Before this moment, Nigeria has been commended across the world for her readiness to combat and contain coronavirus. Now that the virus is ravaging Nigeria and other countries in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA), we must brainstorm the absences in how we are preparing to mitigate and alleviate the spread of the highly pandemic disease in the sub-region. As an effort in this direction, this article speaks to one of the reasons Coronavirus may be deadlier in Nigeria than elsewhere in the world and why place-based creative responses are necessary. My other goal is to get the conversation started about the omissions in coronavirus conversations in developing countries like Nigeria.

A common type of low-cost residential real estate/vernacular dwellings in Nigeria is popularly known in local parlance as Face-me, I-face-you. It is a Constabulary corridor style rectangular architectural housing design that has been catering to the housing needs of low income and disadvantaged families in Nigeria, since the pre-independence era. Face-me, I-face-you dwellings can be bungalows or story buildings. The design comprises a narrow central corridor, around which rooms are linearly arranged and from which the rooms are to be accessed. It is so named Face-me, I-face-you, because the rooms face one another, with the central corridor separating them. The central corridor is a place for many things, including close-contact socializing and cooking.

In Face-me, I-face-you houses, it is emblematic for residents to share a kitchen, bathroom, and toilet. In non-bungalow types, tenants share a common balcony and staircase through which upstairs are accessed. Customarily, the rooms are of small sizes, mainly, to maximize rental income. Besides, the population densities in Face-me, I-face-you dwellings are usually more than the required carrying capacity of the rooms. It is not unusual that about 8-10 persons may be living in one single bedroom in a Face-me, I-face-you apartment. As a result, a Face-me, I-face-you apartment of about 10 rooms may inhabit about 80-100 persons, who are sharing rooms, a kitchen, a toilet, and other facilities. This is for many reasons including the poverty conditions of the majority of the residents.

Discussion on the spread of coronavirus is yet to get at how overcrowded tenement buildings like Face-me, I-face-you properties may aid and worsen the spread of the disease in Nigeria and some other SSA countries. This article addresses this gap by drawing on my lived experience in Nigeria and such dwellings, as well as the science of the spread of coronavirus. This topic is particularly deserving of attention for many reasons including that a conservative estimate suggests that more than 70% of the tenement rooms in Nigeria are Face-me, I-face-you. As explained below, another reason is that the nature of this type of dwellings makes the classic social distancing of 6 feet as a way of mitigating the continued spread of coronavirus very difficult to observe.

Coronavirus is known to be highly contagious. It spreads easily among people who are within 4.5-6 feet of one another and through respiratory viral droplets that are inhaled from the coughs and sneezes of a nearby infected person. The virus transmits more quickly in crowded areas. Besides, droplets of the virus can remain viably infectious in the air for about 3 hours. The virus can also sustain its infectivity for between 2-3 days hours on metallic, steel, and plastic surfaces. Certain strains of the virus can also survive for about 9 days on surfaces, all else equal. Contacts with such contaminated surfaces, through for example touching, is one of the pathways through which coronavirus spreads.

Let's now situate the science of the spread of coronavirus in Face-me, I-face-you properties. To do this, let’s assume a hypothetical scenario of an asymptomatic and pre-symptomatic carrier that is a resident of a Face- me, I-face-you household. Let’s so assume because preliminary findings from a study of 91 cases of coronavirus in Singapore suggests that 48% may have contacted the diseases from asymptomatic and pre-symptomatic carriers. The same study reported that 62% of 135 persons who tested positive to coronavirus in Tianjin province, China, possibly got infected by asymptomatic carriers. A computer-based simulation study also attributed 86% (two-thirds) of the infections in China before full-scale travel restrictions were imposed in Wuhan, to undetected carriers of coronavirus. Anecdotal evidence also attributes the pandemic grip of coronavirus in Italy to stealth transmission by asymptomatic carriers of the disease. As to this, Professor Massimo Galli, an expert in infectious diseases at the University of Milan noted: “We have an epidemic because of one person who returned with an infection in an asymptomatic phase and it spread underground in the 'red zone'. The fire spread in a large part of our region. The virus circulated for several weeks before people were identified and sick people were found. People became infected without significant symptoms”.

Let’s further assume that the asymptomatic and pre-symptomatic carrier of coronavirus sleeps in a congested one-bedroom in a Face-me, I-face-you apartment that's overcrowded by 10 persons. Because the virus spreads rapidly and easily in crowded areas implies that all of the 10 persons can contract the virus. Also, the asymptomatic and pre-symptomatic person may sneeze on his/her hands and touch on the staircase that is used by everyone in a two-story face-to-face apartment. Because coronavirus can last up to 9 days on hard surfaces means everyone that touches the infested staircase is likely to be infested by the disease. This means about 80-100 inhabitants of our hypothetical tenement property can become carriers of the virus.

As mentioned earlier, a single toilet and bathroom are typically shared in Face-me, I-face-you properties and they are often in poor sanitary conditions: “I hate Face-me I-face-you, I just manage because that is what I have money for. They don’t even clean the bathroom and toilet when they are done” – Sola Sodipo. And, toilets and bathrooms are places where things happen, including sneezing, spitting of saliva, mucus and flowing of droplets from mouth, nose, and etcetera. Those are more likely to happen in filthy bathrooms and toilets as it in most Face-me, I-face-you properties. Imagine the asymptomatic and pre-symptomatic carrier of coronavirus sneeze and spit saliva in the toilets and bathrooms in a Face-me, I-face-you property. Sharing such facilities could mean sharing and spreading the viral loads of coronavirus. Thus, this is another pathway through which residents of Face-me, I-face-you property can become infested by coronavirus. It is also typical for residents of Face-me, I-face-you to gather in the rooms of co-tenants to watch home videos. This is another avenue through which the asymptomatic and pre-symptomatic person can spread the disease in a Face-me, I-face-you tenement property.

Given the above, the question to be asked and answered is, how should we prepare occupants of Face-me, I-face-you apartments from becoming less vulnerable to contacting and making coronavirus increasingly pandemic? Again, we are yet to have this conversation. And it is important that we do because we are not able to close down Face-me, I-face-you properties, just like we have done with schools and worship centers in some places. I believe that all measures that are being promoted to help curtail the spread of the virus are part of the solutions to this problem. However, locally adapted and place-oriented responses to stopping the communal and pandemic spread of the disease are needed. Drawing on my lived, experiential, and professional insights, I will argue for collective action of residents in tenement properties with the attributives of Face-me, I-face-you dwellings. For this to happen, the starting point should be community conversations of all residents in such apartments. Someone in the tenement property would need to call a meeting, where all the residents will discuss coronavirus and develop protocols and community actions that every resident will strictly obey. The meeting can be facilitated by the landlords, or, the property managers, who in this case, may be the persons helping the property owners to collect rent. This may be a big one to do, given the low trusting social capital in most Face-me, I-face-you facilities, even, among couples: “One day I fetched water to bath and went to the bathroom with it but I forgot my sponge and when I went back for it by the time I came back to the bathroom the water was gone and not that alone they steal my food in the kitchen no privacy at all” – Sola Sodipo. But conveying the meeting is possible and has to be done. Governments should leverage the instruments and voice of state through avenues such as adverts and jingoes, to direct and educate the public in such tenement properties about the need for the meeting. The meeting should discuss individual household and compound-level mechanisms through which coronavirus can spread. Building on that, the meeting should also discuss and develop a routine for disinfecting shared utilities like bathrooms, toilets, staircases, and etcetera. Strategies should be mapped out to prevent and mitigate the spread of the disease. What are your thoughts? Let the conversations begin!

[/center]
My attention was first drawn to Mayowa’s case through the University of Lagos Alumni Association, when her video soliciting for help was shared with us. I was moved to tears seeing Mayowa’s beautiful face before her sickness and what cancer has made of it. That was nothing strange because I once witnessed the impacts of cancer on the physical wellness of a friend. Hearing Mayowa speak of her troubles saw me break down completely. I wept uncontrollably and couldn’t muster enough courage to watch the entire video. I concluded that our own Mayowa needed all the help in this world to make it through and started working my phone to reach out to friends to help connect me with the family. In the process of doing that, I was told of a gofundme fundraiser set up to save our own Mayowa. I joined effort to support the fundraiser, thanks to the University of Lagos Alumni Association.

Lucky enough, I was able to reach Mayowa’s family through Mr. Bode. I briefed him of our effort and that Akoka will stand up for Mayowa, one of us. Mr. Bode was glad to hear that but said we should wait to hear from the family before making any effort. He got back to me to say that the fundraiser target was reached and that we should support Mayowa with our prayers. That meant a lot to me as it re-assured me I was dealing with a credible family, more so, in NAIJA.

I updated the University of Lagos Alumni Association, with others confirming that the fundraiser target was met. Everybody was glad. However, I argued that with cancer, you were not done until the treatment was over, and the patient declared fully recovered. Drawing on my experience with a friend who had a tough fight with cancer, I stated that the money raised may not be sufficient for Mayowa. I proposed that the fundraiser be continued, with many buying into that idea. I shared the same view with the family, but they again said NO. I could sense they may not be too pleased with going public to raise fund for Mayowa’s treatment. I gave up pressing further with the family on this issue.

A highly regarded Professor at the University of Lagos called me a night to inform me that Mayowa may no longer seek treatment in the US and that she may be headed to Dubai. I heard her out and was mandated to engage the family to have a rethink. I reached out to Mr. Bode for update on Mayowa’s health and her traveling plans. I was briefed of the challenges associated with securing expedited US visa appointment. A case was made for Dubai. I expressed my reservations and we had interesting back and forth conversation. The family had a superior argument. I requested for details of the Dubai hospital and was duly briefed. I offered to double-check the quality of the hospital by reaching out to friends who are medical doctors and with my friends who are citizens of Dubai.
As I was working in the midnight on a paper review, my phone rang. I initially hesitated to pick the call, but decided otherwise after a second thought. It turned out to be a phone call about our own Mayowa. I was happy for answering the call. My caller asked if I have heard that Mayowa’s story was a scam. I laughed it off and said I hoped someone was not trying to play games with Mayowa’s ordeal. I told the caller I was going to make calls to ascertain the facts of the matter.

I took time to reflect through what I heard. I wrote down questions that would inform the basis of my fact check, among which was that, besides Mayowa’s family, who were the main actors, which were involved in fundraiser. I was hoping there was no NGO involved in the fundraiser. I chose to do the unconventional by googling information about the new development. I discovered that the allegation of scam was associated with Linda Ikeji and Toyin Aimakhu. I took time to analyze the allegation that was broken by Linda Ikeji. It took no time for me to discern that it may be that some actors were not having their ways and may be up to a spoiler.
At first, I was startled that Linda Ikeji authoritatively claimed that Mayowa’s family scammed Nigerians. She stated, “this is such a sad thing for me to report this afternoon. Just two days after we were all happy that Nigerians kindly donated to cancer patient, Mayowa Ahmed, for surgery she needed for ovarian cancer, LIB just learnt that Mayowa and her family scammed kind hearted Nigerians”. I asked how did Linda Ikeji reach such an authoritative conclusion. I was curious to know her facts. She presented her facts as follows: “You see, Mayowa is really sick. She truly has Ovarian cancer. She's admitted at LUTH but she didn't need money for surgery, because doctors had told Mayowa she was beyond treatment and no hospital in the world could treat her as she was extremely far gone”.

I was shocked reading Linda Ikeji saying that Mayowa “didn't need money for surgery, because doctors had told Mayowa she was beyond treatment and no hospital in the world could treat her as she was extremely far gone”. One, I was like no doctor will tell Linda Ikeji any information about Mayowa except otherwise directed to do so. Two, I knew that no doctor would stop or forestall the treatment of a patient because their case is far gone as alleged by Linda Ikeji. My take was confirmed by highly regarded medical doctors that I know. Three, I was completely stunned that Linda Ikeji’s allegation of scam was also based on the claim, “Mayowa had reached stage 4 and doctors, unfortunately, already told her family she won't survive it and had advised them to take her home. Her family instead used her situation to raise money from Nigerians”. That LUTH would advise Mayowa’s family that she be taken home because her case was beyond redemption got me thinking that someone was trying to play games with Mayowa’s life and possibly her family’s integrity. Four, mentioning that Toyin Aimakhu was at LUTH with police officers got me thinking something may be acting out.

I was done with Linda Ikeji and Toyin and went about my fact checking mission. I made attempts to speak with Mayowa’s family but was told that I will be duly updated. I spoke with some reliable sources of information, with one emergent pattern being that Linda Ikeji may have been instrumental to Toyin’s possible attempt to blackmail Mayowa’s family. I came across videos posted by Mayowa’s family and also took time to digest their press release. Equipped with how to handle and decipher truth from conflicting information sources, I was hoping to have video engagements involving Mayowa’s family and other stakeholders’ in the fundraiser. I already had firsthand accounts from LUTH. Here, Readers attention will be drawn to the face-to-face conversation between Mayowa’s family and Toyin Aimakhu, likewise, with other actors in the fundraiser also cited.

There is a 1:45 minutes video whereby Toyin Aimakhu was engaged by a lady who supposedly appeared to be a member of Mayowa’s family. The lady was heard telling Toyin, “chill chill, no matter how much you liked her, if doctors tell you should excuse her…” Toyin responded that “so you are recording me now”. Toyin alleged she was called and that she was later chased away. The lady and a guy replied Toyin, “who chased you”. There, it was obvious Toyin’s antics and games were going to be exposed. Toyin was observed in the video trying to defend herself, with the family saying “hold on, let her talk”. Toyin refused to speak any further to substantiate her claims as she walked away. She was followed by those involved in a heated discussion with her, with a guy requesting that, “Toyin, please give me Linda’s number, give me Linda’s number please, give me Linda’s number, give me Linda’s number”. It was at this point that Toyin turned back to face the crowd following her.

Toyin was heard saying “this is Linda’s number. It appeared she was responding to the accusation that she was the one who misinformed Linda Ikeji, an accusation she denied. In the video clip, Toyin was seen hitting her chest, shouting out, “me, called Linda, me called Linda”. The same guy in the scene told her to hold on, with the scene suggesting a phone call was going to be made to Linda to expose Toyin that she was the one who misinformed Linda. Toyin was heard saying “there is a press downstairs”. Obviously, that was an indication that she went to LUTH with pressmen. Two things were evident from the video, with one being that Linda Ikeji may have acted on misinformation. Two, it was apparent that Toyin Aimakhu was acting out a script well known to her and further that she may not have been contacted with the family to play a “major role” in the fundraiser.

In another video, Bode, a family member of Mayowa was heard swearing that before God, if the family did not lie, all of those who knew about the news of the scam and Mayowa’s travails, “oh God, set them backward in life”. Bode was apparently aggrieved as other members of his family were seen wearing downtrodden looks.

There is a third video involving Bode and supposedly, a lady with a link to Toyin. The lady (forthwith Lady A) was heard attributing faults to Aramide, implicitly agreeing to Bode’s stand that the family’s name was scandalized. Bode interjected pointing to someone not seen in the video, that “that was the person who caused everything”. Bode said Toyin created the whole scene. Bode also stated that he was called by Toyin with the Lady A declaring that Toyin didn’t know how the misinformation got to Linda.

Bode and others shouted down Lady A, insisting that Toyin called Linda. Lady A backed down, wondering why Toyin lied that she didn’t call Linda. Bode and others said Linda cited Toyin’s name and that Linda told them to watch a video after the court section. Linda’s claim to have spearheaded the fundraiser was also discredited. Lady A was heard saying it was Mayowa who led her own fundraiser, no one could claim to have done that. This confirmed what I heard from the family before the news of the alleged scam broke us. The family never wanted a public fundraiser. But Mayowa was pressed and possibly advised by non-family members to seek public support. Lady A said she was the one who advised her to consider that option. Bode told Lady A, they created this scene and that they were not God. Bode said in a dejected tone asking whether they saw a particular medical report. Bode said that they won’t give up on their sister until God elects to kill her. Linda/Toyin was also said to have claimed that the first lady, supposedly, Aisha Buhari called her.

News items through links such as https://www.nairaland.com/3256148/toyin-aimakhu-wanted-part-mayowa have surfaced indicating Toyin is acting a script related to the monetary gains someone intended to make out of the fundraiser. A firsthand account from folks with no affiliation to any of the parties involved in this saga indicated that Toyin never requested any percentage, but that Aramide of Lifestake Foundation did. That confirmed what was reported on Nairaland Forum, likewise by Premium Times (http://www.premiumtimesng.com/news/top-news/207789-nigeria-police-take-savemayowa-campaign-amidst-controversy-drama.html). It was also confirmed that not only did Aramide requested to be given 5% of the fundraiser, but also that her foundation be approved to handle the funds. The family of Mayowa objected to the two conditions. What cannot be ascertained for now is if there is a secret agreement committing certain percentage of the money Aramide was expecting to Toyin. Premium Times sources alluded that, with new waves of information reaching me suggesting that possibility. Soon as the information is confirmed from multiple sources, I will update the whole world. So far, it is reasonable to tentatively conclude as follows.

One, there was no attempt by Mayowa’s family to scam Nigeria. Two, Linda Ikeji misinformed the whole world by wrongly and authoritatively alleging that Mayowa’s fundraiser was a scam. Three, Toyin also played a big role in scandalizing Mayowa’s family. Four, Aramide Kasumu of Lifestake Foundation is the main actor in the attempt to scandalize Mayowa’s family, with her motives being money-driven.

I call on well-meaning Nigerians to stand up for Mayowa’s family. I further call on Nigerian citizens and friends worldwide to join efforts seeking to ensure those behind the attempt to scandalize Mayowa’s family are made to face the full wrath of the laws. I further call on the Nigerian government to take over the treatment of Mayowa by facilitating her travelling abroad with no further delay. Finally, I call on the First Lady, to dissociate herself of any involvement with Linda, Toyin or Aramide.

The details of the stations will be released on Monday.

Spread the news.

[center]The Student Youth Assembly, The Department of Political Science, University of Lagos, and The National Association of Political Science Students (NAPSS), UNILAG

Invite the General Public to Scholars-Moderated LAGOS GUBER DEBATE


Date: February 4, 2015

Time: 10:00 AM

VENUE: The University of Lagos Main Auditorium

The event will be live streamed and given Radio and TV coverage[/center]

As a student of religious politics and religious terrorism, I am quite aware that religious leaders do have political agendas and characteristically use the altar to mobilize (or de-mobilize) their followers for politics. I was, however, utterly shocked after listening to a 1hour 30 minute apocalyptic message by a self-acclaimed “messiah of information”, Pastor Emmanuel Bosun, whose barrage of nonsense was recently responded to by the APC. His agenda was indeed clear – he wanted to sensitize and mobilize the Christian population against their Muslim counterpart especially in preparation for the 2015 general elections. In order to achieve this, Pastor Bosun had to produce voluminous falsehoods and showed some horrific video to his helpless audience in a church, raising the alarm that Islam is the main problem in modern Nigeria while Muslims are out there to exterminate Christianity in the country.

As much as the pastor’s right as a Nigerian citizen – who can belong to any political party of his choice and express himself freely – is appreciated, there should be no gainsaying that he has no right to distort facts and re-write history in a bid to sell his cruel agenda or execute his contract with some political paymasters somewhere. Pastor Bosun’s shenanigan message may ordinarily not warrant a response, but it is of importance that the unsuspecting public, who fall easily to the pontifications of religious leaders in Nigeria, is saved from the falsehoods that characterise the message and the mischief of this end-time pastor.

Pastor Bosun starts his alarmist message with a certain conference held in 1989 in Abuja by Muslims who arrived at certain conclusions defining the “Islamic agenda” in Nigeria and Africa. The highpoints of the communiqué after the conference organized by the OIC for Muslims in Africa, according to the pastor, are “to ensure [that] only Muslims are elected to all political posts of member-nations” and “to eradicate in all its forms and ramifications all non-Muslim religions in member-nations (Christianity underlined).” How absurd! I wonder if Muslims could be so foolish to have released this kind of sensitive communiqué to the public if there was any.

In my scholarly search to verify this claim by Pastor Bosun, I found an objective study by Professor Roman Loimier (a distinguished German specialist on Islam and politics in Nigeria) in his book, Islamic Reform and Political Change in Northern Nigeria, where he made reference to that conference. Professor Loimier noted that the conference was followed by “a fake communiqué” apparently produced by some Christian groups, which unfortunately is the same document being paraded by Pastor Bosun today. Professor Loimier writes further that: “The choice of words [in the fake communiqué] suggests that Christian groups wanted to use the occasion of the Islam in Africa Conference not only to discredit the conference itself, but also to point out to Nigerian Christians the radicality and intolerance of the Muslims” (p.318). It is unfortunate that a document that has been discredited since 1989 would still be paraded as evidence by Pastor Bosun in 2014! It is also more pathetic that there were no intelligent persons in his audience to have challenged him for mis-educating them with a fake document.
Pastor Bosun went further to assert that Nigerian Muslims in connivance with the OIC aim to Islamize the whole of Africa. What an ambition! Another nonsensical claim. The pastor displays his absolute ignorance on the formation, membership and activities of the OIC with this claim. I will educate him here. The OIC (The Organization of the Islamic Conference), which emerged in the wake of increasing external attacks on Muslim countries in the Middle East in the 1960s, was established in 1969 as a Muslim (not necessarily Islamic) organization to “safeguard and protect the interests of the Muslim world in the spirit of promoting international peace and harmony” in the world. It should interest Mr. Pastor that the OIC is not characterised by Muslim-majority states only, it also opens its membership to non-Muslim majority states. Some of them include Gabon, Cameroon, Benin, Togo, and Guyana. Other non-Muslim majority states which have observer status in the organization are Central African Republic, Thailand and Russia. One should ask Pastor Bosun how the OIC would successfully hatch a plan to exterminate Christianity (or other non-Islamic religions) at meetings where Christians and other non-Muslims also attend.

Still on the OIC, this man of God claimed that the series of terrorist attacks in Africa in recent times should not be “isolated” from the main agenda of the OIC. Praise the Lord! This pastor must be ill-informed about current happenings in the world. Ironically, information is about the cheapest product in contemporary times. It is just available everywhere. The pastor should have known that most of these terrorist groups have as their principal targets the current ruling class in the Muslim world, who represent the main drivers of the OIC. Indeed, they have been victims of the attacks, as well as a large number of Muslims around the world.

The pastor lost it completely when he mentioned that the APC is a party to be closely monitored because it is an Islamic party in the fashion of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. That’s quite interesting. The most interesting part of his message here is that we have heard these claims from the PDP before. It is a popular slogan of Femi Fani Kayode – a shameless Islamophobe. This should make a critical mind suspect a connection between Pastor Bosun and the PDP. According to Pastor Bosun, the APC is an Islamist party because its major officials are Muslims. Another piece of rubbish! My last check shows that the APC has four individuals as its key members of the executive – John Odigie Oyegun as the National Chairman, Lawal Shuaibu as the Deputy National Chairman (North), Segun Oni as the Deputy National Chairman (South) and Mai Mala Buni as the National Secretary. Pastor Bosun does not need to be an intellectual to know that two of these individuals are not Muslim. Furthermore, APC has four governors – Adams Oshiomole, Rotimi Amaechi, Kayode Fayemi and Rochas Okorocha – who are not Muslims. Where did the pastor get his information from?

The pastor’s political agenda came to light after he appealed to his audience that the South West must not be allowed to be under the control of the Islamic party. In his words, “the next battleground is the South West.” Pastor Bosun strongly encouraged Christians to vote out the APC in the South West in the next elections and vote for the PDP. In this regard, the pastor is also ascribing Islamism to the patrons of APC in the South West, especially Asiwaju Bola Tinubu. This is a joke taken too far. Tinubu himself would immediately enlighten anybody that he is everything – a socialite, a businessman, a politician, “Area Father” – but an Islamic personality. It is on record that during his reign as the Governor in Lagos State, he was the first administration to return missionary schools to their original owners; a policy which did not favor the Muslim ab initio. Tinubu’s wife is also a prominent member of the Redeemed church, where his husband regularly attends their special programmes at the end of the year.

Readers would certainly be bored if all the statements by Pastor Bosun are responded to in this piece. But it worries me that this person was appointed as a delegate for the Christian community at the just concluded national conference. The Christian community should have done better to appoint some intelligent individuals to the once-in-a-lifetime gathering of serious minded people, which I am sure they have in abundance.

Nigerians should not be surprised that these messages are surfacing a few months to the general elections. But they should be warned that these fake messiahs are agents of politicians who have been hired to invade worship centers to mobilize votes for their patrons. It is not new in the history of elections in Nigeria. The pastor did well anyway. At the end of his talk, he told his audience that “Jonathan is 100% successful” and compelled his audience to vote for him in 2015 as a religious obligation.

Written by Hakeem Onapajo.

Since Goodluck Ebelle Jonathan’s (GEJ) announced the name change of UNILAG to Moshood Abiola University, Lagos, (MAUL, Akoka), the university’s Professors, its alumni association and students have been protesting this decision. As one of the university’s stakeholders, in this article, I seek to challenge the basis of the UNILAG stakeholders’ dissenting views and argue otherwise.

In a press release co-signed by Professor Olayide Abass and Femi Oladimeji, UNILAG Alumni Association’s National President, and National Secretary, it was argued that, “The University of Lagos is the first University to be established by an Act of Federal Parliament in 1962 and has built a strong brand name (emphasis, mine) in its 50 years . That is why it is the University of First Choice and the nation’s finest.” What catches my attention in these lines, are the parts that read: “… has built a strong brand name in its 50 years;” and “That is why it is the University of First Choice and the nation’s finest.” These parts of the press release forced me to think about the following issues: why and how was UNILAG able to build a strong brand name, which as claimed, made it assume a self-venerated status as “University of First Choice and the nation’s finest?”? Does that acclaimed strong brand name truly exist over fifty years of UNILAG’s existence?

Based on informed and privileged discussion I had years back with some respected professors and stakeholders, among whom were Professors Olayide Abass and Oye Ibidapo-Obe, I was made to realize that what made UNILAG were the core values that make the attainment of excellence possible. These include quality and dedicated staff, quality students and supportive learning environment.

Also, I have heard people argue that UNILAG’s strategic location play a role in the university’s ascend to a place of pride. However, that seems superficial and will merely open up discussion on whether UNILAG’s image was deservedly or superficially earned. Universities, unlike markets, are not made by their locations; Universities earn their locations, prominence.

If a university’s deserved place as one of the nation’s best is determined by its location, OAU ought not to have been on the radar as one of Nigeria’s world-renowned prides. If location is a factor, then why is it that Lagos State University (LASU) and Lagos State Polytechnics (LASPOTECH), which are also strategically located in Lagos do not have the venerated status of UNILAG? This is not to say that a university might not benefit from its strategic location to attain excellence. What is being implied is that, it is impossible for a strategically located university to attain excellence in the absence of those core factors of excellence earlier mentioned. Location is not a substitute for the drivers of excellence. While the excellence attained by a university can transform its un-strategic location into a strategic spot, a strategic location factor without those drivers of excellence cannot earn a university a place of pride. In college towns or university towns, exist a number of veritable historical evidence, which substantiate my argument on how a university earns a town or its location prominence and why the reverse is never the case.

The location-excellence argument seems relevant to the hotly contested UNILAG name-change issue. Gown-town relations which is embodied in the concept of college towns/university towns may earn a university its name. This is the case with the Oxbridge- University of Cambridge and the University of Oxford-, University of Birmingham (UK), Auburn University (USA), Tuskegee University (USA), University of Gottingen (Germany), National University of Singapore (Asia), Uppsala University (Sweden), Leiden University (Netherlands), and Stellenbosch University (South Africa). These are all world-established citadels whose names are rich historically rich, logical and substantive. Given whatever circumstance, universities so named will never undergo a name change. Does the name UNILAG fall into this category?

To provide an evidence-based response to the above question, I was compelled to go through volumes and articles that seek to fully or partially tell the history of then named UNILAG. Of these reference materials, I find “A History of University of Lagos, Lagos, 1962 -1987” that was edited by Profs A. B. Aderibigbe and T. G.O Gbadamosi and published as the most authoritative. Although I read this particular work eight years ago, during my situation compelled third reading of this volume and other ones, I find no hard or soft evidence, explicit or implicit which suggests that there is any logical or substantive basis why the name UNILAG came into existence in the first instance. Nobody seems to know. May be no one even exists. One of the probable explanations seems to be because of the university’s location in Lagos. Another plausible rationale is that which those dissenting GEJ’s name-change decision have quoted severally- the establishment of the University of Lagos by an Act of the Federal Parliament in April 1962. While this provides the legal basis underlying the existence of the University of Lagos, it tells us nothing about how the name UNILAG came about in the first instance, therefore, it may not be accepted as a veritable reason why UNILAG must not be renamed. As we shall come to discuss later, in different countries, universities that are creations of an Act of the Federal Parliament, have undergone a name change for various reasons herein articulated. Consequently, in the absence of any alternative explanation of the origin of the name UNILAG, it is better concluded that the name UNILAG does not have any substantive historical basis that makes it perpetual.

Those disputing UNILAG name change have also been contextualizing the place of the name UNILAG in the university’s making as a place of excellence. I find instances of this in Oye Ibidapo-Obe’s interview with Olabisi Deji-Folutil and in narratives such as that written by UNILAG Alumni Association and Soyombo, a UNILAG professor of sociology. Soyombo argues, “So, what is in a name? The Yoruba believe that a name has implications for a person’s behaviour (This is what they mean when they say oruko nro omo). Moshood Abiola University, Lagos (MAUL) – what does it mean to maul somebody or an institution?”. Soyombo, like other aggrieved UNILAG stakeholders, is simply highlighting the place of the name in the making of the university as a place of excellence?

