DECEMBER 17, 2013 BY NIYI AKINNASO

From Obasanjo to Jonathan with ‘love’

A literal reading of the 18-page letter from former President Olusegun Obasanjo to President Goodluck Jonathan would lead to the conclusion that it is no more than a summation of complaints by the public, especially the print media, against the Jonathan administration. However, a deeper, semiotic, reading reveals many layers of interpretation in which denotative and connotative meanings are blended into what looks like a letter-bomb. Some call it “satanic”. Others call it “messianic”. Yet, others, especially from the recipient’s quarters, see the letter as “self-serving, hypocritical, malicious, indecent, and very disrespectful”. It is probably all of this. But, it is much more. And that is why the letter is important.

True, there is some degree of reflexivity in Obasanjo’s letter: He surely committed some of the offences of which he is now accusing Jonathan, many with ironic twists. For example, like Governor Chibuike Amaechi today, former Vice-President Atiku Abubakar was forced out of the Peoples Democratic Party for aspiring to a position, which clashed with Obasanjo’s interest. Moreover, just as Jonathan allegedly promised to spend only one term in office, Obasanjo was equally alleged to have promised in 1999 to spend only one term. He not only spent two but even attempted a third term.

Obasanjo rightly advised Jonathan that “Analyses, criticisms and commentaries on government actions and policies are sinew of democracy.” That is true, but did he live by that precept as President? Ask Chief Audu Ogbeh, then leader of the Peoples Democratic Party, who was hounded out of the party for pointing out some of its internal problems. It is for these reasons that some have suggested that another former leader could have written a similar letter to Obasanjo. What is often forgotten, however, is that no other leader has the dual (political godfather-son and benefactor-beneficiary) relationship that Obasanjo has with Jonathan.

Another level of reflexivity lies in what Obasanjo reveals about himself, including his role as a political godfather since 1979! Just as he worked hard for Jonathan to succeed Yar’Adua in 2011, Obasanjo confessed, “I (also) worked for both President Shagari and President Yar’Adua to succeed me”. Is the Afenifere listening? This could only heighten the reading of political manipulation into his letter to Jonathan.

However, the significance of Obasanjo’s letter does not lie in shooting the messenger. What is important, at least for administrative purposes, is to investigate the serious allegations raised in it like many well-meaning Nigerians have suggested. An effective administration would investigate any serious complaint, even if the source were anonymous. However, since the allegations are against the Presidency directly, they are better investigated by an independent body. True, the National Assembly is anything but independent or corruption-free, both Chambers should nevertheless raise committees, consisting of adequate representation of all political parties, to openly investigate the allegations.

Some have questioned the public circulation of the letter. First, Obasanjo himself listed 10 reasons why he had to make it an open letter, including the allegation that “none of the four or more letters that I have written to you in the past two years or so has elicited an acknowledgment or any response”. This habit of Jonathan’s has been echoed privately to me by a number of top government officials, including some state governors, who experienced it. In one case, the President requested a letter writer to produce a photocopy of the letter when the writer reminded him about it. Apparently, the letter had been misplaced. In any case, the writer produced another copy. No acknowledgment or response to date!

This leads to the second major reason Obasanjo made his letter public–frustration. If the letter was dated December 2 and possibly delivered on that date, with a warning to the recipient that it could be publicised beyond the immediate audience of four persons besides the addressee, then Jonathan should have forestalled further publicity by responding promptly. Such a delay could only breed frustration for which the publicity of the letter probably provided an outlet. The focus on Obasanjo’s mischief in the Presidency’s initial response could only deepen the frustration. It is not surprising, therefore, that Obasanjo retorted by requesting action on the issues he raised, rather than a formal reply.

But the propriety of the letter and its publicity are not as important as the allegations it raises, ranging from incompetence, abuse of office, corruption, and gross mismanagement of national resources and security to the factionalisation of the PDP and the polarisation of the country along the fault lines of ethnicity, religion, and region. Even more serious than these allegations are the alleged construction of a political watch list and the training of a secret task force. The print media has written repeatedly about these allegations, except the last two, which surprised many citizens. The online media is also awash with more allegations, including Jonathan’s drinking habit, which has allegedly prevented him from (effective) participation at a number of important international meetings, including a recent one in London where he reportedly took ill.

Jonathan’s supporters may say all they want in his defence. The sad truth is that these allegations have been central to public perception of the Jonathan administration for some time now. Incidentally, a number of them converged on Jonathan’s mismanagement of the Academic Staff Union of Universities’ strike, leading to its unnecessary prolongation. It is unclear what Jonathan understands by “promise”, “agreement”, and “Memorandum of Understanding”. Whatever it is, he has flouted them all.

This is especially true of his promise to fight corruption. He has not only flouted this promise, he is widely accused of participating in, and facilitating, the escalation of corruption. No wonder this is a major theme in Obasanjo’s letter and an earlier one written in September to President Jonathan by the Governor of the Central Bank of Nigeria, Lamido Sanusi, which highlighted the non-remittance of nearly $50bn to the CBN. The Speaker of the House of Representatives, Aminu Tambuwal, also recently cited a wide range of cases of corruption on which Jonathan has failed to act decisively. Moreover, throughout the year, crude oil sold between $30 and $40 above the budget benchmark. Where has all the money gone if the claim by the government that it is “cash-strapped” is anything to go by?

What then is the way out and forward for Jonathan? He needs to do at least three things, and quickly. First, he must address the nation by himself, one way or the other, and tell us how he wants to resolve the major national issues highlighted by Obasanjo, Sanusi, and Tambuwal. Nothing more deserves an address to the nation than these allegations by eminent members of the political class, regardless of their motives.

Second, although we are not that interested in how he wants to resolve the problems within his political party, he must nevertheless address them, because the shenanigans within the party have had debilitating effects on governance at the federal, state, and local levels.

Third, Jonathan must declare his intention regarding 2015. Since the signs are all over the place that he has bungled any chance of reelection, the most reasonable path of honour is to step aside and allow the democratic process to throw up a successor within his party. It is not his duty to select or anoint one. Nigerians closed that bridge after Obasanjo crossed it. If Jonathan wangles his way to emerge as the PDP candidate in 2015, he is likely to be soundly defeated, if the current situation persists.

Jonathan must realise that he is now at a point in his political career when a stitch in time may save nine. He also must know that, at the end of the day, he and he alone will have to live with his legacies, good and bad.

PUNCH