[size=14pt]The Questions Babangida Wants Forbidden[/size]
The Horizon By Kayode Komolafe,Email:kayodekomolafe@thisdayonline.com,Tel:08055001974, 08.11.2010

Former President Ibrahim Babangida has reportedly come up with some rules of engagement with reporters. He listed some areas of socio-political life on which he should not be asked questions. The “no-question-areas” include the killing of the founding Editor-in-Chief of Newswatch, Mr. Dele Giwa; the annulment of the June 12, 1993 presidential election won by Bashorun Moshood Abiola and the zoning of party tickets for elections by the Peoples Democratic Party of Nigeria (PDP).

Ordinarily, it should sound strange that it is the interviewee who is specifying on which issues he should be taken up. But it should be understandable why Babangida needs some rules of engagement. First, it is a symptom of the military hangover. In the barracks it may be customary to limit the questions to be asked; but in the civil setting such would be seen as an alien practice. To be sure, Babangida has the prerogative to answer the question the way he likes. He may even elect not to answer any question at all.

It is, however, not his place to make rules that he should not be asked the question.  Needless to say, the culture of a political actor on the hustings is certainly different from that of a soldier operating an armoured tank.  If anything at all, now that Babangida has listed his “no-question-areas’, you can be sure more questions are going to be asked in those areas. Secondly, it is understandable why Babangida is even attempting some rules of engagement. All his moves point to the fact he is going to seek a party ticket for the presidential election contrary to the audacious prognosis of THISDAY editor, Simon Kolawole, who would rather say “calm down, Babangida will not run”. In doing so, Babangida should be ready for rhetorical battles with reporters and the public at large in the areas in which he would rather avoid discussion. Little surprise that he summoned his instinct as a general to think of some of rules of engagement.

In a way, Babangida’s latest posture is quite reminiscent of his days as military Head of State. That was when his word was law. Just imagine a man who was so powerful that he dissolved the Armed Forces Ruling Council and ruled alone for some time before reconstituting the body.  As a matter of fact, he actually decreed many things about his long-winded transition programme. In the making of a new constitution in 1988/1989, he introduced a political parlance: no go areas.

By this he meant those issues of Nigerian polity that he regarded as “settled” and therefore there was no need to debate them. These included the unity of Nigeria as being  “not negotiable”; the non-adoption of state religion or what some people interpreted to mean secularity; federalism as the option for organising Nigeria as a nation of diversity and the preference for presidential system of government. People complied with the directive because a military ruler made it.

No elected President can successfully make such a rule today. Laws are now made by the National Assembly for everyone to obey. So the context is vastly different and even then the issues that Babangida ruled out of discussion were not strictly the ones that affected his political future personally. In any case, he didn’t need the people’s consent to assume power in the first place. So the question of the debate of some sensitive issues affecting his political fortune did not simply arise.

Today, however, he is seeking power through democratic means. There cannot be sacred grounds in the interrogation of his past and the scrutiny of his present standing. And unlike the political issues he assumed were “settled” for the Nigerian state and nation way back in the late 1980s the issues with which his antagonists are bent on confronting him are far from being settled in the eyes of those on the opposite side of the political divide. It is said that time heals all wounds; somehow some of the wounds involved in this case appear to be as fresh as ever.

In any case, Babangida seems to be unfair to himself by talking of some ‘no-question-areas’ at this time. The truth is that all this while questions have been persistent in those areas and he has been answering them in his own way.  For instance, he has accepted responsibility for the annulment of the June 12 election while refusing to tender outright public apology for the trauma that the act caused the nation. In the days following the annulment in 1993 there were, of course, several reasons his administration gave for annulling the election.  He has denied that the state under him killed Giwa.  He has given explanations of how the $12 billion from the Gulf War windfall was spent. 

In one interview many years ago he actually said it was spent on Abuja, Ajaokuta and the Army. Since then there have been further explanations.  He for zoning to the north the PDP ticket for the next year’s election. And the reason for his position in the debate is pretty obvious and legitimate.  The problem, however, is that those opposed to Babangida remain unconvinced. Many critics still doubt his sincerity of purpose. And worse still, he seems to suffer from the fatigue of addressing the questions. As an aspirant to political office he cannot avoid questions especially the most unpleasant ones.

At the risk of appearing to draw an undue historical parallel, one is often tempted to compare Babangida with Augusto Pinochet, the late maximum ruler of Chile. Pinochet’s road to power on September 11, 1973 was heavily stained with the blood of Salvador Allende, the elected socialist president whom he overthrew with the backing of the American Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). Subsequently, not a few of his opponents “disappeared”. Pinochet was confronted with these and other issues of his regime to his grave. Outside Chile he was prone to citizen’s arrest. Yet, Pinochet was a political personality who polarised the nation significantly.

Those opposed to him did so bitterly and irreconcilably and his supporters were equally a passionate lot. The Pinochet camp pointed to the gains of his monetarist economic policies. The Pension Reform in particular was often cited gleefully. Police used to stay in the middle of opposing rallies for and against Pinochet. This is probably where the comparison should end. In many ways, Pinochet was not in the mould of Babangida.  For example, Pinochet’s supporters still defend his remarkable intervention in the Chilean political economy. What his administration did to the economy and social conditions of Chile is still a matter of debate.

Babangida’s critics should be less subjective and interrogate his role in history so far in totality. His critics have to be wary of being liable to charges of demonising him. One way to avoid such an allegation, for instance, is to look at what his ruinous   Structural Adjustment Programme (SAP) did to Nigeria’s economy with the inspiration of imperialism. The programme unleashed a catastrophe on the economy and society.  It worsened mass poverty.