However, I wonder how rationally placed is Soyombo’s contention that, name-changing of UNILAG to MAUL denotes the same thing as “to maul somebody or an institution?” Soyombo, a university don who spent a lot of energy to argue the name imperative thesis in the making of UNILAG’s greatness seems to be unfair to truth by failing to highlight that, even with the name UNILAG, cases of deadly attacks have been recorded in the university. How come that the name UNILAG did not prevent those attacks?

Like Soyombo, Oye Ibidapo-Obe also argues, “what’s in a name and I tell you that everything is in a name. Name is everything. Your name is your identity. You change name to make products do well, if the university has not been doing well, if it has not been producing the kind of graduates we want, we can change the name to give us what we want but that is not the case here. Those who say there is nothing in a name are jokers. It will take another 50 years to adjust to this new name.”

If name is everything and further that a name needs only to be changed when a product is not doing well, I dare say for the past twenty years or thereabout, UNILAG has not been doing well. During this period, the quality of education offered by the university has dropped drastically. Students have been educated in overcrowded classrooms and under severely constrained learning environment. Our libraries became repositories of old and irrelevant books. Laboratories were either underequipped or equipped with obsolete/non-working equipment. This situation reached an alarming proportion in the early part of the 2000s when students have to write laboratory reports using dictated data from experiments, which were conducted at a time that no one knows. I witnessed this unfortunate situation as an engineering student at the then UNILAG. I also heard from my seniors that they had to endure the same travail.

During this period, the university’s staff quality has also dropped. For the past twenty years, I doubt if any of the university academics have produced widely cited or regarded work locally or internationally. I am also not aware if the university or any of its staff have during this period won any valued international award that is dedicated to academic excellence and valuable contributions to knowledge. I do not also think during this period, the university has attracted the best of brains as faculty.

I am also aware that during this period, the then UNILAG has admitted students that have no business coming near the gate of any decent university let alone going through the university system to earn a degree. It amounts to saying the obvious that during this period as well, the UNILAG Aristo Babes market has also peaked. UNILAG Aristo Babe is a brand name for UNILAG female students who specialize in trading their bodies to earn money and class. Can anyone dispute the immeasurable social disruption those ladies have caused the immediately UNILAG environs and the nation as a whole. My reservations seem to be fully captured by Oyindamola Adegboyega, a UNILAG student who once wrote,” They warned me, O!, feeding me with countless tales of the widely publicized escapades of the well-known UNILAG ‘big’ boys and girls or “chicks” as they are fondly called. They informed me of the ARISTO girls, the fashion and blackberry craze, the endless parties, the list in fact is also endless. The quest to be the ultimate has overwhelmed the hunger for academic success. The well-known University of Lagos is a place where you would find it all. The high, classy, sassy and what have you. You not only find the young and restless, you find the aging and agile.”
The foregoing is a pointer to the fact that UNILAG has not been doing well for the past twenty years or thereabout. Given the veracity of this claim and Oye Ibidapo-Obe’s proposition, which reads, “if the university has not been doing well, if it has not been producing the kind of graduates we want, we can change the name to give us what we want but that is not the case here,” there is a genuine reason why UNILAG name must change. Although I do not share Ibidapo-Obe’s logic, the issue is that if our university has not grieved for loosing those core values that earned it a place of pride, why must we grieve for losing a name that lacks substantive historical basis
If name has earned UNILAG its pride place as fiercely argued by Ibidapo-Obe, Soyombo and other aggrieved stakeholders, they could have done better by intellectually engaging the issue through the following questions. What is the history behind the name UNILAG? How relevant is the name UNILAG to the core values that earned the university a place of pride?. How central is the name to what the university has/is producing? Can a university's name be changed and yet, its place of excellence be sustained?; why and under what circumstance(s)? Has this ever been done locally and internationally? What were the reasons for taking such decision? I will attempt to address some of these questions, hoping to provoke further debate that might prop up the insightful deconstruction of the name change controversy.

Just like the University of Ife’s name was changed to the OAU, so was the case with the eight ivy league schools in the US that include Harvard University, Yale University, Princeton University, Brown University, University of Pennsylvania, Columbia, Dartmouth College. As noted by the Rita Kennedy, “all Ivy League schools take their name from the ivy that grows on their buildings”. These world-widely regarded university of honors all changed names for various reasons that include, as a mark of honor for a philanthropic businessman or someone from whom the university first benefitted (Brown University, Harvard University, Dartmouth College, Yale University). Princeton was renamed to honor a town, Cornell University, after its founder and the University of Columbia, after a heroic figure. These universities changed name to new ones that are substantively rich in history. Changing such historically rich names will be nearly impossible. I am not aware how such name changing has played any role in the making or de-making of any of these Ivy League schools as internationally acknowledged citadels of learning. I am also not aware how name change has affected our own University of Ife whose name was changed to Obafemi Awolowo University. Why should UNILAG be an exception, after all, the name UNILAG lacks any known or written about historical substance that should make it perpetual? Our case must be intellectually engaging, historically situated and not merely romanticized.

If there is a need not to change UNILAG’s name, I suppose, we should take the issue beyond simplistic arguments such as oruko nro o- name has implications for a person’s behavior- and UNILAG is a brand name? Bringing in an argument such as oruko nro omo shows how the university has lost some of the sparks that earned it, its now faded glory. It shows how quality staff remains a critical issue that our university must address as one of its lost values.

Predicating our dissenting voices on the logic “UNILAG is a brand” also makes me wonder what our scholars of old glories and Akokites think of what a university is? What is a brand and how relevant is that to the academia? A brand name sustained by its quality or past glories? Academic institutions should not be described by or seek to define their existence based on a loosely deployed term such as UNILAG is a brand name. Such usage of the word signifies how the place of our university’s core values has been taken over by marketing philosophy or those elements that indicate the core presence of commodification of education as the driving force of the academia. Such argument amounts to indirectly admit that we have lost hold of the core values- quality and dedicated staff, quality students and enabling learning environment- that earn UNILAG its identity as one the nation’s best. Better said, we seem to be telling the world that with our university’s name change to MAUL, our weakness as a university that is living on its past glories will be exposed. We seem to be telling the world that we cannot get there again because we have lost those core values that once got us there.

UNILAG’s stakeholders (now MAUL’s stakeholders) should look inward may be our university’s place of pride has been outlived. We should reflect whether what sustains a university is the name or quality of what it produces?. Students should reflect whether they have demonstrated against mere paper holders that the university has been producing over the years. Ex-Akokites should reflect whether they are satisfied with the quality of the university that gave them a not a too good education and whether they want that changed?

In conclusion, it is my view that what should not change are the core values that drove us to greatness. If our core values are being threatened, it is worth bringing down the heavens to make our case. When we lost those values, nobody grieved. Now, we are grieving because we lost just a name whose existence in the first instance was not informed by any veritable logic. Dissenting voices may want to tell us why UNILAG in the first instance and why the name may not change. This is the time to reflect and not emotionalize our already battered future.

Adebiyi Jelili Abudugana was a former UNILAG student leader.

* It should be pointed out I have deliberately refused to look into the legality of the name change for two reasons. I am not a learned fellow, so I will await a competent court of the land to pronounce on the legality or otherwise of the decision. Secondly, it amounts to fooling myself that GEJ who neither respected or honored his party’s constitution nor an agreement to which he was a signatory will honor due process. In my view, until he mends his ways, GEJ remains a personality without honor.

-

Approbatory and disapprobative voices have trailed the Central Bank of Nigeria’s (CBN) decision to implement Non-Interest Islamic Banking (NIB) in the country, a package, whose initiative, framework, process leading to its formation and approval in principle date back to the reign of Sanusi’s predecessor, Professor Chukwuma Soludo. Granted that those discommendating the introduction of IB have raised issues of diverse hues, aimed at achieving a common end, this article explores the contours of their perspectival formulations and seeks an objective excogitation of what the IB’s content is, in the eyes of history, world religions and state affairs. Before venturing into the heart of this piece, it appears logical to first delineate and explore the topography and hues of the disapprobative comments.

Topography of the NIB Disapprobative Contestations

Generally, the denunciating voices may be classified into two streams- institutional and personal. The institutional includes objections raised by and through religious groups, newspaper editorials, professional bodies, religious NGOs, and human rights groups; the personal embraces statements issued by individuals of diverse shades and affiliations- professional, religion and ideological.

The fear or rationale underlying the reprobation expressed by a section of the Nigerian organized religious groups is best captured in a yet to be rebutted statement issued in the name of Christian Association of Nigeria by Archbishop God-DoWell Awomakpa. The Archbishop stated, “it has become increasingly obvious that the Islamic community has stepped up its determination to totally Islamise Nigeria as a nation. This observation is clear from the ongoing efforts to establish Islamic banking in Nigeria through the instrumentality of the Central Bank Governor, Malam Lamido Sanusi.” Deducible from this religious objection is that the introduction of NIB- Islamic Banking (IB)- amounts to subverting the proclaimed secular foundation on which Nigeria subsists as a nation-state. It also suggests that NIB is to CAN, an Islamicizing package through which what it considers a partially Islamized Nigeria would be completely Islamicized. One may also contend that established Christian religious organizations are worried that this might lead to suppression of the Nigerian Christian’s economic and political interests. Little wonder, the fearless and Anthony Cardinal Olubunmi Okogie, a former CAN president and Prince of the Catholic Church proclaimed, “we condemn such moves in all ramifications.”  We are against the operation of Islamic banking in Nigeria because we see it as another deliberate move to subjugate Christians in Nigeria, Okogie adds.

Although fragments of religious undertone appear to underlie repudiatory reservations expressed through newspaper editorials, one must add that like those articulated by human rights groups, such claims seem to be based on constitutional related matters. Evidential basis for this contention appears perceptible in the June 8, 2011 Guardian Newspaper editorial where it was submitted that, “focus on sharia principles was so total” in the NIB formulation, “that any serious reading of the guidelines makes anyone (not necessarily a stickler for sharia) to wonder if it was not an oversight, nay, “haram (abomination)” that rules purportedly offering sharia-compliant financial solutions could be left to apparent non-Moslems to sign in the first place.”  Similar theme featured in the 30 June 2011 editorial of The Sun Newspaper where it was argued that, “though Islamic banking is said to have some benefits that will appeal to Muslims, those who feel uneasy about the idea of a religious bank also have genuine fears.” A more religiously gravitating theme surfaced in the 4 July 2011 editorial of Nigerian Tribune wherein it was submitted that, “the initial guidelines issued by the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN), on the incorporation of the Islamic Banking Institution, we observe, contained a lot of religious connotations, which are visibly anathema to the constitutional secularity of the country. It was further argued, “even the expunction of the troubling aspects of the guidelines has not totally removed the anxiety of some Nigerians as to the ulterior motives of this Islamic banking project”.

Reservations expressed by professionals and cooperate entities most of whom who spoke under the aegis of Apostles in the Market Place (AiMP), a network of Christian professionals and leaders mainly were mainly on the impermissibility or otherwise of NIB within the provisions of Banks and Other Financial Institutions Acts (BOFIA). Eghes Eyiegen’s (Pharez Consulting CEO) statement which reads, “it is not about religion, it is about the law and professionalism. , You cannot use a small provision in the BOFIA that gives you the power to regulate, to now begin to legislate" authenticates the fore-stated. By further echoing that, “CBN cannot use a guideline to change the law, the CBN is not the National Assembly. If Islamic banking must happen, the CBN should send a draft bill to the National Assembly.” Eyiegen adds legislative dimension as a procedural requirement to the body of argument articulated by those in this quarter.

It appears as well that behind the objections raised by the above group is religious interest, a feature which is in evident in both the communiqué issued by AiMP and in Eyiegen’s remark which reads, “CBN has shown inordinate passion. Those that are worried about the sharia agenda have real reason to be worried. You cannot use a small omission in BOFIA that gives you the power to regulate to begin to legislate. This is not about religion. It is about the law; it is about professionalism”. By insisting that Non-Interest Banking products must be sharia compliant, the CBN has unjustly excluded non-Muslim Nigerians from engaging in Non-Interest banking business,' AiMP Network stated. Section 16 1(d) of 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended) which states that “without prejudice to the right of any person to participate in areas of the economy within the major sector of the economy, protect the right of every citizen to engage in any economic activities outside the major sectors of the economy” was used by AiMP to buttress its claim. Of note is the part of AiMP communiqué entitled, “'Re-purposing Capital: Non- Interest Banking in Nigeria “ which reads “by its earlier interpretation of NIFI, the central bank has not only introduced Religion into banking but also added clauses that contravene the Nigerian constitution”.

Dominantly, varying tones of personal objections expressed by people of different shades appear to reflect in the remark credited to Mr. Mohammed Fawehinmi, who is struggling to step into the shoes of his father, Gani Fawehinmi, the late legal icon The NIB, the younger Fawehinmi avers, “will wreck our economy and destroy our global financial status as a rich nation.” Mohammed  who argues that “Sanusi is carrying out these powers without supervision from the executive and legislature” also wonders, “what is the relevance of non-interest banking to Nigeria now? Of what benefit is it to our economy?”. Like Ogogie, who curiously speculates, “what will happen if Christians wake up tomorrow and say they want to start a Christian Banking scheme and traditional religion practitioners decide to do likewise” the eldest son of Gani Fawehinmi also ponders, “If the Muslims claim they are entitled to Islamic banking, the Christian lay claim to the fact that they are entitled to Christianic banking and the traditional practitioners want traditionalistic banking or Ifa banking or Okija banking, should the CBN readily agree or grant licences to such banks” ?

Granted that a modest overview of the attributive outlook of the disputing voices have been outlined, against the backdrop of what the NIB and the introduction of IB is projected to be by the disputing voices, the NIB/IB would be examined in relation to its conception by the CBN and what it has been in the eyes of history, world religions and present contemporary world affairs.

NIB/IB through the Eyes of Time

Underlying NIB generally and what is now referred to as IB in some quarters is a non-interest transaction model which, dissimilar the now prevalent Conventional Banking (CB) or transaction model, is non-interest and equity based. As suggests historical facts, Non-Interest or Non-Usury Transaction (NIT/NUT) owes its origin to different religious practices and it operates on the philosophical tenets of moral, just, equitable, legal, and ethical considerations that guarantee that nobody’s interest is short-changed in any economic transaction. Suffices it to define at this point, interest (usury) as what is earned without doing anything, exchanging items of no equal values, and as a loan with excess of benefit. In other words, interest means reaping what is not sown. As observes Wayne A.N. Viser and Alastair Mclntosh (1998, 176), in Indian/Indus religious tradition, usury (interest) is treated in demeaning manner, as it is in Buddhism where, duplicity is used in connoting those who engage in usury.

In the Jewish religious tradition, interest which is depicted by the Hebrew word isneshekh is as shown in Yoreh De’ah- a section of Jewish Law (halakha)- to be prohibited,. In the halakha that was compiled by Rabbi Jacob ben Asher, it is written that, “it is forbidden to participate in any way in an interest-bearing loan made by one Jew to another (160:1-3), but it is permitted to lend money to a non-Jew at interest (159:1-3). It must be highlighted that a sort of double-standard is evident in the Jewish context since what is considered immoral and illegitimate in a Jew-Jew relation, is, in the context of a Jew-non-Jew relation, allowed.

While defining and discussing usury, St Augustine (354-430), who is considered as one of the important figures in the history of Christianity made a doctrinally founded submission which reads, “if you lend your money to  a man from whom you you expect more than you give him, not money alone, but anything else, whether it be wheat, wine, oil or any other article, if you expect to receive any more than you give, you are an usurer and in that respect, reprehensible, not praise worthy” (Quoted in  Rev J.O’Callaghan, Usury or Interest, 1-2). The theological explanation offered by St. Augustine seems to be validated by various sections of the Christian Holy Book such as:“Do not charge your brother interest, whether on money or food or anything else that may earn interest” (Deuteronomy 23:19); “Do not take interest of any kind  from him, but fear your God, so that your countryman may continue to live among you” (Leviticus 25:36); “If you lend money to one of my people among you who is needy, do not be like a moneylender; charge him no interest” (Exodus 22:25). Expositing further on the theological implications of these verses and other usury related ones in the Bible, St. Ambrose warns, “, hear what the law says: you shall not, it says, receive the usury of food, nor of anything else: the victuals is usury, the cloth is usury and whatever is added to the principal is usury, whatever name you give it, it is usury. He furthers, “some imagine that usury obtains in money only, but the Scripture foreseeing that, has exploded every increase, so that you cannot receive more than you give.” He adds, “others likewise have the habit of receiving gifts of various descriptions for the usurious loan, not understanding that the Scripture call usury and also increase, whatever it be, if they receive anything more than they had given (Qouted in Rev J.O’Callaghan, 2). In Ezekiel 18:8, it is written that, “He does not lend at usury or take excessive interest. He withholds his hand from doing wrong and judges fairly between man and man.” Going by this specific Biblical provision and other related ones, any interest-based transaction, is by Christian doctrine, an act of injustice against man. The Bible also notes that usury is one of the detestable things that makes a man,  “,  surely be put to death and his blood will be on his own head”(Ezekiel 18:10-13).

Also, usury which occupies a central place in the Christian doctrine was one of the reasons why Christians had a conflictual relation with the Jews. Accordingly, in his article entitled, “Some Aspects of Medieval European Jewish-Christian Relations,” John Protevi observes, “three things inflamed medieval Christians about the neighbour Jews: that they lent money at interest (usury); that they were responsible for the death of Christ; that they sacrificed Christian children.” One is least surprised that both in the fourth and sixth century AD, interest, was as observed Viser and Mclntosh (1998, 178), respectively prohibited to be taken by the clergy and laity.

In what appears to be actions taken in line with the spirit of the above noted Christian doctrinal provisions and theological fundamental, interest-based transactions were, respectively in the 8th  and 12th Century AD, declared criminal offence by Charlemagne and its secular legislation voided by Pope Clement V (Viser and Mclntosh, 178; Birnie, 1952).

Usury (ribba), as indicates various Qur’anic verses, is prohibited in the Muslim doctrine as well. While the Islamic creed permits trading, it is further  stated in the Muslim primary frame of reference, the Qur’an, that, usury is not only unlike trade, but also, an act which that amounts to injustice against man and disobedience to God. Accordingly, it is said, “those who swallow usury will not stand except as stands one whom Satan by his touch as driven to madness. That is because they say: Trade is just like usury; whereas Allah permitted trading and forbidden usury. He unto whom an admonition from his Lord cometh, and (he) refrained (in obedience thereto), he shall keep (the profits of) that which is past, and his affair (henceforth) is with Allah. As for him who returned (to usury) - Such are rightful owners of the Fire. They will abide therein (Quran 2:275); “By dealing in usury, you are at war with Allah and His Apostle. If you turn back from usury you shall have your capital sums. Deal not unjustly and you will not be dealt with unjustly (Quran 2:279). In what qualifies for how extensively the Islamic creed addresses the issue of usury, all parties involved in usurious transaction , are all alike [in guilt]." (Muslim, Kitab al-Musaqat, Bab la'ni akili al-riba wa mu'kilihi; also in Tirmidhi and Musnad Ahmad).

Based on Islamic doctrinal injunctions, it evolved over time, Islamic Economic Thought (IET) and what is now referred to as IB- a nomenclature which meets with my objection. As periodized Azim Islahi, a Professor of Islamic Economics, the evolution of IET started from 11AH/632AD, a period, during IET was purely based on “Islam’s internal sources.” As further observes Islahi, from 100AH/718AD onward, through various forms of contributions, the IET underwent series of philosophically and intellectually enriching developments, before it experienced stagnation between 10- 11AH/16- 17AD. As further documented Islahi, it was in 14 AD/20AH that the IET modern phase begun, hence, providing alternative economic model in a world community that is largely influenced by capitalist economic and political philosophy. It is within this milieu that one may partly explain why NIB/IB is an alternative banking that is being embraced in different parts of the world, Europe and America inclusive. There is no such evidence, at least to the best of my knowledge, that there exists any well developed NIB model or economic thought as it is with the IET and IB. Why the embrace? a discerning mind might want to know.

A number of reasons are responsible for this embrace.  Illustration that is based on some of the modes of financing under the IB will be used in showcasing the reason for the embrace so that the intended points would be lucidly understood. There is under the IB, a package known as murabaha which is based on sales contract. It is a sales transaction in which an IB is approached by someone who wants a commodity procured on his behalf.  Here, there are two buyers, one of which is also a seller.  Upon procuring the commodity, the bank would inform the prospective purchaser and provide him/her with the actual amount that the commodity was obtained. Given that the transaction in IB is trade-based, the bank and the prospective purchaser would negotiate the selling price and the payment pattern. Since the money used in financing this transaction by the bank would be obtained through mudaraba, (another Islamic finance mode that will be explained subsequently) the bank would share the profit made on such transaction with the depositors/investors based on a ratio that had been mutually agreed upon by the bank and investor/depositor. Throughout the payment period, no increment in the selling price will take place as there is no room for charging interest. The refusal of the buyer to procure the commodity from the bank (selling entity) might though lead to the former being blacklisted; the risk is bore by the bank alone. This is a sort of capital/ trade financing. Unexplainable delay associated with the payment arrangement would require the defaulting purchaser to make charitable donations and not to pay any amount to the bank’s covers, hence, the enormous contribution to societal development. This is not the case with its equivalent in CB financing model in which regardless of the circumstances warranting the delay in payment, not only does interest (which is known to fluctuate) accrues and accumulates, the interest which is  also capitalized would be to the benefit of the bank and not the society. Again, unlike the case of CB whereby a defaulter’s collateral would be sold regardless of its value and the proceed pocketed by the lending bank alone, in a mudaraba, if the situation warrants recovering the bank’s due through the sales of the collateral, excess made from it would be returned to the purchaser. Note also be taken that what the Islamic bank would deduct from the sold collateral would be the outstanding amount yet to be paid by the defaulter.

By contrasting the advantages which mudaraba offers a client with Okogie’s statement which reads, “we are against the operation of Islamic banking in Nigeria because we see it as another deliberate move to subjugate Christians in Nigeria” it is obvious that rather than subjugate, the IB liberates bails out clients who could be Muslims or non-Muslims by bearing risk alone, such which is not the case with CB which is been promoted by Okogie. Granted that profit and liabilities are shared in a murabaha-mudaraba arrangement as explained above, such, which is not the case with the CB, the IB qualifies as a potent tool of equitable economic empowerment for client, hence, invalidating Okogie’s claim that it is a tool of subjugation. Also, by alluding that IB is another deliberate move to subjugate Christians in Nigeria, it is only appropriate to interpret this as implying that, while the IB packages would empower Muslims, it would subdue Christians economically and politically. Another contextual reading of this statement is that it suggests that only Muslims will be allowed investment or admitted as a client in an IB operation. The statement also qualifies as an acceptance of the capacity of IB to empower, since, the effect of what subjugates someone is that, it would lead to the empowerment/benefits of the other. However, a look at the operational policy of the Islamic Bank of Britain (IBB) suggests otherwise. While responding to the question, “from which sections of the Muslim community in the UK do you expect to get your customers,” it was stated by the IBB that, “Our proposition is one that should appeal to all branches of the Muslim community, but we do not believe our customers will be exclusively drawn from the Muslim community. Our policy of ethical investment means that we hope and expect to attract a wider range of customers, based on the values within our business and attractiveness of the proposition.” Evident from this is that no religious restriction that is placed on who can patronize Islamic Banks or can access packages offered by the IB, subject to its operational philosophy. The response also suggests that a Muslim as well as a non-Muslim might, based on any reason whatsoever, opts to bank with a conventional bank that charges interest, yet, no offence would be considered committed.

Also, while also responding to the question, “can non-Muslims bank with OCBC al-Amin?” this Islamic Bank responded, “most certainly! A common misconception is that Islamic banking is meant only for Muslims. This is far from the truth. While Islamic banking is based on Shariah principles it remains open to all, and has been widely accepted by people from various walks of life.” Syed Abdull Aziz Syed Kechik, the Chief Executive of  OCBC al-Amin went further to state that, “Islamic banking is getting a firmer foothold in the market right now and it has attracted not just Muslims but also non-Muslims not just in Malaysia but in the other parts of the world as well.” He was reported to have also said, “non-Muslims now make up half of the bank’s Islamic banking customers” (Reuters; Business Times, 1 December, 2008).

Therefore, operations of IB cannot in the Nigerian context be restricted to the benefits of Muslim alone, more so that JAIZ Bank, one of the two banks licensed by the CBN to operate IB has non-Muslim investors. On the strength of the argument and evidence advanced thus far, rather than being a logically grounded and well intended criticism, Okogie’s objecting statement- we are against the operation of Islamic banking in Nigeria because we see it as another deliberate move to subjugate Christians in Nigeria- may be considered a sensationalist vituperation aimed at pitching Nigerian Christians against Nigerian Muslims. Since there is no such evidence or complains that IB has been subjugating or subjugated non-Muslims, and, further that, under the NIB/IB, it is forbidden to deal unjustly with Muslims and Non-Muslims, and also that, there is no evidence which contends otherwise, Okogie’s melodramatic outburst should be dismissed as a mere propagandeering of ignorance and othernizingly inspired libellous sentiment.

Given that usury is in Islamic and Christian doctrinal decrees on condemned as an act of grave immorality which is not only adversative to human dignity, but also as an ignoble act that earns man the wrath of God, then, Archbishop Avwomakpa’s remark which reads, “the church is aware of the dangers that this issue is going to cause and we are not going to compromise our faith as Christians. Nigeria belongs to all of us and we are saying 'No' to Islamization of Nigeria" may be considered a doctrinal perfidy and an injustice to the truism of what NIB/IB is to the creed of Muslims and Christians.  Also, since IB which is in operation in secular states like the United State, United Kingdom, Singapore, Malaysia, and other places where IB is being practiced, has never been an instrument of conversation, it amounts to saying the obvious that the Nigerian context cannot be an exception. Therefore, CAN’s assertion that the establishment of IB in Nigeria is an Islamizing religious plot by Muslims falls of any rational and establishable justification. While it may be easier to use education as a tool of conversion as it was the case with Christian missionary schools in Nigeria, same cannot be said of IB/NIB operated by Muslims or Non-Muslims. While commenting on this in one his books, A.D Ajilola rightly narrated that admission into missionary schools in the early part of pre and post-colonial Nigeria history was, “conditioned on accepting Christianity.” Part of the conditions for enrolment was then the change of one’s Muslim name to a Christian one and as submitted the late educationist, Babs Fafunwa, “their main objective was to use school as a tool of conversion.”  It may be that CAN is afraid that how Christianity had used education as instrument of conversation in Nigeria, same might be done through the window of IB. In this instance, such apprehension, one might contend, is based not what the IB is, rather, on the unjust contextualization and rendition of IB in the light of how the colonialist collaborated with the missionaries in using education as a tool of conversation.

Since trading in usury, gambling, speculation, unjust enrichment, or exploitation/unfair trade practices are decried in Christianity, IB, whose inherent operational policy is premised on this, would assist non-Muslims and Muslims to live in consonance with the dictates of their religion.  Therefore, as opposed to Most Rev. Nicholas Okoh’s (Primate of the Anglican Communion’s (Nigeria) contention that, “In 10 years from now,” IB  “will have grown and matured to what it is intended to be - a religious oppressive instrument and tool for social coercion of the poor to convert to Islam,” the IB would have enabled Muslims and Christians discover alternative channels through which they can live to the true teachings of their faith without  amazing wealth through the prevalent suppressive usurious conventional model.

This said, it seems that one of the unseen factors that might be responsible for the lurid explosion of CAN leaders could be as a result of removal of some banks Managing Directors (MDs) on the grounds of alleged fraudulent abuse of public trust, one of which had been establishment in a competent court in the land.  In what seems to validate this contention, Archbishop God-do-well Avwomakpa declared in the name of CAN that, “it is so disheartening that the removal of competitive and influential banks’ managing directors has culminated in the establishment of Islamic banking in Nigeria.” Avwomakpa furthers, "this is a huge surprise to Nigerians who thought that the CBN governor was overhauling the banking system for effective and efficient banking.” Obviously one of the influential banks being referred to was Oceanic Bank whose erstwhile (MD), Mrs. Cecilia Ibru, who was removed under the Sanusi-led CBN. After a thorough investigation of the circumstances under which Mrs. Cecilia Ibru was removed, Chief Judge of the Federal High Court, Justice Dan Abutu, who found her guilty of high-scale fraud and security offences,  convicted and sentenced Cecilia Ibru to 18-month imprisonment. The convicted criminal, Cecilia Ibru, who had since served her jail term of a three-count charge which ran in sync forfeited assorted list of fraudulently acquired assets valued at N191 billion. Therefore, rather than attributing the conviction of Cecillia Ibru, a deaconess, and sacking of thieving bank MDs as a pre-designed agenda that culminated into the establishment of Islamic banking in Nigeria, the Sanusi-led CBN should be commended for making the bold effort which salvaged the Nigerian banking institution from plummeting. If men of God and religious bodies that are expected to be Apostles of justice, accountability and equity are using established case of fraud to discredit IB’s introduction in Nigeria, one is tempted to think that the thieving bank MDs and such religious entities and individuals are comrades in treachery. Could any of such thieving bank MDs’be considered under any religious and ethical considerations as “competitive and influential banks’ managing directors”? This leads one to any reason why some religious leaders might be against the introduction of IB in Nigeria.

