DO THE RIGHT THING MR. PRESIDENT

1.       In one of the ministerial platforms, part of the Presidency’s well orchestrated outing for the one year anniversary of the Jonathan administration last month, High Chef Edem Duke, the Minister of Culture, Tourism and National orientation, exhorted his audience to tell one another to do the right thing. He postulated that all it would take for corruption to disappear in Nigeria would be for everyone to do the right thing. I don’t know whether the President was in audience that day, 22^nd May 2012. If he was, that message should have special resonance in his ears. In fact, I dare suggest that High Chief Edem Duke should seek an exclusive audience with the President so that he could drum it into the latter’s ears and say’ Mr. President please do the right thing’.

2.       My general impression of the year had been disappointing and my main concern all along had been the Presidency. So when it made it clear that it had plans for May 29^th 2012, its first anniversary in elected office, I had no trouble focusing on the Presidency. I was curious to find out whether there was a possibility that the Presidency had any jokers up its sleeve that may put a shine on what to me look consistently as a disastrous record. Alas, what was billed as a celebration of the administration’s one year in office confirmed emphatically my worst fears for the country.

3.       In Mr. Labaran Maku the administration has found an enthusiastic, professional, effective and savvy pitchman but his efforts are doomed and the reason is that the Presidency which he serves is doing all in its power to set the stage for a political meltdown.

4.       For this piece, I will not bother to write about events of the whole year in review. Previous articles have already substantially dealt with that. For this piece I will focus only on event in May 2012. In that one month period reports on events at the Presidency were portentous. Those events told of a Presidency whose policies are in a direction that is diametrically opposed to the people’s expectations and aspirations.

5.       The month started inauspiciously enough with the Presidency being accused of selling two oil blocks licenses secretly. Defending the President an official allowed that the President was within his powers to sell oil blocks and that it was within his privilege and discretionary authority to choose how to sell oil blocks. Now when someone is awarded an oil block license he is automatically a dollar billionaire. A billion dollars is not a joke. Many states in the country don’t get that much in a year. Such empowerment should be a national issue. A president who is conscious of ethical leadership and his moral authority should have thought of a more transparent sales process. Dr. Jonathan’s general conduct in office shows rather clearly that he does not feel moral integrity as a necessity in public office. That is unfortunate. The consequences will be dire for him and the country. If Dr. Jonathan is unable to show moral leadership it means that any talk or action against corruption can never be more than cosmetic and perfunctory.

6.       During the era of military governments, from about 1976 to 1999, a major motivation for military coups leaders was the exclusive privilege to sell oil blocks. Another high motivating factor was the ability, once one becomes head of state and commander in chief, to create new states by military fiat but this is not part of this particular discussion. General Sani  Abacha was so attached to these privileges that he was ready to kill anyone who so much as questioned his right to sell oil blocks. Ken Saro Wiwa and the Ogoni Nine died brutally in his hands because they asked questions.

7.       I have already previously written that a major imperative of the times is a comprehensive constitutional review. A weak, inert or dictatorial leader requires an articulate constitution to guide and control him for his own good and for the public interest as well. Had the constitution not been there to stop him General Obasanjo could easily have realized his third term ambitions. Similarly General Obasanjo gave away Bakassi Local Government Area to Cameroun because there was nothing to stop him. Dr Jonathan sold oil blocks secretly, not because it was the right thing to do, but because there was nothing out there to stop him from doing so. Matters like the sale of oil blocks should be a constitutional issue. The level of empowerment involved makes it a matter of national importance. The very minimum is that it should require an act of parliament to award an oil block license to anyone. The 1999 constitution urgently needs to be so reviewed. At this point in time what Nigeria needs is a national leader who will be proactive in doing what is necessary to make the 1999 Constitution stronger and accountable, not one who will gleefully take undue advantage of the weaknesses of that constitution. It ought to be a matter of serious concern for the Minister of Finance and the Economy, Dr. Ngozi Okonjo Iweala, that the nation’s accountability problems seem to be rooted right at the Presidency.

8.       The secretive award of Otakikpo field in OML 11 and Ubima Creek field in OML 17 to Green Energy and All Grace Energy respectively were not the only oil block scandals involving the Presidency in May 2012. Towards the end of the month OPL 245 was reportedly sold to a Shell/Agip joint exploration partnership in questionable circumstances, with $1.3 billion exchanging hands, which was reportedly distributed among certain individuals. This latter sale raised eyebrows in the House of Representatives but the spirit of that investigation has since receded. It is quite a shame that while the Senate vehemently condemned Messrs Abulrasheed Abudullahi Mania,John Yusuf and BG Kaigama of the pension Task force for pension grafts involving hundreds of billions of naira, they seem not to have even taken notice of the President’s secret sale of oil blocks. It is the same spirit which motivated Mr. Abudullahi Mania et al which also motivated the secret sale of oil blocks by Dr. Jonathan. I don’t have the slightest doubt that if Dr. Jonathan and the pension’s scammers were to trade places, that each of them would act exactly in the same way or even outdo each other. The Senate’s silence over the matter is irresponsible and it is a dereliction of duty on its part. The Presidency is a unique institution. Whatever happens there, good or bad, carries instant international visibility. What President Jonathan did with regard to the sale of oil blocks is a serious offence against the country’s national character. It will by itself determine the country’s subsequent rating by say Transparency International with regard to the country’s corruption perception index.

9.       The Presidency’s reaction in the same month of May 2012 to the recommendation of the National Judicial Council on the re-instatement of Justice Issa Ayo Salami is also another source of concern. By rejecting that recommendation the Presidency reveals a worrisome orientation: that it is not interested in promoting the cause of an independent judiciary. The combination of General Obasanjo and Chief Justice Muhammad Lawal Uwais produced one of the nation’s worst judiciaries. The profile of the judiciary rose a bit during the era of CJN IL Kutigi only to plunge back down with the ascension of CJN Katsina Alu. Today with the ascension of CJN Dahiru Musdapher, the judiciary appears set to redeem itself once more and assert its independence and probity but Dr. Jonathan the President is having none of it. With a constitution that concentrates so much power in the Presidency, without a proper constitutional distribution of powers, the only hope for stability and security in the system is for the judiciary and the legislature to take their independence more seriously and assert their authority the best they can. It is strange that Dr. Jonathan appears to be uncomfortable with this, even though it is for his own good and for the good of the country. If Dr. Jonathan gets a compliant judiciary and legislature, which appears to be what he favours, I can only interpret that to mean that the virtues of a true democracy are lost on him and that he is more inclined to a dictatorship. This is strange considering that the 1999 constitution already given him dictatorial powers. Why he should want more powers is hugely worrisome.

10.   Dr. Jonathan ‘s dictatorial inclination was further underscored last month(May 2012) when he surprisingly in his democracy day speech accused the National Assembly of not working together with the Executive Branch. My take on that is that what prompted the President’s remark was his discomfort with NASS unusual but quite honourable attempt to dig into the conduct of the affairs of the Petroleum Ministry and its parastatals and the fallout of the January fuel subsidy strikes. Before that the House of Representatives had been doing pretty much the same thing about the well publicized multibillion naira pension scam. These legislative investigations have been on for several months. The Presidency rather than be proactive by appointing independent counsels to dig into the allegations and charges, had chosen to be on the defensive with the Attorney General of the Federation and Presidency officials talking lamely about the establishment of a prima facie case as an excuse for their ineptitude. Does one need a prima facie case to launch an investigation or take responsibility for the mis-running or mis-managing the NNPC or the Petroleum Ministry?  Every day, as time passes it will become increasingly clear that the Jonathan Administration has no intention of making the Petroleum Ministry more accountable or of touching any sacred cows who run the place starting with the inept Minister herself. The job security of those creatures in the ministry is surely more important to the Jonathan administration than the wellbeing of the nation as a whole.

11.   I have often wondered why Nigeria has been so unfortunate with its run of attorney generals. From Michael Aondoakaa to Mohammed Adoke we have such attorney generals that constituted an embarrassment to the nation. They seem to have almost always been carefully chosen to work the system to defend the status quo and protect the corrupt elite. In other ministries, like the Ministry of Health we have had men like Professor Olikoye Ransome Kuti who kept studiously away from politics and made medical management history with his primary health care reform. That tradition has held steady and today we have Professor Onyebuchi Chukwu who seems to be living up to Prof Kuti’s legacy. We can also say the same of the Education Ministry. From the late Professor Babatunde Aliu Fafunwa to Professor Ruqayyatu Ahmed Rufai we have patriotic technocrats who dedicated (are dedicating) their high professional acumen to the service of the nation, not to any politician or political party. But the story in the office of the attorney general of the federation is the reverse. It is a horrible shame that the Nigerian Bar Association in particular and the legal community in general have been unable to produce an attorney general of the federation who will uplift the profession and dedicate his energies to law enforcement and the cause of justice.

12.   The 1999 constitution did not say that the Minister of Education must be a professor, it did not say that the Minister of Health must be a doctor or that the Minister of Finance must be an accountant or a banker but it did say explicitly that the Attorney General of the Federation and Minister Of Justice must be a lawyer. That provision, although well intended has turned out to be a curse, judging by the character of the individuals who have held or is holding that office and the quality of their performance. The 1999 constitution ensured that the office of the attorney general of the federation is the most powerful after the President in the Executive Branch. The office is the only one for which the constitution explicitly defines the qualifications of the holder. The authors of that constitution did not want to take chances with the holder of that office. They wanted to make sure that the holder of the office is equipped with the tools required to effectively discharge his duties. The spirit and letter of that definition I think was meant to ensure that the holder of that office enforces the law and actively pursues justice for all, but the run of characters who it has been the country’s lot to hold that office has been a curse to Nigeria.

