhaps desired not just “resource control” but may have been questioning the nation’s sovereignty and territorial integrity as well; “MASSOB” whose name made its strategic intent explicit-“Movement for the Actualisation of the Sovereign State of Biafra”; the Odua Peoples Conference (OPC) and other “self-determination” groups which in the aftermath of “June 12” and Abacha’s despotism questioned the rationale for Yorubas staying within Nigeria.
In recent times, labour (and even regional irredentists desperate for power to be “rotated” back to their “zone”) regularly threaten to “make the country ungovernable”. Power sector workers are eager to confront state policy and have shut down national electricity supply twice in the last three months. However the biggest act of contempt for the Nigerian state however was the Independence Day bombing, a dangerous escalation of the slide towards anarchy and an ineffective and impotent Nigerian state. However it does appear that the Jonathan administration and the new National Security Adviser, General Andrew Owoye Azazi may have recognised that the rationale for the existence of the Nigerian state is increasingly being lost and the introduction of bombings directed against the state may, if not checked, represent the final chapter in the process of state disempowerment and failure.
The Jonathan Presidency seems to have offered a strong response-routing kidnappers in the East who seized a bus load of school children, ensuring safe release of all the children; subsequent action by the military and police against kidnappers and criminals in eastern Nigeria that has reportedly led to the arrest of over 400 persons; the meticulous manner the State Security Services has been assembling evidence relating to the independence day (and the previously unresolved Warri) bomb blasts and arresting those implicated in these actions; detection of the Iranian armaments and heroine imports and strong security and diplomatic follow-up; and most recently the very successful (so far) military onslaught by the Joint Task Force (JTF) against the revival of “militancy” in the Niger-Delta, wiping out of militant camps, freeing of hostages and the surrender of several militant leaders and their men.
The early signs are that the Jonathan/Azazi/Petinrin/Ihejirika team is surprisingly shaping out as an effective national security team. Is it too soon to hope they can keep up this momentum and restore the powers, effectiveness and credibility of the Nigerian state?
The Niger-Delta crisis started with agitations by Ken Saro-Wiwa’s Ogonis against environmental devastation by Shell and Nigeria, but was soon followed by ethnic and communal crises as Urhobos, Itsekiris, Ijaws, Nembe etc fought against each other. Soon pure gangsterism took over as politicians deployed these veterans of inter-communal wars as political thugs and enforcers. In the Niger-Delta states, especially Rivers, Delta and Bayelsa, there was a clear link between violence and victory in the 1999 elections and thereafter. Once the politicians were settled in office, the thugs became autonomous gang leaders and later “militants”. The Nigerian government eventually offered a hastily-conceived “amnesty” basically admitting a balance of power with rag-tag armies of disparate and ill-organised “militant” groups.
Eastern Nigeria became a den of robbers and kidnappers with the Igbo elite abandoning their communities to criminal coalitions of emergency traditional rulers, kidnappers and armed robbers and their informants and watchmen (and women and children) to seek refuge in Abuja, Lagos, Port-Harcourt and Calabar. The two most important commercial centres in the East-Aba and Onitsha lost their vibrancy as banks, petrol stations and even markets closed under the onslaught of criminals. As armed robbers fled Fashola’s security measures in Lagos, they moved to neighbouring Ogun and Oyo states filling the vacuum in governance and policing, raiding banks at will and occasionally perhaps acting as part-time political assassins. In Ibadan, violent road transport workers became the state!
Highways in the North, especially around Kogi, Nasarawa, Abuja and other parts were seized by armed robbers with prominent citizens falling victim. Alhaji Abubakar Rimi died as a result of one such incident. The official response was to engage non-state vigilantes and powerful “medicine men” to keep the roads safe, again demonstrating the impotence of the state. Some years back, the Ajah area of the aspiring Lagos mega-city regularly erupted in urban warfare as “Olumegbon” and contending landowners battled for supremacy with guns, cutlasses, axes and charms usually in broad day light with residents fleeing for their lives and the police keeping a safe distance. Newspaper reports suggest a recent recurrence of the Ajah violence.