There is a probability that some of these religious leaders, financiers of their ministerial activities or members of their congregation have a large stake in the conventional banks. It may be assumed that these religious leaders are under pressure that a high possibility exists that IB will gain large acceptance in Nigeria, hence, making the conventional banks where they have stakes to lose their a large part of their customer base. Therefore, the dreaded anticipated consequential effects such might have on their financial interests. It is therefore naturally expected that  to forestall such a development, a grand conspiratory design needs be worked out to use the instrument of established religious or religiously skewed institutions and their leadership hierarchies in staging agitations aimed at stopping the introduction of IB.  This submission appears to find a locus in AiMP and Eyiegen’s remark which reads, “, those that are worried about the sharia agenda have real reason to be worried.” It is noteworthy that the same AiMP, an association of Christian professionals and leaders in the market also challenged the legality of CBN to use what it calls, “a small provision in the BOFIA” in providing framework leading to the setting up of IB. One would have expected that as experts who are self-acclaimed leaders in the market, they should have been aware of the various or similar roles exercised by the CBN in the past, which in any case, never gave birth to legal complications or outbursts from such quarters. A salient observation that reinforces this take was raised by Uche Ezechukwu in his article that is entitled, “Who is Afraid of Islamic Banking?” Ezechukwu argues, “and why has the CBN which has exercised the responsibility to regulate and provide guidelines for all other forms of banking operations: commercial, merchant, community, micro, mortgage, etc, in the past, should now become culpable because it also produced guidelines for the establishment and operation of the Islamic interest-free banking system, which is another banking format? For even when those banks take off, it is not likely they would have the word “Islamic” prefixed to their names. And even if they did, would it not be similar to the many businesses owned by the different faith-based organisations”?. Ezechukwu proceeds to offer a more compelling argument by positing that, “the ownership of banks like other businesses, as schools, is totally deregulated but run under set-down guidelines by the relevant laws and regulations.” Many Christian-based organisations have applied for and were licensed by the appropriate authorities to run schools and universities, Ezechukwu adds. He furthers “even though these academic institutions have the greater capacity of influencing those who pass through their portals, their existence or sectarian ownership has never been challenged by any quarters – Christian or Muslim.” The universities and colleges throw their gates open to all those who agree to abide by their ordinances and prescriptions as nobody is, ab initio, never coerced into enrolling into them, Ezechukwu concludes.

The inherent logic in Ezechukwu’s stream of thought seems to offer appropriate response to Mr. Mohammed Fawehinmi’s allegation that “Sanusi is carrying out these powers without supervision from the executive and legislature.” Mohammed Fawehinmi might need to follow the footstep of his father to prove his point by grounding his argument on compelling constitutional facts which invalidate  the opinion of the legal icons who held that the CBN’s action is in line Section 39 (1) of BOFIA stipulates that “written consent of the CBN governor”, the CBN governor has every right to give consent to any bank that intends to be registered or incorporated with a name, which includes the words “Central” “Federal,” “Federation,” “National”, “Nigeria”, “Reserve”, “State”, Christian”, “Islamic”, “Moslem”, “Quaranic”, “Biblical,” nd other established provisions guiding its activities which include  “Section 28 (1)(b) of the CBN Act 2007 and the Sections 55(2); 52; 59(1)(a); 32(1); 61; 23(1)”.

However, it must be unmistakably pointed out that by rightly observing that CBN’s insistence that NIB products must be sharia compliant, amounts to excluding forecloses door to other forms of NIB, AiMP deserves commendation. But, is it not commonsensical that any of such known other forms of NIB that are presently in practice be articulated? AiMP’s observation was based on the initial guideline which defined NIB as “a bank or Other Financial Institution (OFI) under the purview of the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN), which transacts banking business, engages in trading, investment and commercial activities as well as the provision of financial products and services in accordance with Shariah principles and rules of Islamic commercial jurisprudence.”  As pointed out by Nsikak Ubok Udom in his article entitled, “The Islamic Banking Debate” the draft of the regulatory framework which contained this was prepared under the able leadership of Sanusi’s predecessor, Prof. Charles Soludo. Since, it was under the highly respected Soludo, a Christian, that this document was drafted, it apperas ethno-doctrinally wrong for a CAN leader, Archbishop Avwomakpa to accuse Sanusi of pursuing “a hidden agenda” and directing the affairs of CBN as if it  “belong to one religion.” In the revised version of the draft document quoted earlier, “in accordance with any established non-interest banking principles” had been replaced with “in accordance with Shariah principles and rules of Islamic commercial jurisprudence”.

Could it be true that as alleged Mohammed Fawehinmi, the NIB “will wreck our economy and destroy our global financial status as a rich nation?” To start with,  it essential to point out that a country whose masses, Mohammed’s late father (Gani Fawehinmi) describe to have been “groaning in unprecedented poverty” and whose “decadent socio-economic situation” Gani Fawehinmi contends, “does not engender the well-being of ordinary people” cannot by any index of economic analysis or logically premised exposition be ranked among the world rich nation. That 138.6 million Nigerians are living below poverty level (Tim Prewitt, USAID, 2009), unmistakably, this indicates that Nigeria better ranks as one of the world poorest nations. The prostrate state of the Nigerian economy would warrant that any sane minded person to be in the look for ameliorating alternatives, through which they could be addressed, the contributory factors for the appalling state of affairs in Nigeria. It was this conviction that probably made Mohammed’s father to have once suggested, "a system that has worsened the plight of workers must not be embraced by the workers. For once, the workers should take a new direction socio-economically opposed to the present direction which has led them to the abyss of discomfort" (Gani's Book of Quotations Vol. 1 compiled by Richard Akinnola). In other to seek new alternatives as suggested the distinctly revered Gani Fawehinmi, it is not only essential that alternative approach be sought, I add, such alternative approach searching effort must be a multidimensional one which takes into cognizance and finds out, variants of the contributory factors that have rendered our situation abysmal. Premised on this, I proceed to contend that the understanding of our problems which could be internally and externally understood would require finding alternatives or solutions to the various variants of the causative factors of our political, economic, educational and infrastructural problems. Given that our discourse focus is on economic related matter, hence, attention would be not only on this aspect, but also, in limitation to Mohammed Fawehinmi’s question, “what is the relevance of non-interest banking to Nigeria now”?   

One of the ways we can understand the relevance of NIB to Nigeria is to understand what Interest-Based Banking (IBB) operation means to any economy. To achieve this objective, it is only apt to seek the understanding of what interest (usury) is, because, what the heart is, to a living man, is what interest is, to IBB. In the earlier part of this piece, interest was described as an unearned income. In this sense, interest becomes an instrument of socio-economic suppression, as such; one might contend usury to be antithetical to the rules of nature. In what passes for a corroboration of this argument, Aristotle, the great Greek sage posits, “, the mode of reaping money by money is justly to be reproached as being inconsistent with nature.” The great philosopher furthers, “some people engage in base practices such as usurers, who give little in order to receive more; their gain is sordid, unjust and base; their ungenerous money transactions are rapine” (Quoted in Usury and Interest, 4). By giving little to receive more, then, it means, the giver of an usurious loan would be living at the expense of an usurious loan receiver, hence, a situation which qualifies for the exploitation of advantaged by the disadvantaged. In turn, this would lead to inequitable distribution of wealth, hence, paving way for economic instability. This exemplifies what interest is to IBB and it takes no extra effort to contextualize this within the moribund state of affairs in Nigeria.  Therefore, an alternative to the inherent dangers in IBB, is the NIB as a whole, and IB in specific- the only variant of NIB that is well developed and globally recognized. The effects of NIB, are, inherently, the exact opposites of those of the IBB, hence, indicating that NIB/IB would inherently fosters equitable economic empowerment, wealth distribution and inhibits the exploration of the disadvantaged by the advantaged.

Concluding Remarks

On the strength of the argument advanced so far, it may be concluded that the disapprobative voices that have trailed the introduction of IB have not been based on what the IB is, rather, on the othernizing spirit of subjectivism. Reasons have been advanced why IB cannot be tenably argued as an Islamizing tool or suppressive mechanism that would better the lot of one at the expense of the other. Attention would however be focused in my next write up on what the IB is in reality and what it has been in practice. In this piece a number of points which argue that, granted the foundation upon which IB is to be built and operated on in Nigeria, it would be difficult for it to operate on non-interest basis. Other salient issues such as inter-bank operations/ lending, fractional ratio and competent human resources as bane of IB in Nigeria would be looked into and a position advanced, why in my opinion, what might be in operation in Nigeria, as it has been the case in some places, might after-all, neither be qualified to be called an IB, a terminology which I strongly object, nor, be in consonance with the spirit which gives IB its uniqueness as a tool of a transparent, ethical, just, and equitable wealth creation and distribution.



Adebiyi Jelili Abudugana, the author of this article, a former UNILAG Student Union leader can be reached through abudugana2000@yahoo.com

A spectre is haunting our fatherland. What a spectre!, that is occasioned by the palpable atmosphere of discontent, feelings of dispossession, sense of abandonment and ignominy of existence writ large in our land. Horror-struck and appallingly exasperated that in a land flowing with milk and honey, 3-daily square meal and decent living are luxuries which only few can afford, the economically dispossessed and pauperized people of the land felt decimated by the powerful few who have made the common resources of the land their exclusive reserve.

Realizing that they have been blatantly socio-politically manipulated and short-changed by the powerful few who steal their resources and votes, who use ethnicity and religion to divide their ranks and yet still their voices; people of the land are increasingly incensed and alarmed that their destinies have been annihilated and pride, wickedly encroached.

Sickened that qualitative education is now outside their means and that what is left for them as a means of intellectual empowerment is a miserable educational system which produces wretched pundits and spineless literates who are considered and pronounced by the few privileged class and employers of labour as unemployable, the people of the land are more than ever, psychologically dispirited.
Upon further recognizing that the few who have maliciously cornered their destinies have improvised alternative well-funded educational system that serve their needs and that the collective resources of the land are being used in providing first-class foreign education for the children of the privileged class, the people of the land feel dolorously humanly violated and exterminatedly condescended to agonizing generational vicious cycle of a repressed class whose fate and those of their children will be perpetually exploited.

Appalled by the absolute collapse of their public health sector, traumatized that their roads are easy access to death, dismayed that lawlessness and the culture of impunity are the order of the day, and disconcerted that all economic resources of the land have been sold into the private imperious domain of the few privileged class, people of the land are exasperatingly bored and mystified with the worthlessness of their daily lives.

Albeit all these, people of the land still unwaveringly nurse a hope of a better tomorrow. Alas, this hope of a better tomorrow fades with every passing seconds and dissolves into the fogginess of uncertainty. Hence, people of the land, both in the North and in the South, East and the West are now wallowing in mounting and interminable anguish of sorrow, a debilitating dilemma which has exacerbated the menacing spectre of hopelessness and the ominous clouds of haplessness and tribulations in the land. The decimating consequences of which have necessitated the expedient hunt for change- a reversal of the tide.

What do we do?, where do we go?, and from who do we seek change, the tithedly repressed people of the land are asking themselves? In search for clues, the repressed people of the land increasingly became religious, only to realize that the more religiously disposed they become, the more hapless their plights deepen. Are we abandoned by God?, or Could it be that God will help only those who help themselves?, the people of the land are wondering. Why struggling to find the apposite answers to these vexing questions, the browbeaten people of the land realized that on the front row in their places of devotions are the imperious few who have ostracized their destinies. They are also realized these questionable individuals are hands in gloves with their imams and pastors. With mosques and churches in the land becoming component of the cruel machinery of the ruling class, the people of the land have now realized that since God abhors oppression and injustice, then, God will not accept and aid a supposedly religious people whose religiousity have not thought then that keeping silence in the face of oppression and injustice belies the essence of religion and what God stands for.

Realizing that they are ones who have abandoned the ways of God and disregarded the essence of religion, people of the land have now shifted attention to the second question, “ Could it be that God will only help those who help themselves” by finding out what could they do so as to help themselves? Since the writer of this piece of is a member of this drifting Nigerian community, permit me to suggest a lead in what we need to do to help ourselves. In doing this, could I seek your indulgence to laconically X-ray what landed us in this miserable obdurate situation?

To a large extent, you may want to agree with me that gross leadership irresponsibility is the root of our sticky situation. Continuous disregard for our common good and wanton abuse of our resources for aggrandizing purposes by those leading us resulted into the crisis of mismanagement of our collective resources. In turn, resources mismanagement created the atmosphere of economic incapacitation, hence, the problem of poverty that has been decimating our lives. Since poverty made survival and decent living practically impossible, our people became increasingly desperate and resorted to corrupt and anti-developmental ways of making ends meet. Thus, Corruption became a societal thing which assumed various forms in different aspects of our lives. As the problem of poverty in our land increased, our parental institution started to experience alarming decadence, consequently, the corruption which has nearly ruined it. Accordingly, our land became dominated by deviants and uncultured ones, therefore, the prevailing spate of lawlessness. In effect, the place of peace in our society became substituted by restiveness and insecurity of lives and properties. The cumulative effects of all these, is the spectre of hopelessness that is abound in our land today.

Given that the leadership irresponsibility is the root of our dilemma and that the lack of discipline is the cause of leadership irresponsibility, therefore, one may argue that indiscipline is the root of our predicament. Here seems to lie the beginning of the solution to our problems, therefore, indicating that discipline is that which pinpoints what we need to do, where do we go and from whom do we seek change.

Since we all desire change, a change whose bedrock is discipline, it is only incumbent that while seeking replacement for the moribund status quo, we must first exhibit traces of discipline by jettisoning all elements of parochialism that might hamper the use of our votes to change our destinies. Little wonder, Jim Rohn sagely stated, “discipline is the bridge between goals and accomplishments.” By ignoring this-discipline, we might as stated in the book of Proverbs, 15:32, be despising ourselves because, “He who ignores discipline despises himself.” Since the status quo is what we desire to change, therefore, the incumbent leadership of the country is by implication a choice out of consideration. This has left us with a number of options among which two of them who are leading contestants for the number one seat in the land.

Mallam Nuhu Ribadu, the standard flag bearer of Action Congress of Nigeria (CAN) will be firstly examined. Nuhu is a man whose philosophy of life is what he described as follows, “I have always believed in fighting for what is right. To stand for what is right. To abhor, to detest, to dislike dishonesty. To hate bad people. To disagree with them. And they are so many. I see them all over. I will never agree with such people. This is my own nature. It is your choice to be an armed robber if you like. It’s your choice to be a responsible citizen".

During his reign as the paramount EFCC Czar, Nuhu Ribadu truly lived this dream by doing his possible best to make the country unbearable for the looters of our destinies. Although he was accused of being selective, the fact is that nobody can deny the fact that those who were victims of his anti-corruption crusade never stole or abuse public trust. Ribadu, a determined young man, fought corruption the same way corruption and corrupt ones fought him back.

While those in the PDP accused Ribadu of being used by Obasanjo to cow his enemies within, those in the opposition projected Ribadu as instrument deployed by Obasanjo to make Nigeria a one party state. Tinubu who is now Ribadu’s godfather and financial once dropped this hint sometimes on 28 March, 2010 when he stated that, “I'm not interested in what they are saying, but you cannot perpetually hang the hammer of investigation over my head. It's not fair. It all started from (Nuhu) Ribadu era, from the year 2002 when they attempted to stop me from re-contesting for a second term. 'They didn't succeed. Then, in the following years, they have been talking of Bola Tinubu being under investigation. Each time I aggressively pursue a goal that is anti-establishment position, you find an act of investigation by EFCC or the authority hanging over my head. That continued from 2002 up to year 2007.” Below are some of the ways the victims of Ribadu portrayed and projected the Czar of our time.

While reacting to Ribadu’s allegation of 27 September 2006 on the corruption profile of Tinubu, Dele Alake, Tinubu’s Commissioner of Information declared, “There is no price too high to pay for the advancement of democracy and the expansion of the political stage. This is not the first time that the governor will be hounded, and it is because he is a member of the opposition. He is being pilloried for taking a principled and critical position on crucial national affairs.”- Quoted in Punch Newspaper, 9/28/2006.

Mr. Gboyega Oguntuase, Fayose’s Commissioner for Information, Sports, Culture and Social Development, also accused Ribadu-led EFCC by stating that, “There is no iota of truth in the charges. The EFCC is only representing the interest of opponents of the government.“It is highly shameful. The EFCC is certainly on the side of the political enemies of the government. He who alleges must prove (the allegation). We are waiting for the allegations to be proven.” Quoted in Punch Newspaper, 9/28/2006.

Not left out of this deriding reaction to Ribadu’s claim was Orji Uzor Kalu who through his Special Adviser, Media, Mr. Iyke Ekeoma, pronounced, “We think that this is a total distraction by Nuhu Ribadu and the EFCC because the ongoing allegations of corruption in the Presidency have not been addressed by the EFCC. “Nonetheless, Nuhu Ribadu is not a law court. If there is a clear case, he should go to court. Ours is a rehash of old accusations, and they are bringing it up because our governor has raised a fundamental issue that they have failed to address.” Quoted in Punch Newspaper, 9/28/2006.

The foregoing remarks authenticate our claim on how Ribadu was viewed and projected by members of the looting class within the PDP and inside the “opposition parties.” One may say for doing the right thing, Ribadu was vilified by both members of the ruling PDP and those in the opposition.

For daring to challenge and expose the looters of our destiny, the iron-willed Nuhu escaped the bullets of assassins who obviously were sponsored by the former. He suffered humiliation and was disgraced out of service. Nuhu had no choice but to banish himself to exile in order to secure his life and stage a comeback for another battle of rebuilding the Nigerian image.

While explaining who and what inspired him to be a dogged fighter for a transparent and accountable society, Ribadu posited, “I think the turning point in my life was when I had the experience to do my NYSC with the Special Investigative Panel that Gen. Buhari established in 1984 to try corrupt government officials. That gave me satisfaction. It impacted positively on my life. When I finished my NYSC, I got several job opportunities. But I abandoned all to go for the police, because I felt that would give me the opportunity to do this kind of work I am doing. And it gave me satisfaction. I felt this was where my happiness would be. Do what will give you satisfaction. Ever since I have been happy doing what I am doing."

What a revelation on how a disciplined leadership could inspire and motivate its followership. Were it not for a Buhari-Idiagbon era, Ribadu might have possibly joined one of the multinationals which then were seeking his service and Nigeria could have missed his great service direly. This reminds me of a write up that I read a read long time ago, whose author, one Santos, wrote that, “the word discipline comes from the word 'disciple'. A disciple is one who learns and is constantly aware of his learning. For example, A trainee to a carpenter, learns from a master carpenter how to keep tools clean, how to use tools correctly. If he puts this learning into application, in this particular aspect he is disciplined. If a person is disciplined in a particular aspect, it is very easy to spread the essence of this discipline to the other areas of his life. The importance of discipline is well recognized in every aspect of life.”

One may infer from these words of wisdom that it requires a disciplined man to inspire a disciplined order and inculcate such values in people. To have alluded that he drew his inspiration from the Buhari-Idiagbon’s commitment to eradicating corruption and that it was this that impacted positively on his life and made him what he was as an anti-corruption Czar, one may conclude that Ribadu inherited from these two leaders, virtues of integrity and flashes of discipline. He may be said to be schooled in the school of Buhari-Idiagbonism, a school whereby national agenda was based on the fight against indiscipline.

Proverbially, Ribadu returned to the country after from self-imposed cum situation-compelled exile after a controversial pardon was offered him by Jonathan Goodluck leadership. With his return, Ribadu joined mainstream politic to seek elective post as the Nation’s President under a party financed by Tinubu whom he, Ribadu, had once alleged to be corrupt. Ribadu dreams of changing Nigeria by bringing succor to we, the depressed people of the land, but, at what price? Like most of our people who once desired to change our wretched country and who got trapped in the same mess they were trying to address, our adored Ribadu seems to have be changed by the situation he hopes to change.

Our much-loved Ribadu whose philosophy of life is to “ fighting for what is right. To stand for what is right. To abhor, to detest, to dislike dishonesty. To hate bad people. To disagree with them” and who have declared that “I will never agree with such people,” seems to be violating his avowed principles of life by relying on funds from corrupt politicians to finance his campaign. To our utter chagrin, Ribadu, who vowed never to agree with dishonest people publicly declared, “I will take corrupt politicians money for my campaign as far as the money is not put in my pocket.” If corrupt politician money means money obtained from dishonest means, then, the Ribadu we now know, one may contend, is different from the Ribadu who abhorred dishonesty and who will never see eye-eye with dishonest persons. This raises the crisis of integrity and furthers pinpoints that Ribadu is aware of the source of the fund for his campaign.

At this juncture, the statement which Ribadu issued on 18 February 2007 during an interview with airport correspondents is worth quoting. Ribadu publicly stated on this fateful day, “Tinubu and the rest should consider themselves as very lucky. They ought to have been where Dariye, Fayose, Alamieyeseigha are today. They cannot escape. It is a matter of time. They have the protection of the law. They enjoy immunity. We are after them because they will want to rule us again. The constitution is against indicted people. After their tenure, they will be prosecuted. They remain indicted and are not fit to hold public positions” These people have to answer for their misdeeds instead of giving the impression that they cannot be dealt with” [See Vanguard Newspaper, 02/19/2007 pp. 1 & 15, Punch Newspaper, Mon. Feb. 19, 2007 pages 1&15.]

Ribadu further added, “We know the antics of bad people in this country. They do 419 and commit other forms of fraud and then use democracy as a vehicle to continue with their fraudulent activities. “These people have to answer for their misdeeds instead of giving the impression that they cannot be dealt with’’.

Is it not ironical to note that, during an interview with Eric Osagie of The Sun Newspaper Ribadu declared that “Well, let me tell you, in fact, what is going on in my country today. You know, it is Bola Tinubu they are trying to get at. Whoever is doing that, I just want to look at it as a Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) propaganda. This is an individual who fought PDP and refused to allow PDP to take over Nigeria completely. He stopped them at Lagos gate and he gave chance for the opposition to re-organise themselves and they are coming back to free Nigeria from this unbelievable strangulation of the PDP. He is their number one enemy and they are fighting him tooth and nail, everything. And when I joined the ACN on the basis of a party with so many people, like him who fought for democracy, who fought for democracy and have something to show for it, right from the NADECO days up to this one, fighting PDP is the biggest contribution towards addressing the problems of this country.” [Sun Newspaper, 01/01/2011]. Do I hear you say, personality summersault or lack of discipline. While I may want to agree with you, can we jointly take a look at Tinubu’s response to Ribadu’s statement which was earlier quoted in the second paragraph that preceded this.

Tinubu, through Mr. Kehinde Bamigbetan, the former’s Chief Press Secretary replied Ribadu, “We recall that the President alleged that a former Minister of Housing and Urban Development, Dr. Rahman Mimiko, mismanaged his office and that he would soon send the EFCC after him. We also note that the feeble defence offered by Ribadu in his interview with The Guardian on Sunday is that he cannot control what the President says. ”For us in the opposition, we can see through the hypocrisy behind the so-called anti-corruption crusade.” If this response is reconciled with reactions of other governors to Ribadu’s anti-corruption drive (some of which have been quoted in this article), and the statement of Ribadu quoted in the preceding paragraph, one may say that Ribadu has himself alluded to the fact that his anti-corruption crusade was a mere facade. But I won’t want to totally agree with this position but may possibly agree with a position which contends that Ribadu has been devoured by the reality of change in the Nigerian context. It may also be that just like a character which is not continuously refined or an excellence which is not improved upon from time-to-time expire with time, it may be that the discipline which kept Ribadu going during his golden-days as anti-corruption Czar has expired with time, so, the crisis of integrity and personality summersault that have befallen him of late.

Ribadu seems to be a victim what he describes of corruption in his lecture entitled, “Capital Loss and Corruption: The Example of Nigeria” “as not just a system of bribes and patronage, but the systematic undermining of responsible governance, of visionary leadership, of a society’s ability to meet and overcome challenges.” [Ribadu’s Testimony before the US House Financial Services Committee on May 19, 2009]

Given the veracity of Ribadu’s claim that, “corruption is part of the reason that African nations cannot fight diseases properly, cannot feed their populations, cannot educate their children and use their creativity and energy to open the doorway to the future they deserve,” then, by relying on corrupt politician’s money, based on his postulation, Ribadu is unfit to lead the process of change we are longing for. By relying on stolen wealth or using the philosophy of extrapolating the extrapolated, Ribadu is making us realize how impossible it is for him to get our helpless population well-fed, how impracticable it is for him to get us qualitative and affordable education and why our situation might not change with him as the director of our affairs.

Since Mallam Nuhu Ribadu also sought the endorsement of the self-acclaimed evil genius, Ibrahim Badamosi Babangida (IBB), one may be forced to say time and vicissitudes of corruption has changed our Czarist Ribadu. Was it not the same Ribadu who sometimes in January 2006 during a speech he delivered at the 3rd Media Trust Annual Dialogue in Abuja on the theme "Corruption: The Trouble With Nigeria," declared IBB as the patent originator of institutional corruption in Nigeria. While tracing the history of woes during this lecture Ribadu stated, …Alhaji Shehu Shagari, “had very little to show for the huge investment of confidence of the populace in the new democratic dispensation which as they had promised would lead Nigeria out of the woods […]As it turned out, profligacy came to be what that attempt at civilian governance came to be known and remembered for. Disrespect for the rule of law started to manifest seriously during this period. Of course, there was bare-faced, free-for-all looting of public funds through white elephant projects. This period witnessed the massive erosion of the nation's morals and ethics,…”.

During the administration of Buhari-Idiagbon, he continued, "Public officers accused and convicted for corrupt practices were given as much as five lifetime jail sentences each and all the ill-gotten wealth confiscated. […]

Ribadu however regretted that, “the Buhari-Idiagbon regime's attempts at facing up to the problem, which achieved modest results in the direction of national re-orientation was rubbished by the actions of the subsequent military regimes that governed the country between 1985-1998… Corruption became the sole guiding principle for running affairs of state. The period witnessed a total reversal and destruction of every good thing in the country and positive values were jettisoned, agencies were decimated.The decline we noticed in the education sector today also started in that period. The shameless rot in the aviation sector, the absence of an efficient public transport system, the collapse of our public schools, the thievery in the ports and the decay in our health care delivery system all of which huge sums had been budgeted and spent are a direct reflection of the poverty of leadership of that era. The military regimes of that period legitimized corruption and in effect did not offer much to the Nigerian nation[…] rather than encourage and promote the virtues of accountability, respect for the rule of law and patriotism, the leadership we had destroyed institutions that sustain the growth of society, unleashing on the rest of the people an army of blind loyalists with the explicit instructions to do whatever it will take, or including brazen theft and violence to strengthen their stranglehold on power"

In view of the fact that one of the reasons why we have been taken for granted so far is because of what Ribadu described as "ours is an accepting, not a questioning society,” then, for seeking the use of corrupt politicians for his electioneering campaigns and for seeking the endorsement of the man who institutionalized corruption in Nigeria, we hereby question the integrity of Ribadu, and raises serious doubt about his capabilities to lead us out of woes. If Professor Attahiru Jega’s scholarly statement which reads, “we have corruption as a problem because we have poverty of leadership who have institutionalized corruption in the country" is anything to go by, then, whoever seeks the endorsement or funding of such people may as well be considered as a part of our problems and not of solution finding attempt.

Where then lies our of a secured tomorrow? It seems to me that the answer may be deduced from a relevant saying of Martin Luther King, Jr., “The hope of a secure and livable world lies with disciplined nonconformists who are dedicated to justice, peace and brotherhood.”
Could the desirable man be the person who according to the findings of State Department, Washington, “character traits showcase Buhari's appeal. Nigerian perception of candidates' character traits may help explain support for candidates. Of all , the candidates, Buhari is most frequently associated with integrity, leadership, accountability, honesty and transparency”.

Could the right man be the individual who in a book entitled, “Not My Will” was described by Olusegun Obasajo thus: “General Muhammadu Buhari as a member of the Supreme Military Council and as Head of NNPC was by nature taciturn and introvert. But he took any work that was given to him very seriously. He is reliable as he is hardworking and honest”.

Could it be the man who, according to Vanguard’s Newspaper editorial of 23 January 2003 was described thus: “Buhari is a forthright and very clearly a disciplined man. He has managed to cut the image of a person who abhors corruption genuinely. If Buhari does not want to make a promise, he is the kind of person that will say so. Buhari is likely to pay attention to the problems of the country, unlike Obasanjo who floats in the air and most of the time plays to the gallery”

May be it may possibly be the man was described by Chief Olu Falae as follows: “Buhari has three qualities namely INTERGRITY, which even his worst enemies can't fault; he is CONSISTENT, he does not say one thing in the morning and another at night, and he is COMMITTED to implementing the restructuring of the country. Anyone with these qualities deserves the support of Nigerians”.

It may be the man who Femi Falana expressed thus: “Buhari stands out to be the most DEDICATED and PATRIOTIC leader. We want the President who would confront both the foreign and local enemies of democracy.”

Fellow citizens, the options are yours to decide but I would like to leave you to ponder over what Santos described thus: “The strength of a nation lies in discipline. No nation can progress unless its citizens are disciplined. Nature is the best mirror of perfect discipline to all of us. The earth, the sun, the moon and other planets are governed by certain laws to maintain perfect harmony and beauty. Any deviation from these set rules, will spell an utter disaster in nature.
A family having no discipline becomes a den of quarrels and is ultimately divided. An educational institution having no discipline doesn't impart value based education.”

Adebiyi Jelili Abudugana, the author of this article was a former UNILAG student leader and he can be reached through abudugana2000@yahoo.com. The views expressed in this article are solely that of the author and does not reflect that of Organizations to which I am affiliated.