13.   From the foregoing I am forced to judge that while the average Nigerian educator or teacher or the average doctor is a conscientious, dedicated, patriotic professional, the average lawyer is unprincipled, mountebank and will do anything once the price is right. Judging from the output from the highest public office for lawyers in the country, that has to be a fair assessment. The onus is on the NBA to work hard to erase this image. There is a need for a concerted effort by all stake holders, particularly the Nigerian Bar Association to work hard to ensure that the Attorney General of the Federation will not continue to be a Michael Aondoakaa or a Mohammed Adoke but someone more like Elliot Spitzer, as Attorney General of the state of New York or Robert Kennedy as Attorney General of the United States. In Egypt today the newly elected President Mohammed Mursi has resigned from his political party. The new Egyptian constitution mandates him to do so. I think that, that is very original. We need exactly that in Nigeria. In addition, we also need to take away the appointment of the Attorney General from the President and give it to the National Judicial Council. It would be nicer still if all ministers particularly the attorney general are required by the constitution to resign from their political parties where they belong to one.

14.   President Jonathan’s closeness to General Obasanjo is well known. So I don’t think it a coincidence that Dr. Jonathan’s remarks about the National Assembly in his democracy day speech, was preceded by a tirade from Obasanjo, directed at the national legislature in which he called the honourable members  unprintable names, including thieves, armed robbers etc. Events during and following the end of May 2012 seems to bear out the possibility of a conspiracy to rubbish the House of Representatives investigation of the government’s fuel subsidy regime. First, the months long presidential shuffle on the issue. Then ex-President Obasanjo directs unprintable tirades at the National Assembly. Then President Jonathan expresses dissatisfaction with the same National Assembly which otherwise is doing better than hitherto on its oversight responsibilities. Then breaking news:    The man leading the investigation, a well known integrity activist, Hon Farouk Lawan is entangled in what looks like a conspiracy in which the police and Farouk Lawan’s fellow lawmakers are acting out a plot scripted against Hon Lawan and the report of his committee. The case for conspiracy is strengthened by the fact that a person, no other than Femi Otedola, a well known friend of General Obasanjo appears to be the secret weapon used to plot the downfall of Farouk Lawan and other similarly minded leaders of the House of Representatives. Just late yesterday (26^th June 2012) however it came on the news that the Presidency just fired the crop of the current leadership of the NNPC. My answer to that is why did it take so long and does it go far enough? If the law was to be applied correctly the presidency should launch an investigation, by an independent prosecutor. Knowing what one knows now about the Jonathan style, this could well be ruse to sweep the whole issues concerning the mis-management of the parastatal under the carpet. The jury is out.

15.   I have consistently warned that the likes of General Obasanjo have no business being in government anymore. Gen. Obasanjo in particular the leading member of the old guard which has held down the country for decades is finding it difficult to stay away from government even though he has nothing constructive to give the nation, either now, before or in the future. The best General Obasanjo is able to do, in office and out of office is to create divisiveness in the polity. By latching on to Obasanjo, Dr. Jonathan has surely dug his political grave but that would have been alright if that was the end of it. As President however his errors of judgment and failings of character directly impacts the country and will manifest in insecurity, instability and conflict. This is always the consequence when public confidence in the national leadership is eroded to the extent it is now in Nigeria. That instability, insecurity and conflict is now claiming hordes of innocent victims lives and hobbling national development.

16.   President Jonathan’s dictatorial bent was again showcased on May 29^th, 2012 when he announced the renaming of the University of Lagos without due process. The MKO Abiola story is unfinished and the balance of the evidence lies with the state. Mr. Abiola died in detention in suspicious circumstances. One needs to know how the renaming of the University with Abiola’s name brings closure to the Abiola problem. If the Federal Government wanted to bring closure to the Abiola issue the proper thing to do is to launch a judicial investigation into the circumstances surrounding his demise in a state gulag. I wonder why it should be easier for Dr. Jonathan to retroactively send a bill to the National assembly for the renaming of the University than to send one to remove the immunity clause from the constitution or one to require an act of parliament to sell an oil block license. To me, the latter cases are unqualified national issues that the president ought to be concerned about. The case for renaming the University is neither here nor there. It is just one of the cosmetics that the old guard will dream up in their habit of sweeping things under the carpet and pretending that the matter will go away.

17.   The unlawful renaming of the University is just the sort of thing Gen. Obasanjo could have done. I recall that Nigerians woke up one morning in 1976 to hear General Obasanjo, then military head of state, abrogate by military fiat the country’s founding national anthem and replaced it with something less inspiring, less original, less melodic, less articulate, less galvanizing and much more prosaic. In fact it can be said that Nigeria’s slide into the  anarchy of corruption, insecurity and instability started in earnest with that blighted national anthem. I am one of those who firmly believe that one day we will go back to our original national anthem. Its abrogation was an insult to the nation, just like Dr. Jonathan’s renaming of the University of Lagos.

18.   Planes do not just drop off the sky. There has to be a convergence of defects that took some time to develop and accumulate. I read in the papers that the Dana plane which crashed in Lagos on June 3^rd had an A-check four days before the crash. An executive of Dana Air was also reported to have said that prior to the crash there were no major problems with the airplane that had not been fixed, implying that there were minor ones that were not fixed. I simply do not believe that there was any such A-check on that plane. If there was it must have been a 419 check. You don’t fly planes on wishful thinking. You fly planes on procedures, competence and precision. These qualifications are lacking in our society today. There is much evidence that even the aviation industry cannot be isolated from the general contemporary trend.  The Presidency’s reaction to the crash underscores this point. It appointed Group Captain John Obakpolor (rtd) to lead the crash investigation. Mr. Obakpolor is a member of the old guard of which General Obasanjo is a leading light. The old guards are notable for sweeping things under the carpet. They have run down the country for decades. They have an iron grip on Dr. Jonathan’s presidency. They continue to insist on being in power whether they are actually in office or not. They are the very same ones Dr. Jonathan appointed to the membership of his Subsidy Reinvestment Empowerment Commission. That commission, true to type, will not do anything that will upset the status quo or uncover anything that may cast the administration or any member of the old guard in bad light. The same will surely go for the Obakpolor investigation. I have no doubt at all that these panels will do nothing serious to address the root causes of the problems which led to their formation. The presence of the old guard in the Jonathan government implies that the government has nothing new to offer the country.

Lt – Col Peter Egbe Ulu (rtd)

Okokomaiko

Lagos

Tel: 08031940313, 07051912209

www.peteregbeulu.com

peter-egbe-ulu.blogspot.com

PERCEPTIONS OF ETHNIC POLITICS IN NIGERIA AFTER THE CIVIL WAR

1.       For the last decade or so there has been strident calls for a national conference to redraw or redesign Nigeria politically, so the protagonists say. The proponents also say that if such conference results in Nigeria blowing up, well, so be it. All along however I have had some difficulty appreciating the urgency of such a national conference. Nigeria, although a wobbling entity, politically and economically, does have some structure and institutions on ground, at least nominally, on which we can build something sustainable and make more solid. The urgent issue to my mind is to address the practical problems with this structure and institutions, upgrade them, make them more efficient, make them responsible and accountable. Reviewing the 1999 Constitution for instance is a more effective and easier way of getting to where we need to be.

2.       In today’s Nigeria the South-West, at least on a relative basis, has shown itself to be politically articulate. Barring isolated insurgent events such as Operation ‘wet ie’-(wet him) in the early nineteen sixties and General Obasanjo’s quixotic attempts to supplant Awoism in the region while running the country from 1999-2007, the region has been able to weather such shocks on a solid foundation progressivism.

3.       To some extent the same can be said of the North although the advent of violent, fundamentalist Islamic militancy, from the Maitatsine days of the 1970s and ’80s to the violent Sharia riots at the turn of the millennium, to the rampant Boko Haram of today, is now compromising the integrity, and legitimacy of Northern political self determination within the Nigerian  polity.

4.       The South East and the South-South since the end of the civil war, has seemed to always seek accommodation within the political precedents set by the North and South-West. As autonomous political entities the South-East and South-South are way behind the North and the South-West in asserting their true political potential. But today also, 42 years after the Civil War two South-East states out of five, Anambra and Imo, are governed by APGA, having graduated from the PDP bandwagon. Also in the South-South, Edo state has broken away from PDP to join Awoist ACN.  These are signs that with time the South-East and perhaps also the South-South might be more autonomous and independent in the making of their political choices and in asserting their own political identity, without necessarily cosying up to any other pre-eminent political group.

5.       During the First Republic, there seemed to have been more equilibrium between the regions politically and otherwise.  So it can be safely argued that the current set back of the South-South and South-East arose from the Civil War, whose aftermath relegated these regions strategically although not to the same degree. However, the social indices in the regions before the Civil War have changed fundamentally, and for good, to what is today. For one, the manpower gap i.e capacity, social and economic, between the North and the South is narrowing steadily. In the First Republic it seemed that the South was generally far ahead of the North for trained manpower in all sectors. That is no longer the case today.

6.       Riding on the back of the relegation of South-East and the South-South some Nigerian leaders have sought to enthrone permanent ethnocentricity in the polity. General Babangida is one of such leaders. When General Babangida talked of his mastery of the management of Nigeria’s North-South dichotomy, what he really meant was that the balance of power after the Civil War which created disproportionate opportunities for men like him should be maintained and perpetuated with little regard for the need to create a real democracy in which all Nigerians or groups of Nigerians can have equal say. General Babangida’s addiction to the PDP zoning policy is not because he has reformed from dictator to a democrat, it is because he sees the zoning policy as the last straw he needs to clutch to enable him maneuver the polity to the post war status quo that seems to be slipping away from him. The reason for June 12^th 1993 is because the country’s leaders at the time, notably IBB and Abacha could not possibly conceive the possibility that MKO Abiola would be President. The latter had the wrong ethnicity.

7.       On the balance of available evidence it will not be possible to exclude the likes of General Muhammadu Buhari from this generation of leaders although he tends to be seen as more high minded than the rest because of his ascetic lifestyle and self discipline.