There were also more fundamental challenges to the powers of the state-declaration of Sharia by then Zamfara Governor Sani Yerima which spread across eleven states in Northern Nigeria in defiance of the Nigerian Constitution; suspicions that some “militants” and regional elite in the Niger-Delta perhaps desired not just “resource control” but may have been questioning the nation’s sovereignty and territorial integrity as well; “MASSOB” whose name made its strategic intent explicit-“Movement for the Actualisation of the Sovereign State of Biafra”; the Odua Peoples Conference (OPC) and other “self-determination” groups which in the aftermath of “June 12” and Abacha’s despotism questioned the rationale for Yorubas staying within Nigeria.
In recent times, labour (and even regional irredentists desperate for power to be “rotated” back to their “zone”) regularly threaten to “make the country ungovernable”. Power sector workers are eager to confront state policy and have shut down national electricity supply twice in the last three months. However the biggest act of contempt for the Nigerian state however was the Independence Day bombing, a dangerous escalation of the slide towards anarchy and an ineffective and impotent Nigerian state. However it does appear that the Jonathan administration and the new National Security Adviser, General Andrew Owoye Azazi may have recognised that the rationale for the existence of the Nigerian state is increasingly being lost and the introduction of bombings directed against the state may, if not checked, represent the final chapter in the process of state disempowerment and failure.
The Jonathan Presidency seems to have offered a strong response-routing kidnappers in the East who seized a bus load of school children, ensuring safe release of all the children; subsequent action by the military and police against kidnappers and criminals in eastern Nigeria that has reportedly led to the arrest of over 400 persons; the meticulous manner the State Security Services has been assembling evidence relating to the independence day (and the previously unresolved Warri) bomb blasts and arresting those implicated in these actions; detection of the Iranian armaments and heroine imports and strong security and diplomatic follow-up; and most recently the very successful (so far) military onslaught by the Joint Task Force (JTF) against the revival of “militancy” in the Niger-Delta, wiping out of militant camps, freeing of hostages and the surrender of several militant leaders and their men.
The early signs are that the Jonathan/Azazi/Petinrin/Ihejirika team is surprisingly shaping out as an effective national security team. Is it too soon to hope they can keep up this momentum and restore the powers, effectiveness and credibility of the Nigerian state?
Thursday, November 18, 2010
Obama's "Shellacking"!!!
I did not expect to find “shellacking” in a conventional dictionary so I went online. Dictionary.com defined it as “an utter defeat”, “a sound thrashing” or “to defeat or trounce” while the World English Dictionary notes that it is a mainly US or Canadian slang meaning a “complete defeat” or “sound defeat”. I was subsequently surprised to find my good old New Webster’s Dictionary with essentially the same meaning-“to defeat by a very large margin”! By his own admission, that was what President Barack Obama and his fellow Democrats got from the Republicans in the recent US mid-term elections.
It was a stinging chastisement as Republicans picked up (at least) 60 House seats and 6 in the Senate taking the Republican tally to a House majority of 239 displacing Nancy Pelosi as Speaker, and narrow minority of 47 in the Senate, to the Democrats 186 and 52 respectively. It is clear that US voters delivered a categorical thumping to Obama who they had elected overwhelmingly just two years earlier. What is not so clear is why? The usual explanation is that it was about jobs and the economy; that US voters always punish incumbents for poor economic conditions; that Obama had done too little to convince voters he would restore jobs and prosperity. I would love to accept this conventional logic, but it just doesn’t seem to me like the whole truth!
I don’t believe American voters are so unsophisticated that they did not appreciate the scale of the economic and financial calamity Obama inherited from the Republicans. Did US voters really expect that the destruction of output, wealth and jobs wrought during the US Great Recession of 2008-2009 could be reversed in just two years? Could the voters have so completely forgotten that Republicans created the mess with their combination of wars, deficits and hands-off deregulation such that in anger, they would return power to the same Republicans? Could US voters be so angry about slow progress towards recovery that they would in effect vote for no progress at all that the new gridlock would lead to? Did Obama’s fundamental actions on economic stimulus, healthcare reform and financial sector regulation count for nothing at all? If this is the whole truth, would it not reflect badly on the utilitarian value of democracy and suggest that the masses may often act against their own enlightened self-interest?