With the impending elections, Nigerians would be seeking through the present, a future. This endeavour constitutes a change process that requires the use of our understanding of why our yesterday was miserable, moment, obscure, as determinants in seeking the realization of a cheery tomorrow. Given that this implies seeking history (future) through history (past and presence), our ability to achieve the desired- a better tomorrow, is incumbent upon the realization of the fact that the traumatizing moment we are agitatedly seeking its reversal, was once a future whose present bleakness owes to our collective inabilities to use the past that gave birth to it, in shaping its course. It is therefore on the basis of this consideration that this article uses on the one hand, the instrumentality of history, in addressing certain issues constituting moral burden on Jonathan and Dame Patience Goodluck. On the other, Arnold Toynbee’s concept of seeming repetitive patterns in history is used to unearth the fortress on which Jonathan’s presidential ambition is based and what this portends for the change we desire.

Although there is the hidden hand of God in man’s unfolding history, it is man’s activities in and within time that give birth to circumstances which either favour or impede the realization of man’s goals in time. It is also these activities that culminate into man’s today. Since man’s today would tomorrow become a past, then, what man is today, would, all conditions being equal, be determined by his activities of yesterday. This is why man’s today’s deeds-good or bad are parts of his becoming in time and therefore constitutive of how man society evolves in a given time and direction. It therefore becomes incumbent that if man must live a better tomorrow, man must truly remember the past that makes his today what it is, learn from it and use the lessons as yard stick for seeking a better tomorrow. In refusing to do this, man will be unmaking his tomorrow and that of the larger society to which he belongs.

A practical illustration of the above stream of thought may be discerned from a doctor-patient relationship. For a patient to be effectively treated, a doctor would require the former’s previous health/medical experiences and other related pieces of information. If the patient decides to present a distorted information or withhold any of the required information, not only might the doctor’s service be rendered useless, the patient’s health might be endangered or become a burden which might compound existing society’s problem. It is within this prism that the alleged involvement of Jonathan and Dame Patience-Goodluck in a well documented case of money laundering would be re-examined.

As rightly stated by many writers on this issue, on September 11, 2006, Mr. Osita Nwajah, the then EFCC spokesman made a public declaration that a whopping sum of $13.5 million Dollars (US) was seized from Mrs. Patience Jonathan. This was during her husband’s reign as the Governor of Bayelsa State and Nuhu Ribadu’s years as the EFCC Chairman. Before this, there was also a sum of N104 that was reportedly seized by the EFCC from one Mrs Nancy Ebere Nwosu in August 2006, which, as confessed the latter under oath, also belonged to Mrs Jonathan. These money laundering matters, a past that is for the moment presumed to be wrongly associated with Jonathan and his loving wife, Madam Patience, is now widely sensationalized as a ploy aimed at desecrating the persons of Jonathan and Patience. These issues have also also been widely portrayed as fabrication of the political opponents of Jonathan and the PDP.

To establish the innocence of Jonathan and his wife, statements credited to Ribadu were quoted. Accordingly, Ribadu cited as saying, “I never handled a case against Patience Jonathan, never; it’s a lie. You know it is so sad because in our country this is how we go about maligning people. But today thank God I am not in his government. So, I can open up and talk. If I were to say it earlier people would have thought that I was looking for job from President Goodluck Jonathan. I am not looking for anything. But the truth must be told.” (The Nation, September 16, 2010).

To convince the electorates of the veracity of Jonathan and Patience’s incorruptibility, another statement of exoneration reportedly issued as well by Mallam, Nuhu Ribadu had also been quoted. This statement reads, “the case had to do with a lady and a man who lodged huge sums of money in the bank. The EFCC was alerted by the bank and an investigation was carried out. It was found that they legitimately earned the money through contracts executed in the state. All the reports in the media were lies. For instance, it was initially reported that N70 million was lodged into the bank. Later, it was reported that the money ran into millions of dollars. Such was the extent of the lies. We never handled a case against Patience Jonathan.” (Thisday of September 17, 2010).

Since the alleged crime was committed under Mallam Nuhu Ribadu, a man who is believed by many as a trustworthy and steadfast person, one may be tempted to say the case never existed at all or consider the whole issue, a mere ploy by Jonathan’s political adversaries. But, in view of the fact that over reliance on one source is a factor that affects the reliability of historical sources and veracity of an historical claim, one is compelled to seek the use of the historical tool of test of consistency and cross validation with other sources in establishing the veracity of these claims.
During my search for other primary evidence on this matter, I stumbled on a case with a suit number FHC/ABJ/M/340/06, filed on August 21, 2007 at the Federal High Court, Abuja. As indicated in this file, Mallam Nuhu Ribadu-led EFCC named Mrs. Patience Jonathan, wife of Goodluck Jonathan, as an accomplice in the N104million-money laundering case involving one Mrs. Nancy Ebere Nwosu. The amount in question was stated in this file to be laundered on the order of Mrs Patience Goodluck into a First Bank of Nigeria account number 3292010060711 held in the name of Nansolyvan Public Relations Limited by one Hanner Offor.

Still not satisfied with this new primary source on the issue at hand, further effort was exerted to dig into the archive. Again, we stumbled on the EFFC’s affidavit used in supporting the above mentioned suit’s originating summons. In this document, Ofem Uket, the then EFCC prosecuting officer declared, “Our investigations revealed that Mrs. Patience Jonathan, wife of the Governor of Bayelsa State, was the person who instructed one Hanner Offor to launder the said sum of N104, 000, 000 into the account of Nansolyvan Public Relations Limited with First Bank of Nigeria Plc (FBN), Niger House, Marina, Lagos”.

To further establish the veracity of this discovery, I was forced to search for a court ruling on this matter. Findings revealed that on August 22, 2006, Justice Anwuli Chikere who then was at the Federal High Court, Abuja presided over the EFCC’s application on this case and ruled that, "leave is hereby granted to the Executive Chairman of the EFCC to , freeze the bank accounts of the persons referred to as the account holders pending the conclusion of the investigation of the activities of the said persons in connection with their involvement in the acts of money laundering and other economic and financial crimes related offences".

Given that the combined use of both primary and secondary sources is needed to make a reliable historical narration, effort was also directed at newspaper reportage of this suit and judgement. Among many others, in its 11 September, 2006 edition, a story under the caption,”EFCC seizes N104m from Bayelsa Governor’s Wife” featured in the Punch, Nigeria’s most widely read newspaper. The news item was put together by Sam Akpe and Tobi Soniyi, Abuja. When cross-examined with our newly found primary sources, we observed consistency between contents of the newly discovered primary resources on this matter and this news reportage. It may be interesting to produce parts of these documents which highlight how EFCC arrived at the conclusion that the laundered money in question involved Jonathan and Madam Patience.

As shown in these documents, Mallam Ribadu-led EFCC stated: Mrs. Nancy Ebere Nwosu through whom the money in question was laundered “had been evasive in her earlier statements.But when confronted with further evidence, she said, ”I voluntary elect to state as follows: My earlier statements were made while I was very disorganised by the overwhelming questions I had to deal with.” “She then admitted that Mr. Godwill Oba told her that Mrs.Jonathan wanted to give him (Oba) some work and that she (Mrs. Jonathan) would advance the mobilisation money to him (Oba) through her (Nwosu) account. She said, “When Oba came for the money to be withdrawn, I confirmed from Her Excellency, Mrs. Patience Jonathan that she wanted the intended project money to be withdrawn.” “I know that Her Excellency is related to Oba. I confirmed from Her Excellency that the money could be made in favour of Oba.”
As further observed in one of these documents, Ribadu-led EFCC declared that, “Investigations into the laundering of the N70m into Finviclaud with Access Bank Plc cheque revealed that the money was deposited into the account with a First Bank of Nigeria Plc cheque number 3292010060711 for N70m, a personal current account drawn on Nansolyvan Public Relations Limited at the Niger House Marina branch.” “ Nwosu then transferred the N70m from the account into another account operated by Fivviclaud at the Access Bank Plc, Apapa branch, Lagos.” ”Our investigations at the two banks – First Bank and Access Bank – showed that Nwosu of No 2A Araromi Street, Lagos Island, is the sole signatory to the two accounts.”
Given new insights which these documents have offered us, one is bound to raise the following questions. Is it possible that Jonathan and Patience Goodluck are not aware of this court suit? If they do, why is it that they merely rely on Ribadu’s statement of exoneration to establish their innocence and not on any competent court’s judgment? Can it be said that their refusal to back up their claim of exoneration with a competent court’s judgment or make allusion to any pending court case on this matter is an attempt to burry facts of history and hoodwink the masses? While readers are at liberty to find appropriate responses to these questions, one is tempted to suppose that Jonathan and Patience are playing the blame-trade and using power to cover up a past which is inherently part of their persons and a leading reason why our today is miserable.
Another round of question that needs to be raised would be on Nuhu Ribadu’s role in the whole issue. Since we have established that a case with suit number FHC/ABJ/M/340/06, filed on August 21, 2007 at the Federal High Court, Abuja, exists on the issue at hand, can we accept Nuhu Ribadu’s conflicting statement which reads, “I never handled a case against Patience Jonathan, never; it’s a lie” (The Nation, September 16, 2010) as a statement of fact?
We may also need to ask, has Nuhu Ribadu known to have exhibited double-speaking attitude in the past or in recent time? Evidence suggests that in an interview the former EFCC boss granted The NEWS magazine in February 2007, Nuhu Ribadu once stated that, “Olabode George was never an executive officer of NPA. He was a part-time Chairman. It is the Executive Managing Director who runs the place; it was the MD’s name that appeared in all the contract papers of NPA. Olabode George was a part-time Chairman whose name was never on any contract paper”.
Upon the the pronouncement by Justice Olubumi Oyewole which sentenced Olabode George to a deserved two years imprisonment without an option of fine, Nuhu stated that the ruling “is a measure of the shamelessness of our elite and the institutions that fuel their values. That Chief George could be awarded a national honour in our country and that he could later sue some newspapers for libel on account of the damming indictment report I prepared against him.”
Again, the question is, are there no obvious contradictions in the above-quoted statements credited to Nuhu Ribadu on a crime which involved Bode George’s abuse of public trust? It seems to me one is a statement of exoneration and the other, of indictment on Nuhu Ribadu and Bode George. Since the foregoing suggest that Nuhu Ribadu’s statements may be self-contradictory, then, it is only objective that his statement which exonerated Jonathan and Dame Patience of any involvement in the money laundering case under consideration be discarded. Probably it was this reality that made Jonathan Goodluck warns Nuhu Ribadu that he should desist from parading himself as a man of integrity. Little wonder, Jonathan Goodluck through his campaign organization stated that, “to also show Ribadu’s lack of faith in the anti-corruption fight, he recently said and we quote:“I won’t bother myself with the integrity of politicians that will fund my campaign. I will take corrupt politicians money for my campaign as far as the money is not put in my pocket.”
It is also curious to note that Jonathan and Dame Patience Goodluck who were quick in quoting Ribadu to establish their innocence ironically rejected Nuhu Ribadu’s recent exoneration of Bola Ahmed Tinubu of any public trust abuse during the latter’s 8-years reign as the Governor of Lagos State. As stated Jonathan through his presidential Campaign Committee, “the Campaign Committee recalled that in 2007 while answering questions from the Senate on the alleged acts of corruption by some governors, Ribadu pointedly said that the corruption of the former governor of Lagos state, Senator Bola Tinubu was “of international dimension …] Is it not curious that the same person with such a tag is now the political godfather of Ribadu and sole financier of his political campaigns?, “Ribadu by such posturing has given Tinubu a clean bill of health which is not only hypocritical, but evidence that given the same opportunity, he would not have done better than the governors whom he had indicted.”
Premised on the above position of Jonathan Goodluck on Nuhu Ribadu as an hypocritical personality, a position, upon which Jonathan predicated his rejection of Tinubu’s exoneration by Ribadu, then, it is only logical that all right thinking persons should also dismiss Ribadu’s exoneration of Jonathan and Dame Patience Goodluck of any complicity in the case of money laundering under consideration as hypocritical and fallacious.
From the above analysis, there are some discernible apparent patterns in how the personalities of Jonathan and Patience Goodluck have been unfolding in time. One is that, in the bid to achieve their bids of becoming, they have decided to cover a part of their past and using all means possible to prevent those seeking to revisit it as agents of blackmail. It seems it was this reality that made the discerning Moses E. Ochonu, Assistant Professor of History concluded that, “President Jonathan Goodluck’s ambition is built and sustained partly on blackmail.”Ochonu added, “but blackmail is only one item in the Jonathan presidential toolbox, Revisionist history is another.” Since one of the objectives of this article is to use Arnold Toynbee’s concept of seeming repetitive patterns in history in uncovering the fortress on which Jonathan’s presidential ambition is based and what this portends for the change we desire, attention will now be on how Jonathan has been handling issues of national security.
It could be recollected that the twin bomb blasts that rocked the litigious 50th Independence anniversary of Nigeria from colonial servitude caused ethno-political hiccups, and exchange of tirades across divides and affiliations. In effect, accusing fingers were pointed at the probable master minders of the blast to the extent that individuals with different pedigree and affiliations were arrested, interrogated and arraigned by the Jonathan Government.

Ironically, the only group, MEND, which claimed responsibility for the attack was offered a clean bill of health by President Jonathan Ebele Goodluck. Accordingly, Jonathan stated, “The name of MEND association that operates in Niger Delta was only used. I grew up in the Niger Delta so nobody can claim to know Niger Delta better than myself, because I am from the Niger Delta. I know the person behind the attack and the person sponsoring it. They are terrorists, not MEND.” He also added, “the government knows them and would fish them out as investigations proceed.” This slipshod vituperation one may want to contend, raises a series of salient questions on the leadership credentials of Goodluck. Given the fact this statement of exoneration issued MEND by Jonathan preceded any known investigation into this matter, then, he may be guilty of playing politics of blame, culpable of policitization of national security and gross incompetence in handling national matters. A more revealing part of the above statement credited to Jonathan is that which reads, “I know the person behind the attack and the person sponsoring it.” It should be asked,who is this fellow Jonathan had in mind or was refereeing to as the brain behind the bomb blast? Could it be one definite individual or that the identity of such individual will depend on Jonathan’s ambition of becoming? We may need to probe further.

If one could recollect vividly as well, Raymond Dokpesi, who then was the campaign manager of former dictator Ibrahim Badamosi Babangida, one of the strong contenders who was vying alongside Jonathan for the PDP Presidential ticket, was detained in connection with this bombing issue. One may need simply guess Babaginda’s alleged involvement.

On the eve of a New Year, precisely on 31 December, 2010, Nigeria witnessed another bomb blast at “Mammy” market attached to the Abacha Barracks in the Asokoro area of Abuja. While reacting to this tragic development, the leadership of Jonathan Goodluck concludedand announced that, “the recent bomb blasts in Nigeria were politically-motivated and handiwork of detractors who wanted to bring down the present administration.”

With thorough investigation yet to be conducted into this issue, on 1 January, 2011, after a New Year service at the Evangelical Church of West Africa (ECWA) Abuja, Jonathan proclaimed, “the preliminary analysis of the explosives so far used in Nigeria, the one used in the October 1 explosion has the same characteristics with the ones that happened in Port Harcourt, Warri and some parts of the Niger Delta, it has been classified. The one that happened yesterday (Friday) from preliminary analysis is identical with the ones that happened in Jos. So there are two routes. As long as the security operatives know the two routes, we will get to where these things are coming from."

On the 3 January, 2010, the Minister of Interior, Capt. Emmanuel Iheanacho (rtd.), was reported to have said that it was too early to link the bomb blasts at the mammy market beside Mogadishu Military Barracks to the Christmas Eve explosions in Jos, Plateau State. Again one observes the problem of hasty judgement, fabrication of a non-existing security report and a sly attempt to blame those who were assumed to be allegedly responsible for the obdurate Jos mayhem and the Niger Delta arm-struggle as the sponsors of the 2nd Abuja bombing.

From the instances analysed so far, it is evident that revisionist politics of black mail and the use of deceit to cover up facts of history underlie Jonathan Goodluck’s attempts at becoming. Since history is what David McCullough describes as, “who we are and why we are the way we are” Nigerians have reasons to think outside the status quo in navigating their search for a better future. Also, in view of the fact that the ignoble inaction of our thieving leaders is a core factor that led us to what we are and where we are at the moment, the tomorrow we are seeking will only be a moment of respite, if, we make amends by entrusting the navigation of our tomorrow in care of those whose yesterday was not part of what contributed to the culture of corruption and blackmail that make our today miserable. Wouldn’t it be right that to say that the Jonathan and Dame Patience Goodluck’s activities in time examined so far has imposed on us all, the burden of learning from the past, and the present, by making at the desirable time, desirable decision and desirable effort, that is built on desirable foundation and redirected in the desirable direction. I suppose this is the only way we can bring about the desirable change that would revive desirably, the desired future of our country.

Abudugana, the author of this article can be reached through abudugana2000@yahoo.com. The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do reflect policy of the Organizations to which I am affiliated.

[pre]With the impending elections, Nigerians would be seeking through the present, a future. This endeavour constitutes a change process that requires the use of our understanding of why our yesterday was miserable, moment, obscure, as determinants in seeking the realization of a cheery tomorrow. Given that this implies seeking history (future) through history (past and presence), our ability to achieve the desired- a better tomorrow, is incumbent upon the realization of the fact that the traumatizing moment we are agitatedly seeking its reversal, was once a future whose present bleakness owes to our collective inabilities to use the past that gave birth to it, in shaping its course. It is therefore on the basis of this consideration that this article uses on the one hand, the instrumentality of history, in addressing certain issues constituting moral burden on Jonathan and Dame Patience Goodluck. On the other, Arnold Toynbee’s concept of seeming repetitive patterns in history is used to unearth the fortress on which Jonathan’s presidential ambition is based and what this portends for the change we desire. 

Although there is the hidden hand of God in man’s unfolding history, it is man’s activities in and within time that give birth to circumstances which either favour or impede the realization of man’s goals in time. It is also these activities that culminate into man’s today. Since man’s today would tomorrow become a past, then, what man is today, would, all conditions being equal, be determined by his activities of yesterday. This is why man’s today’s deeds-good or bad are parts of his becoming in time and therefore constitutive of how man society evolves in a given time and direction. It therefore becomes incumbent that if man must live a better tomorrow, man must truly remember the past that makes his today what it is, learn from it and use the lessons as yard stick for seeking a better tomorrow. In refusing to do this, man will be unmaking his tomorrow and that of the larger society to which he belongs. 

A practical illustration of the above stream of thought may be discerned from a doctor-patient relationship. For a patient to be effectively treated, a doctor would require the former’s previous health/medical experiences and other related pieces of information. If the patient decides to present a distorted information or withhold any of  the required information, not only might the doctor’s service be rendered useless, the patient’s health might be endangered or become a burden which might compound existing society’s problem. It is within this prism that the alleged involvement of Jonathan and Dame Patience-Goodluck in a well documented case of money laundering would be re-examined. 

As rightly stated by many writers on this issue, on September 11, 2006, Mr. Osita Nwajah, the then EFCC spokesman made a public declaration that a whopping sum of  $13.5 million Dollars (US) was seized from Mrs. Patience Jonathan. This was during her husband’s reign as the Governor of Bayelsa State and Nuhu Ribadu’s years as the EFCC Chairman. Before this, there was also a sum of N104 that was reportedly seized by the EFCC from one Mrs Nancy Ebere Nwosu in August 2006, which, as confessed the latter under oath, also belonged to Mrs Jonathan. These money laundering matters, a past that is for the moment presumed to be wrongly associated with Jonathan and his loving wife, Madam Patience, is now widely sensationalized as a ploy aimed at desecrating the persons of Jonathan and Patience. These issues have also also been widely portrayed as fabrication of the political opponents of Jonathan and the PDP.

To establish the innocence of Jonathan and his wife, statements credited to Ribadu were quoted. Accordingly, Ribadu cited as saying, “I never handled a case against Patience Jonathan, never; it’s a lie. You know it is so sad because in our country this is how we go about maligning people. But today thank God I am not in his government. So, I can open up and talk. If I were to say it earlier people would have thought that I was looking for job from President Goodluck Jonathan. I am not looking for anything. But the truth must be told.” (The Nation, September 16, 2010).
To convince the electorates of the veracity of Jonathan and Patience’s incorruptibility, another statement of exoneration reportedly issued as well by Mallam, Nuhu Ribadu had also been quoted. This statement reads, “the case had to do with a lady and a man who lodged huge sums of money in the bank. The EFCC was alerted by the bank and an investigation was carried out. It was found that they legitimately earned the money through contracts executed in the state. All the reports in the media were lies. For instance, it was initially reported that N70 million was lodged into the bank. Later, it was reported that the money ran into millions of dollars. Such was the extent of the lies. We never handled a case against Patience Jonathan.” (Thisday of September 17, 2010).

Since the alleged crime was committed under Mallam Nuhu Ribadu, a man who is believed by many as a trustworthy and steadfast person, one may be tempted to say the case never existed at all or  consider the whole issue, a mere ploy by Jonathan’s political adversaries. But, in view of the fact that over reliance on one source is a factor that affects the reliability of historical sources and veracity of an historical claim, one is compelled to seek the use of the historical tool of test of consistency and cross validation with other sources in establishing the veracity of these claims. 

During my search for other primary evidence on this matter, I stumbled on a case with a suit number FHC/ABJ/M/340/06, filed on August 21, 2007 at the Federal High Court, Abuja. As indicated in this file, Mallam Nuhu Ribadu-led EFCC named Mrs. Patience Jonathan, wife of Goodluck Jonathan, as an accomplice in the N104million-money laundering case involving one Mrs. Nancy Ebere Nwosu. The amount in question was stated in this file to be laundered on the order of Mrs Patience Goodluck into a First Bank of Nigeria account number 3292010060711 held in the name of Nansolyvan Public Relations Limited by one Hanner Offor. 

Still not satisfied with this new primary source on the issue at hand, further effort was exerted to dig into the archive. Again, we stumbled on the EFFC’s affidavit used in supporting the above mentioned suit’s originating summons. In this document, Ofem Uket, the then EFCC prosecuting officer declared, “Our investigations revealed that Mrs. Patience Jonathan, wife of the Governor of Bayelsa State, was the person who instructed one Hanner Offor to launder the said sum of N104, 000, 000 into the account of Nansolyvan Public Relations Limited with First Bank of Nigeria Plc (FBN), Niger House, Marina, Lagos”.

To further establish the veracity of this discovery, I was forced to search for a court ruling on this matter. Findings revealed that on August 22, 2006, Justice Anwuli Chikere who then was  at the Federal High Court, Abuja presided over the EFCC’s application on this case and ruled that,  "leave is hereby granted to the Executive Chairman of the EFCC to ,  freeze the bank accounts of the persons referred to as the account holders pending the conclusion of the investigation of the activities of the said persons in connection with their involvement in the acts of money laundering and other economic and financial crimes related offences".

Given that the combined use of both primary and secondary sources is needed to make a reliable historical narration, effort was also directed at newspaper reportage of this suit and judgement. Among many others, in its 11 September, 2006 edition, a story under the caption,”EFCC seizes N104m from Bayelsa Governor’s Wife” featured in the Punch, Nigeria’s most widely read newspaper. The news item was put together by Sam Akpe and Tobi Soniyi, Abuja. When cross-examined with our newly found primary sources, we observed consistency between contents of the newly discovered primary resources on this matter and this news reportage. It may be interesting to produce parts of these documents which highlight how EFCC arrived at the conclusion that the laundered money in question involved Jonathan and Madam Patience.

As shown in these documents, Mallam Ribadu’s-led EFCC stated: Mrs. Nancy Ebere Nwosu through whom the money in question was laundered  “had been evasive in her earlier statements.But when confronted with further evidence, she said, ”I voluntary elect to state as follows: My earlier statements were made while I was very disorganised by the overwhelming questions I had to deal with.” “She then admitted that Mr. Godwill Oba told her that Mrs.Jonathan wanted to give him (Oba) some work and that she (Mrs. Jonathan) would advance the mobilisation money to him (Oba) through her (Nwosu) account. She said, “When Oba came for the money to be withdrawn, I confirmed from Her Excellency, Mrs. Patience Jonathan that she wanted the intended project money to be withdrawn.” “I know that Her Excellency is related to Oba. I confirmed from Her Excellency that the money could be made in favour of Oba.” 
As further observed in one of these documents, Ribadu-led EFCC declared that, “Investigations into the laundering of the N70m into Finviclaud with Access Bank Plc cheque revealed that the money was deposited into the account with a First Bank of Nigeria Plc cheque number 3292010060711 for N70m, a personal current account drawn on Nansolyvan Public Relations Limited at the Niger House Marina branch.” “ Nwosu then transferred the N70m from the account into another account operated by Fivviclaud at the Access Bank Plc, Apapa branch, Lagos.” ”Our investigations at the two banks – First Bank and Access Bank – showed that Nwosu of No 2A Araromi Street, Lagos Island, is the sole signatory to the two accounts.”

Given new insights which these documents have offered us, one is bound to raise the following questions. Is it possible that Jonathan and Patience Goodluck are not aware of this court suit? If they do, why is it that they merely rely on Ribadu’s statement of exoneration to establish their innocence and not on any competent court’s judgment? Can it be said that their refusal to back up their claim of exoneration with a competent court’s judgment or make allusion to any pending court case on this matter is an attempt to burry facts of history and hoodwink the masses? While readers are at liberty to find appropriate responses to these questions, one is tempted to suppose that Jonathan and Patience are playing the blame-trade and using power to cover up a past which is inherently part of their persons and a leading reason why our today is miserable. 
Another round of question that needs to be raised would be on Nuhu Ribadu’s role in the whole issue. Since we have established that a case with suit number FHC/ABJ/M/340/06, filed on August 21, 2007 at the Federal High Court, Abuja, exists on the issue at hand, can we accept Nuhu Ribadu’s conflicting statement which reads, “I never handled a case against Patience Jonathan, never; it’s a lie” (The Nation, September 16, 2010) as a statement of fact? 

We may also need to ask, has Nuhu Ribadu known to have exhibited double-speaking attitude in the past or in recent time? Evidence suggests that in an interview the former EFCC boss granted The NEWS magazine in February 2007, Nuhu Ribadu once stated that,  “Olabode George was never an executive officer of NPA. He was a part-time Chairman. It is the Executive Managing Director who runs the place; it was the MD’s name that appeared in all the contract papers of NPA. Olabode George was a part-time Chairman whose name was never on any contract paper”.  
Upon the  the pronouncement by Justice Olubumi Oyewole which sentenced Olabode George to a deserved two years imprisonment without an option of fine, Nuhu stated  that the ruling “is a measure of the shamelessness of our elite and the institutions that fuel their values. That Chief George could be awarded a national honour in our country and that he could later sue some newspapers for libel on account of the damming indictment report I prepared against him.” 
Again, the question is, are there no obvious contradictions in the above-quoted statements credited to Nuhu Ribadu on a crime which involved Bode George’s abuse of public trust? It seems to me one is a statement of exoneration and the other, of indictment on Nuhu Ribadu and Bode George. Since the foregoing suggest that Nuhu Ribadu’s statements may be self-contradictory, then, it is only objective that his statement which exonerated Jonathan and Dame Patience of any involvement in the money laundering case under consideration be discarded. Probably it was this reality that made Jonathan Goodluck warns Nuhu Ribadu that he should desist from parading himself as a man of integrity. Little wonder, Jonathan Goodluck through his campaign organization stated that, “to also show Ribadu’s lack of faith in the anti-corruption fight, he recently said and we quote:“I won’t bother myself with the  integrity of politicians that will fund my campaign. I will take corrupt politicians money for my campaign as far as the money is  not put in my pocket.” 

It is also curious to note that Jonathan and Dame Patience Goodluck who were quick in quoting Ribadu to establish their innocence ironically rejected Nuhu Ribadu’s recent exoneration of Bola Ahmed Tinubu of any abuse of public trust during the latter’s 8-years reign as the Governor of Lagos State. As stated Jonathan through his presidential Campaign Committee, “the Campaign Committee recalled that In 2007 while answering  questions from the Senate on the alleged acts of corruption by  some governors, Ribadu pointedly said that the corruption of the  former governor of Lagos state, Senator Bola Tinubu was “of  international dimension …]  Is it not curious that the same person with such a tag is  now the political godfather of Ribadu and sole financier of his  political campaigns?,  “Ribadu by such posturing has given Tinubu a clean bill of health  which is not only hypocritical, but evidence that given the same  opportunity, he would not have done better than the governors  whom he had indicted.”

Premised on the above position of Jonathan Goodluck on Nuhu Ribadu as an hypocritical personality, a position, upon which Jonathan predicated his rejection of Tinubu’s exoneration by Ribadu, then, it is only logical that all right thinking persons should also dismiss Ribadu’s exoneration of Jonathan and Dame Patience Goodluck of any complicity in the case of money laundering under consideration as hypocritical and fallacious.   
From the above analysis, there are some discernible apparent patterns in how the personalities of Jonathan and Patience Goodluck have been unfolding in time. One is that, in the bid to achieve their bids of becoming, they have decided to cover a part of their past and using all means possible to prevent those seeking to revisit it as agents of blackmail. It seems it was this reality that made the discerning Moses E. Ochonu, Assistant Professor of History concluded that, “President Jonathan Goodluck’s ambition is built and sustained partly on blackmail.” Ochonu added, “but blackmail is only one item in the Jonathan presidential toolbox, Revisionist history is another.” Since one of the objectives of this article is to use Arnold Toynbee’s concept of seeming repetitive patterns in history in uncovering the fortress on which Jonathan’s presidential ambition is based and what this portends for the change we desire, attention will now be on how Jonathan has been handling issues of national security.
It could be recollected that the twin bomb blasts that rocked the litigious 50th Independence anniversary of Nigeria from colonial servitude caused ethno-political hiccups, and exchange of tirades across divides and affiliations. In effect, accusing fingers were pointed at the probable master minders of the blast to the extent that individuals with different pedigree and affiliations were arrested, interrogated and arraigned by the Jonathan Government.