8.       General Obasanjo is definitely one of the Nigerian leaders who made much of the political relegation of the South-East and South-South,as a result of the new balance of power following the Civil War. As President he brazenly and with no apparent justification closed Ibeto Cement. He gave pretty much the same treatment to Peter Okocha’s businesses and political ambitions. Both Peter Okocha and Dr. Cletus Ibeto hail from parts of Nigeria which were at the receiving end of the Civil War and which were consequently relegated politically. In the eyes or the subconscious of men like Obj people from such places had inferior citizenship. If Bakassi Local Government was a Yoruba enclave or a Northern Nigeria territory, I believe that General Obasanjo would have gone to war to keep it, if that became necessary.

9.       One day in 1976 Nigerians woke up to find that General Obasanjo had changed the country’s national anthem. Till today no one knows why the national Anthem was changed. The change of the National Anthem was done in so much hurry that what came as replacement lacked originality. In terms of inspiration, it was way behind what it replaced. Also its lyrical rendering lacked the melody of the old one it replaced. In a way the fall of Nigeria from grace as a nation was symbolized by that accursed anthem. It will be interesting to find out from General Obasanjo why it did not occur to him to change the national flag too. After all blood had been shed for the unity of the country and it would have been okay to put a splash of red on that flag as a reminder to posterity that the Republic was founded, among other things, on the blood of patriots.

10.    The reigning Bini monarch Omo no ba Nedo Umogun Uku,Akpolokpolo,Oba Erediauwa II, the Oba of Benin wrote in his autobiography that he was forced to retire from the federal public service in the late seventies by what he correctly saw as falling ethical standards in the service, occasioned by an irresponsible political elite in power. Beginning from the late seventies the political elite made it fashionable to favour one’s ethnic group in the public service of the federation. Favouritism in dispensing federal resources was seen as righteous ethnic empowerment. Not long after he took power as President, General Obasanjo’s Presidency was criticized in an audit report for misappropriation of public funds. What did he do? He had the author of the report, the deputy auditor general of the federation, Mr. Vincent Ajie summarily fired.

11.   The case of Peter Okocha, Chief C M Ibeto, the change of the national anthem, Mr.Vincent Ajie and Bakassi are merely samples. Many of General Obasanjo’s actions and relationships were based on ethnic chauvinism occasioned by the fallout of the Civil War. To General Obasanjo and perhaps also Murtala Mohammed, General Gowon’s ‘no victor no vanquished’ policy and his three Rs-Reconstruction, Rehabilitation and Reconciliation-  were nonsense. There were winners and there were losers.

12.   General Obasanjo and his ex-Senator daughter Iyabo, have over the years tried ,in print and otherwise ,to inform their Yoruba kin that he worked hard for the Yoruba cause and for Yoruba emancipation, both as a military and as a civilian national leader. No doubt he empowered many Yoruba using the Indigenization decree he enacted in the late seventies as vehicle. He also as a civilian president handpicked a number Yoruba people for economic empowerment. But he failed to reckon with the fact that Yoruba as a people have emancipated and are already high minded enough, thanks to Chief Awolowo, to understand that their future in Nigeria lies, not in ethnocentricity or favouritism but in openness and probity in national politics. At the Oputa panel, the Yoruba delegations informed the panelist that as far as Yoruba was concerned, Nigeria had enough for everyone and there was therefore no need to empower any section of the country at the expense of the other.

13.   Among the three pre Civil war regions-the North, the West (now South West) the East (now South –South and South East), the North to me has produced the most politically astute, upright and principled leaders. From Sir Ahmadu Bello and Sir Tafawa Balewa to Alahaji Maitama Yusuf Sule(the Dan Masani Kano)to the Right Hon Ghali Umar Na’Aba and Right Hon. Aminu Waziri Tambuwal, we have men who have stood up for the truth when everyone else balked at it or where interested only in their pockets. On this basis alone, I think Nigeria needs the North more than the other way round. At the end of the day what will save Nigeria is not its oil wealth or the money its citizens make individually by hook or crook, but the integrity, ethical and otherwise, of its leaders and the quality of that leadership.

14.   Today in Nigeria we have a political leadership that is on the defensive rather than proactive in both ethical and political national issues. It is disheartening to me personally that the personification of that leadership hails from the part of the country that has historically borne the brunt of inequity in the system and which stands to gain most from a proper democracy.

15.   From the Nigerian Civil War years till 1999 the balance of political power shifted to the North and the region produced all the national leaders. When a none Northern person was to take the mantle of leadership, as for instance Chief Ernest Shonekan was allowed to in 1993 and General Obasanjo in 1999, the person so favoured usually acted or was supposed to act as a proxy for the North. However Chief Obasanjo did not allow the North a free hand in controlling him as a President from 1999 to 2007. His refusal to accept dictation from Northern potentates such as General Ibrahim Babangida and in some ways from the likes of Atiku Abubakar brought him into collision with those elites from the North who had begun to take it for granted that the Post-Civil War status quo which gave the North pre-eminence in national politics, was a permanent condition even if undemocratic.

16.   The main reason for the seeming crisis of confidence in Northern politics today is merely a reaction towards what seems, with the transfer of power from Chief Obasanjo to Dr. Jonathan, via a short lived Umaru Yar’adua Presidency in 2009,in defiance of the effective Northern Political will, like the loss of that pre-eminence. These developments are good for the country because a stable, secure and sustainably developing republic will come about, not via military dictatorships, but from robust and sincere civil democratic conversations. Developing the nation’s democracy in this way is the best hope, if not the only hope, of empowering the peoples of Nigeria with the virtues and opportunities for a brighter future for one and all. Credit must therefore be given to General Obasanjo, who ironically is not a democrat by any stretch of imagination, for facilitating this process of rebalancing political forces in the country, although he was not guided by any ideology but rather by the expediency of self preservation and personal survival. It is therefore quite regrettable that Dr. Jonathan who hails from the part of the country that has historically borne the brunt of inequity in the system for so long, is leading a government that is not in a hurry to proactively pursue policies that will entrench real democracy in the Nigerian system. Dr. Jonathan’s style and the direction his government is taking the country means that nothing sustainable and irreversible will be achieved in terms of democratic improvement at the end of his Presidency. Rather than upgrade and consolidate the broken system he inherited he appears to be walking the country steadily towards an abyss. Once there is a lack of high moral authority at the country’s pinnacle of power anarchy will result. Nigeria is already experiencing that anarchy. Unless there is a radical change of direction by the Presidency things can only get worse.

Lt. Col Peter Egbe Ulu(rtd)

Okokomaiko

Lagos

Tel: 08131940313, 07051912209

www.peteregbeulu.com

peter-egbe-ulu.blogspot.com

THE STRIKE: LESSONS AND A LOOK AHEAD

A few months ago, about the last quarter of 2011,I had published in some national dailies an article appraising Dr. Jonathan and his government. I had hinted on the direction that his government was taking Nigeria and I had outlined some of the indicators that in essence were negative. After the Great Strike of Jan 2012 things have come into sharper focus and it is now possible more than before to be more explicit about the direction the administration is going and the urgent imperatives that Nigeria needs to address itself to move forward.

The events of early to mid-January set one thinking. It inevitably forced one to take another hard look at the Nigerian condition. When it became known on first January that the administration has hiked the pump price of petrol many questions came up in one’s mind. Why did they do it? Why did Dr. Jonathan and his aides, notably Dr Okonjo Iweala, Mrs. Diezani Allison Madueke and Sanusi Lamido Sanusi do it? Why did they even consider calling Nigerians bluff? The answer to these questions is the stuff of which revolutions are made. I recall that in November 1995, when Major General Victor Malu announced after an Armed Forces Ruling Council meeting that Saro Wiwa and the Ogoni Nine had been executed, despite pleadings for mercy from almost everybody that mattered in the world including The Pope, Nelson Mandela and Bill Clinton, the American president, it was the same sinking feeling that one had and it was the same questions that crossed one’s mind. After the hubris of the fuel subsidy withdrawal should things remain the same as if nothing had happened? Nobody could have imagined a few months ago, after all the nation had been through in the Obasanjo and Yar’dua governments, the level of fatuousness and vacuity that persists in nation’s corridors of power.

Now that we know, I think there is a need to put things in perspective. But first let the obvious facts be stated. There is instability and insecurity, politically, socially and economically. There remains of course a lot of corruption particularly in the public sector. And the 64 dollar question: Has the administration learnt any lessons from what happened? In the following paragraphs I will try to expatiate a bit more on these burning issues.

I think the best place to start is whether the administration has learnt any lessons from The Strike. The evidence is strong against the possibility that Dr. Jonathan and his government has learnt any such lessons. Before January first the general public was not even aware that the removal of oil subsidy issues had reached a point of no return for the government. Even the negotiations reportedly going on between the government and Labour seemed low key and very much below the public’s radar. It was only when The Strike began and took effect that the Government seemed to become awake to the need to engage the public on the issue. That engagement came in the form or profuse pro-government advertorials in the media, notably newspapers and television by such shadowy groups as Neighbour to Neighbour (N2N)Initiative, Mass Interest Project (MIP),Friends of National Transformation Agenda(FRONTA) and Office of the First Lady  in collaboration with Women Development Initiative. There were also such ethnocentric groups such as the Bayelsa Sate Elders Consultative Council and the Ijaw Youth Council. Yet another was a group that styled itself the South-South Elders and Leaders.

Although the South –South Elders and Leaders were not as acutely ethnocentric as the Bayelsa State Elders Consultative Council and the Ijaw Youth Council, their publication did betray apparent sectionalism and an abbreviated understanding of the issue and it must be said that this constituted an attitude not expected and unbecoming of retired senior federal public officers from the military, diplomatic corps, the National Assembly etc who constituted its membership.