But as I mentioned earlier I am not convinced this was all about jobs and the economy! For one I suspect a major failure of political strategy and communication on the part of the Democrats who appeared tentative, timid and lacking self-assurance as they abandoned the political space to the “Tea Party” onslaught. Obama himself continues in pursuit of his idealistic but elusive America that is neither red nor blue; neither Democratic nor Republican; neither liberal nor conservative. Of course political realities may be different as angry conservatives deployed everything in their vast political and financial arsenal towards undermining and destroying him.
I suspect this was also about campaign finance. The US Supreme Court may have delivered an enduring strategic advantage to the Republicans with the ruling removing caps on corporate political donations. So while individuals, who form the bulk of Democratic donors, have restrictions on their political donations, companies who favour mostly Republicans may make unlimited campaign contributions. That advantage may have had decisive impact on this race, and except that ruling is reversed, future races as well.
Deploying their financial advantage in organisation and advertising, the Republicans and their Tea Party allies successfully but unjustifiably demonised Obama as an anti-business liberal engaged in wealth re-distribution and seeking to over-tax and over-regulate businesses; a socialist who wanted to nationalise the economy and spend his way to recovery; and a statist who through healthcare and other policies would foster big government and lead a government take-over of citizens’ rights and lives. All these supported with barely-disguised racism and “we want our America back” posturing from the pulpit, conservative rallies and Fox News Channel! The Democrats never quite rose to the propaganda challenge and failed to summon the energy and enthusiasm to confront Republican and Tea Party scaremongering. Unfortunately Obama was professorial rather than engaging. He assumed that the facts would speak for him, and that reason would prevail over disinformation and fear, and failed to connect at an empathic level with independents and even Democrats.
I suspect right-wing demonization of Obama proved devastating due to a “pre-existing condition”-American voters were themselves increasingly unsure of Obama on the issue of “American values” even if they couldn’t say so to pollsters. What did Obama really believe in? Who is he? Is he an American or Kenyan? A Christian or Muslim? A centrist or far-left liberal? Why does he seem overtly focused on the Islamic world? Why does he support the “Ground Zero” mosque? Why did he bow waist-level before the Saudi King? Will he abandon Israel under pressure? Is he determined to elevate the place of gays and lesbians in US society? I suspect that not being sure of where Obama seeks to lead US society on these “cultural” issues, American Republicans and Independents voted to impose restraints on his power. And many Democrats, acquiesced by staying at home!
It was a stinging chastisement as Republicans picked up (at least) 60 House seats and 6 in the Senate taking the Republican tally to a House majority of 239 displacing Nancy Pelosi as Speaker, and narrow minority of 47 in the Senate, to the Democrats 186 and 52 respectively. It is clear that US voters delivered a categorical thumping to Obama who they had elected overwhelmingly just two years earlier. What is not so clear is why? The usual explanation is that it was about jobs and the economy; that US voters always punish incumbents for poor economic conditions; that Obama had done too little to convince voters he would restore jobs and prosperity. I would love to accept this conventional logic, but it just doesn’t seem to me like the whole truth!
I don’t believe American voters are so unsophisticated that they did not appreciate the scale of the economic and financial calamity Obama inherited from the Republicans. Did US voters really expect that the destruction of output, wealth and jobs wrought during the US Great Recession of 2008-2009 could be reversed in just two years? Could the voters have so completely forgotten that Republicans created the mess with their combination of wars, deficits and hands-off deregulation such that in anger, they would return power to the same Republicans? Could US voters be so angry about slow progress towards recovery that they would in effect vote for no progress at all that the new gridlock would lead to? Did Obama’s fundamental actions on economic stimulus, healthcare reform and financial sector regulation count for nothing at all? If this is the whole truth, would it not reflect badly on the utilitarian value of democracy and suggest that the masses may often act against their own enlightened self-interest?
