 Published
February, 24th, 2010
“I
have done lots of work with the previous president of
Nigeria while I was in the office and all of Africa and we
know that without Nigeria fulfilling its potentials and
exacting its leadership, it will be greatly difficult for
the whole of Africa.”—Fmr
British Prime Minister, Tony Blair (AHE 022110)
The words in
the above quote of former British Prime Minister, Tony
Blair, spoken at a public event in Abuja, represent the
general consensus in the world about Nigeria’s leadership
role in Africa as well as the challenges facing her.
However, if there is anyone out there in the wide world who
disagrees with Blair’ assessment including but not limited
to the clan of naysayers and detractors in Nigeria, let him
raise his voice in protest. I have to be blunt and direct
here: The prime minister used the words “all of Africa and
we know that without Nigeria…exacting its leadership, it
will be greatly difficult for the whole of Africa,” to drive
home his point. I couldn’t agree more and so should you if
you believe as I do in Nigeria’s leadership role in Africa.
Blair minced
no words in pinning that responsibility on the broad
shoulders of Nigeria. Now that is a huge responsibility to
be placed on the shoulders of one nation in a continent of
some 55 sovereign nations. It is interesting though that
Blair did not mention South Africa, Egypt, Kenya or even
Ghana, for that matter. He singled out Nigeria. And when he
did, the patriot in me felt a surge of pride sweeping down
my spine, reading those words. However, leadership is not
for all comers. It is bestowed on those individuals and
nations that deserve it and have proven their mettles among
their peers in whatever areas they might have demonstrated
their leadership qualities. Nigeria must have met that
threshold to attain that continental status so
enthusiastically bestowed on her by foreign leaders. But
remember, Tony Blair also talked about Nigeria “fulfilling
her potentials,” suggesting or even indicating that the
nation has yet to fulfill her potentials. Here again,
Blair’s assessment is right on the money. And if there be
one out there in the wide world who disagrees with his
verdict, let him raise his voice in protest.
Tony Blair’s
two-pronged assessment provides a fitting backdrop to this
presentation on the current state of affairs in our nation.
It was delivered at a time the nation is searching for
leadership from our elected and appointed leaders to deal
with political exigencies at home. It therefore couldn’t
have come at a more opportune time. These exigencies have,
however, called to serious question Nigeria’s leadership at
home thus hinting at Blair’s concerns about the nation’s
ability to fulfill her potentials. Blair may have meant well
for Nigeria. However, from all available evidence, the
fulfillment of Nigeria’s potentials was the farthest thing
from the minds of Blair’s ancestors, who colonized the
nation. Nigeria was set up not to lead or fulfill her
potentials but to crash and disintegrate at the first storm
that was programmed to hit her. But she miraculously
survived that fateful encounter. Yet the seeds of political
instability have grown into giant Iroko trees in the body
politic. Recent events in the polity bear eloquent testimony
to that. Nothing happens in a vacuum but in a continuum of
colonial legacies. Therefore, far from being the intentions
of her colonial masters, who, in techno-speak, had
programmed her, much like other colonial fiefdoms, to crash
soon after her independence, Nigeria was providentially born
to lead and thus provide leadership to the continent of
Africa in particular and maybe thenceforth to the world in
general someday in the fullness of time.
However,
Nigeria’s leadership role came by default. Not long after
independence, the fledging nation, by virtue of the sheer
size of her geographic and demographic configurations
coupled with her massive natural endowments, emerged
naturally as the leading nation in Africa that set
the tone and tenor of Africa’s engagements with the
international community in the decolonization process. Led
by one of Africa’s foremost nationalists and
pan-Africanists, Dr. Nnamdi Azikiwe, albeit ceremonially; a
man who had become radicalized during his student days in
the United States together with the likes of W.E.B. Dubois
and Dr. Kwame Nkrumah, the young nation made Africa the
cornerstone of her foreign policy thrust, which translated
in practical terms into Africa’s total decolonization
process. Nkrumah’s Ghana, which had occupied the front row
seat in Africa’s decolonization struggles with Nigeria all
the while tagging along, was forced to beat a quick retreat
and yielded her leadership position to the emerging ‘African
giant’ in the post independence era.
It is
perhaps fair to say that Nkrumah’s untimely death in the
hands of Ghanaian military adventurers coupled with her
meagerly geographic and population size had conspired to
deny her the ability to offer effective leadership to the
continent in the face of Nigeria’s overwhelming superiority
in all departments of national endowments. Ghana’s gold was
no match for Nigeria’s black gold and her population was and
still unremarkable by comparison.
Thus Nigeria
assumed a leadership role in Africa after independence
because she was destined to be courtesy of her size and
natural resources as no other nation had the wherewithal to
play that role or otherwise compete with her as Africa’s
pre-eminent leading nation south of the Sahara. And the fact
that the Republic of South Africa, which would have been the
natural leader was still a pariah nation, helped in no small
way in propelling Nigeria to the forefront of African
leadership. Incidentally, apartheid South Africa was to
provide the litmus test for Nigeria’s leadership role on the
continent. Barely had the ink dried on Nigeria Independence
Declaration at Lancaster House, England, in 1960, than the
racist enclave began to feel the heat of the anti-apartheid
struggle spearheaded by Nigeria as the leader of the
frontline states. This was intensified with continental
ferocity until the atrocious regime of Pete Botha crumbled
under the unrelenting bombardment of the apartheid fortress
by the superior forces of history.