Ironically, the only group, MEND, which claimed responsibility for the attack was offered a clean bill of health by President Jonathan Ebele Goodluck. Accordingly, Jonathan stated, “The name of MEND association that operates in Niger Delta was only used. I grew up in the Niger Delta so nobody can claim to know Niger Delta better than myself, because I am from the Niger Delta.  I know the person behind the attack and the person sponsoring it.  They are terrorists, not MEND.” He also added, “the government knows them and would fish them out as investigations proceed.” This slipshod vituperation one may want to contend, raises a series of salient questions on the leadership credentials of Goodluck. Given the fact this statement of exoneration issued MEND by Jonathan preceded any known investigation into this matter, then, he may be guilty of playing politics of blame, culpable of policitization of national security and gross incompetence in handling national matters. A more revealing part of the above statement credited to Jonathan is that which reads, “I know the person behind the attack and the person sponsoring it.” It should be asked,who is this fellow Jonathan had in mind or was refereeing to as the brain behind the bomb blast? Could it be one definite individual or that the identity of such individual will depend on Jonathan’s ambition of becoming? We may need to probe further. 

If one could recollect vividly as well, Raymond Dokpesi, who then was the campaign manager of former dictator Ibrahim Badamosi Babangida, one of the strong contenders who was vying alongside Jonathan for the PDP Presidential ticket, was detained in connection with this bombing issue. One may need simply guess Babaginda’s alleged involvement.

On the eve of a New Year, 31 December, 2010, Nigeria witnessed another bomb blast at “Mammy” market attached to the Abacha Barracks in the Asokoro area of Abuja. While reacting to this tragic development, the leadership of Jonathan Goodluck concluded and announced that, “the recent bomb blasts in Nigeria were politically-motivated and handiwork of detractors who wanted to bring down the present administration.” 
With thorough investigation yet to be conducted into this issue, on 1 January, 2011, after a New Year service at the Evangelical Church of West Africa (ECWA) Abuja, Jonathan proclaimed, “the preliminary analysis of the explosives so far used in Nigeria, the one used in the October 1 explosion has the same characteristics with the ones that happened in Port Harcourt, Warri and some parts of the Niger Delta, it has been classified. The one that happened yesterday (Friday) from preliminary analysis is identical with the ones that happened in Jos. So there are two routes. As long as the security operatives know the two routes, we will get to where these things are coming from."

 On the 3 January, 2010, the Minister of Interior, Capt. Emmanuel Iheanacho (retd.), was reported to have said that it was too early to link the bomb blasts at the mammy market beside Mogadishu Military Barracks to the Christmas Eve explosions in Jos, Plateau State. Again one observes the problem of hasty judgement, fabrication of a non-existing security report and a sly attempt to blame those who were assumed to be allegedly responsible for the obdurate Jos mayhem and the Niger Delta arm-struggle as the sponsors of the 2nd  Abuja bombing. 

From the instances analysed so far, it is evident that revisionist politics of black mail and the use of deceit to cover up facts of history underlie Jonathan Goodluck’s attempts at becoming. Since history is what David McCullough describes as, “who we are and why we are the way we are” Nigerians have reasons to think outside the status quo in navigating their search for a better future. Also, in view of the fact that the ignoble inaction of our thieving leaders is a core factor that led us to what we are and where we are at the moment, the tomorrow we are seeking will only be a moment of respite, if, we make amends by entrusting the navigation of our tomorrow in care of those whose yesterday was not part of what contributed to the culture of corruption and blackmail that make our today miserable. Wouldn’t it be right that to say that the Jonathan and Dame Patience Goodluck’s activities in time examined so far has imposed on us all, the burden of learning from the past, and the present, by making at the desirable time,  desirable decision and desirable effort, that is built on desirable foundation and redirected in the desirable direction. This is the only way we can bring about the desirable change that would revive desirably, the desired future of our country.

Abudugana, the author of this article can be reached through abudugana2000@yahoo.com. The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do reflect policy of the Organizations to which I am affiliated.

[/pre]

With the impending elections, Nigerians would be seeking through the present, a future. This endeavour constitutes a change process that requires the use of our understanding of why our yesterday was miserable, moment, obscure, as determinants in seeking the realization of a cheery tomorrow. Given that this implies seeking history (future) through history (past and presence), our ability to achieve the desired- a better tomorrow, is incumbent upon the realization of the fact that the traumatizing moment we are agitatedly seeking its reversal, was once a future whose present bleakness owes to our collective inabilities to use the past that gave birth to it, in shaping its course. It is therefore on the basis of this consideration that this article uses on the one hand, the instrumentality of history, in addressing certain issues constituting moral burden on Jonathan and Dame Patience Goodluck. On the other, Arnold Toynbee’s concept of seeming repetitive patterns in history is used to unearth the fortress on which Jonathan’s presidential ambition is based and what this portends for the change we desire.

Although there is the hidden hand of God in man’s unfolding history, it is man’s activities in and within time that give birth to circumstances which either favour or impede the realization of man’s goals in time. It is also these activities that culminate into man’s today. Since man’s today would tomorrow become a past, then, what man is today, would, all conditions being equal, be determined by his activities of yesterday. This is why man’s today’s deeds-good or bad are parts of his becoming in time and therefore constitutive of how man society evolves in a given time and direction. It therefore becomes incumbent that if man must live a better tomorrow, man must truly remember the past that makes his today what it is, learn from it and use the lessons as yard stick for seeking a better tomorrow. In refusing to do this, man will be unmaking his tomorrow and that of the larger society to which he belongs.

A practical illustration of the above stream of thought may be discerned from a doctor-patient relationship. For a patient to be effectively treated, a doctor would require the former’s previous health/medical experiences and other related pieces of information. If the patient decides to present a distorted information or withhold any of the required information, not only might the doctor’s service be rendered useless, the patient’s health might be endangered or become a burden which might compound existing society’s problem. It is within this prism that the alleged involvement of Jonathan and Dame Patience-Goodluck in a well documented case of money laundering would be re-examined.

As rightly stated by many writers on this issue, on September 11, 2006, Mr. Osita Nwajah, the then EFCC spokesman made a public declaration that a whopping sum of $13.5 million Dollars (US) was seized from Mrs. Patience Jonathan. This was during her husband’s reign as the Governor of Bayelsa State and Nuhu Ribadu’s years as the EFCC Chairman. Before this, there was also a sum of N104 that was reportedly seized by the EFCC from one Mrs Nancy Ebere Nwosu in August 2006, which, as confessed the latter under oath, also belonged to Mrs Jonathan. These money laundering matters, a past that is for the moment presumed to be wrongly associated with Jonathan and his loving wife, Madam Patience, is now widely sensationalized as a ploy aimed at desecrating the persons of Jonathan and Patience. These issues have also also been widely portrayed as fabrication of the political opponents of Jonathan and the PDP.

To establish the innocence of Jonathan and his wife, statements credited to Ribadu were quoted. Accordingly, Ribadu cited as saying, “I never handled a case against Patience Jonathan, never; it’s a lie. You know it is so sad because in our country this is how we go about maligning people. But today thank God I am not in his government. So, I can open up and talk. If I were to say it earlier people would have thought that I was looking for job from President Goodluck Jonathan. I am not looking for anything. But the truth must be told.” (The Nation, September 16, 2010).

To convince the electorates of the veracity of Jonathan and Patience’s incorruptibility, another statement of exoneration reportedly issued as well by Mallam, Nuhu Ribadu had also been quoted. This statement reads, “the case had to do with a lady and a man who lodged huge sums of money in the bank. The EFCC was alerted by the bank and an investigation was carried out. It was found that they legitimately earned the money through contracts executed in the state. All the reports in the media were lies. For instance, it was initially reported that N70 million was lodged into the bank. Later, it was reported that the money ran into millions of dollars. Such was the extent of the lies. We never handled a case against Patience Jonathan.” (Thisday of September 17, 2010).

Since the alleged crime was committed under Mallam Nuhu Ribadu, a man who is believed by many as a trustworthy and steadfast person, one may be tempted to say the case never existed at all or consider the whole issue, a mere ploy by Jonathan’s political adversaries. But, in view of the fact that over reliance on one source is a factor that affects the reliability of historical sources and veracity of an historical claim, one is compelled to seek the use of the historical tool of test of consistency and cross validation with other sources in establishing the veracity of these claims.

During my search for other primary evidence on this matter, I stumbled on a case with a suit number FHC/ABJ/M/340/06, filed on August 21, 2007 at the Federal High Court, Abuja. As indicated in this file, Mallam Nuhu Ribadu-led EFCC named Mrs. Patience Jonathan, wife of Goodluck Jonathan, as an accomplice in the N104million-money laundering case involving one Mrs. Nancy Ebere Nwosu. The amount in question was stated in this file to be laundered on the order of Mrs Patience Goodluck into a First Bank of Nigeria account number 3292010060711 held in the name of Nansolyvan Public Relations Limited by one Hanner Offor.

Still not satisfied with this new primary source on the issue at hand, further effort was exerted to dig into the archive. Again, we stumbled on the EFFC’s affidavit used in supporting the above mentioned suit’s originating summons. In this document, Ofem Uket, the then EFCC prosecuting officer declared, “Our investigations revealed that Mrs. Patience Jonathan, wife of the Governor of Bayelsa State, was the person who instructed one Hanner Offor to launder the said sum of N104, 000, 000 into the account of Nansolyvan Public Relations Limited with First Bank of Nigeria Plc (FBN), Niger House, Marina, Lagos”.

To further establish the veracity of this discovery, I was forced to search for a court ruling on this matter. Findings revealed that on August 22, 2006, Justice Anwuli Chikere who then was at the Federal High Court, Abuja presided over the EFCC’s application on this case and ruled that, "leave is hereby granted to the Executive Chairman of the EFCC to , freeze the bank accounts of the persons referred to as the account holders pending the conclusion of the investigation of the activities of the said persons in connection with their involvement in the acts of money laundering and other economic and financial crimes related offences".

Given that the combined use of both primary and secondary sources is needed to make a reliable historical narration, effort was also directed at newspaper reportage of this suit and judgement. Among many others, in its 11 September, 2006 edition, a story under the caption,”EFCC seizes N104m from Bayelsa Governor’s Wife” featured in the Punch, Nigeria’s most widely read newspaper. The news item was put together by Sam Akpe and Tobi Soniyi, Abuja. When cross-examined with our newly found primary sources, we observed consistency between contents of the newly discovered primary resources on this matter and this news reportage. It may be interesting to produce parts of these documents which highlight how EFCC arrived at the conclusion that the laundered money in question involved Jonathan and Madam Patience.
As shown in these documents, Mallam Ribadu’s-led EFCC stated: Mrs. Nancy Ebere Nwosu through whom the money in question was laundered “had been evasive in her earlier statements.But when confronted with further evidence, she said, ”I voluntary elect to state as follows: My earlier statements were made while I was very disorganised by the overwhelming questions I had to deal with.” “She then admitted that Mr. Godwill Oba told her that Mrs.Jonathan wanted to give him (Oba) some work and that she (Mrs. Jonathan) would advance the mobilisation money to him (Oba) through her (Nwosu) account. She said, “When Oba came for the money to be withdrawn, I confirmed from Her Excellency, Mrs. Patience Jonathan that she wanted the intended project money to be withdrawn.” “I know that Her Excellency is related to Oba. I confirmed from Her Excellency that the money could be made in favour of Oba.”

As further observed in one of these documents, Ribadu-led EFCC declared that, “Investigations into the laundering of the N70m into Finviclaud with Access Bank Plc cheque revealed that the money was deposited into the account with a First Bank of Nigeria Plc cheque number 3292010060711 for N70m, a personal current account drawn on Nansolyvan Public Relations Limited at the Niger House Marina branch.” “ Nwosu then transferred the N70m from the account into another account operated by Fivviclaud at the Access Bank Plc, Apapa branch, Lagos.” ”Our investigations at the two banks – First Bank and Access Bank – showed that Nwosu of No 2A Araromi Street, Lagos Island, is the sole signatory to the two accounts.”
Given new insights which these documents have offered us, one is bound to raise the following questions. Is it possible that Jonathan and Patience Goodluck are not aware of this court suit? If they do, why is it that they merely rely on Ribadu’s statement of exoneration to establish their innocence and not on any competent court’s judgment? Can it be said that their refusal to back up their claim of exoneration with a competent court’s judgment or make allusion to any pending court case on this matter is an attempt to burry facts of history and hoodwink the masses? While readers are at liberty to find appropriate responses to these questions, one is tempted to suppose that Jonathan and Patience are playing the blame-trade and using power to cover up a past which is inherently part of their persons and a leading reason why our today is miserable.
Another round of question that needs to be raised would be on Nuhu Ribadu’s role in the whole issue. Since we have established that a case with suit number FHC/ABJ/M/340/06, filed on August 21, 2007 at the Federal High Court, Abuja, exists on the issue at hand, can we accept Nuhu Ribadu’s conflicting statement which reads, “I never handled a case against Patience Jonathan, never; it’s a lie” (The Nation, September 16, 2010) as a statement of fact?

We may also need to ask, has Nuhu Ribadu known to have exhibited double-speaking attitude in the past or in recent time? Evidence suggests that in an interview the former EFCC boss granted The NEWS magazine in February 2007, Nuhu Ribadu once stated that, “Olabode George was never an executive officer of NPA. He was a part-time Chairman. It is the Executive Managing Director who runs the place; it was the MD’s name that appeared in all the contract papers of NPA. Olabode George was a part-time Chairman whose name was never on any contract paper”.
Upon the the pronouncement by Justice Olubumi Oyewole which sentenced Olabode George to a deserved two years imprisonment without an option of fine, Nuhu stated that the ruling “is a measure of the shamelessness of our elite and the institutions that fuel their values. That Chief George could be awarded a national honour in our country and that he could later sue some newspapers for libel on account of the damming indictment report I prepared against him.”

Again, the question is, are there no obvious contradictions in the above-quoted statements credited to Nuhu Ribadu on a crime which involved Bode George’s abuse of public trust? It seems to me one is a statement of exoneration and the other, of indictment on Nuhu Ribadu and Bode George. Since the foregoing suggest that Nuhu Ribadu’s statements may be self-contradictory, then, it is only objective that his statement which exonerated Jonathan and Dame Patience of any involvement in the money laundering case under consideration be discarded. Probably it was this reality that made Jonathan Goodluck warns Nuhu Ribadu that he should desist from parading himself as a man of integrity. Little wonder, Jonathan Goodluck through his campaign organization stated that, “to also show Ribadu’s lack of faith in the anti-corruption fight, he recently said and we quote:“I won’t bother myself with the integrity of politicians that will fund my campaign. I will take corrupt politicians money for my campaign as far as the money is not put in my pocket.”

It is also curious to note that Jonathan and Dame Patience Goodluck who were quick in quoting Ribadu to establish their innocence ironically rejected Nuhu Ribadu’s recent exoneration of Bola Ahmed Tinubu of any abuse of public trust during the latter’s 8-years reign as the Governor of Lagos State. As stated Jonathan through his presidential Campaign Committee, “the Campaign Committee recalled that In 2007 while answering questions from the Senate on the alleged acts of corruption by some governors, Ribadu pointedly said that the corruption of the former governor of Lagos state, Senator Bola Tinubu was “of international dimension …] Is it not curious that the same person with such a tag is now the political godfather of Ribadu and sole financier of his political campaigns?, “Ribadu by such posturing has given Tinubu a clean bill of health which is not only hypocritical, but evidence that given the same opportunity, he would not have done better than the governors whom he had indicted.”

Premised on the above position of Jonathan Goodluck on Nuhu Ribadu as an hypocritical personality, a position, upon which Jonathan predicated his rejection of Tinubu’s exoneration by Ribadu, then, it is only logical that all right thinking persons should also dismiss Ribadu’s exoneration of Jonathan and Dame Patience Goodluck of any complicity in the case of money laundering under consideration as hypocritical and fallacious.
From the above analysis, there are some discernible apparent patterns in how the personalities of Jonathan and Patience Goodluck have been unfolding in time. One is that, in the bid to achieve their bids of becoming, they have decided to cover a part of their past and using all means possible to prevent those seeking to revisit it as agents of blackmail. It seems it was this reality that made the discerning Moses E. Ochonu, Assistant Professor of History concluded that, “President Jonathan Goodluck’s ambition is built and sustained partly on blackmail.”Ochonu added, “but blackmail is only one item in the Jonathan presidential toolbox, Revisionist history is another.” Since one of the objectives of this article is to use Arnold Toynbee’s concept of seeming repetitive patterns in history in uncovering the fortress on which Jonathan’s presidential ambition is based and what this portends for the change we desire, attention will now be on how Jonathan has been handling issues of national security.

It could be recollected that the twin bomb blasts that rocked the litigious 50th Independence anniversary of Nigeria from colonial servitude caused ethno-political hiccups, and exchange of tirades across divides and affiliations. In effect, accusing fingers were pointed at the probable master minders of the blast to the extent that individuals with different pedigree and affiliations were arrested, interrogated and arraigned by the Jonathan Government.

Ironically, the only group, MEND, which claimed responsibility for the attack was offered a clean bill of health by President Jonathan Ebele Goodluck. Accordingly, Jonathan stated, “The name of MEND association that operates in Niger Delta was only used. I grew up in the Niger Delta so nobody can claim to know Niger Delta better than myself, because I am from the Niger Delta. I know the person behind the attack and the person sponsoring it. They are terrorists, not MEND.” He also added, “the government knows them and would fish them out as investigations proceed.” This slipshod vituperation one may want to contend, raises a series of salient questions on the leadership credentials of Goodluck. Given the fact this statement of exoneration issued MEND by Jonathan preceded any known investigation into this matter, then, he may be guilty of playing politics of blame, culpable of policitization of national security and gross incompetence in handling national matters. A more revealing part of the above statement credited to Jonathan is that which reads, “I know the person behind the attack and the person sponsoring it.” It should be asked,who is this fellow Jonathan had in mind or was refereeing to as the brain behind the bomb blast? Could it be one definite individual or that the identity of such individual will depend on Jonathan’s ambition of becoming? We may need to probe further.

If one could recollect vividly as well, Raymond Dokpesi, who then was the campaign manager of former dictator Ibrahim Badamosi Babangida, one of the strong contenders who was vying alongside Jonathan for the PDP Presidential ticket, was detained in connection with this bombing issue. One may need simply guess Babaginda’s alleged involvement.

On the eve of a New Year, 31 December, 2010, Nigeria witnessed another bomb blast at “Mammy” market attached to the Abacha Barracks in the Asokoro area of Abuja. While reacting to this tragic development, the leadership of Jonathan Goodluck concluded and announced that, “the recent bomb blasts in Nigeria were politically-motivated and handiwork of detractors who wanted to bring down the present administration.”

With thorough investigation yet to be conducted into this issue, on 1 January, 2011, after a New Year service at the Evangelical Church of West Africa (ECWA) Abuja, Jonathan proclaimed, “the preliminary analysis of the explosives so far used in Nigeria, the one used in the October 1 explosion has the same characteristics with the ones that happened in Port Harcourt, Warri and some parts of the Niger Delta, it has been classified. The one that happened yesterday (Friday) from preliminary analysis is identical with the ones that happened in Jos. So there are two routes. As long as the security operatives know the two routes, we will get to where these things are coming from."

On 3 January, 2010, the Minister of Interior, Capt. Emmanuel Iheanacho (retd.), was reported to have said that it was too early to link the bomb blasts at the mammy market beside Mogadishu Military Barracks to the Christmas Eve explosions in Jos, Plateau State. Again one observes the problem of hasty judgement, fabrication of a non-existing security report and a sly attempt to blame those who were assumed to be allegedly responsible for the obdurate Jos mayhem and the Niger Delta arm-struggle as the sponsors of the 2nd Abuja bombing.

From the instances analysed so far, it is evident that revisionist politics of black mail and the use of deceit to cover up facts of history underlie Jonathan Goodluck’s attempts at becoming. Since history is what David McCullough describes as, “who we are and why we are the way we are” Nigerians have reasons to think outside the status quo in navigating their search for a better future. Also, in view of the fact that the ignoble inaction of our thieving leaders is a core factor that led us to what we are and where we are at the moment, the tomorrow we are seeking will only be a moment of respite, if, we make amends by entrusting the navigation of our tomorrow in care of those whose yesterday was not part of what contributed to the culture of corruption and blackmail that make our today miserable. Wouldn’t it be right that to say that the Jonathan and Dame Patience Goodluck’s activities in time examined so far has imposed on us all, the burden of learning from the past, and the present, by making at the desirable time, desirable decision and desirable effort, that is built on desirable foundation and redirected in the desirable direction. This is the only way we can bring about the desirable change that would revive desirably, the desired hope of the ummah.

Since society is attributively organic and inorganic in its nature, therefore, one can seek the understanding of what a society is, from the prism of people relative a society. Predicated on this premise, this article sets out to contend that Jonathan and Dame Patience Goodluck-Jonathan personify the problems that have rendered Nigeria a failing state.

To begin with, a nation, on a specific note and a civilization, on the broad range, is made by the education that grows its people. It is education that develops, moulds and engrains the minds of the people constituting a nation with the developmental traits, which ultimately, transforms into the physical indexes that are seen and used in gauging a nation’s growth and development. It is through education that variety of problems, human, societal, environmental are researched and ideas articulated on how they can be solved. This is why education is a nation’s problem-solving centre. However, in the Nigerian case, from being a problem-solving- centre, our institutions of learning have sadly been transformed into problem-creating and corruption breeding grounds, which turn out uneducated graduates, sophisticatedly incubated crooks, who, following a sadistic and cyclic trend, unleash their crookedness on the state and start the process time and again by replicating their likes through biological and fraternizing means. From the standpoint of gross underfunding of our institutions at all levels, one needs no extraordinary logic to discern why Nigeria is donning a despicable and ghetto-like jagajaga appearance. Therefore, since we have decided to kill the problem-diagnosing and solving-centre, then, the end result is what Nigeria is witnessing as a gravely diseased state. Also, the level of corruption in our country is a reflection of the corruption that prevails in our education sector. Moral, academic and financial corruptions have not only reached alarming proportion in our various places of learning, also, they have sadly become integral parts of our learning culture. We have educational handlers, academic and non-academic, that occupy places not merited. Our educational centres, particularly, the public ones, are populated by bribe-takers, certificate forgers, plagiarists, fund looters, abusers of oath of service and those who receive monthly salary for services not rendered. On our campuses, grades trade for money, sexual-pleasure and etcetera. Also, students engage in all sorts of malpractices with parents as aiders and abetters. Therefore, if Nigeria is to experience a positive and enduring change, all we need, is to re-make, retool and give our education, its traditional role and as a well-facilitated problem diagnosing and solving centre.

The question now is, does Jonathan Goodluck posses the credentials needed to solve the Nigerian education crises? If the proverb, "Nemo dat quod non habet" which means “you can not give what you don’t have” is anything to go by, one may be saying the obvious that Jonathan Goodluck lacks the aptitude to either initiate solutions to, or o preside over the problem-solving attempts in our educational sector. This is for the simple fact that educationally, Jonathan is a patient who is dire need of a doctor’s service. Jonathan is by all standards, a good example of sub-standard doctoral degree holders that the Nigerian education system has produced. It is sad to note that, a man who has been awarded a doctoral degree and worked as an education inspector, lecturer, and environmental-protection officer, for years, does not understand the simple rules of grammar. As pointed out by Farooq A. Kperogi, a Nigerian-born scholar that is resident in the United States, Dr Jonathan language is “awful. He doesn’t seem to be aware that there is something called subject-verb agreement, as evidenced in statements like, “I wish to thank the esteemed members of the Council on Foreign Relations for its continued interest in Nigerian affairs,” “issues of corruption bothers us,” etc. And “Muslim faithfuls”? Well, there is no word like “faithfuls” in the English language, Mr. Acting President. And by “sectoral crisis between Muslims” did he mean “sectarian crisis between Muslims”? Hmm.” If Jonathan does not know the difference between “sectoral” and ‘sectarian,’ and the elementary rules of subject-verb agreement, then, one may logically submit that, Jonathan is educationally unfit to preside over the solution-finding attempts to mass failure in English language in our secondary schools.

Also if Jonathan, a doctoral degree holder in zoology would utter un-zoological statements such as “we are diverse in terms of different human species,” then, one may be saying the obvious that Jonathan cannot proffer solution to the Nigerian education problem. If, as pointed out by Farooq A. Kperogi, “a putative Ph.D. in zoology (the branch of biology that studies animals, including humans) doesn’t know enough to know that all humans belong to the same species,” then, it may be illogical to expect such an individual to churn out a pragmatic and effective roadmap on how we can solve our education problems at our levels.

It is sad to note that like her husband, Dame Patience Jonathan-Goodluck also posses questionable and defective educational credentials. Madam Patience, holder of National Certificate of Education (NCE) in Mathematics/Biology from the Rivers State College of Arts and Science, and a bachelor’s degree in Biology/Psychology from the University of Port Harcourt, one may be prompted to conclude, belongs to the generation of Nigerian students who obtained their degrees through fraudulent means. As documented by Farooq A. Kperogi, despite a bachelor’s degree, it is weird and mirthful to hear Madam Patience, “Our politics is without bitterness, my husband Dr. Goodluck Jonathan and Sambo is a very good people, !”; “the president was once a child and the SENATORS WERE ONCE A CHILDREN”; “my fellow widows”; “the people sitting before you here were ONCE A CHILDREN”; “it is not easy to CARRY SECOND in an international competition like this one”; “the bombers, who BORN them? WASN’T it not a woman? They were ONCE A CHILDREN, now A ADULT, now they are bombing women and children making SOME CHILDREN A WIDOW”; “my heart feels sorry for these CHILDREN WHO HAVE BECOME WIDOWS by losing their parents for one reason or another”; “We should have love for our fellow Nigerians irrespective of their NATIONALITY”.

From the foregoing, it amounts to saying the evident that Jonathan Goodluck and Dame Patience Goodluck-Jonathan are mirror images of how defective is the Nigerian educational system. If a quote which reads, ““My doctor says that I have a malformed public duty gland and a natural deficiency in moral fibre,' he muttered to himself, 'and that I am therefore excused from saving Universes,” (credited to Douglas Adams, a prominent English writer and dramatist) is anything to go by, Jonathan would need to excuse himself from presiding over and on the discourse on the Nigerian education. Since it is also rational that Nigerians should borrow a leaf from Erma Bombeck’s counsel that “Never go to a doctor whose office plants have died,” then, it will be a disservice to wisdom by allowing a man who is grown by dead education and whose doctorate degree is dead to preside over our affairs.

At this juncture, attention will now be focused on the issue of integrity, corruption and the Nigerian state. While some exponents are of the opinion that the lack of integrity and not corruption is the root of the Nigerian problems, others have either argued the other way round or considered both factors as the core of our problem. Based on the concept of cause and effect, I have informed basis to toe the line of those who consider, dearth of integrity, the hub of our problem. It is a known fact all over the world Nigerians are looked down upon as people who cannot be trusted. There was a time we were making efforts to convince a company to invest heavily in portable water projects in different parts of Nigeria. This company works in collaboration with one Asian-based Non-Governmental Organization in undertaking portable water projects based on the philosophy of Build, Operate and Transfer. While at the advanced stage of our deliberation, we requested that the company should allow us submit to the appropriate Nigerian authority, a detailed proposal on this project. They declined. Why?, one would want to know. It was said that if given such document, the Nigerian government will hijack the idea and sell it out to another body to execute. On patriotic grounds, we insisted otherwise, but, in our minds, we knew, that was the bitter truth. When I shared this experience with a friend who has been working in conjunction with some young entrepreneurs in Nigeria, he confirmed the fears exhibited by the Asian-based company as the Nigerian reality. He narrated how they initiated some ideas which gave birth to some projects which were later proposed to some Nigerian government officials for implementation. He recounted how approval issued for the projects’ execution was reneged and given to another company that knows nothing about these projects. In either of these narrations, the common denominator is that Nigerians are seen as people who will never honour agreements. Failure to honour agreement will often create mistrust and mistrust will create atmosphere of suspicion which in turn will give birth to the feelings of animosity and hence, instability.
If Nigeria and Nigerians are now synonymous with distrust, then, the refusal of Jonathan Goodluck to honour his party’s constitution on zoning (PDP Constitution,Section 7.2.c), clearly suggests that Jonathan is what distrust is to Nigeria and what Nigeria is to distrust. Section Section 7 (2) (c) of the PDP constitution which backs zoning reads “…in pursuant of the principle of equity, justice and fairness, we adhere to the policy of rotation and zoning of party and elective offices at all levels.” Jonathan, a man who, according to records, not only witnessed the PDP’s deliberation on zoning but also voted in favour of zoning, later made a U-turn and 360 degree turnaround by distrustfully stating that, “Either by virtue of the PDP Constitution,… the presidency of Nigeria has never been zoned to any part of the country. There is the concept of zoning and rotation in the PDP constitution to encourage power to move from one part to the other and it is not limited to the Office of the President”.

If the number one in Nigeria, the supposed father of the nation will distrustfully deny the obvious, it has only shown that he is living the much held view that Nigeria and Nigerians are now synonymous with distrust. Little wonder, Shehu Abdulqadr wisely submits, “The state itself is nothing but its leadership and a leader is a reflection of the society that produces him.” If being a Nigerian is what Reuben Abati describes thus, “you must learn the lesson that nothing is ever fair, and that indeed anything is possible,” then, by denying zoning, Jonathan deserves to be elevated to Grade A Emeritus of a truly Nigerian.