But as I mentioned earlier I am not convinced this was all about jobs and the economy! For one I suspect a major failure of political strategy and communication on the part of the Democrats who appeared tentative, timid and lacking self-assurance as they abandoned the political space to the “Tea Party” onslaught. Obama himself continues in pursuit of his idealistic but elusive America that is neither red nor blue; neither Democratic nor Republican; neither liberal nor conservative. Of course political realities may be different as angry conservatives deployed everything in their vast political and financial arsenal towards undermining and destroying him.
I suspect this was also about campaign finance. The US Supreme Court may have delivered an enduring strategic advantage to the Republicans with the ruling removing caps on corporate political donations. So while individuals, who form the bulk of Democratic donors, have restrictions on their political donations, companies who favour mostly Republicans may make unlimited campaign contributions. That advantage may have had decisive impact on this race, and except that ruling is reversed, future races as well.
Deploying their financial advantage in organisation and advertising, the Republicans and their Tea Party allies successfully but unjustifiably demonised Obama as an anti-business liberal engaged in wealth re-distribution and seeking to over-tax and over-regulate businesses; a socialist who wanted to nationalise the economy and spend his way to recovery; and a statist who through healthcare and other policies would foster big government and lead a government take-over of citizens’ rights and lives. All these supported with barely-disguised racism and “we want our America back” posturing from the pulpit, conservative rallies and Fox News Channel! The Democrats never quite rose to the propaganda challenge and failed to summon the energy and enthusiasm to confront Republican and Tea Party scaremongering. Unfortunately Obama was professorial rather than engaging. He assumed that the facts would speak for him, and that reason would prevail over disinformation and fear, and failed to connect at an empathic level with independents and even Democrats.
I suspect right-wing demonization of Obama proved devastating due to a “pre-existing condition”-American voters were themselves increasingly unsure of Obama on the issue of “American values” even if they couldn’t say so to pollsters. What did Obama really believe in? Who is he? Is he an American or Kenyan? A Christian or Muslim? A centrist or far-left liberal? Why does he seem overtly focused on the Islamic world? Why does he support the “Ground Zero” mosque? Why did he bow waist-level before the Saudi King? Will he abandon Israel under pressure? Is he determined to elevate the place of gays and lesbians in US society? I suspect that not being sure of where Obama seeks to lead US society on these “cultural” issues, American Republicans and Independents voted to impose restraints on his power. And many Democrats, acquiesced by staying at home!
Wednesday, November 10, 2010
Fela's Foresight
I have always wanted to write about Fela! Fela Anikulapo-Kuti. In the wake of this year’s “Felabration”, I found enough incentive so to do, even though politics and business disturbed my timeline. Why would an otherwise serious column dedicated to “Economy, Polity, Society” find Fela a worthwhile subject? The answer is that Fela transcended all of these spheres. Indeed my basic thesis is that Fela was ahead of his time and his generation in his pioneering thinking in relation to Nigeria’s socio-political development, and oftentimes in relation to global politics as well.
Consider Fela’s song, “Zombie”, a stinging rebuke of the Nigerian military institution and rejection of military rule which had turned Nigeria and many other African and third world nations into huge military garrisons. At this time when Fela found military incursion into civilian life and national leadership an abominable desecration, professors of law, political science and other intellectuals, lawyers and civil servants were happily serving under the military. It was not until the progressive (or rather regressive) march of military rule turned full circle with the Abachas that intellectual thought in our universities, professional associations and chambers of commerce evolved into a consciousness that military rule could no longer be tolerated-decades after Fela!
Or consider Fela’s “Authority Stealing” which was a frontal assault on corruption and the selfish abuse of office by Nigerian political office holders and civil servants. Fela recognised that “…authority stealing pass armed robbery” in its destruction of the national economy, denial of social services and infrastructure to millions of Nigerians and its ultimately deleterious impact on the nation and the destiny of its masses. As Fela argued while one armed robber could destroy one or two lives at a time, a pen robber by one stroke could destroy a million lives, denying them schools, hospitals, social welfare, power and other necessities of a fulfilled life. It took us several decades after Fela before corruption came unto the national agenda with the ICPC and EFCC.