However these pro-government groups are not such a surprise. Any executive president or prime minister anywhere in the world, particularly one as powerful as Nigeria’s will always spawn a growth industry of courtiers, loyalist, lobbyists, hero worshippers, charlatans and crooks, who will readily seize any opportunity to curry favour or be noticed. This should not even be more unexpected considering that a large proportion of the population are not literate or sophisticated enough to have more than a simplistic understanding of the issue. What is remarkable all the same is the amount of sophistry employed in these advertisements. If they do have the backing of the government as is most likely, then it must be on record in the history of the country as the administration that made the highest investment with public funds and other resources(NTA for instance) in sophistry to defend a  snafu policy initiative. Sophistry and dissemblance as is well known is the hallmark of dictatorships and authoritarian systems when dealing with the public and so this resort to sophism to defend a monumental indiscretion by government is not good for the country’s omens.

For the ethnocentric groups such as the Ijaw Youth Council and the Bayelsa State Elders Consultative Council, the willingness to see the protest as an unjustified attack and an ethnic agenda against Dr. Jonathan is so myopic as not to deserve any further comments bit it does remind one that it was this type of topple-the –applecart politics that killed the First Republic. Does anyone need to be reminded that Dr Jonathan was voted to power, not by the minor votes of the Ijaws and Bayelsans but by the plural votes from the country’s four cardinal points. That they should now use the opportunity of The Strike to try to possess him as their own smacks of unbridled opportunism. It is highly regrettable that nearly half-a-century after the First Republic went up in flames and after what Nigeria’s been through since then the country still strives on such undemocratic indiscretions. Is it any wonder then that the nation’s political and social development has perennially remained Lilliputian.

Recently Dr. Jonathan took a broadside at some of those he thought were behind The Strike and called them election losers seeking power by other means. His minister of petroleum Mrs. Alison Madueke told the Farouk Lawan committee that the country should expect fuel scarcity in the coming months because of the partial failure of the fuel price hike. These statements and the magnitude of the sophistry invested to defend the hike betrays a far right mindset at the Presidency and in the cabinet. It shows that despite the nationwide disagreement with the policy the administration remains adamant and unrepentant. In other words the government does not still believe that there might be a better alternative way to go about the issues. In all my life watching NTA no government has used that outfit more than this government to misinform the people about its intentions.

Lagos state is one of the best governed states in the country. This is something acknowledged both nationally and internationally. In terms of policing Lagos State has shown in so many ways that it is capable of policing itself. I have been in Lagos during elections and during a census not long ago and I know this. In any case Lagos is the most federally under-policed state in the country but that does not matter because the state does not really need the federal police anyway. The party in power in Lagos has shown itself far more responsible and moderate than the opposition. It is a left-of-centre party, an Awoist party that respects and provides for minorities and the disadvantaged. The ODUA Peoples Congress, with its home in Lagos started as a spontaneous uprising against the violent repression of the Abacha government in 1993. Today it is a benign, leftist, cultural youth association of the Yoruba. It promotes Yoruba self determination peacefully. It is law abiding and self respecting. Its methods are nowhere near as militant as its counterparts in other parts of the country such as Niger Delta or in the North. In view of the above the militarization of Lagos state during and after the strike by Jonathan’s administration smacks of extreme political crassness. It was an attempt to destabilize the state again after General Obasanjo’s failed attempt when he withheld the state’s federal allocation for several years as president in the Fourth Republic. Both actions were meant to destabilize the state and distract its leadership. One of the fastest ways to destroy the professionalism of the Nigerian Army is to use it for partisan agenda. The Nigerian Army is a disciplined, well regimented force, a legacy of the best of British military tradition. Whenever such an army is used for partisan agenda there is a risk of turning it into a partisan militia with all the imponderables, that entails The army must always be used only in the public interest. For every military deployment there is a mission handed over to the deployment commander. The mission statement by regulation must be simple, concise, explicit and unambiguous. The accepted practice is that it should not be more than one sentence. The shorter, the better. It is from this statement that the commander derives the tasks he gives to his subunits. As a military professional I could not help wondering what the mission statement given to the commander of the Lagos deployment would look like. The deployment shows that Dr. Jonathan is a far right activist at heart. Having DR Jonathan in ASO Rock is like having Sarah Palin or Joseph Raymond McCarthy in American’s White House, which raises questions of whether Nigeria can really survive with a far-right government in power.

Governing Nigeria from one side or as have sometimes happened from one extreme of the political spectrum holds a very dangerous prospect. It is one reason for the perennial instability and insecurity that has pervaded the system for decades. Dr Jonathan has by omissions or by design put himself in the same position as the Obasanjo’s ,the IBBs, the Shagaris and the Abachas who each once or twice ruled the country and whose governments all ended in a smoky cloud. Governments are generally elected to solve problems. The common thread that links all these governments is that at some point the leadership of the government itself became the problem rather than the problem solver. In less than one year from inception it appears that DR Jonathan’s government has found itself in the same situation. The 64 dollar question is can DR Jonathan succeed where others have failed? The simple and correct answer to that question is ‘no’. He won’t even try. The reason he won’t even try is also quite simple: He doesn’t have what it takes. DR Jonathan like almost every other human being will not be able to make a 180^O turn from his comfort zone. Muammar Ghadhaffi fought to the death to preserve his comfort zone. Ditto Saddam Hussein and Adolf Hitler. Today Bashir Assad, the reigning King of Syria is murdering thousands of his countrymen because he cannot shift from his comfort zone. In the twentieth century only two leaders were able to turn against the system that produced them for the common good: Mikhail Gorbachev and FW De Klerk and they have remained living monuments to world history. And they did it simply by yielding to pressure for positive change. The situation the country finds itself today with the Jonathan administration once again brings to prominence the need to revisit the 1999 constitution to overhaul it completely. Since 1999, the errors in that eponymous constitution have been popping out in greater numbers like phantoms and hitting us in the face if only they were not so real and persistent. It has become increasingly clear that ,that constitution entrusts too much to the vicissitudes of one man; that certain issues, those issues that critically affects the generality of Nigerians such as the pump price of petrol, the creation or merging of states, the ceding or acquiring of territory to/from another country, for instance, should go to a referendum. At a minimum such issues must be backed by an explicit enactment of the national parliament. The weaker a leader, the more he needs an articulate and strong constitution to guide him.

What the PDP calls the largest party in Africa is simply a vast patronage network that ever existed in lieu of a political party anywhere in the world. This network stretches all the way from the national level through the states and local governments to ward level and below. In states controlled by the PDP including my own state of origin, every possible opportunity, social, political or economic is controlled by this network. You have to go through a PDP big wig to have your ward admitted to state or even a federal university, a vocational center such as a nursing school especially if it is government owned or grant aided, to get employment, to go on a pilgrimage to Mecca or Israel, to get a borehole installed or to get a transformer to your neighbourhood substation, to prevent the police from arresting you lawfully or unlawfully, to be granted bail if already arrested, to keep your job if you have one, to get a promotion on the job, to be appointed to any public service position including the judiciary.

Even running for such offices as NUJ chairman, NUT president and NANS president requires the blessings of the PDP hierarchy, whether local, state or national. I am aware that authorities of the Nigerian Defence Academy and the Police Academy are under intense pressure from politicians to bend the rules to favour their wards for admissions. The same applies even more rampantly to army, navy, air force and police recruiters. Needless to say you need the blessings of someone in the PDP hierarchy to run for political office at any level. Senior members of the network can never be touched by the EFCC. Mrs. Farida Waziri invented her own brand of plea bargaining to ensure that if they must be prosecuted, they would not get more than a slap on the wrist, no matter the enormity of their felonies. The higher up the value pyramid of whatever you need, the higher up the network hierarchy sponsorship you require.

If you are a member of the network there is no limit to what you can get away with. This was particularly brazen during the Obasanjo civilian administration. I recall that during the 2003 election campaign, the deputy governor of Delta state Benjamin Elue was found with a cache of arms in his motorcade. Till date no charge has been brought against him. At that time Tafa Balogun, the IGP and an Obasanjo hatchet man, said that MR Elue had immunity from prosecution. It’s now been 5 years since he left the office. Need I say more? His boss James Ibori, a well documented ex-convict went to serve his full two terms of 8years as governor and was caught only when he went international. Even while in custody and facing charges in the UK, the Attorney General of Nigeria, Mr. Michael Andoakaa rallied to his defence. This is how the patronage system works for one of its own. One of the grossest abuses of power by the Obasanjo presidency was when he humiliated the Navy over the African Pride incident. The Navy had hesitated when the Commander-in-Chief ordered it to hand over a suspect ship in its custody to the Police who clearly had no facility to keep sea-going vessels in its custody. The order it turned out was merely a ruse to enable the ship ‘escape’ custody. The Navy naturally were unsure of the propriety of the order which ostensible purpose was to enable the ship to disappear so that the Nigerian accomplices who were obviously members of the network can evade the law. Why General Obasanjo had three Navy brass hats court marshalled to protect civilian criminals till today beats one’s imagination. Meanwhile officials shout from the roof tops about zero tolerance of corruption. I recall also that during the 2003 general elections one minister, Ojo Maduekwe was reported saying that it will be unfair for the PDP to allow itself to be out-rigged by other parties, implying that as the ruling party it intended to lead by example in the business of rigging, a pledge that the party duly redeemed beyond all expectation. The brazen electoral offences committed during the Obasanjo administration was orchestrated by the network. In an operation, apparently ordered from above in 2003 a navy helicopter was ordered to ferry suspect ballot boxes in the hours of darkness in one of the South-South states. The chopper was not designed for night flying and the crew were not trained for night operations. The plane crashed killing two young navy officers. The matter was of course hushed up. One of the welcome differences between the Jonathan government and that of Obasanjo is that in the former the Presidency has not interfered, so far, with the conduct of general elections but that is little consolation considering that not much else seems to have changed. DR Jonathan’s government has also shown a marked improvement on that of Obasanjo in terms of not interfering with the courts as is but the electorate expects more from him. The expectation is that he should use his powerful office to champion judicial reforms that will make that institution more constitutionally accountable and independent and I don’t think that is asking too much. Nigeria’s judicial; system has many salient problems, such as prison congestion (including awaiting trial prisoners) due to unaccountable delays in dispensation of justice, illegal detentions, corruption and graft, dependence on the executive for making judicial appointments and funding etc.