Though
situated thousands of miles away, Nigeria considered herself
a frontline state just like those bordering South
Africa, placed by their geographic locations at the
receiving end of the regime’s scorched earth policies
designed to punish and/or intimidate the frontline states
into submission. As a frontline state, therefore, South
Africa extended her tactics of intimidation to Nigeria in
several ways most notably when it secured or attempted to
secure a military base in Equatorial Guinea from which it
planned to target Nigeria militarily and destabilize her. It
was in recognition of that leadership role that Nigerian
leaders worked their tails off to secure independence or
majority rule for such states as Namibia, Rhodesia
(Zimbabwe), and of course, Angola, as well as her numerous
internationally recognized peace-making and peace-keeping
roles in troubled spots in Africa and beyond. The numerous
international awards and letters of commendation received
from the UN and other international organization bear
eloquent testimonies to Nigeria’s leadership role in Africa,
and by necessary implication, the world in general.
And what is
more? As I had stated elsewhere in previous articles, the
conceptualization and crafting of the Millennium Development
Goals (MDGs), as well as the AU’s Peer Review
mechanism, had the leadership imprimatur of Nigeria during
her headship of the continental body for three consecutive
terms in deference to her leadership position on the
continent. Again, Nigeria’s leadership was, in the main,
responsible for the transformation of the moribund
Organization of African Unity (OAU) into the modern, agile
African Union (AU) in tandem with similar geo-political
bodies such as the European Union (EU), the Association of
Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) and the Organization of
American States, (OAS), just to name but a few.
Thus we have
seen the progressive evolution of Nigeria’s leadership roles
from her early pre-occupation with decolonization to peace
making and enforcement and all the way to the development of
a pan African mechanism for good governance through the peer
review mechanism as a prerequisite for the socio-economic
transformation of the continent. The peer review mechanism
itself was designed to put African governments on a sound,
democratic footing and enables member states, under the
auspices of the AU, to directly intervene in the domestic
affairs of other member states whose actions fall short of
the ideals of the organization. As the chief proponent and
promoter of the peer review mechanism therefore, Nigeria had
had to condemn and, indeed, intervene in certain African
countries when the actions of their leaders fell short of
the democratic ideals and principles enshrined in both the
AU and ECOWAS Charters subscribed to respectively by member
states. For example, the condemnation of the coup de tat and
its bloody aftermath in the Republic of Guinea, and
expulsion of the Niger Republic from ECOWAS under Nigeria’s
leadership over the undemocratic power grab by its leader,
President Mamadou Tandja, (just ousted in a military coup),
are the clearest examples yet of the operation and
implementation of the peer review mechanism spearheaded as
always by Nigeria. And even as late as Tuesday, last week,
Nigeria’s Ag President, Dr. Jonathan Goodluck, at the ECOWAS
Heads of States Summit in Abuja, talked tough about
undemocratic actions of certain elements in some West
African states warning that there would be no comfort zone
in the region for such elements. Nigeria’s leadership in
Africa is therefore real, universally acknowledged, and
therefore unquestionable in general terms.
Not So Fast!
However, the
foregoing represents only the positives. However good and
exemplary these efforts might be at the regional and
international levels, Nigeria has no discernible records of
good governance at the home front. Her stellar record at the
external front is completely vitiated by her abysmal and
uninspiring performance at home. It’s like flipping the
coin! Put bluntly, Nigeria has become an example of bad
governance on the continent and therefore in no position to
provide leadership in that area except in the negative.
Though born and weaned on democratic menu at pre and post
independence, her undemocratic actions led to one of the
first military interventions on the continent of Africa in
1966 barely 6 years after independence. She holds the golden
trophy for military coups in Africa that toppled civilian
governments at the drop of a hat.
Besides, the
country has made corruption a way of life and her second
nature to the extent that a man who refuses to dip his hands
into the public treasury is now being looked upon as an
abnormal individual requiring a psychiatric evaluation,
while kleptomaniacs have become our nation’s role models who
run around the country delivering ‘lectures’ to us on good
governance and democracy. Our leaders have perverted every
institution of government and bent the same to their will.
They have appropriated all governmental apparatuses and
placed them at their service. They have torn into shreds the
moral and ethical fabrics of our nation and made ours into a
nation where ‘anything goes’ with little chances of
redemption. In fact, the very name ‘Nigeria’ mentioned
outside the shores out the country immediately conjures up
the image of corruption and fraud; no thanks to our leaders.
Yes the name ‘Nigeria has become the byword for corruption
in the international arena. And if we, as a people, cannot
look at ourselves in the mirror to see our unflattering
reflections, the world is looking at us and what it sees is
not a pretty picture but ugly imagery of a bountifully
endowed nation inhabited by a seemingly accursed people who
hate themselves and one another and governed by totally
bankrupt leadership.
How could it
be otherwise when the very basic function of government in
securing lives and properties from criminal elements has
proved an insurmountable task for the Nigerian state, with
diehard criminals on free-for-all rampage under the very
nose of law enforcement and security agencies? How could it
not be when elected officials abandoned their duties of
catering to the welfare of their constituents and use their
offices to cater to their personal interests leaving their
people in the lurch to steam in poverty, diseases, and
squalor in the midst of plenty? How could it not be when
anti-graft agencies have been reduced to mere window
dressing calculated to fool the world? And how could it not
be when the appointment of their heads is sponsored or, at
the very least influenced by corrupt elements in our society
to secure their freedom from prosecution? And how could it
not be when justice is sold to the highest bidder?