Therefore, if Nigerians consider distrust a national disaster that should be fought at all fronts, Jonathan is therefore not a reliable hand that can be looked up to spearhead such must-win battle because his action inspires Nigerians more to distrust than to honouring pledges. If as stated Vincet Lombardi, there must be truth in the purpose and will power in the character for a leadership to be based on truth and character, therefore, Jonathan, a man who contemptibly disregarded an agreement to which he was a party and called the bluff of his party’s constituent, lacks the wherewithal that is required to lead based on truth and character.

Since corruption is what I consider the effect of distrust, therefore, focus would now be on how Jonathan and his wife are mirror images of the Nigerian dilemma. One of the reasons why Nigerians are looking for alternative to the ruling PDP is because it has earned itself the infamous appellation as party of looters. Corruption is in truth not just a PDP problem; it is in reality, a problem that is affecting most Nigerians. Corruption is so pervasive in Nigeria that if a Yoruba man accuses an Igbo man of being corrupt, the latter would as a defence; mention the names of the Yorubas who have looted the country to stupor.
Jonathan, the man who is a truly Nigerian, has on a number of occasions exhibited this trait. Virtually all aspirants have alleged Jonathan to be ruling and heading a government of corrupt persons. Although these aspirants are merely saying what prevails in the minds of most Nigerians, the PDP is saddened that Buhari, a leading Presidential aspirant in the ongoing democratic dispensation is favoured by the electorates because he is seen as an incorruptible person. Realizing this as his strength, Buhari has focused his campaign on anti-corruption crusade. Overwhelmed by the effects of this on his electoral worth, Jonathan, a typical Nigerian, warned Buhari in particular that, he and Ribadu are no apostles of anti-corruption and that he will expose them as members of the corrupt empire. To argue his case, Jonathan cited the case of the controversial 52 cases which was allegedly smuggled into the country in 1984 during Buhari’s regin as the Head of State. This was in reaction to a case of $13.5 million Dollars (US) and another N104 million money laundering case involving Jonathan and his loving wife, Aunty Patience which Buhari’s campaign team has been making issue of. Therefore if Nigerians are interesting in overcoming the crisis of corruption, one direction not to direct our gaze at is that of Goodluck because it reminds us why our resources are not used in providing for our daily needs.

On a concluding note, since it has been established that Jonathan Goodluck and his wife, Aunty Dame are mirror images of the Nigerian quandary, then, if we desire a better future, it is only logical that Nigerians should seek change and a better future in other individuals who are aspiring to lead Nigeria.

http://www.dailytrust.dailytrust.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=13806:opposition-can-win-in-april-if-they-adopt-the-malaysian-model&catid=18:inside-politics&Itemid=19

Abudugana Adebiyi Jelili is the Secretary of NIDO Malaysia and a former UNILAG Student Union president. In this interview, he describes how Malaysians play politics and how our politicians can learn from them.
The topical issue now in Nigeria is how the opposition can partner to challenge the PDP. is it possible for the Nigerian opposition to borrow the Malaysian model of coalition?

Politics in Malaysia is almost completely race based. Political parties are either Chinese, Malay or Indian. This goes for both the opposition and the ruling parties. However, they’ve no problem working together. The Barisan Nasional (BN), which is the ruling coalition, has three main component parties: The Umno (the Malay party and the major partner in the coalition), MCA (Malaysian Chinese Association), and MIC (the Indian version). They always agree among them who to field for positions. Interestingly, although all the major parties are racial based, they put more significance on the quality of their candidates than their races.

In 2010 for example, for Hulu Selangor parliamentary seat, BN nominated Kamalanathan (the Indian) MIC information chief to stand for the election. More interestingly, Kamalanathan couldn’t vote for himself because that was not his constituency. It’s like our PDP asking an Igbo man to contest under the banner of the party in Kano for a House of Representatives seat vacated by an opposition member in a state controlled by the ANPP.

And that’s not all, Hulu Selangor is more than 60% Malay but BN asked an Indian to represent them. However, Kamalanathan won that election against the opposition candidate Syed Ibrahim, a Malay, who incidentally was being mentioned as a possible Prime Minister when he was in BN before he was kicked out for playing money politics.

Was Kamalanathan selected because he was popular among the electorate?

He was selected only because BN thought he would make a good leader. Actually, the voters didn’t even know him. When the Deputy Prime Minister, Muhyiddin Yasin introduced him as BN candidate, he said, “Kamalanathan must go to every polling area to meet the people, as people are saying they have never heard of him.” So the opposition in Nigeria can do the same thing. They must sacrifice their own interests and allow good people to represent them.

What’s printed on the ballot, the coalition name (BN) or the respective names of the component parties?

It is BN that’s on the ballot paper.

Don’t you think it’s impossible for the opposition in Nigeria to follow that example since they were unable to form a single party on time?

Yes it’s too late now for the opposition in Nigeria to come under a single party since they’ve submitted the names of their candidates to INEC. Moreover, INEC is quite pedantic in following its rules. But still, they can learn from the Malaysian opposition. Unlike BN, they don’t print a single name on the ballot. The opposition coalition has PKR (Anwar Ibrahim’s party), Pas (the Islamic party), DAP (the only major party that’s multiracial) and so forth.

What they do is to agree among themselves as to which party to field a candidate and then they all gang up against BN, the ruling coalition. Thus Pat Utomi, Dele Momodu, Okotie, Ribadu, Buhari, Shekarau, etc. could win in April if they agree to support only one person.

How do the Malaysian politicians campaign?

While many of our politicians use money to buy votes, in Malaysia, mere suspicion of that – money politics, they call it – will earn you a suspension by your own party and then they leave you at the mercy of the courts. I remember a politician who was suspended by his own party for money politics but the court found him innocent of the charge. It was only then that the party reabsorbed him. They campaign mainly by making promises and going to the people at the grassroots. Of course they also play on their people’s emotions.

For instance, in the example cited earlier, BN used Kamalanathan’s name to advantage. The Deputy Prime Minister said in April last year, “Kamal is a Malay name, Than sounds like the Chinese surname Tan and Nathan is an Indian name. Also, Kamal means ‘perfect’ in Arabic, Alan means ‘good’ in Arabic and Nathan, I’m not sure, ”

Further, the parties in positions of power try their best to do good for their people so that they can win more seats, since the Malaysians are very swift in changing their party allegiances. For example, PKR, Anwar Ibrahim’s party formed by his wife Wan Azizah Ismail in 2003, had only one sit in the parliament. But after 2008 general elections, they had 38.

The new Prime Minister, Najib Abdurrazak, is winning those seats back one after the other. How is he achieving that?

By going to one village today, dining with another village tomorrow and ordering for the immediate execution of a certain project for yet another village the next day. I don’t know how he does it, but that guy is everywhere. And where he cannot be, the deputy prime minister is there; knowing that if they go to sleep, the ever energetic opposition could win the next elections.

When the prime minister was ill a couple of months ago, the wife could hardly keep him in bed. And because he was hospitalized not in Germany or Egypt but in his own country, he discovered some things that the hospital lacked and immediately provided them. It’s always people, people and people. Their politicians put ours to shame, don’t they?

But Malaysians also go to foreign hospitals. Last year it was reported that Dr. Mahathir was hospitalized in Australia?

He was already in Australia when he fell ill. He was invited there to give a talk. It would be suicidal for him to say take me back home, I prefer the hospital in my country because I’m a patriot.

The opposition here is also doing well in the states they control. For example in Selangor (Kuala Lumpur environs) the people don’t pay water bill up to some certain amount of water consumed. I have a Nigerian friend who didn’t pay one dime in water bills for the two years he lived in the state. This gesture has achieved two objectives. It has endeared the government to the people and has mitigated wastage of water, which is a big problem in Malaysia. New Straits Times reported that the water Malaysians waste annually will fill more than 700,000 Olympics sized swimming pools.

Let’s talk about NIDO. How does NIDO Malaysia contribute to national development?

We have succeeded in persuading academicians in our midst to spend some time with students and lecturers in any Nigerian citadel of higher learning by conducting classes and co-supervising students’ and lecturers’ research activities. At the moment, we have packaged a comprehensive give-back education plan under a committee that is to be chaired by Professor Suleyman Muyibi, a top-notch scholar. Among other things, the committee will be involved in facilitating overseas training of Nigerian junior academics, open rooms for Nigerian academics to be invited as visiting scholars to Malaysian leading universities and explore how laboratory, facilities, and library resources in highly regarded Malaysian citadels can be used for conducting research. This has been and will continue to benefit Nigeria and humanity as a whole.

What is the present state of the crisis in NIDO Malaysia: what’s the status of the last elections? How are you going to tackle the high commissioner?

This crisis was incubated, instigated, hatched and executed by the retired Ambassador Peter Anegbeh who, upon overstretching his significance and jurisdiction, made use of the Nigeria High Commission here in Malaysia to stage a diplomatic coup d’état to unseat the democratically elected incumbent and transiting leadership of ours. He has vouched to impose some single-handedly selected individuals as our successors.

On the ground that NIDOMY, like other chapters of NIDO are NGOs, we refused Anegbeh’s initiative, hence, the origin of the war he has been wagging against our leadership and organization. Basking in the hallucination that NIDO is government-owned and that he has the backing of Abuja, Anegeh has been thwarting plans to hold our AGM. Recently, he wrote a poisonous letter against law-abiding Nigerian students schooling in Universiti Putra Malaysia simply because their adviser is NIDOMY President.

Due to my roles in exposing his atrocities, Anegbeh confessed to have demanded my arrest by the Malaysian government for constituting what he called security threat. One is saddened over Abuja’s silence on the excesses of this retired diplomat who after collecting his severance benefit months back, refused to leave his duty post. As a legal entity with NGO status, we have concluded plans to hold our AGM and conduct our elections so that we can constitutionally dissolve our leadership and pave way for legitimate successors.

see

Hello fellow compatriot, please read and get back. All the phases are linked and needed to be published as an issue. I have a number of articles on the 2011 elections that are being worked upon. I hope this is accepted as based on logic and political reality. Similar response like yours was issued by a friend who has read the entire piece and this is noted.

[center]Jonathan Goodluck and PDP Presidential Primaries: Issues and the Probable Outcome[/center]

As political parties are bracing up for the 2011 general elections, the obvious is that happenings within the People’s Democratic Party (PDP) have more than ever occupied the minds of pundits. Doubtless, this owes to the drastic and far-reaching changes in the political chemistry and physics of the PDP arising as a result of the death of the late President Umaru Musa Yar'Adua.

This article, which though is one of the series on the 2011 elections, navigates in the specifics, and within the broad spectrum of electoral mathematics cum political calculus, how, on the one hand, the issues or better put, the consequentials arising from the aforesaid might affect the political mathematics of the PDP primaries. On the other, it uses the elements of political calculus to argue how the political fortunes of Jonathan Goodluck might suffer a terrible set back during the PDP presidential primaries. It is essential that point out that the line of thought argued in this article is also based on the psychology of political party and political elites, and the question of power and its sustainability.

A number of factors, incidental and accidental, contributed into the selection or more appropriately, coronation of the indisposed late Umaru Musa Yar'Adua as the 2007 Presidential flag bearer of the PDP.

It is worth recounting that prior to Yar’Adua’s imposition and subsequent coronation as the PDP flag bearer in early 2007, there was the then paramount ruler, Aremu Olusegun Obasanjo, who, after he was enthroned based on certain concessions, compromise and consensus wanted to manipulate his ways in order to stay beyond the constitutionally permitted eight years in office. It should be also reiterated that such political maneuvering was also against the PDP’s North-South principle of power shift and power rotation, whose first beneficiary was Olusegun Obasanjo.

In order to achieve his dictatorial whims and subversive caprices of tenure elongation, Obasanjo’s first joker was to discredit and ditch the PDP’s principle of power shift and alternation, which, in the first instance, produced him. To this extent, Obasanjo treacherously raised the hope of the South-South that it was theirs to produce the President of the country in 2007. To achieve this elusive feat, the South-South People’s Assembly was formed to energetically advance the debate, and extensively explore how the realization of the 2007 South-South Presidency could be expansively prosecuted through the use of dialogue, debate, bargaining and compromise.

The above development drew the irk of the North who felt shortchanged, therefore, the reactions and counter steps taken to make sure that the PDP’s gentleman agreement was honoured. The late Sunday Awoniyi was saddled with the responsibility of ensuring that the North was not shortchanged by the almighty Obasanjo. Awoniyi’s Arewa Consultative Forum was also faced with the herculean challenge of unifying the North as Obasanjo had succeeded in pitching on the one hand, the core political North against the minority political North and on the other, the predominant Muslim north against its Christian dominant section. Obasanjo’s instigated tension within the North got to a stage that pundits unanimously declared that gone were the days of the united monolithic North.

Hoping to reap from Obasanjo’s “large-heartedness,” the South East also queued up for the Presidency, hence, joining the South-South in teaming up against the North.

With the ensued regionalizing and dichotomization of the politics of succession, Obasanjo deftly manipulated the PDP political chemistry and perhaps, the entire political landscape, thereby, inducing the political tension which gave birth to the pre-2007 elections’ South-North dichotomy. As it was anticipated by Obasanjo and his cronies, the North-South succession struggle would create a deep-seated political mistrust and sow a seed of enmity between the North and the South such that the only way this would be resolved would be to accept Obasanjo’s bid for tenure elongation.

It was therefore not surprising that while the North-South rift was deepening, the plan to doctor the Constitution in order to allow Obasanjo stay beyond the legally permitted term was launched. Obasanjo was hoodwinked as to think that things were working in his favour as support poured in from the political bigwigs in the South and the North who declared public supports for his undemocratic bid to stay put in office.

But events that ultimately led to the decisive and humiliating collapse of Obasanjo’s self-perpetuating tenure elongation agenda showed that the North-South rift was not as anticipated Obasanjo latter, able to destabilize the polity and paved way for Obasanjo’s agenda to sail through. In fact, the death of the tenure elongation agenda was plotted by both the combined forces of Northern and Southern politicians, among whom were those who had pledged public support for Obasanjo’s self-perpetuating agenda.

In the aftermath, Obasanjo who was forced to eat the humble pie made a swift volte-face by reverting to the PDP zoning arrangement which he had fruitlessly planned to ditch. Based on this and the need to split the Atiku-led People Democratic Movement (PDM), Obasanjo unilaterally chose Umaru Musa Yar'Adua as the PDP 2007 Presidential flag bearer. Obasanjo also made sure that nearly all of those who stood in his way were either disgraced to defect from the PDP or relegated from height of political significance to the fringe. Some were humiliated by the EFCC and some, were removed from office through militarized-democratic process. There were also a sizeable number of the anti-Obasanjo forces that were denied return tickets.

Obasanjo who was well aware that his militaristic handling of the party’s affairs would affect the outcome of the 2007 elections, resorted to use the do-or-die approach to manufacture the outcome of the 2007 elections which produced the late President Umar Yar’Adua. In fact, Obasanjo at his vengeful best, made sure that most of those that opposed sank with him. For the records, it was this political spectre, neither the records nor the political experience of Goodluck Jonathan that saw him emerged as the running mate of Umaru Musa Yar'Adua. One is least surprised that in the leaked US diplomatic cable, Jonathan himself owned up by pronouncing that, “I was not chosen to be Vice President because I had good political experience… I did not… There were a lot more qualified people around to be Vice President.”

Realizing the near irreparable havoc which Obasanjo vengeful politics has caused the PDP, upon his “emergence” as the President of the country, the late President Yar’Adua facilitated the inauguration of the post 2007-elections’ PDP National Peace and Reconciliation Committee that was chaired by Dr. Alex Ekwueme.

The scope and the subsequent recommendations of the reconciliation Committee provided the need to re-admit aggrieved stake holders/members of the PDP who as a result of the Obasanjo’s instigated palaver ‘were either forced to leave the party or those who left out of frustration.” It also provided for the party’s leaders, who, based on Obasanjo’s intrigues were not allowed to re-register during the PDP 2005/2006 registration exercise, and aggrieved party stakeholders/members, who, based on the arrangement that produced Yar’Adua as the President of Nigeria were relegated to the background. It was only by re-admitting these members and institutionalizing certain mechanisms needed to deepen internal democracy within the PDP that the party can be strengthened and positioned for greater heights, Ekwueme’s Committee concluded. This proposal was and after the death of the late President Yar’Adua implemented and it is still being implemented. It was on this basis that amongst others, Atiku Abubakar was re-admitted into the Party, and granted waiver to seek election as one of the Party’s Presidential aspirants. To also safe himself Obasanjo’s liability, the late Yar’Adua also made moves which before his death, made him to keep and sustain distance with the former and also render him somehow insignificant in running the affairs of the Party.

Despite the fact that some aggrieved stakeholders made a comeback into the Party before Yar’Adua’s death, for one reason or the other, the reconciliation effort did little to abate/ fix the problems that were rocking the Party.

Some of the reasons why this happened include the fear of reappraisal attack from perceived foes- old and returnees, refusal to effect changes in the party hierarchy-state and federal that was foisted by Obasanjo and his lackeys, personality clash between aggrieved stakeholders and those who emerged against the backdrop of the crises, pedigree factor, mutual mistrust and acrimony, refusal of returnees and those on ground to shelve their factional affiliations/loyalties, outcome of the 2007 election, insistence that party congresses be re-conducted at all levels and that Obasanjo be either relieved as the BoT Chairperson or his influence whittled down.

While Yar’Adua was battling to fix these seemingly irreconcilable problems and other pig-headed ones, his fragile health incurably plummeted; hence, he was rendered incapacitated to carry out any responsibility expected of him as the President of the country and leader of the PDP.

Most active players who knew Yar’Adua would not survive the illness started strategizing on how to make political mileage out of the situation, therefore, the intrigues that trailed the period which lasted between the sickness and eventual death of the latter.

The politicking that lasted this period created multiple centres of authority within the PDP, and hence, the evolution and consolidation of new power blocs within the party. In the consequence, the crisis within the party escalated and instantaneously took a new turn as the question of whose turn is it, within the geopolitical zones in the PDP, to produce the party’s Presidential flag bearer in the 2011 elections. This was one the fears why the transition of power to Jonathan as acting President was somehow delayed. Jonathan who did nothing to douse the apprehension also misguidedly heightened the tension arising from this Zonal/PDP Presidential flag bearer question by making moves which strongly indicated that he was not ready to follow subsisting party’s arrangement. Again, the party became polarized, now, along two major lines - pro-Jonathan and pro-Zoning camps and many other sub-interest axes which are directly or indirectly attached to the two dominant streams.

Obasanjo and some of his boys are known to be on the side of those who wanted zoning jettisoned so that Jonathan can run for the Presidency of the country under the PDP. This singular factor, that is, Obasanjo’s support for Jonathan also spiraled the in-party crisis as aggrieved stakeholders and all of those who were once victims of Obasanjo’s iron-fisted and draconian hold on the party re-grouped to salvage their political careers from suffering another nightmarish set back.

The factors that have been so far briefly highlighted have brought about gargantuan and across-the-board changes in the political physics (balance of forces) and chemistry (stability) of the PDP. It is only the politically naïve that can challenge the veracity of the fact that this developments are to a large extent, responsible for the crises which are affecting almost all chapters of PDP.

At this stage, that is the second part of this article, attention will, on the one hand, now be focused on how the above factors will affect Jonathan’s political fortune during the PDP primaries. On the other, some indexes of political calculus- political desire, political cover, political cost, political risk, and political commitment will be used to the same effect.

To start with, one may be tempted to ask this leading question, why is it that the Ibadan PDP chapter is embroiled in a serious inter-party crisis that has largely unsettled and making it electorally weakened? As history and nature of the current Oyo PDP crisis suggest, the root of the problem is indisputably associated with the politics that led to the dethronement of Ladoja and how Alao Akala was against the wish of founding fathers/gladiators of the Oyo PDP imposed by both Obasanjo and late Lamidi Adedibu. The aggrieved gladiators which comprises ex- Governor Rashidi Ladoja, High-Chief Lekan Balogun, former Deputy-National Chairman, South of the party, Alhaji Yekini Adeojo, and a former Minister for Special Duties, Elder Wole Oyelese, have constituted selves into a united strong power bloc whose main pre-occupation is to scuttle Akala’s second term agenda. This strong anti-Akala power bloc has a poor opinion about the PDP national leadership for its inability to enforce the implementation of the Ike Nwachukwu-led National Peace and Reconciliation Committee on the Oyo PDP crisis. The Nwachukwu’s report recommended that the way out of the Oyo impasse was to dissolve the existing party structure and replace it with a new one whose composition will be based on a sharing formula that allows for even representation of all major camps that were involved in the crisis. The execution of this resolution which was welcomed by all was however rejected and frustrated by Akala who feared all other camps can easily unit together and effectively takes over the party structure from him. In the consequence, it dawned on him that his second term bid would become a political mirage, hence, the desperate search for a way out of this political dilemma. As a way of this political fix, Akala felt the only way he could beat those opposing him to the 2011 PDP guber race is to align his interest with Jonathan’s own and to his grace, he was able to sell his dummy to the latter. Since Alao Akala is enjoying the backing of Jonathan Goodluck, it is only natural that both would work hand-in-hand for the realization of each other’s gubernatorial and Presidential aspirations. This Akala-Jonathan partnership is not without its consequences because it is such which has generated its own opposite. This opposite, which includes the anti-Akala forces in Oyo state and anti-Jonathan camps would coalescence together to slug it out with Alao Akala at the state level and Jonathan, at the federal level. In effect, this will affect the number of Oyo delegate votes that Jonathan can swing in his favour during the PDP Presidential primaries.

The PDP camp in Ogun state is also enmeshed in internal crisis which has pitched against one another, party stakeholders. Governor Gbenga Daniel who is the South-West Coordinator of Jonathan’s campaign is at the centre of this crisis which has amongst others, Olusegun Obasanjo, Dimeji Bankole, the Minister for Commerce and Industries, Chief Jubril Martins Kuye, as political foes. The crisis has divided the Party into two state-factional leaderships, and split the State’s House of Assembly into camps with each having its own Speaker. There are the G-16 lawmakers with Mr. Tunji Egbetokun as its Speaker and the G-9 lawmakers whose Speaker is Mr. Soremi Coker. Both camps want to produce Gbenga Daniel’s successor and one would surely fight back if the other gets the ticket at the expense of the other. As expressed Chief Babatunde Fadun, the Public Relations Officer of the Ogun People’s Democratic Party (PDP), who exonerated Nwodo of any wrongdoing, Jonathan has done little to solve the crisis. Chief Fadun is reported to have said, “I was at the meeting where the leaders of the party met with the President and he said he would do something about the situation. But that is yet to materialize. So, if anything happens in Ogun State, it is the failure of the leadership to make things work.” Fadun has spoken what is known to observers of events as the feelings of most of the stakeholders in Ogun state PDP. Given this impression and that interest is the only permanent thing in politics; therefore, it is stating the obvious that this will considerably affect the number of Ogun delegate votes that Jonathan can swing in his favour.

The PDP leadership’s inability to manage internal crisis as expressed by Gbenga Daniel is one reason why they also lost Ekiti. Accordingly, he submitted, “the worst disaster is losing Ekiti State. If we are not careful, and God forbid, it could be the end of our party in the South West. The capacity of our party to manage crisis is nil. We are all endangered species. There is no doubting the fact that the internal crisis within Ekiti PDP stakeholders and their poor opinion on the party’s national leadership won’t encroach on the delegate vote Jonathan can garner from this state. Similar trends as it is with the foretasted exist in other chapters of the South-West PDP state chapters. Therefore, it may be argued that contrary to media claims and the perceived endorsement of Jonathan, the latter, it may be argued, is not in the real control of the PDP delegates’ votes in the South-West.



Same observation as it is with the South-West may not be the case with the South-South where Jonathan hails. He is the favored candidate and the probability is high that he might probably get nearly all the delegate votes from this region. However going by the recent outburst of Pa Anenin, there is possibility that some forces within the South-South might be working underground against the interest of Jonathan in this region. Anenih, one of the game’s veterans said that “Anybody from the South-South who does not vote for this ticket (Jonathan/Sambo), God will not give him good luck. That day, we have the boxes, Bayelsa, Edo, so when you put your ballot paper inside the box, we will know what you have done. Akwa Ibom box will be counted, Jonathan, Jonathan, Jonathan! We don’t expect to be here, not even by mistake, somebody is saying Atiku. We will identify the handwriting of that person. If it is a finger print, we will trace it. I hope you know I was a Commissioner of Police! We will trace that person who made that terrible mistake!” I leave readers to ponder on why Anenih issued this threat and how probably, this correlates with the real and not the sensationalized South-South PDP delegates’ voting pattern? Is this not suggestive that some delegates and forces are known not to be disposed to Jonathan’s dream? By issuing such threat in the public, does is it not implies that Jonathan’s challengers are exerting increasing presence in the South-South?

The South-East one may safely conclude, would surely trade off Jonathan in order to realize their 2015 presidential dream. In other words, the South-East PDP will trade their vote for the North so that the latter can support them in claiming the same mandate in 2015. One way to look at this issue logically is from the prism of a South-East running mate, which from all indications, is a possibility foreclosed to Jonathan. By refusing to settle for a South-East running mate, the obvious is that Jonathan will be trading the North for the South-East based on an understanding that by 2015, he, Jonathan, will offer his support for the 2015 Northern presidency agenda. Therefore, based on the political mathematics of concession, the foreclosure of the Igbo running mate option by Jonathan strongly indicates the foreclosure of the 2015 Igbo presidency. Therefore, a step towards realizing the 2015 Igbo presidency is the running mate question as this is a bargaining strength upon which the foundation of the 2015 can be built and allegiances traded. On the basis of this, it is wise to predict that Jonathan will lose a considerable number of delegate votes from the South-East.

Another way to look at the logic of the above contention is to raise the question why has 2011 presidential discourse and politics being reduced to the South-North debate? Is this not indicative of how the zoning question and the 2015 presidency constitute the political pressure which determines who gets what in 2011? Why has Jonathan refused to make a promise on the 2015 Igbo presidency? Is this not suggestive of what he has traded off in order to achieve his 2011 presidential dreams? Given this reality, is it expected that the Ndigbo would accept this without exploring option that can brighten their chances of realizing the 2015 Igbo presidency dream? However unfortunate it may be that such indexes are determining and shaping the outlook of our politics, disregarding these indexes might be tantamount to divorcing issues from the existing political context, historical reality and situational psychology.

With respect to the Northern delegate votes, it is worth recounting the recent statement credited to the Director General of the Jonathan/Sambo campaign organisation Dr Dalhatu Sarki Tafida. During a recent campaign tour in the South-South, Tafida said, ““Mr. President you are lucky. You are lucky because these people you see here love you. However, there are challenges, challenges in the sense that other zones are competing with you. The north-west is competing with you. The North-East where we think we have an aspirant there is competing with you. Believe you me, the North- East (Atiku) may even beat you in the polling zone, therefore you should be careful! Be careful! (turning towards Jonathan). They are working very hard! They are working very hard…”

Tafida was speaking the obvious when he listed the North-East and North-West as zones that are competing with Jonathan. These are zones where the zoning question bears a significant influence, hence, the prospect that Atiku will amass a stunning majority of the delegate vote from this zone. Although the North central is opened to these two PDP top contenders, giving Atiku’s political spread and aged-long relationship with stakeholders in this zone, he stands a good chance of having upper hand over Jonathan in this zone. There are even other political actors from the North-West and North-East who can assist Atiku in penetrating the North-central. To the exception of the power of incumbency, Jonathan’s camp may be said to be lacking such political reservoirs. Besides this factor, regional, ethnical and regional sentiments will strongly influence the voting dimension in these zones, therefore, another reason why the overwhelming majority of the delegate votes would be lost by Jonathan.

At this juncture, the indexes of political calculus would be put to use in analyzing how the chances of Jonathan’s emergence as PDP flag bearer will be effected. The first of these indexes is political risk which as defined a source is “an unquantifiable risk that future events will cause a current political commitment to look bad, with the benefit of hindsight, and thus incur a future political cost from a past action.”


Going by my previous analysis of what the PDP went through or the grounds it lost owing to the crisis instigated by Obasanjo during his hey days as the number one man in PDP, the party’s stakeholders and its delegates will be affected by the psychology of this past and the consequential crises that might trail the abandonment of zoning which is enshrined in the party’s constitution.


Zoning, power sharing and rotation philosophy between the South and the North as pragmatic analyst would concede, was the focal point that underlined the formation of the PDP and upon which its continued existence is hinged. This is expressly stated in Article 7, subsection 2c, of the PDP constitution, which states that "in pursuance of the principle of equity, justice and fairness, the party shall adhere to the policy of rotation and zoning of party and public elective offices, and it shall be enforced by the appropriate executive committee at all levels."

The validity of the above claim on zoning vis-a-vis the relevance of zoning to the formation and sustenance of PDP as a political party will become clearer when Article 7, subsection 2c quoted above is read against a preamble in the party’s constitution which reads, “ “to create socio-political conditions conducive to national peace and unity by ensuring fair and equitable distribution of resources and opportunities, to conform with the principles of power shift and power sharing by rotating key political offices among the diverse peoples of our country and evolving powers equitably between the federal, state and local governments in the spirit of federalism.”