Apparently DR Jonathan has bought hook line and sinker into the patronage network. As a matter of fact he is a bona fide product of this patronage system. Today in Bayelsa State this patronage system is being showcased as electoral politics. The ongoing gubernatorial primaries and election campaign in Bayelsa State is a showcase of that system. In Bayelsa State right now the disgraced ex-governor Dipreye Alaiyemesigha is now fully restored to political reckoning and is now a power broker-king maker, no small thanks to his one -time deputy governor who now occupies Aso Rock. The trivialization of the National Merit Awards has been going on for many years, inviting always public derision and in some cases downright rejection by nominees such as Chinua Achebe, a serial rejecter of the awards who felt insulted to be included in the list and who rejected the Jonathan government nomination with even more vehemence than before. The Jonathan Government has no doubt taken the trivialization of the Awards to a new level. Surprisingly the same government, through its minister for Education Professor Ruqayyafu Ahmed Rufai is complaining that the nation’s universities are handing out honourary degrees to the wrong people. Are the universities not supposed to follow the example of the government? Is the government one of ‘do as I say, not as I do’? Talk about leading from the rear. In the Jonathan administration the country has arrived at another moral logjam. In this administration there is a morality inflict and a great potential for moral crisis. It is simply not going to be possible to keep the network alive and at the same time move the country forward, which is what DR Jonathan is trying to do. There is a mighty conflict of interest problem there.

Although Dr Jonathan inherited the network, he is at same time a bona fide product of it. His allegiance to it will be total and eternal. Had DR Jonathan not chanced on politics he most probably today would still be teaching at University and along with his ASUU colleagues would be agitating against the government for social justice. Is it not a great irony that today he is so transformed from the left extreme of the political spectrum to the right extreme that he is now leading a government that insists that hiking the pump price of petrol is the only policy instrument that will bring social justice to Nigerians? The truth, of course, is that it is the bad governance culture that kills the productive spirit in Nigeria and it is not hiking the pump price of petrol that will solve that problem.

This patronage network system started in earnest in 1976 when General Obasanjo took power as head of a military government. It has aggravated and worsened steadily since then, through the Shagari, IBB, Abacha and the Obasanjo Fourth Republic governments. Its onset coincided, not unexpectedly with the time when the Federal Civil Service came under attack. Eventually the professionalism and accountability of the Civil Service had to be destroyed to make way for the patronage politics and culture to thrive. This much was acknowledged by the reigning Oba of Benin in his autobiography which inter alia detailed his experience as a top federal civil servant. In that autobiography he affirmed that he opted for early retirement in the late seventies because he could not live with what was happening to the civil service, which was totally inconsistent with his upright upbringing and British public education.

Those who anointed General Obasanjo to kick –start the Fourth republic thought he might be able to keep the patronage system for them which he did but to an extent well beyond their imagination. Not long after he took office as a civilian president in 1999, General Obasanjo however took steps to reconstruct the system so that he will own it. That was why he attempted with some success to reconstitute the membership of the PDP in order to make himself the undisputed king of the system by filling the party at national and state levels with his own handpicked loyalist. This is also one explanation for the General’s exaggerated sense of possession of the party till this day. This is also what gave General Obasanjo the temerity to imagine that he could change the constitution to enable him wangle a third term.

To say the least, the patronage system is extremely corrosive and expensive. Nothing in the system is based on merit and the rule of law is disdained or circumvented. Members of the network always scurry to get involved in any government project with the abject intention of reaping financially gains. But there is a high probability of success as long as they are certified members of the network. Every institution of state has been compromised. The civil service is the worst hit. The judiciary, the police, the legislatures have been considerably corroded. Although the military is also being affected the pace is slower there than in other agencies because of regimentation and discipline which are fundamental to its survival as a viable institution. Maintaining, sustaining and servicing the system is the major preoccupation of the large majority of officials with the result that little or no time is spared for the job for which they are statutorily paid to do in the public interest. Otherwise why should a country that have all the essential basic inputs such as labour, land and capital for growth and development remain prostrate for decades. A less endowed country would have buckled or imploded long ago under the dead weight of a flawed system. What General Obasanjo, Alhaji Shehu Shagari, General Babangida, General Abacha and DR Jonathan have succeeded in doing is to make the patronage system the mainstream politics of the country. The resilience of the country under its weight can be attributed to the steady rise of oil prices over recent decades, the steady increase in reserves and production and the occasional windfall whenever some crisis erupts in the Middle East and /or the Gulf region. An additional reason for the survival of the system is the complacency of the people, perhaps due to illiteracy and very poor numeracy situation in the country. But there is constant pressure on resources required to service the system due to steady rise in population and the wastage that results from it. Whenever the government had increased the pump price of petrol it was merely a move to find more money to service the patronage system and that also applies to the Jonathan government. When they talk of palliatives such as Abacha’s PTF or Jonathan’s SURE which in any case were after thoughts following or pre-empting public outcry, such talk is a deception and any related actions will always be cosmetic.

There is a strong correlation between the government inability to deal with the security challenges it faces and the inability to deal with corruption. Just like Boko Haram, corruption is actually a form of terrorism, perhaps even a more insidious form of terrorism. It causes poverty, indiscipline and it is the major cause of unprofessionalism in the nation’s public institutions.

Any policy initiative or action taken by the Jonathan administration must receive the blessings of the patronage network. Anyone who so much as offends a big member of the network will receive his retribution promptly. I suspect that the peremptory and inexplicable removal of Farida Waziri from the chair of EFCC has nothing to do with the quality of her work although her work is entirely a different story for another day. The illegal imprisonment of the editors of The PUNCH newspapers has to be for the appeasement of the gods of the network. The key members of the Subsidy Reinvestment and Empowerment (SURE) programme board, the hurriedly assembled team by the administration to give the disingenuous impression of good faith over the fuel price  hike are all members of the old guard which produced DR Jonathan and to whom he is irrevocably wedded. They are also among the elites who have run Nigeria’s affairs up till now without anything to show for it. I don’t know why anyone could have imagined that such a legacy will inspire confidence in the people. While the USA and European states are openly and transparently making billions of dollars in fines from multinationals for ethical malpractices involving pay –offs to Nigerian officials who invariably are members of the network, the Nigerian government, the country with primary jurisdiction enters into secrecy agreements with such companies, not in the public interest but in order to protect culpable members of the network involved in such deals. Apparently the Jonathan administration is committed to giving these individuals state protection from prosecution, a kind of secret amnesty. The same government expects Nigerians to believe in it and trust it.

The Justice Oputa panel of the Obasanjo civilian government was a rare attempt to work outside the network and that is why its recommendations will never see the light of day unless a revolution destroys the network. These recommendations will no doubt hurt some big members of the patronage system. The incumbent Petroleum Minister and her husband, a former top sea dog (navy chief), an ex-minister and an ex-military governor are most probably high in the hierarchy of the patronage network and that is why she is relatively certain of her job security no matter what happens. As long as DR Jonathan is in power her job approval rating will not affect her job security.

Honourable Farouk Lawan, the chair of the House committee now investigating the Petroleum Ministry is without doubt a high minded man of integrity. But he is operating within a flawed system. He can win small wars like successfully fighting to remove a compromised Patricia Etteh from the chair of the Speaker. The investigation he is now conducting is a big war against an entrenched system. He will need the Presidency to support him to achieve any results and I doubt that he will get it. Also the Senate, constituted by senior members of the network is unlikely to offer any help with the investigation.

Legislatures are elected primarily to hold the executive to account. In order to do that they need to ask questions and debate public policy robustly. When necessary they may make laws that the executive may not necessarily like but which must be in the interest of the people they represent. During the fuel price hike of January 2012 what did we see the Nigerian Senate do? Its leaders were paying courtesy visits to the President to discuss in the manner of “a family matter”, a cliché that was made popular during Obasanjo administration. This abdication of responsibility once again confirmed the Senate as the chamber whose members are the custodians of the patronage network and in whom Nigerians cannot entrust their affairs. On the contrary it was not surprising that the House of Representatives, with obvious generation gap from the Senate membership, being composed mainly of younger people in their early to mid -forties, and therefore relatively more idealistic, came out quickly with a resolution against the fuel price hike. But what did we see happen? One of the grandees of the network, Chief Tony Annenih was reported to have paid an unscheduled visit to the Speaker to upbraid him for allowing the House to ‘embarrass’ the President. In other words a man of such high rank in a supposed ruling political party did not know that by setting out to subvert a sovereign resolution of the House he was in fact on a mission to subvert the sovereignty of the Nigerian people. A great calamity of the network is that it is peopled in its hierarchy by men and women who are among the most ignorant of the nation’s citizens. It is a big disgrace that such a system survives and that these ignorant elements continue to exercise decisive power over the country’s national affairs. DR Jonathan is a former academic, a university lecturer; can he possibly under any circumstances hide under a claim of ignorance too?

A great many people today seems to be rallying behind DR Jonathan and portraying him as a victim of bad faith. A president, any president needs moral support to get on with the job but he must keep his own part of the bargain which essentially means that he is the one who will inspire such moral support, he must earn it. In April last year Nigerians from the four cardinal points voted decisively for Jonathan. At his inauguration it was obvious that he had the overwhelming goodwill of all Nigeria and also that of the international community. This out pouring of goodwill both nationally and internationally was also the case in 1999 when General Obasanjo was sworn in but by the time he left office in 2007 he had totally squandered the goodwill. The 2007 elections when they finally came was a great relief to Nigerians who could hardly wait for the opportunity to rein in the wild bull in a china shop. Those who are portraying Jonathan now as a victim need to pause for a moment and ask themselves what went wrong. The truth of course is that DR Jonathan is headed in the wrong direction and is too beholden to the unprogressive interest that seek to dominate the country’s affairs for their own narrow personal ends. As I write it may be already too late to ask or expect DR Jonathan to change course. Although there already exists a great deal of praying for/in Nigeria, in this administration Nigerians are going to have a whole lot more praying to do.