Our people’s docility and lack of political activism also engaged Fela’s attention long before NGOs and so-called “civil society organisations” and at a time when the foreign ministries of the western powers thought the best way to protect their interests was through African strong men or their corrupt civilian counterparts. In “Suffering and Smiling”, Fela railed against the abject conditions of public transportation (“…49 sitting 99 standing…”) and other aspects of the standard of living of our people and wondered why they continued to smile and tolerate the wickedness of their rulers. But then Fela understood. As he sang, our people will do anything to stay alive, even if they were living an existence which was next to sub-human. “I no wan die, mama dey for house; papa dey for house; I wan build house; I wan buy car”, Fela sang, recognising the endless, sometimes unrealistic hope for a better tomorrow which push our people against radical political or social action to improve their conditions. Fela anticipated the peculiar bastardisation of “demo-crazy” that we would later see from 1999 to date. He regarded the mockery of democracy that we witnessed during the Shagari regime and the Babangida experiments as a demonstration of madness (craze).
Fela’s thinking also explored economics, international relations and even aspects of sociology. He sang for instance about inflation and its effects on the purchasing power and living standards of the people, illustrating with the story of the unfortunate Nigerian who was saving to buy some appliance, whose price kept moving up, as our victim manages to assemble enough funds to buy the coveted item. He sang about the menace of multinational corporations which encouraged corruption in third world countries using MKO Abiola’s ITT as the example. “International Thief Thief” he parodied. At this time the US and other developed nations had no problems with their corporations bribing and corrupting third world nations. It is significant that such activities as Fela sang about are now illegal under the US Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and even private sector organisations from developed nations are obliged under laws such as Sarbannes-Oxly to adopt higher and more noble standards of conduct. Many years after Fela!
Fela sang about the United Nations, about the oddity of the veto wielded by the US, UK, China, Russia and France, wondering how united an assembly that harboured Britain and Argentina; Libya and the US; and Iran and Iraq could be. Fela of course dismissed the UN as a “disunited United Nations”! He sang about Africa as the “centre of the world” projecting the mantra later adopted by our foreign policy establishment as “Africa as the centre piece of our foreign policy”. Fela also sang about social phenomenon-the inferiority complex and neo-colonial mindset fostered by “colonial mentality”; about the penchant of ladies to do “shakara" when propositioned by men; the critical role of water in human existence in “water no get enemy” (today global NGOs are also on to that); about the desire of Africans to look fair-skinned (still that inferiority complex) in “yellow fever” and other social tensions in “palava”!
Fela was ahead of his time. Unfortunately as happens to geniuses who can’t understand why the environment around them can’t see what they see, Fela may have snapped and become a social, economic and political rebel. His ultimate vindication is that decades after his songs, we have finally found our way to accept all his arguments.
Consider Fela’s song, “Zombie”, a stinging rebuke of the Nigerian military institution and rejection of military rule which had turned Nigeria and many other African and third world nations into huge military garrisons. At this time when Fela found military incursion into civilian life and national leadership an abominable desecration, professors of law, political science and other intellectuals, lawyers and civil servants were happily serving under the military. It was not until the progressive (or rather regressive) march of military rule turned full circle with the Abachas that intellectual thought in our universities, professional associations and chambers of commerce evolved into a consciousness that military rule could no longer be tolerated-decades after Fela!
Or consider Fela’s “Authority Stealing” which was a frontal assault on corruption and the selfish abuse of office by Nigerian political office holders and civil servants. Fela recognised that “…authority stealing pass armed robbery” in its destruction of the national economy, denial of social services and infrastructure to millions of Nigerians and its ultimately deleterious impact on the nation and the destiny of its masses. As Fela argued while one armed robber could destroy one or two lives at a time, a pen robber by one stroke could destroy a million lives, denying them schools, hospitals, social welfare, power and other necessities of a fulfilled life. It took us several decades after Fela before corruption came unto the national agenda with the ICPC and EFCC.