Readers are implored to bear in mind that the PDP was formed based on the collective interest of some elites with varying religious, political, and ethnical background whose common goal is to ensure that the leadership of the country is produced and retained within their circle. It was with this spirit that the concept of zoning, power sharing and rotation was conceived by the PDP stakeholders and founding fathers. In fact, this is a permanent interest that is common and topmost on the agenda setting of any political parties. To achieve this on the long term basis, and also sustain the life of the PDP, then, the principle of zoning was devised so that both a sort of balancing would be maintained between the South and the North.


Therefore, if one man’s ambition will create an implosion that will eventually affect the interest of the elites within the PDP, cause the PDP to lose its national dominance and peradventure accelerate the collapse of the PDP, then, it is definite that at the decisive moment, such ambition would be sacrificed.


Card carrying and non-card carrying members of the PDP are aware of how Jonathan’s ambition has created serious cracks within the rank and file in the PDP, therefore, based on the factor of political risk, it may be argued that the probability is on the high side that most party delegates and stakeholders would work against the emergence of Jonathan as the PDP presidential flag bearer.

Another way to reconsider the above argument is to use the yard stick of political cost which is defined by a source as “a measurable and unavoidable expenditure of political capital for taking an action (political commitment).” The PDP’s ultimate political commitment is to retain the forces in the North and the South that are central to its continued national dominance. This is defining point of PDP’s political capital without which its objectives on the power question and national dominance cannot be achieved. Therefore, as it is normal that individuals’ conflicting interests will always exist in a political setup, it is also natural that in so much the permanent party’s interest remains, certain individual political ambitions/interests will be traded as a forgone cost in favour of that which makes it possible for the permanent interest to be sustained.

Based on this logic, it is my take that Jonathan’s ambition would at the end of the day, be made the political alternative forgone which simultaneously, is needed to preserve the soul and body of the PDP. In other words, by working out the defeat of Jonathan at the PDP primaries, it would be considered by the party’s elites and stakeholders that the PDP will be deriving the value of the best other use to which Jonathan’s emergence would have caused them. Therefore, Jonathan’s ambition would, based on the relationship between PDP’s permanent interest and the concept of political cost, in preference to the concept of zoning-the opportunity cost- which is needed to get the spirit and body of PDP together, be made as the alternative forgone.

One of the several recent developments which establishes the veracity of this argument was how the PDP responded to the threat of IBB that he will dump the party if the concept of zoning is not respected. The party was well aware of the bandwagon effect that this will create and its imminent effect on the life of the party, and its permanent interest as identified in this piece, therefore, the reason why a day after the threat was issued by IBB, an emergency meeting of PDP National working committee was conveyed to discuss this matter on the 10 December, 2010.

Emissaries were in the wake of some political realities sent to IBB not to leave this party. The reason why such decision was taken, one will contend, was not as a result of the overbearing influence of IBB within the PDP. Rather, it is more politically wise to reason that this was based on the sensitivity of the basis on which he, IBB, predicated his quest to leave the party. This reason as stated by IBB’s is because jettisoning zoning, “simply means that they reject (zoning) and are therefore not prepared to conform to the principles of power shift and power sharing by rotating key political offices amongst the diverse peoples of our country and devolving powers equitably between the Federal, State and Local Governments in the spirit of federation. …If the Party has become so helpless in the face of these gross violations of its own constitution by its officers and its highest elected representative, then, many of us shall have no alternative but to reconsider our continued membership of the Party.” Based on this statement extract, one may therefore not require uncommon wisdom to decipher what may become of Jonathan’s ambition when the PDP presidential primaries are held.

Another argument which dovetails the above conclusion is to recount that the crises which started with Obasanjo, cascaded during the election that produced Yar’Adua and this was somehow well managed during the latter’s reign. However, after the latter’s death, the crises imploded with Jonathan’s bid to overrule the party’s constitution so that he can emerge as the party presidential flag bearer. This factor has generated series of reaction and wave of spiraling sentiment which has portrayed Jonathan’s candidacy as one that is against the party’s concept of zoning, and such which is aimed at undermining the Northern interest. It is on this premise that those who are opposing Jonathan’s candidacy on the platform of PDP are premising their argument and this was the foundation upon IBB predicated his threat that they made the PDP to send a delegation which tried to pacify him to remain within the party’s fold. This factor, it is obvious, is potent and critical to continued sustenance of the psychology of PDP as a political party, the party’s soul and spirit and the machinery it relies on, to sustain its hold on the politics of Nigeria.

Since Jonathan has power of incumbency to his advantage, one would expect him to fight this issue using all arsenals at his disposal. Therefore, it is essential that this factor be examined, hence, the focus on the next index of political calculus, political desire.

One other factor that might work against Jonathan is his low political desire scorecard’s rating. Here, political desire is, as defined by a source, “an elected official’s interest in seeing a particular issue successfully addressed.” At the party level, it is a known fact that Jonathan has demonstrated leadership inability to manage the crises within the party. Even evidences would be provided to argue how the internal party crises that are rocking the PDP has increased in manifold since Jonathan’s reign as the party’s number one person. Similar argument might be raised on how Jonathan has not been able to manage the nation’s economy and insecurity. All these will reduce the potency of the incumbency factor and hence, compromise the chances of Jonathan when the die is to be cast.

Another way to argue how the incumbency factor will not work in favour of Jonathan is to take a critical look on some happenings between Jonathan and PDP governors. One would wonder that the governors who bought Jonathan’s application form, and graced his declaration as a “mark of support for his candidacy” were the ones that Jonathan later forced to “endorse” his candidacy. Jonathan who was fully conscious of the fact that he hardly enjoys the real political support pledged him by the PDP governors, was so helpless that at a crying point, he issued the following statement:

You have given assurances of support but some of you are secretly campaigning for Atiku. I can’t stand here and be humiliated by you. Everything I have asked for, you have refused to give me. No president anywhere has been treated by his party the way you are treating me.” … “I am the captain of this boat. I am not going down alone. I am going to sink this boat and go down with all that are in it.

From the first part of the above statement of Jonathan, it is obvious that Jonathan knew that he does not enjoy the real support of most the PDP governors. It also shows that he is fully aware of the fact that he would be defeated at the primaries and that he does not enjoy the party’s real support. It was on the strength of this reality that he issued the threat, “I am the captain of this boat. I am not going down alone. I am going to sink this boat and go down with all that are in it” which was aimed at caging governor and force them to make a retreat from their decisions not to back him. The governors who were of course smarter and who have learnt from experience of the past decided to issue another false declaration which was so much sensationalized by the media without much analysis of the authenticity of such endorsement. It may even be asked that but Obasanjo succeeded in using incumbency to achieve his succession agenda.

First, it seems more apt that why attempting to find the most logical explanation why Jonathan might not succeed with the same factor, to bear in mind that Obasanjo unlike Jonathan was over a long period of time able to manipulate and work out the exit of the gladiators/political caterpillars that were opposed to his agenda. In this case of Jonathan, those gladiators are not only back in the fold of the PDP, but are tirelessly working and freely operating as effective power blocs who are plotting how to pay back Obasanjo in his coin and in effect, this will affect Jonathan’s agenda.

Also, another reason why the incumbency factor might not really work in favour of Jonathan is that the time factor needed to put this to effective use is not on the latter’s side and most importantly, Jonathan, unlike Obasanjo, is not a veteran of the game. But of all these factors, it is my take that the most significant one that might really undermine Jonathan’s incumbency factor is that Jonathan, unlike Obasanjo, lacks what it takes to force his political opponents on exile from the party or render them effectively silenced. He has tried this and failed on many occasions. The same tactics being highlighted was deplored by Tinubu when he wanted to hijack and dismantle the then Alliance for Democracy (AD) structure and similar trend, may, if further researched, be found in the politics of the first, second and third republics.

Consequently, if the endorsements and what has been sensationalized about Jonathan’s chances are real, I leave readers to wonder why was it that the PDP governors frustrated Jonathan’s attempt to change the order of conduct of the PDP primaries? Readers are also tasked to wonder, why was it that Jonathan desperately attempted to get the constitution of the country changed by effecting major changes in the electoral act? Were these maneuvers not indicative of the fact that Jonathan and the PDP governors are playing hide and seek game?

All of these questions and other factors argued above are instructive and pointers to the fact that Jonathan has enjoyed more support in the imaginary world than in the real world of politics where decision will be taken on the probable emergence as PDP presidential flag bearer.

[center]The Writer, Mr. Adebiyi Jelili Abudugana, a formal UNILAG student union leader can be reached through abudugana2000@yahoo.com[/center]

Anyway, I am of the opinion that by joining NIDO, you can make your voice to be heard and changes effected within the organization as well as in Nigeria. The retired High Commissioner is learning a bitter lesson through our effort here and I believe this can be replicated elsewhere

Recently some individuals from some parts of Europe and America visited Nigeria to pledge their solidarity for Jonathan's presidency. This testifies to what diasporic bodies might be used for politically which in real sense is to create false impression that a candidate enjoys wide spread acceptance. In our case, we have persistently refused to be used for this and other related purposes, therefore one reason why our arrest is imminent.

Although I am not in possession of documents that back your claim, over here in Malaysia, no single penny of the FG has been invested on us as members of NIDO. We are committed to the give-back philosophy of NIDO, and this is why we will resist any attempted attempt by anybody to impose handpicked persons on us. We are not a political entity, therefore, we wont endorse any candidate as well. The door is closed against any of these agendas.

NIDO may like many organizations may be supported by the FG in some places, but the reality is dat its status as an NGO remains. This is the point we are making to the discomfiture of the Nigerian officers in Malaysia. I am happy that John intricated this wonderful piece which further exposes how dangerous our diplomats are here

NIDO may like many organization be supported by the FG in some places, but the reality is dat its status as an NGO remains.

The last may not have been heard about the simmering crisis between the Nigeria High Commission Malaysia under the headship of Ambassador Peter Anegbeh and the Executives of the Non-governmental Organization of Nigerians in Diaspora, NIDO Malaysia (NIDOMY), in the South-East Asian country.

The crisis which came to a head on 20 November 2010, after the retired Nigeria High Commissioner to Malaysia, Peter Anegbeh, attempted to overthrow the democratically elected outgoing Executives of NIDOMY by inaugurating a Care Taker Committee (CTC) which comprises handpicked individuals of his choice, is gradually assuming an ugly dimension.

Sensing the unpopularity and illegality of his decision as reflected in the apparent incapacity of his handpicked CTC to assume the reins of authority of the organization, as findings reveal, Anegbeh has concluded plans to explore the option of mass arrest of members of the legitimate executive under the Malaysian Internal Security Act (ISA).

Reports reaching us indicate that Anegbeh has submitted to the Malaysian government for arrest under the ISA, a list of names, which features prominently the name of the outgoing Secretary-General of the organization, Mr. Adebyi Jelili Abudugana, and others he deemed too powerful to be coerced into accepting his decision to unconstitutionally hijack the leadership of the organization and install his handpicked cronies.

The forces opposing Anegbeh are reported to have refused to allow Anegbeh the breathing space in executing his agenda because such action of the retired diplomat is according to the organization, unconstitutional and not within his purview as a diplomat since he is not a member of the organization which is non-governmental.

Overwhelmed by the evidences tendered to counter his claims and in establishing the illegality of his action, Anegbeh as findings reveal have decided to opt for a new tactics.

Therefore, based on the failure of Anegbeh's plan A, as reliably gathered, he has resorted to use the joker of religious and ethnic sentiments to discredit the outgoing the Executive who, according to findings, were elected by both Christian and Muslim electorates.

Anegbeh is qouted to have expressed his dissatisfaction that the outgoing leadership has more Muslims than Christians in its leadership make up and that the people from his part of the country are not well-represented in the Executive body of the organization.

Given this new joker, the retired and outgoing HC is poised to establish a NIDO-MY which will be fully dominated by his own ethnic and religious group out of his sheer dislike for the present composition which to him comprises of Muslims of the Northern enclave.

Reacting to this unfavorable development that is fast dividing the once united Nigerian community in Malaysia, a number of Nigerian legal residents in Malaysia express their displeasures over the actions of the outgoing High Commissioner.

According to Oluwatosin Abiola, a Nigerian researcher that is resident in Malaysia, “tyrants worldwide are known for their use of brutish force and coercive tactics in-order to accomplish their self-serving purposes. The ex-HC hasn't acted differently in this regard. By threatening to arrest and detain law-abiding residents of this community under the ISA act, he is only confirming what we have long suspected him of. Like his ilk back home in Nigeria, they would do anything, including blackmail to continuously cling on to power. As a widely travelled man, the ex-HC should know that the primary function of his exalted office is to protect the lives, properties and interests of all Nigerians who are here for legitimate reasons and not to dabble into the affairs of an NGO like NIDO-MY.”

Oluwatosin Abiola also expressed his dissatisfaction on Mr. Anegbeh's resort to use of religious and ethnic sentiments by stating that, “Another infuriating issue in this debacle is the resort to the use of religious/ethnic sentiments on the part of the ex-HC in-order to gain public sympathy cum support. It is common knowledge that when Nigerians meet outside the shores of the country, they often view issues through a common lens irrespective of religious/ethnic affiliations-of course our leaders do not like this. Fully aware that our unity is a threat to the corrupt empire they have built and sustained with our sweat and even blood, they will do anything to ensure we remain disunited. Ethno-religious crises have been a portent tool with which they've achieved their selfish desires. Through it, they have succeeded in keeping us divided among ourselves. Whenever they want to siphon public funds, they do not bring up Ethno-religious issues but the moment they realize we are closing our ranks to fight a common cause like this illegality presently being perpetrated, they introduce them to scuttle such moves. The Jos crises is still very fresh in our memories; ditto other politically motivated crises which our leaders would want us to believe are caused by religious/ethnic differences, albeit erroneously. This gimmick will definitely not work in an organization like NIDO-MY where we have intelligent and educated Nigerians from various walks of life.”

Why reacting to the matter at hand, Mr. Abudugana, the organization's outgoing Secretary General remarked, “it has been a crisis spurred by the undemocratic and unconstitutional resolve of one individual, Mr. Anegbeh, to fulfill his pledge of handpicking and foisting on our noble Organization, NIDOMY, a group of individuals most of whom are either questionable or not registered members of our Organization.

Abudugana further submitted that, “to achieve his aims, Mr. Anegbeh and his cohorts embarked on a systematic character denigration campaign and tried many ploys to divide our ranks. He has accused our leadership of being ethnicized and religiously biased, a move which is the strongest and wicked blackmail tactics that can be used against anybody who hails from a country like Nigeria where ethno-religious matters are treated with dire sensitivity.”

“He has singled me out for blackmail, and character assassination, an accusation, which, I boldly wish and hope that he ought to have challenged in any competent court of law rather than resorting to Machiavellian and guerilla tactics that is typical of authoritarian regimes that have destroyed African destiny in particular and dashed the hope of many in the world” Abudugana said.

Defying dissenting voices and outright condemnation from these Nigerians, Anegbeh is working closely with his CTC and another Electoral Committee which he formed and appointed a staff in the High Commission, Mr. A. Idowu as its Chairman, for a parallel election that is scheduled to hold on January 8, 2011. This is billed to come after he, Mr. Anegbeh has discredited, disregarded and discarded the transition process set up by the outgoing NIDOMY leadership which has concluded the organization's elections into Executive posts in November.

In a phone chat, the Secretary of the Electoral Committee that conducted the November election, Hakeem Onapajo, countered the position of the outgoing HC that the election was not credible enough. He posited that “all duly established procedures recognized by the constitution of the organization was strictly adhered to in the electoral process that produced the yet to be sworn-in executive. I see it as mischievous and indeed ludicrous that any individual will challenge a process widely acknowledged to be free and fair.”

A conscious effort made to get the position of the High Commission proved abortive as officials of the Commission rebuffed all overtures to seek the audience of the HC on the matter. Efforts were also made in this direction to seek a lasting clarification from the Nigerian government on the true status of NIDO as an organization and the extent to which its High Commissions have influence over the organization's activities.

An official of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Abuja who pleaded anonymity faulted the position that NIDO is a governmental agency. According to him, “no, I don't think anybody can say that NIDO is a governmental agency. In what capacity can the government classify it as its own agency? It is not a department under foreign missions. The government only recognizes it based on the fact that it unites Nigerians under the same umbrella of one Nigeria as against other ethnic or culturally based Nigerian organizations abroad, hence, a reason why the missions collaborate with it in any country of its existence.”

Corroborating this position, Ambassador Prince Ariyo of the nation's High Commission in Namibia, in a recent event in 2009 marked to formally inaugurate the chapter of NIDO in the African country, traced the origin of the organization. He maintained that it was founded as an NGO that would “discuss the possibility of establishing a very strong Organization that comprises Nigerian academicians and professionals in various fields of endeavor residing in Europe.”

A quick check on different websites of NIDO in different countries such as the United States of America, United Kingdom, Russia, the Netherlands and many others also validates this position. For instance, Dr. Mrs. N.N. Akanbi, Ambassador Extraordinary of Nigeria in the Netherlands, in an address made available on the organization's website severally referred to NIDO as “your organization” to several Nigerian professionals in attendance while having a meeting with them between 6 and 9 February 2009.

Opposing this view is Chief James Emarievbe, the anointed candidate of Mr. Anegbeh who the latter has also appointed as the head of the outgoing High Commissioner's CTC. In a document made available to the members of the organization, he contended that Anegbeh as his bosom friend confided in him that the organization was a governmental organization and hence, his reason for meddling into its affairs.

He boasted to have had access to some confidential and classified documents that cannot be made available to everybody which indicate that Anegbeh has acted rightly to disengage the Executive and form the CTC.

Chief James remarked, “to be fair to all, I booked an interview with the High Commissioner, Chief Peter Anegbeh today and we held a meeting in which I requested him to justify his involvement in an NGO which should be on her own for now. The HC again reaffirmed his stand that NIDO is not an NGO. In support of his stand he allowed me to read two letters from the Ministry of External Affairs, one issued on 25/9/2008 signed by Keshi and another memo in July, 2009 directing all missions on how to celebrate the 50th anniversary of Nigeria Independence. Because the two documents were marked CONFIDENTIAL from Head Office, I could not make photocopies for circulation. The memo of 25/9/2008 clearly gave directive to all missions to supervise the activities of NIDO in their respective countries so that the objective of the Goverment can be achieved. The memo states that a special unit is set up in the Ministry of External Affairs (we can verify this) to oversee the activities of NIDO and further warned the Missions to expect resistance from Members of NIDO which they should be ready to deal with. The Memo of July, 2009 reconfirmed the position of NIDO as a Government organisation hence officers/activities of NIDO are supported by Government.”

While reacting to Chief James's claim, Mr Abudugana said, “I am surprised that Chief James is still holding on to the false claim that NIDO is owned by the Nigerian government. Until now, Chief James has never provided any hard evidence to justify his spurious claim. He has only cited some secret and classified documents which he claimed was shown to him by Mr. Anegbeh. That Chief James was shown a classified document is in itself an abuse of office by the person who allowed him access to such secret and classified memos. No honest person would accept such claim in a discourse where overwhelming evidence has been produced to establish the truth and NIDOMY's indisputable status as an NGO. The same bogus claimed was re-echoed by Mr. Anegbeh and his cohorts. This is a bald-faced affront on truth and the indisputable status of NIDO as an NGO.”

The government of Nigeria might at this point need to clear the air on the protracted crisis engulfing Nigerians in Malaysia. Continued silence over the matter might validate the assumed culpability of the government on the issue and further worsen the situation for Nigerians in Far East Asia.

John Olawepo can be reached through okiki_olo@yahoo.com

yeah, it is the same old abudugana, former student union leader. Great Akokites, my due respect

as an observer of the events, i would advise you to refer to other detailed posting on this matter. It is a reflection of the reality in Malaysia. So, for those in the knowing, it is a balanced and credible report.

The last is yet to be heard of the plans of President Goodluck Ebele Azikiwe Jonathan to use the Executive Bill which empowers ambassadors to vote as Party delegates as a means of boosting his chances of emergence as PDP presidential flag bearer.

Although this bill is considered technically dead, recent developments in Malaysia indicate that the idea is being re-packaged to serve the same purpose.

According to a reliable inside source within the Jonathan’s camp, it is said that memos have been issued to all Nigerian missions abroad to systematically buy over the leadership of different Nigerian Diaspora communities.

Specific mention as the source confirmed was made of the Nigerians in Diaspora Organization (NIDO) as one of the bodies whose leadership must be either bought over or completely hijacked. These memos, as our sources further confirmed were being coordinated by both the Ministry of Foreign affairs and the Nigerian National Volunteer Services (NNVS).

Findings suggest that Nigerian missions abroad are finding it difficult to achieve this agenda particularly in America and Europe where they have been encountering insurmountable obstacles from the progressive layers.

However, same story cannot be said of Asia, where, particularly in Malaysia, it is said that Ambassador Peter J.E Anegbeh, together with the South-South community in Malaysia, has almost succeeded in taking over the Malaysian Chapter of NIDO.

According to findings, it was said that Ambassador Anegbeh who has retired from active service since June 2010 and yet still occupying the position of Nigeria High Commissioner to Malaysia, made several attempts to lure the outgoing leadership of NIDOMalaysia to allow him handpick their successors. This move, as gathered from the protest memo sent by the “recalcitrant” NIDOMY leadership” to the NNVS was objected by all registered members of the Organization.

Realizing that it might be difficult to take over the whole leadership, it was said that, another memo was sent from Abuja, instructing the Nigeria High Commission in Malaysia (NHCM) to negotiate for a sharing formula of 50-50.

When contacted for explanation on this 50-50 arrangement, one of the opinion/community leaders in Malaysia said that it meant 50% of the incoming leadership of NIDOMY will be handpicked by the Presidency and the remaining by the NIDOMY stakeholders.

It was on the strength of the 50-50 arrangement that Madam F. O. A. Marinho, Minister (Economic, Education and Students’ Welfare) issued a memo, part of which reads, “… The Mission is considering the list forwarded by the Presidency …and shall convey its decisions to everyone during the meeting slated for Saturday 20th November, 2010 by 12 noon at the Chancery as directed by the High Commissioner.” Again, this, according to another protest memo issued by the leadership of NIDOMY was rejected and declared unconstitutional.

Notwithstanding the uncooperative and uncompromising position of NIDOMY leadership, Mr. Anegbeh, the retired Nigeria High Commissioner to Malaysia went ahead to dissolve the leadership of NIDOMY, quashed the ongoing NIDOMY transition process, and unilaterally set up a Care Taker Committee (CTC), which has the outlook of a full-fledged Executive body.

In reaction to this, it was gathered that the NIDOMY leadership issued series of release which exposed the hidden agenda of the High Commission and detailed the involvement of Abuja in this mess.

Investigate reports also showed that the registered members of this body are prepared for a showdown with the staff of the Commission. One of the members said that “the action might though affect the image of theNigerian Government in Malaysia; it is worth the price for challenging illegality”.

Based on the effect of the releases issued by NIDOMY leadership, it was gathered that Mr. Anegbeh decided to have a change of tactics, by setting up an Electoral Committee (EC) that is to conduct elections into various post in NIDOMY. He appointed one of his staff, Mr. A.O Idowu as the Chairman of the EC.

When contacted on their reaction to this development, the leadership and membership of NIDOMY dismissed me it as another ploy to re-launch the hidden agenda of Mr. Anegbeh and his Abuja cohorts.

Frantic effort to reach Mr. Anegbeh for comments was futile; however, a reliable inside source revealed that Abuja is happy with Mr. Anegbeh. It was even said that plans are in top gear, to reward Mr. Anegbeh by facilitating his re-appointment of the substantive Nigerian High Commissioner to Malaysia.

Although some individuals within the Foreign Ministry are cautioning Mr. H Odein Ajumogobia, the Honourable Minister of Foreign Affairs not to lay a bad precedence by facilitating the appointment a retired diplomat as a substantive High Commissioner, it is said that the First lady, Dame Goodluck Jonathan is mounting pressure on Ajumogobia to forge ahead with the appointment.

Dame Goodluck who held meetings with Anegbeh and the supporters of Jonathan Goodluck during her visit to Malaysia between 10 and 13 October 2010 was impressed by Mr. Anegbeh’s commitment to his husband’s Presidential aspiration.

Dame was reported to have pledged her support for Anegbeh in getting him rewarded generously for his loyalty. Dame, according to one of the persons who was in this meeting was said to have declared that by encouraging Anegbeh, other diplomats will work harder to deliver as instructed.
The mood among Nigerians in Malaysia is said to be a tense one and it may be difficult to predict which of the sides would overpower the other.

John Olawepo, can be reached through okiki_olo@yahoo.com

Despite the fact that the diplomatic coup d'état staged by the retired Nigeria High Commissioner to Malaysia, Mr. Peter Anegbeh to oust the out-going leadership of NIDO-MY and usurp its leadership was considered foiled, Mr. Anegbeh and his cohorts, re-grouped and went ahead to conduct an unauthorized Annual General Meeting of NIDO-MY. With this, on 20 November 2010, Mr. Anegbeh used the premises of the Nigerian government to launch his faction of NIDO-MY.

This illegitimate jamboree which held on 20 November 2010 at the premises of the Nigeria High Commission, Malaysia, was chaired and coordinated by the retired High Commissioner and arrowhead of the coup d'état, Mr. Anegbeh. On this unconstitutional occasion, a speech entitled, “Speech by the High Commissioner, Peter J.E Anegbeh to Nigerians in Diaspora Organization Malaysia(NIDO-MY) on Saturday 20th November, 2010” was read by Mr. Anegbeh. This rejoinder sets out to offer factual analysis of the diplomatic coup d'état speech in order to expose the undercurrent motives of the Anegbeh’s camp as well as tissues of lies being circulated by the retired High Commissioner to inflame, subvert, factionalize, ethicize, commercialize, hijack and hand over the leadership of NIDO-MY to the highest bidder.
There is the need to recount that in the first official secretariat release of NIDO-MY on this diplomatic coup d'état, it was stated that the officials of the Nigeria High Commission denied any involvement in the mischievous text message that was used in conveying the illegitimate congregation chaired and coordinated by Mr. Anegbeh and members of the Commission staff.
Specifically, in a telephone conversation with Mrs. Dupe Quist Adebiyi (Minister (Head of Chancery, Economic and Trade Matters) and Ms. Francisca O. A. Marinho Minister (Economic, Education and Students’ Welfare), these officials said that the High Commission was neither aware nor issued any notice for such illicit meeting. Evidences marshaled to ascertain the attachment of Mr. Anegbeh in particular, and the High Commission as a whole was enthusiastically challenged and rubbished by these two senior staff. However, the opening paragraph of the inaugural diplomatic coup d'état speech read by Mr. Anegbeh to an illegitimate and scanty assemblage of hand-picked people indicts and establishes Anegbeh and High Commission as a whole, as the sponsors of the ill-intentioned text message.

In the opening paragraph of this diplomatic coup d'état speech, Mr. Anegbeh writes, “My brother and sister, it gives me great pleasure to be with you this afternoon and I want to sincerely thank you for heeding the clarion call and honoring my invitation (emphasis, writer’s own) for us to come together once again after the celebration of the 50th Anniversary of Nigeria’s Independence…” Although this quoted extract is itself self-revealing, the bolded part, (honoring my invitation) clearly confirms NIDO-MY’s leadership claim that Mr. Anegbeh was the one who sponsored and issued the malicious text message used in conveying the illegitimate assembly. A number of those who made the scanty and unlawful gathering confided in the outgoing Secretary General of NIDO-MY, Mr. Adebiyi Jelili A., that they were personally called by Mr. Anegbeh. It was even said that they were told that the meeting has to do with directives issued by the Presidency, that is, Abuja, to effect changes in the activities, compositional line-up and administrative set up of NIDO-MY. However, written evidence of such directive from Abuja was neither produced to substantiate Mr. Anegbeh’s claim nor quoted in his four-paged diplomatic coup d'état speech. Abuja must have been mentioned in order to grant the illegitimate gathering a measure of legality. From the foregoing analysis, it is evident that, as opposed to Mrs. Dupe Quist Adebiyi, Ms. Francisca O. A. Marinho, and the High Commission’s claim, it was Mr. Anegbeh, the retired diplomat and the Commission that issued the mischievous “clarion-calling” text message used in staging diplomatic coup d'état against the democratically elected outgoing leadership of NIDO-MY in particular and the Organization, NIDO-MY, as a whole.

To further delude the whole public, Mr. Anegbeh went ahead in the second paragraph of his reprehensible speech to create an impression that he has the blessing of both the pioneering (2004-2008) and outgoing leadership (2008-2010) of the NIDO-MY to stage the diplomatic coup d'état aimed at hijacking and handing over NIDO-MY’s leadership to the highest bidders. To this extent, the arrowhead of this diplomatic coup d'état, Mr. Anegbeh writes, “let me once again seize this opportunity to thank the pioneer leadership of NIDO-MY as well as the outgoing team for the arduous task for putting NIDO-MY on track and on proper footing as envisioned by the Federal Government of Nigeria.” There is no doubting the fact that this statement was dubiously structured to serve the following intents. First, to create an erroneous impression and hoodwink the gathering as well as the general public that both the pioneering and outgoing leadership were seated in the illegitimate gathering where this mischievous speech was read. Second, it was also meant to sell an impish dummy and perhaps impression that on the one hand, all is well between NIDO-MY and the High Commission. On the other, it is intended to delude the generality of people that both NIDO-MY pioneering and outgoing leadership are working hand-in-hand to achieve the intended targets of the unlawful gathering where he delivered this liable speech.