Recent events show rather clearly that we are at a time when Nigerians across the board can no longer be taken for granted. What Nigerians need today and now is a government that will be on message, in real time with globally acceptable standards. What we have had as governance practice since 1999 has been a travesty of democracy. There must be a total change of attitudes and style by the ruling elites at all levels. When General Obasanjo took power in 1999 he proclaimed a plenary love for his country. He said he was ready to die for Nigeria and had his civil war record and his near death incarceration during the Abacha regime to prove it. But, nonetheless, it soon turned out that there were unacceptable strings attached to his love for Nigeria. Today we hear the same jingles from the Jonathan presidency. What Nigeria needs from her leaders is unconditional love: no sacred cows, no caveats, public interest must come before any other interests. Nigerians are sick and tired of one step forward and two steps backwards governments. Nigeria must not be run under false pretenses.

This whole Presidency thing may be a learning experience for DR Jonathan. But Nigeria as a nation has learnt and re-learnt the same lessons over and over again in recent decades. Dr Jonathan must understand that there is just no point to continue to stress-test the country. There is just no more time for any leader to waste the nation’s time learning on the job.

Lieutenant Colonel Peter Egbe Ulu (rtd)

Okokomaiko, Lagos.

08131940313, 07051912209

IN OFFICE AND IN POWER

1.      The fuel subsidy controversy, if one can call it that, is yet another milestone in what appear to be the country’s gradual slide into anarchy. Pundits have often referred to the military era as a time when military dictators often demonstrated that they were not only in office but also in power. Think of the state terrorism applied to Ken Saro Wiwa and the Ogoni nine in November 1995, the state terrorism used to eliminate the veteran journalist Dele Giwa in 1986, the razing of Fela Anikpulakpo’s studio at Jibowu Lagos in 1976 and so on. Between May 29^th 2011, the inaugural date of the current administration and now, the executives of The PUNCH newspapers have been arrested and imprisoned by the police without an arrest warrant of a judge and without a trial in a court of law, the head of the EFCC has been summarily and unexpectedly fired, the gubernatorial primaries in Bayelsa state have seemed to have the footprints of high level political interference and now the fuel subsidy removal imposition. In the first and third instances when people pointed accusing fingers at the President, he issued a denial which was largely taken with a pinch of salt. In the particular case of Bayelsa gubernatorial primaries, it was difficult to rationalize because there were indications that the incumbent was unpopular and would most probably be thrown out by electorate with or without help from above. Past experience shows that the Bayelsa electorate is quite capable of this. Till date no one knows for sure why Mrs. Farida Waziri was removed from the EFCC chair. Normally such removal ought to herald a strengthening of the agency to more effectively deliver on its mandate but there is no evidence yet that such is the case. The last incident, the Presidential Xmas/New Year gift ,the surprise removal of fuel subsidy has to be the latest incident in just seven months which confirm a worrisome pattern; a pattern that shows that President Jonathan, although otherwise a mild -mannered person is always quick and bold to act in the interest of the political right. In short the government’s brooking-no-opposition stance on fuel subsidy removal marks Dr Jonathan as a veritable agent of the right, or even extreme right, a situation that irrevocably spells instability. As with the roughing up of The PUNCH executives and the unnecessary intervention in Bayelsa primaries Dr Jonathan seems to have bared his presidential fangs in a show of power on the removal of fuel subsidy issue. It shows that our democracy remains merely nominal and that one arm of the federal government, the executive continues to act with impunity, particularly in pursuit of right wing interest at the expense of not only the other arms but also the electorate. In the particular case of the National Assembly, the legislative arm, however they are the ones who have invited such ignominious treatment because they have abdicated their constitutional duties to checkmate and over see the executive in favour of compliance and oversize perks.

2.      I will like the hordes of fuel subsidy removal supporters to help me resolve the following fallacy. Those advocating the removal of fuel subsidy are selling this great fallacy; that an inefficient and unproductive government will become efficient and productive if it has more cash to play with. It is a fallacy because it is the antithesis of a well known truth. Since Dr Jonathan was elected President last April it is hard to mention any major progressive domestic policy instrument that his government has made despite numerous major policy challenges his government faces. It appears that what Dr Jonathan and his economic team are telling Nigerians is that the reason for the policy stasis of his government almost since inception is because fuel subsidy has not been removed. Since he has now removed the subsidy my answer to that is, well, that, that remains to be seen.

3.      What Dr Jonathan and his cohorts need to understand is that the sudden and precipitous removal of the fuel subsidy, if in fact there has really been any such subsidy, amounts to a political bomb just as violent or even more violent and irresponsible than that of Boko Haram bombs. Their effects are the same. They create instability and insecurity. Because of this subsidy removal, thousands if not millions will die prematurely because they cannot afford basic needs such as food and medicines, and they cannot afford the cost of transportation as they go about whatever business they are doing to eke out a living. I know that such consequences do not matter to the political right which controls the federal government and for whom the likes of Dr Jonathan and Dr Iweala work. To them the masses of Nigeria are invisible and are best forgotten although they can be useful for elections.

Lieutenant Colonel Peter Egbe -Ulu (rtd)

Okokomaiko

Lagos.

08023049789

08131940313

BETWEEN MUGABE AND ZIMBABWE

PREAMBLE

1.    Following the 11th March police brutalization of opposition MDC leaders, Baffour Ankomah, the editor of New African, traveled to Zimbabwe in early April,
ostensibly to obtain the truth. Before he left he accused Western media and governments of partiality in the coverage of and pronouncements on the incident.
The journey, he wrote, would avail the key players, especially the pro-Mugabe camp, to tell their own side of the story. Mr. Ankomah’s report is detailed in theMay edition of the magazine of which it took 60% (87out of 116 pages, including Baffours Beefs – 2 pages,
presidential interview – 8 pages, sponsored supplementon Zimbabwe – 75 pages). Judging by the report, Mr. Ankomah came away from the trip a radical pro-Mugabe
activist or the President’s chief publicist-at-large. The report blames all except Dr. Mugabe for the troubles – in Zimbabwe. The guiltiest include the Western media who are blamed for their demonisation of the President and gratuitous exaggerations, and
Western leaders, notably Tony Blair and George Bush.These leaders are blamed for the so-called targeted sanctions that have rendered the country’s economy prostrate. The report says that while Zimbabwe is not a threat to international peace and security, and it’s troubles far less than in many other African countries, such as the DRC, Sudan and Somalia, the West has singled out Zimbabwe for special treatment.
The other guilty party is the opposition MDC, led by  Morgan Tsvangirai. Mr. Tsvangirai is accused of betrayal in the face of Western imperialist onslaught. Dr. Mugabe is entirely innocent in the report’s view. He is portrayed as an unflagging anti-imperialist hero and a victim of Western –imperialist conspiracy. The report, notably, is in denial about the dire economic, social, political and security situation overwhelmingly reported in Zimbabwe – which were confirmed even by Mr. Ankomah’s interlocutors, including prominent members of ZANU – PF, the ruling party, holding key government appointments, as well as opposition leaders.


2.    It would seem, judging by the SADC summit in Tanzania in late March, that African leaders are now taking events in Zimbabwe more seriously and would hopefully act more vigorously towards a resolution of the situation. This development, although seemingly prompted by the West’s apparently more potent intervention, is welcome. The summit has quite naturally revitalized the debate on Zimbabwe. It would therefore not be out of place to suggest that perhaps this is the appropriate time to offer a personal perspective on events there. A good debate on Zimbabwe, while and if there is time for it, would be good for any effort towards peace and security in the beleaguered country.

3.    A good staring point would be to review the New African’s report in its May edition, which was quite wide ranging and the most comprehensive to date. Mr. Ankomah, Dr. Mugabe and other Zanu – PF spokespersons are angry that Zimbabwe is being singled out by the West. They say that in DRC for instance, more people are being killed routinely but no one appears to notice. They say that the West’s reaction to events in
Zimbabwe is entirely out of proportion to whatever is happening there. They charge that had the victims of the land reform policy in Zimbabwe not been white, the reaction of the West would have been different. The pro-Mugabe camp are unhappy that because Western diplomats, notably their ambassadors, and their governments have broken all protocol and international norms to provide overt support to the opposition, MDC,
thus violating the sovereign rights of Zimbabwe. They accuse the West, notably Britain and America of openly canvassing regime change in Zimbabwe.  These allegations are genuine enough and can be verified but there is more to it than meets the eye.  They raise some fundamental questions, which will be discussed shortly.

VISITORS TO ZIMBABWE.