Of what use
is government if it cannot perform its basic function of
securing lives and properties and abandon its citizens at
the mercy of hoodlums? Do we really know and appreciate the
functions of the state and government? Of what use is
democracy if it cannot address the needs and aspirations of
a people because it has been hijacked by corruption in both
high and low places? Domestically, Nigeria does not even
come close to good governance, and the world knows it.
That’s why foreigners come to our shores to lecture us on
rule of law and good governance, ala US Secretary of State,
Mrs. Hillary Rodham Clinton! In fact, it has yet to begin
the process of good governance beyond the usual platitudes,
and has a long, long way to go. Aren’t we ashamed that we
are so notoriously deficient in good governance that the
world is literarily yelling at us to change our corrupt ways
and get our acts together? Who wants to be lectured in
his/her own country by foreigners? Only our corrupt
government officials who have no shame at all, not the
hardworking farmer and teacher in the village, or the
laborer and messenger in the city.
Our people
have done their part to elect their leaders who would
represent them and their interest but their leaders seem to
have other plans that are completely at variance with their
electoral mandates—the single minded pursuits of personal
interests at the expense of their peoples. In other words,
they’re representing themselves not the people who labored
in the sun and rain to put them in power. It is the ultimate
betrayal of trust known to mankind that we’re witnesses to.
Internal
Colonialists!
It is clear
therefore that while the focus has shifted from fighting
colonialism, which has been roundly defeated, Africa is
confronted with the after effects of colonialism. From
Zimbabwe to Somalia, Sudan to Niger, Guinea to Kenya,
Liberia to Nigeria, and all other states in between, the
perilous legacies of colonialism have reared their ugly
heads to undermine national stability and development. The
absence of good governance is a direct product of our
colonial heritage. The continent of Africa has a different
kind of enemy altogether whose color is black---the enemy at
home! She drove away the colonialists from her shores only
to discover that she has only replaced them with home grown
colonialists of her own color. Africa is still under
internal colonial bondage and that is the war Africa must
now wage and win. She must defeat the internal colonialists
as she did the external. The leaders holding down their
nations and their peoples are not whites but Africans. The
leaders looting the resources of their countries and
stashing them abroad back to the colonialists are not whites
but Africans. The leaders who refused to develop their
nations are not whites but Africans. The leaders who allow
diseases and malnutrition to decimate their population while
they live in obscene opulence are not whites but Africans.
The leaders who oppress their peoples and impose a reign of
terror are not whites but Africans. Yes, the Mobutu Seseko,
Sani Abacha, Jean Bokassa, Ibrahim Babangida, Omar Bongo,
Arap Moi, and all those tin gods who have reduced African
states to fiefdoms and mere satellites of Western nations
that once colonized the continent and plundered her
resources, are not whites but Africans.
Yes the
hated white colonialists are gone for good but they made
sure while departing that their black replacements would be
worse than them and difficult, indeed, almost impossible to
remove for obvious reasons. Firstly, they are Africans not
foreigners embedded in the fabrics of our respective tribal
societies and therefore able to play the tribal cards to
hide their atrocities and hold on to power by playing one
tribe against another. Secondly, the citizens themselves
had never experienced good governance during colonialism and
are therefore slow to confront the antics of bad leaders who
replaced the colonial masters. They were already used to
abuses and deprivations under colonial rule and saw no
difference their former and later masters. Thirdly, Africans
were used to monarchical systems of governance that demand
absolute loyalties to the kings, which is a huge drag and a
damper on political action. And fourthly, neocolonialists
have been very active on the African continent after
independence wreaking havoc on the political leadership of
the continent by sponsoring military coups and assassination
of progressive leaders. The assassinations of Patrice
Lumumba, Kwame Nkrumah, and Murtala Muhammed, for instance,
have been linked to external forces seeking to promote their
ideologies in the continent.
These are
the forces that have conspired to undermine good governance
on the continent. And Nigeria exemplifies a rendezvous or
convergence of these negative forces in their starkest
manifestations on the continent. This is a country that has
managed to turn her blessings into curses; oil wealth into
poverty; her population into destitution; her roads into
death traps; her buildings into time bombs; her youths into
kidnappers, armed robbers and prostitutes; her students into
cultists and bandits; her university lecturers into
extortionists and handouts salesmen; her bankers into spare
parts and stockfish importers and round trippers; her
generals and lawmakers into emergency contractors; her
degrees and certificates into cash and carry business; her
justice into commodity; her policemen into highway robbers;
and her leaders into pen robbers. The list goes on and on ad
infinitum.
The New
Dawn!
