CHIEF (SIR) DON UBANI[b][/b]
(Okwubunka of Asa) Umuiku-Isi-Asa Ukwa-West
E-mail: Ubanidon@yahoo.com
P.M.B. 7048, Aba
Phone: 08035523360
27TH JULY, 2015

BUHARI’S VISIT: EXPECTATIONS AND BUMPS
SCRIPTED BY CHIEF (SIR) DON UBANI

In recent times, no official visit by an African Head of Government had received the type of publicity the just concluded visit of President Muhammadu Buhari to the United States of America did. In international relations and diplomacy, visits by Heads of government to other countries are never considered strange or extra-ordinary. It is, rather, considered as a necessity that lubricates bilateral relations. So, in diplomatic circles, it is no big news that a President of a country has been invited by another for an official visit. This is more so when there has not been any diplomatic face-off between the two countries or a total breakdown in diplomatic relationship such as had existed for more than four decades between the United States of America and Cuba.
The question now is, why was President Muhammadu Buhari’s visit to the United States of America given exceptional hype in both local and foreign media? Again, why did Nigerians themselves appear to anchor a lot of hope in the visit of their President to the United States of America? Any attempt to answer the above posers would surely require some analysis of the Presidential visit. In the first instance, the visit was made only fifty days after the inauguration of the Buhari administration, starting from Sunday 19th to Thursday 23rd August, 2015.
Many observers think that the quickness with which the invitation was made could be indicative of acceptance of Buhari’s presidency by the American government of President Barrack Obama. Some other political pundits are of the opinion that the promptness of Mr Obama’s invitation to Mr Buhari is a reflection of America’s commitment to the growth and sustenance of democracy in sub-saharan Africa. Still, another school of thought could hold the view that the fastness with which the American government invited President Buhari only exposed the latter’s desperation to see the end of the administration of former President Goodluck Jonathan.
Of the three thoughts above, it may be pertinent to throw a little light on the third. In order to achieve this, a poser may have to be raised. Should United States of America be desperate to have seen the end of Jonathan’s presidency? The answer is very simple. Ordinarily-speaking, the national leadership of a country should be regarded as its internal affair. It should not constitute a major focus of concern to foreign leadership. But there was to be an exception in Jonathan’s Presidency at the time he held sway. The challenges of Jonathan’s presidency would equally make the American government decide otherwise. It is a given fact that Nigeria is a major power bloc, with considerable influence in Africa, particularly in sub-saharan Africa. What ever stand Nigeria takes on any sub-regional, continental or global issue, is most probable to influence the thinking or direction of many other African countries. Since the United States of America has arrogated to itself the image of a global custodian of supremacy, it would be crystal clear that it would not be comfortable with any emerging power bloc capable of influencing governments and people in Africa.
In the register of political economics, the United States of America is known as a capitalist country. One prominent feature of capitalism is belief in profitability of ventures. As far as capitalism is concerned, there is no free lunch. For any relationship a capitalist establishes and sustains with one, there is an under-current of profitability that may not even be known to his associate. America is neither a father Christmas nor does it embark on any venture that would not guarantee adequate profit for its government and people. For any ten thousand dollars the American government donates to any country, agency or organization, it hopes to recoup it more than ten times. This is the simple or elementary working of capitalism.
Jonathan’s administration had taken two bold steps that, though were in the overall interest of Nigeria, did not go down well with the government of United States of America, United Kingdom and some other European countries. The American government, which had been the highest buyer of Nigeria’s crude oil, for likely economic and political reasons, stopped buying crude oil from her. Since Nigeria’s economy is unfortunately mono-cultural, that is depending only on oil and gas, economic survival of Nigeria became a thug of war. In that state of near hopelessness, Jonathan’s administration had to look elsewhere for buyers in order to save the country’s economy from total collapse. Thank God, nature abhors vacuum! China was available to fill in the gap, even if the volume of trade became lower. At this juncture, it has to be pointed out that one of the reasons why the American Government stopped buying Nigeria’s crude oil is alleged to be Nigeria’s growing economic relationship with China. Basically, the American government perceived the Jonathan’s administration as one that had openly indicated readiness to be guided by the concept of beneficial alternative.
As if the Jonathan’s government was destined to add salt to injury, Obama’s government orchestrated vehemence and vigour in its weird pursuit of same-sex marriage. As natural as it was bound to be, the people and government, not government and people, of Nigeria spoke with one voice in strong condemnation of America’s and Europe’s infatuation for sodomy and lesbianism. It has to be recalled here that the Church of Nigeria, Anglican Communion, had severed Episcopal relationship with her parent church of England in 2002 following the decision of the Diocese of New Westminister in Canada to accord a rite of blessing for same-sex unions and the ratification by the General Convention of the Episcopal Church of the election of Gene Robinson, an openly gay non-celibate man, as Bishop of New Hampshire the following year. That the Primate and Bishops of the Church of Nigeria, Anglican Communion do no longer attend the Lambert Conference from London is in indicative of the volume of repulsion with which all the faithfuls of the Anglican Communion in Nigeria resented acceptance of sodomy by the Western World.