Our people’s docility and lack of political activism also engaged Fela’s attention long before NGOs and so-called “civil society organisations” and at a time when the foreign ministries of the western powers thought the best way to protect their interests was through African strong men or their corrupt civilian counterparts. In “Suffering and Smiling”, Fela railed against the abject conditions of public transportation (“…49 sitting 99 standing…”) and other aspects of the standard of living of our people and wondered why they continued to smile and tolerate the wickedness of their rulers. But then Fela understood. As he sang, our people will do anything to stay alive, even if they were living an existence which was next to sub-human. “I no wan die, mama dey for house; papa dey for house; I wan build house; I wan buy car”, Fela sang, recognising the endless, sometimes unrealistic hope for a better tomorrow which push our people against radical political or social action to improve their conditions. Fela anticipated the peculiar bastardisation of “demo-crazy” that we would later see from 1999 to date. He regarded the mockery of democracy that we witnessed during the Shagari regime and the Babangida experiments as a demonstration of madness (craze).
Fela’s thinking also explored economics, international relations and even aspects of sociology. He sang for instance about inflation and its effects on the purchasing power and living standards of the people, illustrating with the story of the unfortunate Nigerian who was saving to buy some appliance, whose price kept moving up, as our victim manages to assemble enough funds to buy the coveted item. He sang about the menace of multinational corporations which encouraged corruption in third world countries using MKO Abiola’s ITT as the example. “International Thief Thief” he parodied. At this time the US and other developed nations had no problems with their corporations bribing and corrupting third world nations. It is significant that such activities as Fela sang about are now illegal under the US Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and even private sector organisations from developed nations are obliged under laws such as Sarbannes-Oxly to adopt higher and more noble standards of conduct. Many years after Fela!
Fela sang about the United Nations, about the oddity of the veto wielded by the US, UK, China, Russia and France, wondering how united an assembly that harboured Britain and Argentina; Libya and the US; and Iran and Iraq could be. Fela of course dismissed the UN as a “disunited United Nations”! He sang about Africa as the “centre of the world” projecting the mantra later adopted by our foreign policy establishment as “Africa as the centre piece of our foreign policy”. Fela also sang about social phenomenon-the inferiority complex and neo-colonial mindset fostered by “colonial mentality”; about the penchant of ladies to do “shakara" when propositioned by men; the critical role of water in human existence in “water no get enemy” (today global NGOs are also on to that); about the desire of Africans to look fair-skinned (still that inferiority complex) in “yellow fever” and other social tensions in “palava”!
Fela was ahead of his time. Unfortunately as happens to geniuses who can’t understand why the environment around them can’t see what they see, Fela may have snapped and become a social, economic and political rebel. His ultimate vindication is that decades after his songs, we have finally found our way to accept all his arguments.
Tuesday, November 2, 2010
Which "MEND" is this?
Several readers have wondered why I have had nothing to say (till now) about the Independence Day bomb blasts in Abuja on October 1, 2010. The answer is not far-fetched-it was clear to me that whoever planned the incident was selling us a storyline which they hoped we would swallow uncritically. I can detect choreography when I see one, and I can tell the difference between truth and propaganda! So it was wise and prudent in my view to suspend judgment, analyse the facts and see what pattern emerges.
A pre-bomb warning and post-bomb claim of responsibility was attributed to the so-called “Movement for the Emancipation of the Niger-Delta” (“MEND”). The objectives of MEND should thus include economic emancipation (in terms of resources, employment and wealth creation, infrastructure and economic development), environmental remediation and advancing political interests of the Niger-Delta. It is difficult to see how the Abuja bomb blasts could have been in pursuit of these objectives! For the first time in Nigeria’s history, a Niger-Delta indigene was at the helm of affairs in the country, and had been in that position for less than six months, a period in which he had appointed Niger-Deltans to the petroleum, foreign affairs and Niger-Delta ministries and had already awarded major infrastructural contracts in the region.