How much
worse can it get? The nation has hit the very bottom of
negativity in leadership and governance, and has nowhere
else to go but up. But the good news is that the citizens
have become sensitized to issues of good governance and
they’re demanding same from their leaders even as I pen
these lines. The bad leaders are beginning to discover that
it’s no longer business as usual, and they can no longer
hide under the cloak of ethnicity to perpetrate and
perpetuate bad governance in the nation. Yorubas, Ibos,
Hausas, Fulanis, Ibibios, Ijaws, Urhobos, Edos, Tivs,
Isokos, Itsekiris, Anangs, Biroms, and all the ethnic groups
in the nation have, in one accord, risen up to demand good
governance from their leaders and the pressure is on. Yes
the people are fighting back and demanding justice for those
who have mortgaged their future and the future of their
children and grandchildren. This is a qualitative change
from the past and therefore a reason for hope not only for
Nigeria but for Africa as a whole. The masses have come to
grips with the historical fact that change comes not from
the top down but from the ground up. An incipient revolution
of the Nigerian people is afoot even if not violent. And it
need not be violent to be effective as eloquently
demonstrated by India’s Mahatma Ghandi and America’s Dr.
Martin Luther King, jnr. And who says it cannot happen in
Nigeria? It is happening already even with a military
government. Go ask IBB how he left power in 1993. Ask OBJ
what happened to third term proposal in the constitutional
amendment exercise during his reign seen by the people as a
ploy to extend his rule beyond two terms? And ask Yar’Adua,
if you can find him, how he lost power to his deputy after
stalling for months on end in defiance of the people’s
demands? And go ask former AGF, Kaase Aondoakaa, what
happened to him that he’s no longer wearing trademark his
swagger and twisting the laws of our land to suit his
master’s interests and protect corrupt politicians? All of
these leaders and more incurred the wrath of the masses in
varying degrees and many are paying a price for it. It was
the intense political pressure mounted by Nigerians on the
National Assembly that compelled it to act in passing the
historic motion transferring power to Jonathan after
resisting for months. Nigerians are demanding governmental
accountability and good governance like never before and the
results are trickling in. And someday these trickles will
turn to gales of mass discontent that will sweep bad leaders
out of power at the polls. Inch by inch that is the
direction Nigeria is headed. And just as Tony Blair
indicated, as Nigeria goes so goes Africa.
The question
then is how is it that a nation with such unenviable records
could purport to promote democracy and good governance in
other member states of African regional bodies like ECOWAS
and AU, which it doesn’t practice at home? On what moral
high ground does Nigeria stand to scold other deviant states
on the continent on good governance and democracy? On the
face of it the answer is not apparent. But it can be found
in the fact that she has had a fairly long run on democracy
since 1999 when the military quit the stage, grossing thus
far, no less than 11 unbroken years in the democratic
experiment or the first time in her history. And that is
some good news. And even with all its imperfections
manifested in sundry electoral malpractices that had tainted
her democratic credentials, the fact that she has had such
staying power in the theater of democracy seems to have
entitled her to throw her weight around as the new kid on
the block to add to her already impressive leadership resume
on the continent. And it would appear that other member
states of both ECOWAS and the AU have accepted her
self-appointed role as the regional and continental
policeman of democracy which is not altogether unexpected
given her pedigree. Moreover she appears to have
acknowledged her democratic deficits and she is working to
fix them even if she is yet to show a lot of progress on the
score. She appears to have recognized the fact that merely
conducting elections is not all there is to democracy and
good governance. Democracy means a whole lot more than
conducting elections.
Properly
defined, democracy is the expression of the political will
of the people through their elected representatives at all
levels of government, including, in some jurisdictions, even
the judiciary, at some levels in accordance with
pre-determined rules of engagement as prescribed in the
constitution and relevant laws. True leadership entails the
strict observance of democratic principles and the rule of
law both in words and in deeds. The strict enforcement of
the rules of engagement in the political theater is the
enormous challenge facing the nation.
Failure of
Leadership!
As in all
cases, however, leadership imposes certain obligations on
the leader and it comes with the added responsibility to act
responsibly as a role model for other member states of the
regional bodies of AU and ECOWAS that look up to Nigeria for
leadership. The actions of a leader must not be seen to
contradict or be at variance with the advertized principles
which an organization holds dear to itself and to which its
membership voluntarily subscribes. A leader must lead by
concrete examples in appropriate cases and not by mere
precepts and properly held accountable to the same standards
he had set for himself and others whenever he falls short.
Therefore,
it is utterly hypocritical on the part of the Federal
Government to condemn undemocratic actions in other member
countries abroad while at the same time indulging in or
otherwise condoning the same or similar undemocratic acts
domestically. The Federal Government’s handling of President
Yar’Adua’s blunt refusal to abide by the letter and spirit
of the Nigerian constitution to transmit notice of his
hospitalization in a foreign country for three odd months
and counting, and the National Assembly’s dithering over the
issue for that much time until it eventually found its
voice, smacks of a betrayal of democratic principles and a
wanton disregard and violation of the peer review
mechanism. More importantly, it is betrayal of national
trust.