Nigerians are both a religious and cultural people. Whether it is Christianity, Islam or Paganism, Nigerians believe in and know only bi-sexual marital relationship. The various cultures of the people of Nigeria, be it Igbo, Hausa, Yoruba, Fulani, Ijaw, Efik, Ibibio, Annang, Gwari, Ishekiri, Urobo, etcetera irrevocably believe that a man should marry a woman for purposes of mutual co-habitation and multiplication. In the belief system of Nigerians, there is no imagination of any sort that a man could marry his fellow man or a woman her fellow woman. The mere imagination of this obnoxious abnormality is regarded as an offensive and injurious aberration and also an anathema.
No Nigerian was, therefore, taken aback when the federal government of Nigeria, under the leadership of Dr Goodluck Jonathan, came out unmistakably vehemently against the dirty and indecent practice of sodomy. The Nigerian National Assembly, under the leadership of Rt. Hon David Bonaventure Mark, boldly and rightly legislated against it and made it an offence punishable by law.
The stand of the federal government against sodomy, a sexual relationship that is not even acceptable to animals, both domestic and wild but has been legally adopted as a way of life by the governments of America and the Western world, coupled with the systematic growth in both diplomatic and economic relationship with China, were considered enough reasons for America to develop and express odium towards the Jonathan’s Administration.
If Jonathan had danced favourably to the capitalistic and ritualistic rhythms of the American macabre music by playing stooge to the white House in Washington DC, he would have stood ‘an accomplished statesman!
Muhammadu Buhari’s emergence as an elected President has been applauded by many Nigerians, including those who voted for Goodluck Jonathan. The Peoples’ Democratic Party was in the saddle for sixteen years. Many critics of the party believe the Party contributed more to the woes of the country than to its growth. Unfortunately, many of these critics heap their blames on Dr Goodluck Ebele Jonathan. They, however, pretend to forget that out of the sixteen years P.D.P. presided over the affairs of the country, Chief Olusegun Obasanjo occupied eight consecutive years and also laboured, though in vain, for a third term, late Musa Yar’Adua did two years while Jonathan completed the last six years.
It is an open secret that the economy of Nigeria is in a harsh desert or precariousness. There is no doubt that corruption has been the bane of Nigeria’s leadership. It is likely that Jonathan was liberal to the extent of not knowing the degree to which appointees in his administration went in their quest for material acquisition. Be it as it is, there is a change of leadership in the country. A man, whose pedigree and antecedents point at zero tolerance for corruption and ineptitude has mounted the saddle. Every patriotic Nigerian that nurtures hope of positive change does so in the belief that Buhari is a self-disciplined, altruistic and transparent nationalist. This hope centres only around him and not his political party; the All Progressive Congress, which parades an army of crooks and devourers who became exceedingly wealthy by exceedingly looting public treasuries dry.
As regards the expectations of Nigerians from his visit to the United States of America, having stated that America is not a father Christmas, optimism here should be laced with caution. Though the American government, her investors and business men had promised giving assistance in the area of terrorism and insecurity, corruption, theft of crude oil, money laundering and investments in infrastructure, electricity, communication and agriculture, who ever that knows America very dispassionately need not be told that America’s assistance would only be guaranteed if her interest is protected.
The climax of this visit is more psychological and spiritual than physical and material. At that point where, in response to a request by the American establishment, President Buhari was unequivocal in stating that the customs and laws of Nigeria abhor sodomy and, therefore, shall not allow its practice in Nigeria that was the climax of the visit. A critical analyst should realize that Buhari’s position did not differentiate him from that of Jonathan.
As time goes on, it would be clear if the American government and her citizens could, indeed, think differently on Nigeria and her challenges. Events will make it certain if America would allow Nigeria buy sophisticated weapons from her in order to fight insurgency or whether America would hide under the Leahy law to still deny Nigeria access to purchase of arms. Time will equally reveal the sincerity of America in repatriating the said one hundred and fifty billion dollar loot by Nigerian leaders starshed away in the United states of America.
While Nigerians may still expect good tidings from the President’s visit, current Nigerian leaders should realize that their destiny is in their hand. The future of Nigeria can not depend on the watchfulness and Zero corruption tolerance of America or any other country. If Nigerians, from all walks of life, resolve today to love their country, be transparent, selfless and vigilant, it would be needless seeking for support elsewhere because God gave Nigeria everything except, maybe, avarice, transparency and accountability.


Chief (Sir) Don Ubani.

Ok