4.    In Mr. Ankomah’s reports, there are mainly four groups of interlocutors. The first group consists of men like Peter Mavunga, described as a Zimbabwean journalist based in London, the Rt. Rev. Nicholas Baines, a British clergyman who like Ankomah lead a
team on a fact finding visit to Zimbabwe. The next person in this group is a man described by Ankomah as a British engineer he met on the plane on the 13th of April while both were returning to London from Zimbabwe. The engineer was on his way from a holiday visit to a friend resident in Zimbabwe. The last person in this group is Baffour Ankomah himself. This group is distinguished by their common testimony that things are not as bad in Zimbabwe as the Western media make it to be. But the interesting thing about the group is that all were visitors to Zimbabwe and it is noteworthy that no resident of Zimbabwe including the President, Dr. Robert Mugabe is in such a denial mood. On page 18 of New African of May 2007, the President while being interviewed by Baffour Ankomah admitted: “Yes there are hardships…there are shortages of
drugs…” That’s as far as it could go, coming from the President himself. There are a number of reasons why people may take antipodean positions in situations such as this. They may be seeking the limelight, taking advantage of a situation in which Zimbabwe and its leader are weak and desperate. Louis Farrakan does that all the time, unashamedly. Professional people including journalists, clergymen etc are forever
looking for fast-track opportunities to enhance their careers. It may also be simple, plain charlatanism at work, with people seeking to ingratiate themselves with a weak and struggling leader. If someone visiting Zimbabwe is already biased it should not be difficult for him to contrive a guided tour and deliver a verdict already implanted in his subconscious, in the process readily rejecting any evidence that challenges
his cause. Compared with the West Robert Mugabe may seem like the underdog. But just being the underdog should not qualify a leader for automatic support of
kith and kin. Rational leaders should avoid working themselves into a corner, leaving no room for manoeuvre.  If they must take irrevocable stands, they must make sure that the cause is just, that the whole nation is behind them and that there are no doubts in
the minds of the public that what is being done is in their best interests. If these conditions are met, the leader can be certain that his legacy is secure, even when the momentum of change sweeps him/her away from power. Otherwise a single policy error, in a proper democratic environment can often be fateful for the leader. A leader whose focus is the national interest can always manage to finesse foreign or domestic
conspiracy or propaganda where they exist.

5.    Evidence around the world confirm that in politics, you are better off not starting something you cannot finish unless you are absolutely confident about the moral justification and eventual positive results. Mikhail Gorbachev supervised the explosion of the Soviet empire, to his eternal credit, because he sensibly chose to ride the wave of the political current of the day. It did not matter that once the breakup got underway, he had no control over events anymore. FW De Klerk made a conscious determination
that apartheid would have to end in the knowledge that once done, he and white South Africa would no longer be in charge, probably forever. His predecessor, Mr. PW Botha, ‘the groot crocodil’, could not muster the courage to do it. For both Gorbachev and De Klerk it must have taken some courage and commitment, regardless of any other pertinent circumstances. If a leader were unsure of the justness, probable outcome and the moral integrity of a cause, that project is probably not worth starting at all. I think it is a mistake for Dr. Mugabe to think that the situation in Zimbabwe today is somehow in the interest of the country. If all that the opposition MDC, lead by Morgan Tsvangirai has done is to tell Dr. Mugabe that he is wrong, it would have achieved its purpose.

6.    Leaders around the world, everyday face important choices in their respective national interests. I think it is fair to say that on the African continent
Zimbabwe’s democracy has been one of the most progressive until recently. Till date, it still possesses an opposition that gives voters a real alternative and actually wins elections at almost every level. Rule of law and freedom of speech is much better than can be said of many African states. Combine these assets with the disproportionately high international visibility, which can actually be a good thing if properly harnessed, Zimbabwe has a potential to be one of the most envied on the continent. To me
the options before government were to develop through a gradualist, evolutionary process or through a radical, revolutionary trajectory. The Chagossians, who were ignominiously expelled from their archipelago decades ago when imperialism was rife have recently won a court battle to return to their native lands. Rather than resort to terrorism or other radical, coercive modus operandi, they chose to go to the courts, thus vindicating the fact that imperialism has lost currency around the world and so anti-imperialist rhetoric should therefore not be used to distract attention and mask the real issues. In resolving the land distribution problem Dr. Mugabe chose the radical, revolutionary approach rather than follow the evolutionary approach like the South Africans. The land problem in Zimbabwe is litigable in the world court or even in British courts. Zimbabwe could have opted for the stoop to conquer approach, so to say, by
exploring this option, which has a high probability of success together with attendant diplomatic goodwill the country would have received from around the world.
But having made a radical choice, not unexpected for a Marxist, he now finds himself unable to manage the fall out.  For the sake of 13 million Zimbabweans and for the sake of the region, whose stability can be adversely affected by a regressing Zimbabwe, Dr.
Mugabe should do the right thing and leave.

7.    African leaders, individually or as a group tend to go into denial when a policy error has been committed. This was as much confirmed by the communiqué from the
SADC Summit in Tanzania in March, which tended to accommodate Dr. Mugabe and sought the unconditional lifting of the targeted sanctions, although it did its
best to get the opposition involved in the Summit’s deliberations.  In a proper democratic setting, a single policy error, domestic or foreign, is more
likely as not to spell the end and destroy the legacy of the incumbent administration.  In politics perceptions are everything.  Once a leader acquires a negative image he is as good as finished.  Sometimes it comes in a tailspin, at other times its demise is
drawn out but the result, either way, is pretty much the same.  For Mr. Bush 43, his undoing is the American involvement in Iraq and to lesser extent in Iran and Afghanistan.  Ditto for Tony Blair of Britain.  Mr. Bush’s demise is drawn out, obviously
helped by term limit provision in the American system. The lack of term limits in Britain also explains why Tony Blair’s exit was less drawn out than Mr. Bush. 
One of the earliest causalities of the anti-terror/Iraq war was Jose Maria Azner of Spain.  For Mr. Clinton it was Monica Lewinisky.  The reason Clinton survived Monica – sort of – was the sheer weight of the President’s positive achievements in office, the perspicacity of the American people who could see that the hugely good side of Mr. Clinton was more important for them than his personal indiscretion – and of course, Clinton’s own phenomenal coolness under fire.  The land reform issue is almost certainly going to be decisive for Dr. Mugabe but he is quite naturally refusing to accept it, like any unreformed Marxist demagogue is wont to.  He would rather go down
fighting.  The task before the world, particularly the AU and the SADC is to ensure that he does not take Zimbabwe with him. 

8.    Many Africans, including African groups, such as the SADC think it is unfair for the West to want Mugabe out.  But it needs to be pointed out that a major policy error usually would not go unpunished in a Western setting.  For the government and its top
leaders the system is unforgiving in such circumstances.  In Western societies the media is unforgiving of political leaders and holds them to very high levels of accountability.  If Zimbabwe were a Western nation Dr. Mugabe would have taken
responsibility and left.  The reaction of the West should be understood from this perspective and should not be used as an excuse to keep him in power even
when in all probability there is a need for a new personality with a new style and new ideas at government house.  Unlike some critics I have no difficulty separating Dr. Mugabe from the Zimbabwean people.  There is ample evidence that there is a huge
gap between what Dr. Mugabe is doing and what the Zimbabwean people want or need.  I do not believe that the lopsided land distribution in Zimbabwe is the one
thing that kept the country from moving forward in these past 27 years.  The Zimbabwean people would love, like every other people, to move on and not get
stuck in their neo-imperial past.  Robert Mugabe has been in power since 1980 and it has been a rather sanguinary experience for Zimbabwe.  The blood of some 20,000 Ndebele, massacred in ’84 is on Dr. Mugabe’s head.  Current newspaper reports indicate that the Ndebele are once again the target of ethnic cleansing in the public services.  Leaving Dr. Mugabe in power may very well mean leaving Zimbabwe in a cruise towards another Rwanda’s ’94. I think it would be a bigger blackmail than anything the West has done to claim at this point in time that Robert Mugabe is the
only one fit to continue leading the long suffering people of Zimbabwe.  The question of fighting Western blackmail must be weighed against the interest of Zimbabwe as a whole. If Robert Mugabe were to go war the emphasis should be that he left in the interest of Zimbabwe and not in submission to Western blackmail, just like Charles Taylor and Slobodan Milosevic, who all claimed, against all the odds, to be fighting fors
greater Liberia or greater Serbia, did. National and international peace and security often dictate such pragmatism as clearly illustrated above. Even a world power like Britain occasionally submits to blackmail and compromise institutional integrity as a pragmatic response in the national interest. Quite recently the British government had to call off a two and a half year old inquiry into a defence contract scandal in which a 60 million pounds underhand payout was made to facilitate an arms deal including the supply of 72 combat aircraft at 76 billion pounds to Saudi Arabia.
The action was in response to Saudi Arabia’s threats of consequences, diplomatic and economic. The official reason given was that the inquiry threatened 5000 British jobs; and for good measure, national Security and the anti-terror war-, which were all true enough. But in taking this line of action Britain had to livewith an apparent blackmail by the Saudi authorities and a historic compromise of the nation’s criminal justice system thought to be among the best in the world. 