And how then
could Ag President Jonathan talk tough about undemocratic
actions in other countries when he himself presided over a
Federal Executive Council (FEC) meeting which declared
President Yar’Adua fit to govern contrary to all available
evidence and contrary to the man’s own admission in the BBC
interview that he was not yet fit to return home to resume
duties until his own doctors advised otherwise? Was the FEC
declaring another Musa Yar’Adua fit to govern, or the one
who is lying comatose at the King Fadh Royal Hospital in
Saudi Arabia? On what medical evidence did the FEC base its
conclusions that President Yar’Adua was ‘fit’ to govern when
the man had declared otherwise? And if the man, Yar’Adua had
indicated that he would only return to office upon the
advice of his doctors, shouldn’t the fact that he has yet to
return to office signify that he has yet to be cleared by
his doctors and therefore unfit to govern? What more
evidence does anyone need to declare him incapacitated? Were
the FEC members laboring under a spell or collective amnesia
to make that declaration in response to Justice Abutu’s
order? And more to the point: What were the reasons for
refusing to declare the President medically incapacitated
when the man had told the world about his medical
incapacity? The reasons could be found in personal loyalties
by members of the FEC and, of course, extra-legal and
extra-constitutional ethnic considerations, which wholly
detract from the letters and spirit of the constitution and
good governance.
Yes,
President Yar’Adua may have failed the nation but the
National Assembly and the FEC didn’t have to. The dithering
and indecision exhibited by both national institutions
represents a failure of leadership and good governance. It
could be argued that the PDP’s power sharing arrangement
which zoned the presidency to the North may have clouded the
vision of the members of both bodies. But if push comes to
shove the Nigerian constitution takes precedence over any
party arrangement and it shouldn’t have been so difficult
for the members to come to grips with that reality because
they swore to defend and protect the constitution not PDP’s
or any party power sharing arrangement for that matter. As
such, our leaders should have been cognizant of the fact
that good governance demands that the constitution prevails
in the event of any conflict between its provisions and some
backyard party arrangement that is not recognized and
therefore non-enforceable in any court in the land. Sure
enough our leaders are aware of the supremacy of the
constitution over other existing laws and PDP zoning
arrangement is not even a law to begin with! This is not to
condemn the PDP arrangement, which frankly speaking, has
brought some measure of political stability into the polity,
but to point out that whatever its merits, it cannot
supersede the provisions of the constitution in any event.
This should be elementary enough for our lawmakers and
members of the Federal Executive Council who were too
blinded by personal loyalties to act legally, reasonably,
and responsibly.
Nigeria
cannot project good governance to the outside world without
practicing it at home because no one gives what he does not
have. All the tough talk about undemocratic actions in some
West African states are hollow and insincere if the Federal
Government itself could not match words with actions at
home. It is elementary that foreign policy is an
externalization or projection of domestic policy beyond a
nation’s borders. And if we’re only too willing to
circumvent and subvert our own constitution to protect
individual and ethnic interests, then we’re only exposing
ourselves as an unserious nation to the outside world who
says one thing and does the opposite. Make no mistake about
it: the outside is watching us to see if we in fact,
practice what we preach or we’re just blowing hot and cold
to suit the times. The United States promotes democracy in
the world because she practices it at home real time, not
theoretical postulation or moral platitudes. That does not
mean it is perfect in practice.
Nigeria’s
conduct is a terrible betrayal of good governance founded on
democracy and the rule of law. Elevating personal and tribal
loyalties over and above national interests and thereby
endangering national unity and security is treasonable.
Period! It is quite unfortunate and totally unacceptable
that our elected and appointed officials paid by the state,
not by their ethnic groups, and sworn to defend and protect
the constitution and the nation would turn around to place
personal and ethnic loyalties over and above the
constitution and the nation. It becomes all the more
appalling and unsettling coming as it did from a leader who
had declared himself a ‘servant leader’ and an exponent of
the rule of law. It is the very height of betrayal and
exposes President Musa Yar’Adua as someone who had neither
the belief nor conviction in what he preached; luxuriating
as he was in lip service. And as it was with Yar’Adua so was
it with his now demoted AGF, Aondoakaa, who prefaced every
sentence with rule of law jingo while using his office to
actively subvert the constitution and the rule of law
including, of course, his notorious shielding of corrupt
ex-governors. Rule of law was blatantly turned into a weapon
of mass deception designed to hoodwink unwary Nigerians who
had placed their trust on their elected government to tow
the path of constitutionality and good governance in
accordance with the AU and ECOWAS charters.
It is
entirely predictable that if the unfortunate scenario
playing out in Nigeria were to happen in another member
state of ECOWAS or AU, the Federal Government would have
wasted no time condemning the actions of its leader for
refusing to hand over to his deputy while hospitalized
abroad for a quarter of a year and still counting, or at
very least prodded him to do so behind the scene to avoid a
power vacuum that could be exploited by undemocratic
elements within and outside the polity. Yet the same Federal
Government was caught pants down doing the very same thing.
Was
Yar’Adua’s action intended to invite the military to seize
power rather than hand over to his deputy? Since he knew he
is not in any shape to return to his seat anytime soon, and
yet he refused to hand over still, it is entirely possible
that Yar’Adua might have entertained such sinister motive to
truncate the present democratic dispensation by engineering
a fouled political climate conducive to military
interventions possibly from his Northern elements to retain
power in the North in perpetuity. Yar’Adua’s ethnic
disposition in governance would appear to lend some credence
to this hypothesis. Yar’Adua the ‘servant leader’ and ‘rule
of law’ exponent has turned out an ethnic champion. If
history offers any guide at all, such conclusion becomes
quite irresistible given that all coup plots in Nigeria
except the very first by Major Nzeogwu, were masterminded,
headed, and executed by Northern elements who proceeded to
impose military dictatorship for the better part of four
decades in the country. Like the Yar’Adua’s failed
administration, President Shehu Shagari’s lack luster
government was shoved aside in a ‘palace coup’ by Northern
military elements without firing a shot and was among
others, designed to preserve political power in the North.