What can we deduce instead as the strategic objectives of the Abuja bombers? It would seem these were to prevent the 50th independence anniversary celebrations from holding and thus prevent Jonathan from having his day in the sun; discredit the Jonathan administration; undermine Jonathan politically by seeking to show that he lacked home support in the Niger-Delta and would be unable to resolve the Niger-Delta crisis; and weaken his chances of winning the 2011 presidency. How on earth can these be consistent with the interests of the Niger-Delta? Why would a movement seeking Niger-Delta emancipation pursue these objectives? I think we can dismiss altogether the possibility that the bombings had anything to do with the Niger-Delta!
But it appears clear that Henry Okah was involved in the bombings. From my investigations (information which is at least one year old) Henry Okah was an arms dealer who sold arms to all the militant factions in the Niger-Delta. His primary motivation appears always to have been commercial though by virtue of his positioning as “logistics supplier” to the less-educated militants, he may have secured some influence over them. It is thus not inconceivable (especially as the Niger-Delta amnesty has in effect undermined his thriving arms sales operation) that Okah’s involvement was motivated by commerce rather than any emancipatory considerations! So the focus of enquiry perhaps should be who has the motives, incentives and capacity to engage Okah’s services if indeed he had been contracted to provide terrorist services by some employers? Alternatively was Okah attempting to blackmail the Jonathan presidency into providing him an “amnesty subsidy” to replace the revenue flow from the sales of weapons and ammunition to militants?
There are concerns however beyond Henry Okah. There does seem, as I mentioned earlier some choreography around the bomb blasts in particular involving Al Jazeerah, which broadcast a news item purporting to show a MEND camp and demonstrate that MEND was re-arming around the time of the blasts; and followed up with an interview with Henry Okah in which he claimed that President Jonathan had tried to induce him to implicate “Northerners” in the bomb blasts. Who organised and facilitated these Al Jazeerah activities? Was the correlation between the timing of the bomb blasts and the Al Jazeerah story “happenstance, co-incidence or enemy action”? Why would Okah who is purportedly seeking Niger-Delta emancipation (presumably from Nigerian hegemony exercised mostly by “Northerners”) become the spokesperson and defender of “Northerners” against a Niger-Delta President? Why would Okah appear to be going out of his way to seek to destroy the Jonathan presidency? Who will be the beneficiaries if the Jonathan presidency is destroyed? MEND? The Niger-Delta? Who? Again the focus of enquiry should also be around these questions.
Subsequent to the bomb blasts, over 60 former MEND field commanders including all the known militant leaders visited Jonathan and disclaimed any connection to the bombing. “Tompolo” in particular asserted categorically that he was the leader of MEND, and that MEND had nothing to do with the blasts.
Any doubts about the explicitly political objectives of the independence day “MEND” appear to have been dissolved by the latest “MEND” statement issued a few days ago which sought to scare people away from Goodluck Jonathan/Namadi Sambo campaigns and accused Jonathan of disuniting the country. It is very probable from the language and content of that release that the writer was not even from the Niger-Delta! The mind-set is of an individual or group aggrieved by the Jonathan presidency and his intent to contest in 2011!!!
So while it has been politically correct to blame President Jonathan for trying to delink the bomb blast and MEND from the bomb blast, I would in fact affirm strongly that even though Jonathan was angered, rattled or incensed by the bomb blasts and therefore spoke prematurely, his basic instincts were correct! It is impossible based on rational analysis to conclude that the bombs were detonated on behalf of the Niger-Delta.
The truth may be closer to Abuja than Port Harcourt, Warri or Yenagoa!!!