CYNTHIA MCKINNEY

9.    Cynthia Mckinney’s Pro-Mugabe stand was reported in some detail in New African of May, 2006. As a staunch Mugabe advocate she belongs to a class all her own-and
it is indeed heartening that an African American law-maker and African Americans in general continue to take active interest in their home continent; following in the footsteps of M .L King Jnr., Leon Sullivan, Bayard Rustin and others. Her emotive anti-imperialist support for Mugabe’s government is evocative of the American Civil Rights movement in is halcyon days. But challenging Senate Law 494 on the basis of a historical injustice is one thing and resolving that injustice one hundred years later, in a poor African setting using facist methodology, quite another. Resolving such a conflict was bound to be complicated. By all accounts the white-skin farmers who bore the brunt to Dr. Mugabes land reform blitzkrieg were Zimbabwean citizens who deserved but were denied state protection. Their main sin, not their fault of course, was that they were ethnic whites, as one might speak of ethnic Chinese in Indonesia or Malaysia, ethnic Kurds in Turkey or Iraq or ethnic Albanians in Kosovo. They were not, as many
presume, representatives of the British government, the ex-colonialist power with whom the government of Zimbabwe disputed claims to the deeds of their real estates. But of course it cannot be denied that they inherited disputed property but that hardly changes
the moral and legal situation with regard to their rights as Zimbabweans. The state sponsored Ku Klux Klan or janjaweed style evictions violated universal human rights to shelter at the very least. There were several physical attacks and some fatalities. No
observer could have missed the spectre of a humanitarian calamity that loomed. There was therefore bound to be some justifiable response from sympathetic authorities around the world. Apart from the Western world Kwara State of Nigeria and Malawi came to the aid of the farmers. A thoughtful leader ought to have been more circumspect. The forceful evictions and violent attacks smacked of racism. I am sure that Ms Mckinney would be the first to admit, from the American experience, that racism in one direction does not cease to be racism if the direction is reversed. The land distribution dispute between Britain and Zimbabwe is entirely litigable in the World Court
system. The Chagossians who were expelled from their homeland in the sixties the have lately won back the title to their land in the British court system. Commendably, they apparently rejected the option of terrorism or other coercive means to pursue their
claims. A better use of sovereignty and leadership would have been to avail the land problem as an opportunity to build bridges across races as is being successfully done in South Africa where a gradualist, evolutionary approach rather than a revolutionary,
disruptive one has been adopted by the state. In SouthAfrica government sponsors the appropriate legislation, which includes the necessary affirmative action provisions. This approach would have won Zimbabwe world wide plaudits as well as keeping the
economy on a progressive trajectory, without so much as a dent on its sovereignty, of which so much is being made. The approach would also give time for the average Zimbabwean or the prospective land owners to whet and build up the necessary competitive entrepreneurial skills in economic land use, in particular, commercial farming and agribusiness. Merely throwing out the farmers and giving their
holdings over to other Zimbabweans, Idi Amin-Style, has created an entitlement mentality and the suppression of the competitive spirit every economy
needs. It should not be a surprise that most of the farms so taken over have fallen into disuse while the overall effect on the economy has been dismal.

THE TECHNOCRATS

10.    The next group of interlocutors in the May, 2007 edition of New African includes such men as Dr. Gideon Gono, Governor of the Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe; Dr. Tafataona Mahoso, the head of Zimbabwe’s Media and Information Commission; and Godwin T. Mutanga DCP (operations)- a police officer. These are all highly placed technocrats in Robert Mugabe’s government and can therefore be presumed ZANU-PF supporters. But their candid and even-handed contributions were encouraging and does show that whatever is wrong with Zimbabwe is at the political level, not with the  technocrats. It should therefore be a relatively simple matter to redeem Zimbabwe by giving it a new direction when it gets a new leadership. The sooner that gets to happen, the better for all stake holders, including not just Zimbabweans but also the SADC and the AU.


MDC MEMBERS

11.    The last group of interlocutors in Mr. Ankomah’s report, besides Morgan Tsvangirai himself, consists mainly of prominent MDC (opposition) members such as Professor Arthur Mutambara, leader of the breakway faction of the MDC; Professor Welshman Ncube, former Secretary General of the MDC (before the breakup) and
a leading member of the Mutambara-led faction. Trudy Stevenson, the MDC MP for Harare North; and David Coltart, MDC MP for Bulawayo South. If the
contributions from these sources were meant to show that all was not well with the MDC it did the job rather effectively. Ms Stevenson’s account of her alleged assault by people believed to be MDC supporters on 22nd July, 2006 was taken from the website: newzimbabwe.com. David Coltart’s explanation of his disillusionment with the MDC leadership was reproduced from the same site. Morgan Tsvangiran’s account of his assault on 11th March was culled from aBritish daily, the Independent. Professor Ncube’sviews were reported in an interview he granted the Zimbabwe Sunday news. Professor Mutambara’s press conference on 2nd April after the SADC summit was also
a reproduction. While these reports did show that all may not be well with the MDC, it is remarkable that Mr. Ankomah did not find it necessary to speak directly to any of its members as he did to the members of the Mugabe camp. However, going by the report the MDC is evidently having teething problems. Part of the reason could be that Morgan Tsvangirai is becoming a victim of his own success in building a credible opposition
for the country’s political system that actually gives voters a real choice. The hope is that these problems will resolve themselves as the party and system matures. The evidence shows that there is more maturity already in the Zimbabwean system than can be said of several African countries and there can be no doubt that Morgan Tsvangirai’s MDC played a seminal role in this development.


CONCLUSION

12.    At independence the colonialists left hurriedly. If Nigeria’s experience is anything to go by independence came 50 years (100 years by some estimates) sooner than was projected by Whitehall.  In every case it was a struggle that turned nasty and violent sometimes.  In India (‘47) and Congo (’60) nsomething close to civil war erupted within days of the colonial authority’s formal withdrawal.  India recovered pretty quickly although there remain vestiges in the Kashmir region and in the prickly relationship with Pakistan but Congo has not.  Nigeria’s eruption delayed a bit till January 1966, most probably because the British GOC and IGP did not leave with the colonial political establishment in 1960.  Within six months of the GOC’s departure, however, in July 1965, the majors struck and a civil war followed within the year.  At independence there
were many loose ends left untied.  It is left for the inheritors of power in these sovereign states to do what is necessary to tie up these loose ends without regressing the status quo.  Before independence, the dominions relied on the colonial power’s democratic
institutional resources to function and to guarantee law and order.  In the case of Britain Whitehall and Westminster, as well as the Lord Chancellor (Chief Justice) and the Chancellor of Exchequer (Deputy Prime Minister responsible for the treasury and domestic policy) extended their influence to the colonies. At independence when these structural scaffoldings were withdrawn there was nothing to hold the new states in place for the systems to function.  There was acute shortage of manpower in the new states.  The newly minted African leaders were essentially on their own.
Their plight was compounded by the fact that these states were a patchwork of diverse ethnic, cultural and in some instances religious entities.  Unfortunately, the new African leaders took the short-cut approach for regime survival.  Instead of focusing on building virile institutions of state and the necessary manpower, such as effective and
independent judiciaries, legislatures, and public services that will deliver egalitarianism and offer equal opportunity across the length and breath of their lands, they chose to play on ethnic and other divisions as well as running errands – hosting proxy wars – for Cold War powers, leaving their countries essentially cheated out of world advancement for decades.  Many used the gratuities from the cold war sponsors to suppress opposition at home.  In many African countries the situation was often described as
internal colonialism. In Nigeria the word ‘hegemonism’ was sometimes used by critics.  One result of this kind of politics, apart from the developmental regression, was that minorities in these countries were continually marginalized.  What is happening in
Nigeria’s Niger Delta today is that such marginalized groups have slowly but steadily emancipated and radicalized, and taking advantage of global communications, are now ready to force the central government by all necessary means (militia, thuggery,
blue and white collar grand larceny) to redress these historical injustices.  Previous governments in Nigeria, after 1966, have been continually perfunctory with minorities and in the particular case of the Niger Deltans have used brutal force many times to suppress opposition. This brutality did much to radicalize anti-government sentiments there. (It is heartening to note that President Yar’dua is on to a good start and is already demonstrating that he is in for serious change.  His style evokes memories of the
late Sir Abubakar Tafawa Balewa of blessed memory.  I wish him well but the task ahead is enormous and daunting. I think that a radical, comprehensive, constitutional review is extremely important, even imperative and ought to be a high priority.)  All
around the continent these hitherto marginalized groups are now giving the mainstream behemoths a hard time, from the Congo to the Ivory Coast.  In Rwanda such tensions resulted in the historic bloodiness of 1994.  Some others such as Burundi, Angola and for that matter, Rwanda have come through the worst and  are now firmly on a correction course, however slowly. In Zimbabwe the marginalized entities have evolved
into an effective political opposition but the head of the government who belongs to the old order is refusing to accept the inevitable, much like fellow travelers in Nigeria through a few governments back. In his Independence Day speech of 18th April 2007,
Robert Mugabe said inter alia: “ Congratulations Zimbabwe, on our refusal to be re-colonized!  Let the sound of the celebrations of our 27th anniversary reach the ears of Britain and her allies, and let them know that we shall never, never, ever be a colony
again”  I think it is rather sad that after 27 years of independence the major thing to celebrate is a demagogic anti-imperialist swan song.  Everything known about Zimbabwe today indicates that there is not much to celebrate and the person most responsible for that situation is doing his earnest best to divert attention from this reality.  The late Julius Nyerere, one of the few outstanding post-colonial African
leaders and an Independence hero too, may not have achieved all he set out to do for Tanzania, but what he did achieve, his candour, readiness to admit his own mistakes and his well known ascetism, has laid an exemplary legacy for his country which has thereby become one of the most stable and progressive on the continent.  In Nigeria, particularly during the military era the federal government took to perennially issuing circulars directing that Independence Day celebrations would be ‘low key’.  But while poor soldiers, civil organizations groups and peasantry marched and danced their hearts out past the reviewing dias at Eagle Square or Tafawa Balewa Square, as the case may be, some of the reviewing officers were actually mocking the parade in front of them and the nation at large by stashing billions of dollars of public money in numbered accounts around the Western World. One in particular, a self styled
president, was reportedly 9 billion dollars richer on stepping aside. His military successor was reported to have similarly stashed up to 5 billion dollars before he incidentally gave up the ghost during an indulgent orgy that mocked an impoverished and dispirited nation.  Such was the spirit of an age that hopefully is now being consigned to history. The future of Africa belongs to those leaders who will focus on the national interest to legitimize their governments.  Following the building of democratic institutions of state they would need to adopt developmental models which while taking special interest in those at the bottom of the economic pyramid will also work to ‘lift
all boats’ on the tide of transparent and accountable governance.  The ANC government in South Africa, although not without problems, is a good example of
what governance in sub-Saharan Africa should be.


Abbreviations:

ANC    :    African National Congress
AU    :    African Union
DCP    :    Deputy Commissioner of Police
DRC    :    Democratic Republic of Congo
IGP    :    Inspector-General of Police.
GOC    :    General Officer Commanding
MDC    :    Movement for Democratic Change
SADC:    Southern African Development Community


By:

Lt.Col. Peter-Egbe –Ulu (rtd)
Okokomaiko, Lagos.
August 2007.