Yar’Adua’s action might have been deliberately calculated,
among others, to achieve a similar outcome in the absence of
his medical recovery to enable him resume duties. Or else
how would anyone interpret his blunt refusal to hand over
when he knew he is not in a position to lead while lying
comatose in the hospital or hospice, whichever is applicable
since nobody but his wife truly knows where he is presently?
The action
by the National Assembly in calling Yar’Adua’s bluff, while
encouraging, was too little too late. President Nixon of the
United States was impeached for bugging and wire-tapping the
communication of his political opponent in the Watergate
scandal. His conduct, while reprehensible by American
standards, doesn’t even come close to President Yar’Adua’s
gross misconduct in thumbing his nose at both the National
Assembly and the entire nation. Till date Yar’Adua has been
treating visiting officials of the Federal Republic of
Nigeria with utter disdain by refusing them access to him.
Please don’t tell me he is not aware of what’s going on. The
man has sinned against the nation and should never be
rewarded with power pick up as though it were some personal
property to be kept in storage and retrieved at will. Power
belongs to the people and they have demanded that it should
be withdrawn forthwith from the man who has let them down.
While Nixon’s conduct was directed at mere political
opponents and rightly impeached for breaking the law,
Yar’Adua exposed our nation to mortal danger not only by
leaving her without a head but by sowing the seeds of
political instability and possible military coups and
counter coups and thereby putting her in yet another
tailspin so soon after June 12th 1993 saga that
almost tore the nation asunder. Therefore if President Nixon
deserved to be impeached for merely eavesdropping on his
political opponents, which after all, means little in
Nigeria to begin with, Yar’Adua deserves to be impeached
three times over without looking back!
New
Beginning!
This is
therefore calling on the leadership of the National Assembly
as well as the Federal Executive Council to live up to the
principles of good governance as enshrined in both the AU
and ECOWAS charters and enforceable through the Peer Review
mechanism which Nigeria had sought to promote in member
states. This is the time to demonstrate leadership for the
member states in the West African sub region and for the
continent as a whole because other countries, and indeed,
the entire world are watching our actions to see whether
we’re living up to our commitments or merely paying them lip
service. As befitting her leadership roles in the colonial
and post colonial struggles, the pre-eminent position of
Nigeria dictates that the nation must show the light and
lead the way for others to follow.
With
anti-colonial struggles off the radar, good governance is
the new frontier of our struggles and Nigeria must lead the
way both in words and in deeds. The country must not be
allowed to be short-changed by shortsighted individuals who
are bent on pursuing their personal or regional interests at
the expense of the greater good and fulfillment of the
nation’s commitment to good governance. Issues of leadership
and rule of law must be addressed dispassionately within the
ambit of the law and the constitution without recourse to
extraneous and extra-constitutional considerations bordering
on ethnic or regional interests. In other words, issues of
national importance must not be resolved on the basis of who
stands to win or lose but must be resolved on the basis of
the law and the constitution and let the chips fall where
they may. The constitution is the supreme law of the land
and was designed to protect and preserve national interests
over and above individual, group or regional interests and
our elected officials swore to protect and defend the
constitution. And that’s why the actions of both President
Yar’Adua and our elected officials including members of the
FEC, are in breach of the constitution for refusing to
uphold and defend the constitution.
How does an
elected or appointed government official swear by the Holy
Bible or the Holy Koran to uphold and defend the
constitution and proceed to circumvent and subvert it
without batting an eye and get away with it? And how does
such official run around preaching democracy and rule of law
to others abroad when he cannot practice the same at home?
Shouldn’t such an official be made to remove the log from
his own eyes in order for him to see clearly to remove the
specs from the eyes of others? Nigeria must remove the log
from her own eyes before shouting her voice hoarse about
“undemocratic actions” by leaders in parts of Africa. It
makes no sense for the pot calling the kettle black. Good
governance at home must be the basis for projecting the same
to the outside world as an important element of our foreign
policy initiatives. And good governance begins and ends with
constitutionalism and respect for the rule of law in
practice, not in theory. And rule of law does not begin and
end with ‘obeying’ court orders, but in actively
implementing the provisions of our laws and the constitution
in a timely and robust fashion without let or hindrance or
any extraneous considerations whatsoever.
Admittedly,
Nigeria is a complex nation and therefore dictating that
certain situations and decisions be handled not wholly
legalistically and mechanistically, but politically as well
in order not to rock the boat, and the situation in Niger
Delta provides the best example of that delicate balancing
act. But a straightforward issue like mere handover of power
to a deputy when the President or Governor is on vacation or
on medical admission shouldn’t require any balancing act or
anything of the sort, and should be handled within the
confines of the law and the constitution. And good enough
there are ample provisions in the constitution to deal with
the situation that ought to have been followed as a matter
of course without overheating the polity unnecessarily or
turning it into a political fodder for mischief makers and
tribal bigots to exploit and undermine our fragile national
unity and cohesion.
For all its trumpeted complexity that has been used to
promote tribal bigotry at the expense of national interests,
Nigeria is no more complex than other multi-ethnic and
multi-cultural societies that follow due process and rule of
law in their domestic and international affairs.