It is debatable if the nation has recovered from it. However, unlike Pinochet whose policies are still being defended by his intellectual supporters including the economists of the Chicago School, some of the prominent defenders of SAP such Chief Olu Falae and Dr. Kalu Idika Kalu are no more in the same political boat with Babangida. If the current politics were to be issue-oriented the legacy of SAP should be eminently suitable for debate. Does Babangida have any fresh idea about the economy beyond the SAP recipes? That could have been a more productive way of dealing with the Babangida factor.

For instance, a hypothetical question could asked: if Babangida had not annulled the June 12 election could the army of his opponents have overlooked the socio-economic devastation caused by SAP and supported his presidential aspiration? Annulment of election was an error of political judgement. Being convinced about the philosophy of SAP on the part of an aspirant has deep implications for poverty eradication.

The Babangida’s aspiration is best dealt with within the context of politics of issues.  Sadly, for now issues are not been debated.
There are certainly problems with the manner in which some Babangida’s critics are posing the questions just as there are problems with his futile attempts to evade them.  Meanwhile, what is not debatable is that in this game in which Babangida has indicated interest there are no areas in which questions are forbidden. It would be unhelpful for him to imagine that there will ever be ‘no-question-areas”. If he still wants to run he should just be prepared for more questions. 

http://www.thisdayonline.com/nview.php?id=180461

Former President Ibrahim Babangida has reportedly come up with some rules of engagement with reporters. He listed some areas of socio-political life on which he should not be asked questions. The “no-question-areas” include the killing of the founding Editor-in-Chief of Newswatch, Mr. Dele Giwa; the annulment of the June 12, 1993 presidential election won by Bashorun Moshood Abiola and the zoning of party tickets for elections by the Peoples Democratic Party of Nigeria (PDP).

Damn!
The demon wants to keep secrets!

He is really a mad man now.

Osama_10:

He is really a mad man now.

In any case, Babangida seems to be unfair to himself by talking of some ‘no-question-areas’ at this time. The truth is that all this while questions have been persistent in those areas and he has been answering them in his own way. For instance, he has accepted responsibility for the annulment of the June 12 election while refusing to tender outright public apology for the trauma that the act caused the nation. In the days following the annulment in 1993 there were, of course, several reasons his administration gave for annulling the election. He has denied that the state under him killed Giwa. He has given explanations of how the $12 billion from the Gulf War windfall was spent.

In one interview many years ago he actually said it was spent on Abuja, Ajaokuta and the Army. Since then there have been further explanations. He for zoning to the north the PDP ticket for the next year’s election. And the reason for his position in the debate is pretty obvious and legitimate. The problem, however, is that those opposed to Babangida remain unconvinced. Many critics still doubt his sincerity of purpose. And worse still, he seems to suffer from the fatigue of addressing the questions. As an aspirant to political office he cannot avoid questions especially the most unpleasant ones.

Think am gonna start reading Simeon Kolawole's write-ups.

Dont you just love Nigeria

Someone who is yet to become president and he's already giving us areas where we should not ask him questions.

Damn!

Mr IBB,
Answer the questins first and then we won't ask you again. Infact if you had answered it the first time we asked you, we won't keep repeating it.
So, please "Who killed Dele Giwa?", "Why did you annul June 12 Elections, and who were the cabal tthreatening you then, are they still around or dem don die finish?", finally, "please what happened to the Crude oil windfall?"

It pains me to the marrows anytime I read IBB’s useless and unwanted stories on the pages of our newspapers and magazines concerning his presidential bid in 2011. I get offended, and feel totally devastated that we still allow the hopeless, shameless, and the bloody dictator to grace the front pages of our newspapers and magazines, talking nonsense and forcing me to remember the tragic pains and sorrow of yesterday which I copiously documented in a book for posterity.

I have cursed the day IBB came to power in Nigeria because that was the day all the devils in the world landed in Nigeria, and the centre could no longer hold as anarchy was loosed upon Nigeria.

If Nigeria is not a failed nation that works for those who failed it, tell me the reason why IBB at 70 will want us to vote for him as president in 2011? Do you promote somebody who scored zero in all subjects in an examination to the next class? If Nigeria has not excelled hopelessly in several dubious departments, no newspaper or magazine worth its salt in Nigeria will allow its front page to be used to celebrate a man that ruined and destroyed Nigeria, a man deficit in honour, deficit in character, deficit in integrity, a man without shame, a man who cannot be trusted.

There are thousand and one reasons why IBB must not preside over any serious office in Nigeria again, even as a local government chairman. Just like General Abacha, IBB’s tenure was characterised by sectionalism, state sponsored killings, crass sycophancy, brazen mismanagement, arrogance, violent rule, nepotism, deception, press gag, destruction of judiciary, destruction of democratic institutions, stigmatization of Abuja, violation of international protocol and diplomacy, looting of national till, reducing Nigeria to a pariah nation, annulment of free and fair elections, suppression of pro-democracy and human rights activists, putting Nigeria in a state of war, setting ethnic groups against one another.

During his administration, he violated Nigeria’s secular status, created dubious millionaires and billionaires overnight, destroyed Nigerian armed forces, sowed seed of discord among 150 million Nigerians, wasted 40 billion Naira in a Transition Programme he never believed in. This list is endless!

Make no mistake about it, whatever Nigeria is going through today was kick-started by IBB in 1985 and he sealed it up on June 23, 1993. Since June 12, 1993 Nigeria has not held a free and fair election and it may continue to elude us if the likes of IBB is not brought to book.

Until we have the courage, the boldness and the political will to deal with the enemies of Nigeria, the world will continue to laugh at us. No nation rises above its potentials. The nation is what the leaders have made it and I do not care whether those leaders were civilians or military men.

In body language, IBB may be pretending that all is well, trying to be fearless and unperturbed in the face of mounting criticisms against his inordinate ambition but beneath the bravado is a man whose past hunts him to hell.