A pre-bomb warning and post-bomb claim of responsibility was attributed to the so-called “Movement for the Emancipation of the Niger-Delta” (“MEND”). The objectives of MEND should thus include economic emancipation (in terms of resources, employment and wealth creation, infrastructure and economic development), environmental remediation and advancing political interests of the Niger-Delta. It is difficult to see how the Abuja bomb blasts could have been in pursuit of these objectives! For the first time in Nigeria’s history, a Niger-Delta indigene was at the helm of affairs in the country, and had been in that position for less than six months, a period in which he had appointed Niger-Deltans to the petroleum, foreign affairs and Niger-Delta ministries and had already awarded major infrastructural contracts in the region.
What can we deduce instead as the strategic objectives of the Abuja bombers? It would seem these were to prevent the 50th independence anniversary celebrations from holding and thus prevent Jonathan from having his day in the sun; discredit the Jonathan administration; undermine Jonathan politically by seeking to show that he lacked home support in the Niger-Delta and would be unable to resolve the Niger-Delta crisis; and weaken his chances of winning the 2011 presidency. How on earth can these be consistent with the interests of the Niger-Delta? Why would a movement seeking Niger-Delta emancipation pursue these objectives? I think we can dismiss altogether the possibility that the bombings had anything to do with the Niger-Delta!
But it appears clear that Henry Okah was involved in the bombings. From my investigations (information which is at least one year old) Henry Okah was an arms dealer who sold arms to all the militant factions in the Niger-Delta. His primary motivation appears always to have been commercial though by virtue of his positioning as “logistics supplier” to the less-educated militants, he may have secured some influence over them. It is thus not inconceivable (especially as the Niger-Delta amnesty has in effect undermined his thriving arms sales operation) that Okah’s involvement was motivated by commerce rather than any emancipatory considerations! So the focus of enquiry perhaps should be who has the motives, incentives and capacity to engage Okah’s services if indeed he had been contracted to provide terrorist services by some employers? Alternatively was Okah attempting to blackmail the Jonathan presidency into providing him an “amnesty subsidy” to replace the revenue flow from the sales of weapons and ammunition to militants?
There are concerns however beyond Henry Okah. There does seem, as I mentioned earlier some choreography around the bomb blasts in particular involving Al Jazeerah, which broadcast a news item purporting to show a MEND camp and demonstrate that MEND was re-arming around the time of the blasts; and followed up with an interview with Henry Okah in which he claimed that President Jonathan had tried to induce him to implicate “Northerners” in the bomb blasts. Who organised and facilitated these Al Jazeerah activities? Was the correlation between the timing of the bomb blasts and the Al Jazeerah story “happenstance, co-incidence or enemy action”? Why would Okah who is purportedly seeking Niger-Delta emancipation (presumably from Nigerian hegemony exercised mostly by “Northerners”) become the spokesperson and defender of “Northerners” against a Niger-Delta President? Why would Okah appear to be going out of his way to seek to destroy the Jonathan presidency? Who will be the beneficiaries if the Jonathan presidency is destroyed? MEND? The Niger-Delta? Who? Again the focus of enquiry should also be around these questions.
Subsequent to the bomb blasts, over 60 former MEND field commanders including all the known militant leaders visited Jonathan and disclaimed any connection to the bombing. “Tompolo” in particular asserted categorically that he was the leader of MEND, and that MEND had nothing to do with the blasts.
Any doubts about the explicitly political objectives of the independence day “MEND” appear to have been dissolved by the latest “MEND” statement issued a few days ago which sought to scare people away from Goodluck Jonathan/Namadi Sambo campaigns and accused Jonathan of disuniting the country. It is very probable from the language and content of that release that the writer was not even from the Niger-Delta! The mind-set is of an individual or group aggrieved by the Jonathan presidency and his intent to contest in 2011!!!
So while it has been politically correct to blame President Jonathan for trying to delink the bomb blast and MEND from the bomb blast, I would in fact affirm strongly that even though Jonathan was angered, rattled or incensed by the bomb blasts and therefore spoke prematurely, his basic instincts were correct! It is impossible based on rational analysis to conclude that the bombs were detonated on behalf of the Niger-Delta.
The truth may be closer to Abuja than Port Harcourt, Warri or Yenagoa!!!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)