Constitutionalism and rule of law is the bedrock of national
unity because it prescribes the parameters and guide posts
for the conduct of public affairs afore hand which the
constituent units of the union had duly subscribed to and
understand as the guiding or governing principles of public
affair that the government of the day ought to implement
without extraneous considerations. Thus when President Musa
Yar’Adua left the country for medical treatment abroad it
was expected and rightly so that the provisions of section
145 of the 1999 constitution would be applicable as a matter
of course without much ado. But where it is shown that the
President, in utter disregard for the said provision had
refused or neglected to act in accordance with the said
provision, it was the duty of the relevant organs of the
government, in particular, the National Assembly to demand
the notice of his hospitalization just in case he was in a
hurry or otherwise not in a position to get one across
before he left due to his medical condition. And when it
become obvious that the president had become medically
incapacitated, it was expected and rightly so too that he
would be formally declared as such and his deputy duly sworn
in to carry on the business of governance in accordance with
section 144 of the constitution. These things have been
carefully laid down in our constitution to properly guide
the actions and reactions of our leaders to unforeseen
developments threatening the unity, stability and good
governance in the polity. The framers of the constitution
have not disappointed us. It’s the law!
In fairness to the National Assembly, in particular, the
senate, that demand was made when it asked the president in
a unanimous motion to furnish it with notice of his medical
treatment abroad. But the House of Representatives did
absolutely nothing and instead opted for delay tactics by
purporting to send a get-well delegation to Saudi Arabia to
see the president when it knew no one had been allowed to
see the president by his handlers. Only the senate took some
tentative steps by demanding the notice from the president
with the Bankole House playing hide and seek game with
Nigerians. However, that demand by the Senate took too long
to come and it came only after the nation had risen up to
demand action.
Must the National Assembly wait for a delegation of
former Heads of state and Chief Justices of the Federation
to come to it to demand action before acting on its own in a
matter like this? Or was it waiting for political cover from
the former leaders before showing its hands? Whatever the
reason was, it only goes to show that these people either do
not understand their duties and waiting for someone to spell
it out for them before acting, or they were indifferent to
the grave situation brought about by the president’s refusal
to transfer power temporarily to his deputy while
hospitalized abroad. Had the military exploited the
situation to oust the civilians from power as the Military
High Command cried out about undemocratic elements
infiltrating their ranks with a view to intervening in the
contrived political logjam, the National Assembly would have
had itself to blame for dithering while our ship of state
was headed towards the rocks. When the military came out
openly to warn about coup plots, that was a signal that the
present democratic dispensation would have been aborted had
the National Assembly not acted to transform Vice President
Jonathan into an Acting President. As the Senate President,
Ekweremadu confessed as reported by This Day in its February
19th edition when he said:
“…empowering Jonathan
as Acting President saved Nigeria from military coup...”
“If we hadn’t done
what we did here, no one can tell what would have happened
here. May be our action saved us a similar fate. We surely
know how to solve our problems at the right time."
The question
is why did the Senate have to wait for that long to do what
it knew was the right thing to do to save the nation from
possible military coup from the beginning? If the FEC was
encumbered by Yar’Adua loyalists who held sway at the
Council, was the National Assembly also similarly
encumbered? That is an independent and co-equal arm of
government that has the responsibility of calling the
executive branch to order in appropriate cases and that’s
why it is constitutionally empowered to do oversight on the
executive branch. And this one heck of a case crying for
legislative oversight as the nation waited endlessly on it
with bathed breath to act.
Similar
knocks equally go to the FEC which shamelessly declared the
President fit to govern after refusing to hand over when it
did not know whether the man was dead or alive or whether he
could even spell his own name on his sick bed. At this very
moment no one including the highest authorities in land
knows where President Yar’Adua is holding out except for his
wife, Turai, and perhaps the Saudi authorities. Government
official delegations to Saudi Arabia to confer with the
ailing Yar’Adua have routinely been denied access to him
just as information regarding his present health status has
become a trade secret. The nation is in total darkness as to
the whereabouts and the health status of their leader.
Therefore to have declared to the whole world that a man who
had confessed feebly in a BBC interview that he was not in a
position to resume duties until his own doctors declared him
fit to go, is ‘fit’ to govern a nation of 150 million
Nigerians with all the heavy burdens that it entails, is the
height of hypocrisy and disservice to the nation. More than
that, it was a frontal assault on the constitution in that
the fictional declaration was calculated to subvert the
constitution and leave the Nigerian nation without a head,
indefinitely. A headless nation is a dead nation. Why then
would our elected and appointed representatives wish our
dear nation such a cruel fate?
To become a
credible leader in Africa in good governance Nigeria must
first turn inward and purge itself of all anti-democratic
proclivities that undermine her own constitution and the
rule of law. The nation must show the light and lead the way
in good governance in Africa because that is the only way to
promote political stability and unleash the latent
potentials buried below the surface that are required for
the socio-economic transformation of the continent. This is
the new frontier of Africa’s struggle to free the continent
from the scourges of civil strife, poverty and diseases and
infrastructural decay and all the inadequacies that have
made her a laughing stock and beggar continent in the world.
If Nigeria truly wants to lead this is the irreducible
minimum. It is no use throwing our weight around when we
cannot obey our own constitution in handling simple domestic
affairs as presidential handover of power during vacation or
medical admission.
Fixing the
Yar’Adua Conundrum!
What it all
boils down to in the present circumstances facing the
nation, is to call a spade a spade by immediately commencing
the impeachment of the president or in the alternative
declaring him medically incapacitated to discharge the
functions of his office. The man has said that much in his
BBC interview. All that is left is to formalize his own
declaration with a view to making Ag President Goodluck
Jonathan, the substantive President and Commander-in-Chief
of the Armed Forces of Nigeria in accordance with sections
143 and 144 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of
Nigeria. We do not need an Ag President. Our constitution
provides for the making of the Vice President the
substantive President when the substantive president is
medically incapacitated as it’s presently the case.
There is
therefore no room for half measures seemingly calculated to
frustrate and defeat the provisions of our constitution.
Nigeria deserves and must be given a substantive president
who will stand shoulder to shoulder with his peers around
the world to lead Africa in international forums and make
the nation proud. This is not a question of half a bread
being better than none. Why give us half bread when we can
have the full loaf? It makes no sense whatsoever for
Nigeria to be represented by Ag President with Yar’Adua’s
ominous sickly shadows cast all over him with all the
concomitant uncertainties and confusion while other nations
are represented by their presidents without looking over
their shoulders. It’s therefore fundamentally unfair to Ag
President Jonathan to be made to operate under the long
shadows of Yar’Adua and the nation is not well served by the
prevailing status quo. It’s either we have a president or we
don’t. The Nigerian constitution only provides for an Ag
President or Ag Governor in the interim and not as a
permanent feature of a subsisting administration.
The Federal
Executive Council and the National Assembly must therefore
hasten to normalize the abnormal situation as completely and
as fully as possible as envisaged and provided for under the
constitution. While the elevation of the Vice President to
the status of Ag President is a most welcome development and
therefore commendable, it must be stressed that the issue of
the president’s abdication of power and his medical
incapacity is still hanging in the air and has yet to be
addressed as dictated by the constitution. Both institutions
of government constitutionally empowered to provide the
required leadership for the nation must quickly move to lift
the Yar’Adua albatross from the neck of our dear nation and
consign that sad chapter of our national history to the
past. That is the task starring both the FEC and the
National Assembly unblinkingly in their faces. And they must
not shy away from it.
Good
governance demands that they rise up to meet that challenge
and do what is right, legal and constitutional, once again,
in the overall interest of our nation. Empowering Jonathan
as Ag President therefore was a token measure amounting to
only a down payment seemingly calculated to save the necks
of the lawmakers from probable military coup, going by the
confessions of the Deputy Senate President alluded to above.
It is critically important therefore that the National
Assembly lifts the ominous Yar’Adua clouds overhanging the
nation finally and completely, and put to swift end the
climate of uncertainties and conjectures about the prospects
of our national political leadership. Delay may be
dangerous and this warning should not be taken lightly.
Our leaders
have the notorious tendency of waiting until disaster is
upon them before doing a fire brigade response. And that’s
why, for example, they refuse to do medical checkups until
death or disability is upon them; wait until our roads turn
to craters and canyons before they’re fixed, if fixed at
all; wait until our buildings collapse and crush innocent
people to death before inspecting them; and the list goes on
and on. The same character trait is on display yet again
with respect to the political situation in the nation today.
Suppose we
stop to think for a moment that Yar’Adua pops out from the
woodworks like a phoenix packaged in an air ambulance and
dropped in from the airplane to reclaim his ‘mandate’ by
claiming to be hale and hearty, what would the nation do?
Call his bluff and insist on his full recovery and deny him
his request or indulge his vanity and kick Ag President
Jonathan out of power? Either way, have we thought of what
that would mean for the unity and stability of the nation?
And if by any chance Yar’Adua regains power, is not clear
and foreseeable even to the most naïve that he would be on a
mission of vendetta rather than implementing any development
programs for the nation? Why do we choose to expose our
nation to this clear, present, and immediate danger by
clinging on to the Yar’Adua’s doomed presidency? Must the
nation be allowed to go down with Yar’Adua? It’s absolute
insanity!
As another
former United States Secretary of State of state, Dr.
Condeleeza Rice, has come to tell us, the presidency is
bigger than the president. There is no question that the
Nigerian government has heard that line before over and over
again. How many times must it be repeated to our ears before
we understand it? And what part of it our leaders don’t
understand? The simple meaning of that often repeated, tired
line is that the nation must cut Yar’Adua loose now and move
on to the next chapter by swearing in Ag President Jonathan
as President. It’s that simple. No one needs to take a class
to understand that except somebody out there is retarded and
I know our leaders are a smart people. Their historic motion
has set them apart as true leaders when they want to truly
lead. But they must complete the mission by taking the next
step to swear in Jonathan as president without further delay
because time is of the essence. And when that is done it
will be leadership on good governance in Africa and that
precedent will become a reference point and guide-post for
our nation and Africa as a whole in similar situations in
the future.
May the
Almighty God grant our leaders the wisdom and foresight to
do what’s right in the interest of the nation to the glory
of Africa and the black race.
Long live
the Federal Republic of Nigeria!
Long live
President Goodluck Jonathan!
Franklin
Otorofani, Esq.
Contact:
mudiagaone@yahoo.com
PS: As this
article was being sent in for publication the report came in
that President Yar’Adua has dramatically arrived the
country!
|