Third, this statement also serves the purpose of misleading people as to think that Mr. Anegbeh’s mission was positive and that he is not on collision course with the leadership of the Organization whose insistence on following laid-down procedures was the reason why a diplomatic coup d'état was staged against them and the Organization as a whole. Fourth, this statement projects and positions comfortably in a “legitimate” position, Mr. Anegbeh’s “constitutional rights” to make assertive, and categorical statements on NIDO-MY. Fifth, it presents Mr. Anegbeh and the Commission as a constitutionally empowered individual and body to which NIDO-MY is accountable to. The last part of the second paragraph of this iniquitous speech which reads, “the task ahead of us (emphasis is author’s own) is great and all hands are needed on deck to fashion out a workable and acceptable constitution for NIDO-MY (emphasis is author’s own) as it is universally (emphasis is author’s own) done,” bears it all.

Again, when the word “us” in the above quoted extract of Mr. Anegbeh phrase is carefully read against the phrases “to fashion out a workable and acceptable constitution for NIDO-MY,” and “as it is done universally” the following are again obvious. One, “us,” as used in the sentence under consideration partly presents Mr. Anegbeh and the High Commission as members of NIDO-MY, a Non-Governmental Organization. Second, based on this first premise, that is Mr. Anegbeh’s and the High Commission’s membership of NIDO-MY, then, both parties have the right to, on the one hand, determine what is a NIDO-MY Constitution, and fashion out not just a workable constitution but the one that is also acceptable. On the other, it shows that Mr. Anegbeh and the High Commission’s membership of NIDO-MY empower them to reject what is considered not acceptable as a NIDO-MY constitution. Also, it creates the wrong impression that these claims: (1) Mr. Anegbeh’s membership of NIDO-MY (2) High Commission’s membership of NIDO-MY (3) High Commissioner’s and High Commission’s constitutionally-backed rights of; determining what is a NIDO constitution; right of reviewing of NIDO constitution; right of suspending the same constitution; right of affirming the same constitution; right of writing a NIDO constitution, are practices that are constitutionally recognized and conventional legitimate practices known to and accepted by all chapters of NIDO in different parts of the world.

A careful look at the constitutions of the different chapters of NIDO in America, Europe, Asia, and Africa will show that this is a libelous claim. See the attached as a proof. There is no clause, either direct or indirect, where such unfounded claim can be grounded a legitimate basis. In all of these constitutions, it is stated unambiguously that NIDO is a Non-Governmental Organization and a non-profit making body. Accordingly it is stated that:
“The name of the Company, which is a Non-Governmental Organisation (hereinafter called “the Organisation”), is the “Nigerians in Diaspora Organisation Europe (NIDOE)”- NIDO Europe Constitution

“The Organisation shall exist as a NON-PROFIT, Non-Governmental, Charitable, apolitical, and confessional independent Organisation with legal rights and obligation distinct from that of its members under Swiss Laws.”- NIDO Switzerland Constitution

“For the purpose of forming a Not-for-Profit corporation pursuant to the Laws of the District of Columbia, members of the NIDO Americas, Inc., (formerly known as NIGERIANS IN DIASPORA ORGANIZATION(NIDO AMERICAS),INC.), (hereinafter called the “Organization” or “NIDO” enact the following bylaws to govern the activities of the organization.” - NIDO American Constitution

WE, THE NIGERIANS resident in Malaysia: Having firmly and solemnly resolved: TO FORM a united, non-partisan, non-governmental and non religious Organization dedicated to the welfare of her members, promotion of the good image of Nigeria and promotion of developmental co-operation between Nigeria and Malaysia and the rest of the world- NIDOMY Constitution


The sections under the eligibility for membership of different chapters of NIDO also show that Nigerians in Diaspora who are academicians, professionals, businessmen with proven and legitimate business records are entitled to be admitted as members. Even, such membership rights as shown in the various constitutional provisos below, are not automatic because it requires fulfilling certain outlined constitutional membership requirement and registration procedures. So, an eligible member who has not gone through constitutionally outlined membership procedure is not a member of NIDO. Such member is at best potential member. There is nowhere in this regulating documents that the High Commissioners and the Nigeria High Commissions are provided for as members of this organization Evidences to support this claim can be seen in the Section 2:01 of the attached NIDO-America constitution, Section 2, page 11 of the attached NIDO-Europe constitution, Article 6 of the attached NIDO-Swiss constitution, Article 3 of the attached UAE constitution and Section 4.0 of NIDO-MY constitution.

Again, Anegbeh is noticed to have in third paragraph of his diplomatic coup d'état speech writes that, “NIDO as conceptualized by the government is to encompass Professionals, Business people and Academicians…” Although he properly outlines the three membership category of NIDO, the misleading part of this statement is the aspect which reads, “NIDO as conceptualized by the government.” The phrase, “NIDO as conceptualized by the government” was deliberately couched by Mr. Anegeh to sell the dummy that NIDO is purely a governmental thing and for this reason, the government has right to dictate and direct the affairs of the organization, the right to interfere in the politics of the Organization, the right to hire and fire the leadership of the organization, the right to review, suspend and write the Constitution of the Organization, and etcetera.

At this juncture, it is essential to produce verbatim, an historical document/e-mail which clarifies the role of Government in the formation of NIDO as a Non-Governmental Organization and which also show that Mr. Anegbeh’s claim and that of the Nigeria High Commission in Malaysia is baseless, concocted to serve certain ulterior agenda and far from the established reality that is recognized worldwide by NIDO chapters. Below is an archived historical e-mail exchange between the retired Ambassador Joe Keshi, erstwhile Nigeria Consul General to US and the generality of Nigerian diasporic community. This e-mail was issued when it was raised, the fears that in the future, some dictatorial Government officials might be engaged in the attempt to hijack the leadership of NIDO or foist their will on this Non-Governmental diasporic body. The e-mail was issued on February 16, 2001, in Keshi’s dual capacity as Nigeria Consul General to the US and as Government’s spokesperson reads:

To: Multiple Recipients
From: Joe Keshi, Consul General
February 16, 2001
1. This is to acknowledge with thanks receipt of your e-mail to the Consulate�s (Atlanta) Press Release on The Formation Of The Nigerians In the Diaspora Organisation (NIDO-AMERICA).
As previously communicated, the Washington meeting will be held on Saturday, March 3, 2001 at the "M" office of the Embassy of Nigeria, 2201 �M� Street. N. W. Washington D.C. 20037, from 10 a.m. - 5 p.m.
Registration will be from 9 a.m. For the avoidance of doubt, the one-day meeting will consider among others, the objectives of NIDO-America, its organisation, structure and how to mobilize Nigerians in the Diaspora to effectively participate in the organization.
2. While we welcome the overwhelming positive responses to the formation of NIDO-America, we also do recognise the reservations, apprehensions and concerns expressed in some quarters. It is imperative to address some of the issues raised so that the noble intentions of the present administration could be better understood and appreciated. Equally, there is the need at this stage, to remove any lingering doubts as to government�s intentions and involvement in the formation of NIDO- America.
3. Most of those who have expressed some concern at government�s involvement have based their fears on the past and on their personal experiences with past military regimes in Nigeria. Their fears and personal experiences are so deep and in some cases so disturbing, that one cannot but express appreciation at the concerns expressed.
Nevertheless, while the past exists as a guide to the future, we cannot, however, remain prisoners of the past. It should be recognized that the circumstances that compelled some past military administrations to attempt to set up Nigerian organizations in America and elsewhere does not exist any more. If the Abacha administration for example, felt the need to mobilise Nigerians abroad, it was because of the need of that Administration to counteract the unfavourable image of the regime especially in a place like America.
4. The Obansanjo administration has no such pressure as America today maintains not only a cordial relationship with the administration, but has since the inception of the regime been very supportive of the democratic process in Nigeria. This has led to high level exchange of visits, culminating in the August 2000 visit of the former US President Bill Clinton to Nigeria. In addition, compared to the past where the emphasis was on generating support for the regime in Nigeria, the focus of the Obasanjo administration is on mobilizing Nigerians in the Diaspora to contribute their own quota to national development.
As a result, NIDO-America is partly in response to government�s recognition of the reservoir of knowledge and expertise of Nigerians in the Diaspora and the contributions they could make to national development and partly in response to the clamour of Nigerians in the Diaspora for participation in the socio-economic development of Nigeria.
5. At the Presidential Dialogue in Atlanta, in response to some of the questions raised, the President was very emphatic in stating that while he could not guarantee the provision of jobs to all Nigerians in the Diaspora wishing to return home to Nigeria, he would, however, want to work with them to fashion out how best they could be involved in national development.
In encouraging Nigerians therefore to establish NIDO-America, and in facilitating the process, government is creating a platform or a vehicle through which Nigerians abroad, especially Nigeria�s best and brightest minds, could be involved one way or the other with the development of Nigeria.
6. Thus, while it might be �absurd� (to some) for government to participate in the formation of an NGO, it is imperative to reassure all and sundry that government�s involvement will be limited to facilitating the process of establishing NIDO-America and in encouraging Nigerians in the Diaspora to participate in the affairs of the NGO. Once the structure, the management and mechanism for mobilizing Nigerians are agreed upon, in Washington, the future of NIDO- America will depend entirely on Nigerians in the Diaspora.
7. Consequently, those who are apprehensive of government�s intention and participation should, therefore, have the highest interest in ensuring the success of NIDO- America. The way forward is for Nigerians in the Diaspora to organise their strength into a compelling force and ensure the take-off of NIDO on a solid foundation from its inception. It would, therefore, become the responsibility of the Nigerians in the Diaspora to manage NIDO as an efficient and effective self-sustaining NGO such that it could not be manipulated even by future administrations in Nigeria.
8. On the question of finances or funding for NIDO- America, there is the need for some objectivity, considering the desire of Government to ensure a smooth take off of NIDO-America.
Government�s preparedness to provide initial funding for the set up of the organisation should not be misconstrued, rather it should be welcomed. Besides, if the truth must be told, there is no major NGO in the world, that has not received or continued to benefit in one way or the other from government support.
In addition, contrary to speculations and expectations in some quarters, the government�s intention is that NIDO-America operate purely as a self-sustaining NGO.
9. With regards to working with existing organizations, as has been suggested, it is only fair to recognize in the first instance the cumbersome nature of working with so many professional, ethnic, political, socio-cultural and other Nigerian organisations in America. Given the likely administrative problems this might create, it was considered necessary to encourage Nigerians to form a national body that would not only represent their mutual interests, but also complement the existence of other Nigerian organizations in the Diaspora.
Besides, we do know that many Nigerians do not belong to some of the existing organizations in America. NIDO-America might end up as first among equals, but its existence will in no way threaten any existing organisation in America or elsewhere in the Diaspora.
10. Finally, may we appeal to all Nigerians in the Diaspora especially to those who have expressed deep-rooted concerns about government�s involvement to keep an open mind and participate either now or in the future in NIDO-America.
It will serve no purpose to wage an unnecessary campaign against the establishment of NIDO-America, nor to engage in acts of diseminating falsehood and name-calling against those who support the ideals of NIDO-America which no doubt will eventually benefit Nigerians in the Diaspora.
On the other hand, for those who have decided to give government the benefit of the doubt and have responded favourably, we wish to reiterate that once NIDO-America is launched, the challenge and the future of NIDO will largely be on your shoulders. The challenge, thereafter, will be
a. how to build NIDO-America into a formidable self-sustaining and non- profit NGO and
b. how to mobilize Nigerians in the Diaspora to achieve NIDO-America�s objectives.
11. In the meantime, we welcome useful ideas, proposals, and suggestions that will ensure the success of the Washington meeting, under the following headings:-
a. Aims and objectives
b. Organisational Structure
c. Management of NIDO-America
d. Funding
e. Mobilisation of Nigerians to participate in NIDO-America
Please forward your submissions as indicated above directly and solely to the Consulate-General of Nigeria (Atlanta) on or before February 21, 2001 via our e-mail or fax as follows:-
vi. Info@nigeria-consulate-atl.org
vii. Nigeria-atl@mindsrping.com
viii. Fax: (770) 394-4671
1. We, therefore, cordially invite all Nigerians and representatives of Nigerian organizations with shared vision in the formation of NIDO-America to the Washington meeting.
Joe Keshi
Consul General
February 16, 2001

Evident from this mail is the fact is that NIDO affairs is purely that of its members. Retired Ambassador Keshi who spoke the mind of Nigerian government has said it all: “Once the structure, the management and mechanism for mobilizing Nigerians are agreed upon, in Washington, the future of NIDO- America will depend entirely on Nigerians in the Diaspora.

Also, since a structure of NIDO-MY is already on ground in Malaysia and which as written the I refuse-to-go Ambassador Anegbeh (rtd) is “now on track and proper footing” then, there is no reason whatsoever for any interference from the High Commissioner. It is obvious that some ulterior motives which would later be mentioned have prompted Anegbeh to stage this diplomatic coup d'état against the people of Nigeria in Malaysia

President Obasanjo being introduced to the interim
executives of Nigeria in Diaspora Organisation (NIDO America)
Again, former President Olusegun Obasanjo while advising Nigerians in the Diaspora to set up a body for themselves stated that in Atlanta Washington DC in 2000 that:

"What we are planning is to get you together as a body and then rather than deal you professionals individually deal with you as a body because that organisation is also doing a lot for itself. It can act as a body of consultants for who state government, local government, federal governments etc. they can put themselves together to see what they can do here too. A lot is being done. But rather than for all to start dealing with each of you one by one, it would be difficult. Through an organisation you can help yourself - self-help and any help that government wants to render would also be easier."
In addition, Ambassador Joe Keshi, OON, in a keynote address delivered to Nigerians in the Diaspora Calgary, Alberta, Canada, on the occasion of the inauguration of the Nigerians in the Diaspora Organization (NIDO), Canada, Calgary Chapter, on Saturday 8 May, 2010, in Greenwood lnn NE, Calgary declared:

It is no longer news that the federal government under President Olusegun Obasanjo supported and encouraged the establishment of NIDO, to among others, serve as the platform for the Nigerian Diaspora engagement with the Nigerian State. You are all familiar with the arguments behind government‘s decision to build a mutually beneficial relationship with its nationals abroad and why, from inception the emphasis was on those with the requisite skills, and expertise as well as those who can make very meaningful contributions to the development of our beloved country. Suffice it to note that a major reason behind its establishment was the fact that a couple of countries, notably India and China had successfully tapped into the huge reservoir of knowledge, skills and expertise of their Diaspora to transform their countries.”

From the above two quoted speech extracts, the government merely encouraged and assisted in the formation of the body. The government and its officials have no right to intervene in the affairs of NIDO, a Non- Governmental Organization.
In the fourth paragraph of the crisis-igniting speech that is under scrutiny, Mr. Anegbeh was largely observed to have doctored and re-written history of NIDO-MY. It is no exaggeration that diplomatic authoritarianism was seen at its height as Mr. Anegbeh arrogated unto himself responsibilities that are outside the job specification of any officer of the Nigeria High Commission

In the opening part of this paragraph, it was stated that, “However, the NIDO-MY I met on my arrival did not fit into the expectation of our government.” Here, reference was being made to Prof. Suleyman A. Muyibi’s led-NIDO-MY (2004-2006; 2006-2008). On an explicit note, it was this leadership that pioneered the formation of the Malaysian Chapter of NIDO. It is fair that kudos be given to some veterans within the leadership rank of our predecessor, because, they fought hard to make sure that people of questionable characters that have been using the name of the Organization to perpetrate atrocities were not allowed breathing space. It took concerted efforts of Profs. Suleyman Muyibi and Francis Achike in particular, together with other members who rallied round these individuals to dislodge jailbirds, drug peddlers, admission racketeers, marriage scammers, human traffickers, and others, full-blown or sympathizers of fraudsters from the membership rank of this Organization.

The decisive battle won by Prof. Muyibi-led NIDO-MY was when they conducted a fiercely contested election which produced as their successor, a new crop of thorough bred, focused, principled, cultured and reformist minded 2008-2010 NIDO-MY Executives. Those who lost out were mostly sympathizers of the yahoo boys who are disguising themselves as business persons. Most of them have no valid residency in Malaysia. Those among them with residence permits, got it through student visa-schools. All they want is to use NIDO-MY as a cover for their illegal activities. This reality was well known to all and sundry and witnessed by Mr. Anegbeh. Perhaps, it was this reality that prompted Mr. Anegbeh to have said in the second paragraph of his self-contradictory speech that, “let me once again seize this opportunity to thank the pioneer leadership of NIDO-MY… for the arduous task for putting NIDO-MY on track and on proper footing as envisioned by the Federal Government of Nigeria.” A sane mind would ask why did the same Anegbeh declared in the fourth paragraph that, “However, the NIDO-MY I met on my arrival did not fit into the expectation of our government”.

For the record, Mr. Anegbeh frustrated attempts to conduct the election that produced the outgoing NIDO-MY Executives on two occasions. On the first occasion, Mr. Anegbeh who volunteered to get the premises of the High Commission ready for the election that scheduled for 29 November, 2008, deliberately failed to honour his promise. This information was not communicated to NIDO members who upon arriving the venue were told to go back home. This left Prof. Muyibi so dejected that he sent out a mail to NIDO members, the extract of which reads:

May this mail meet you in good mood as we all see the anger and frustration brought about by our inability to hold the Annual General Meeting(AGM) today 29th November 2008 as planned. This postponement has come because we did not put Plan B in place and relied 100% probably justified on the Nigerian High Commission’s promise to host the meeting including provision of all required facilities such as canopy, chairs, refreshments etc.
This information was confirmed on Wednesday 26th November 2008 through the Secretary-General, so all prior arrangements made by the AGM Planning Committee Chaired by the NIDO-MY Secretary General was put aside. It was therefore very shocking, embarrassing and humiliating to me personally as the President and in particular all the present executive committee members who were at the venue of the meeting with many members just hanging around without any place to sit. One would have at least expected the Nigerian High Commission to inform me or any of the executive committee members about their inability to fulfill their promise some days before the event in order for us to have made alternative arrangements on our own to hold this august meeting.

On behalf of the Executive Committee I hereby apologise to all NIDO-MY members who sacrificed other important matters they had to attend to come for the NIDO-MY AGM.
We really appreciate the patience, maturity, cool - headedness and professionalism displayed by all members during the trying moments this morning at the Nigerian High Commission. We will try our best not to allow such an occurrence in the future. As a follow up to this therefore the AGM will be held very soon and the date and location will be conveyed to all members once
As later learnt, the postponement was partly because auditors were around on that same day, so it was considered suicidal by Anegbeh to have people around for whatever reason.
In the same fourth paragraph of the speech under review, Mr. Anegbeh used the word “erstwhile NIDO-MY” to refer to a legally elected and standing NIDO-MY 2008-2010 Executives. Since NIDO-MY is yet to conduct the terminal AGM where the outgoing Executives will be dissolved by the General Assembly, then, by declaring such a validly existing administration as erstwhile, Mr. Anegbeh has committed a serious criminal offence. This amounts to staging a coup d'état against the legitimate government of a Non-Governmental Organization by a retired government official. In addition, since Mr. Anegbeh and the High Commission do not have any constitutionally vested power to hire and fire NIDO-MY Executives, then, such diplomatic tyrannism has exposed the unbridled lust of this retired diplomat to hijack and hand over NIDO-MY to those with whom he shares vested ulterior interests.
While still treacherously basking in his self-affirming membership of NIDO-MY and his unbridled appetite for glorifying fictitious claims, Mr. Anegbeh went ahead to state that, “…that Executive was mandated by the house after their election that was conducted at the Residence, to fashion out a new constitution in line with NIDO concept.” The phrase, “that Executive was mandated by the house after their election” clearly confirms the argument that Mr. Anegbeh has deceptively confirmed on himself, the membership of NIDO-MY house (Assembly) and succeeded to con the innocent ones who were lured into his illicit gathering under the guise that it was a Presidential calling.

Mr. Anegbeh made other disingenuous statements that NIDO-MY Assembly had taken place in his residence, when in reality; such a conjured claim must have taken place in his imagination or dream. To hoodwink people that such fantastical claim actually took place in time, Anegbeh submitted, “You will realize that in several meetings held at the Residence, the executive examined various constitutions of NIDO from Europe, America and Canada, as guide.” The usage of the word “You” in this sense conveys the meaning that those he was addressing broadly comprise outgoing NIDO-MY Executives, and registered member of the NIDO-MY, who have gathered, listening to Mr. Anegbeh’s speech in a rightful NIDO-MY Assembly. This was never the case. In fact this shows how desperate the man is, in his reckless adventure to deceive the entire public by fabricating lies. Again, NIDO-MY’s Secretariat records show that there was no time the outgoing Executive of the Organization held any meeting in Mr. Anegbeh’s residence whereby NIDO-MY constitution was examined alongside those of other chapters from Europe, America and Canada as a guide.

What is actually surprising is that Mr. Anegbeh misinformed the likes of Chief James Emarievbe, Madam Francisca O. A. Marinho and those who were in his illegal jamboree that NIDO-MY does not have a constitution. However, to expose his lies to new members of staff in the Commission, copies of NIDO-MY Constitution were on 15, November, 2010 given to them and their dejected facial expressions show how disappointed they were with their lying boss. One would have expected Mr. Anegbeh to look for other means of furthering his ulterior agenda by desisting from misinforming people that NIDO-MY does not have a constitution. Yet, he pathologically proceeded to authoritatively assert in his 20 November, 2010, inaugural diplomatic coup d'état speech that, “To my dismay, that Executive did not live to expectation as they failed to come up with any constitution till the expiration of their term.” For the record, again, contrary to Mr. Anegbeh’s flawed claim, the democratically elected 2008-2010 NIDO-MY Executive body that he was referring to is yet to be dissolved by any known NIDO-MY legitimate Assembly.

One is little wondered how the intensity of the lies in the said speech was increasing with every new paragraph because in the words of Aristotle, The least initial deviation from the truth is multiplied later a thousand fold. Why would the number one representative of the Nigerian government in Malaysia descend this low? Tad Williams offers a better clue when he said, “We tell lies when we are afraid, afraid of what we don't know, afraid of what others will think, afraid of what will be found out about us. But every time we tell a lie, the thing that we fear grows stronger.”

Again, it is observed that in the fourth paragraph, Mr. Anegbeh continued with his roguish propaganda by referring to the seating President of NIDO-MY as erstwhile. By also alleging that the outgoing NIDO-MY President, Assoc. Prof. Dr. AbdulKarim S. Mohammed only attended only twice, meetings on the 50th Independence anniversary, Mr. Anegbeh, is again, in his usual way, blackmailing this soft-spoken and principled personality. The outgoing Secretary General of NIDO-MY was in a meeting where Assoc. Prof. Dr. AbdulKarim S. Mohammed corrected this false impression when it was reported by Mr. Muhammad Ghali Ahmad, a staff of the High Commission, that Mr. Anegbeh was peddling this misinformation. On this same occasion, Dr. AbdulKarim told Mr. Anegbeh that there was no time he failed to honour his commitments to assignments of this nature, except while away on a self-sponsored trip to Nigeria for the Diaspora Day or when he was not sent an official notice for meetings of this kind. Mr. Anegbeh downplayed the issue and pretended as if it was a mere rumour. To have recycled same fictitious claim in his subversive speech of 20 November, 2010 shows that for a long while, the instrument of blackmail has been gradually put to use by Mr. Anegbeh to castigate, crucify and indict the amiable person of Dr. AbdulKarim as a passive leader. To further paint a bad impression of the person of AbdulKarim, Mr. Anegbeh vindictively added that Dr. AbdulKarim abandoned his duties as the Chairperson of the 50th Independence Anniversary Sub-Committee. In his words, Mr. Anegbeh writes,

“he accepted to chair the Cultural and Event Committee and promised to coordinate and involve students and lecturers for events on the celebration. However, while waiting for him to attend another meeting which he failed to attend but rather sent an email to the mission informing that NIDO-MY was organization lecture on the 25 September, 2010 and that five governors, including the Lagos State Governor, the CBN Governor and others had been invited. He then solicited Mission’s assistance in providing entertainment and airport reception… Disappointedly, nothing was heard from him about the lecture of NIDO-MY neither did he and the Executive attend the Business Forum held at Niko Hotel with five speakers from Nigeria.”

In response to the above, first, NIDO-MY’s participation in the High Commission’s commemoration of the 50th Independence anniversary was based on unsolicited request from the latter. In fact, the unprecedented ground breaking success recorded by the outgoing NIDO-MY Executives during the diasporic National Dialogue Conference which they laudably organized on 26 September, 2009 was the reason why the High Commission sought NIDO-MY’s helping hands in the organization of the 50th Independence anniversary events. Based on this track record, the outgoing NIDO-MY President was appointed to chair the Cultural Dance Sub-Committee and not the Cultural and Event Committee as wrongfully claimed Mr. Anegbeh.

However, during one meeting which held without any notification issued the outgoing NIDO-MY President, Mr. Muhammad Ghali A. reported that Mr. Anegbeh has merged the Cultural Committee and Event Sub-Committees into one Committee. The headship of the new Committee, named Sub-Event Committee was then allocated to the man who had promised to mobilize self-sponsored cultural performers to Malaysia. Based on this development, it was realized that NIDO-MY’s role in the 50th Independence Anniversary being planned by the High Commission has been taken over by the Sub-Committee on Event, hence, the need to focus on other matters. So, why the crocodile tears and campaign of calumny for an unsolicited appointment that was later awarded to someone else’s? Mr. Anegbeh is challenged to provide details on the whereabouts of the self-sponsored cultural dancers because some of us have before now, expressed fear they might not return back to Nigeria, hence, increasing the number of the league of trafficked Nigerians who are in Malaysia.

Regarding the e-mail that Mr. Anegbeh was referring to, it was not the outgoing NIDO-MY President who sent that particular mail. It was Mr. Adebiyi Jelili A, the outgoing Sec. General of NIDO-MY who sent the mail to Ms. Francisca O. A. Marinho, Minister (Economic, Education and Students’ Welfare). The content of the mail which was sent on the 21 August 2010 shows that neither was it stated that NIDO-MY was inviting 5 Governors nor Mr. Sanusi Lamido, the CGN Governor. The mail reads thus:


Sat, August 21, 2010 1:32:52 PM
CULTURAL DAY MATTERS
From: Nigeria Ikeja <abudugana2000@yahoo.com>
View Contact
To: francamarinho@yahoo.com
________________________________________
Hello Madam,
I have been instructed by Dr. Abdulkarim Mohammed, NIDOMY President, to forward the cost implication and probably, a breakdown of how the “Cultural Day” is anticipated to proceed.
We have deliberated extensively on this, bearing in mind the constrain that may be involved in mobilizing people for such programme. As a well thought way out, it was well considered that the programme be held on the day when NIDOMY’s annual National Day Programme is scheduled to take place. This memorable event of ours which is scheduled for the 25th September, 2010, will be hosting dignitaries which include, Mr. Babatude Fashola, Lagos State Governor, Mallam Nuhu Ribadu, Former EFCC Chairman, Mr. Fola Adeola, Member, Presidential Advisory Committee, and Prof. Oye Ibidapo-Obe, former Vice-Chancellor, University of Lagos. We have received favourable response from these guests.
Consequent upon the foresaid, it seems prudent that the “Cultural Day” be held on the night of 25th September as it may be difficult mobilizing almost same crowd for another programme on a different day. Hence, the suggestion that this be called, “Cultural Night.” We are expecting explosive attendance as our invited guests are people’s wish and as things are, they can’t wait to see them arrive Malaysia.
As regards the cost, I will only suggest that provision be made for mobilization, entertainment of guests (refreshment) , publicity (banners and posters), miscellaneous, and honorarium for the MCs and event officers. The aspect of those performing the “Cultural Dance” is not looked into as it is my understanding that there subsists an arrangement in this regard.
As soon as I am done with my findings on each of the fore-listed items, the monetary implication will be forwarded to you.
Do accept my highest regards.
Mr. Adebiyi J.A. Abudugana
NIDOMY SEC. GEN.
+60133325065
For the records, NIDOMY did not send any bill as promised in the letter, although this was to enable the High Commission plan its budget and not offer a cash gift to NIDO-MY.

However, there is the need to mention that there exists another letter which the NIDO-MY President sent directly to the High Commissioner on 1 September, 2010. As the Secretary General of NIDO-MY, I was preview to the letter whose copy is also provided below. The letter as it can be seen was mainly on the request for the usual diplomatic treatment that VIP Guests are often treated to.


Date: 1st September 2010


His Excellency
The High Commissioner
Nigeria High Commission
No.85 Janan Ampang hilir
Kuala Lumpur

Dear Sir,

Solicitation for Support during the Pre-National Independence Day Celebration Speech

Reference to an earlier email sent to the High Commission, which contains our plan for speeches to be delivered by some invited speakers, I wish to write to solicit for support from the Commission to help NIDO-MY accomplish the program successfully. Apart from the celebration scheduled for the 1st October, that is being organized by the High commission, NIDO-MY has invited some dignitaries from Nigeria to come to Kuala Lumpur to give speeches on the 25th September 2010. The confirmation for the attendance of the invited speakers is expected anytime from now and we will communicate this to the High commission as soon as they are received.

We will need some assistance from the High Commission in the areas of Protocol:

- Under this we are soliciting the able High Commission’s help in helping out to have the Guest Speakers received on arrival, and send back to the airport for departure to Nigeria at the completion of the program.

- To provide for local transportation for the invited speakers, which is to serve the purpose of conveying them from their Hotels to the venue of the lectures, which is tentatively scheduled for Universiti of Malaya Kuala Lumpur.

- Provide an appropriate Hotel accommodation for the invited Speakers for the two days they will be in Malaysia.

The speaker’s travel itinerary and any other details will be sent to the High Commission as we get them.

We will be very grateful if the High commission can assist as best as they could.

Thank You
Sincerely Yours

Abdulkarim Sabo Mohammed

NIDO-MY President

On the programme which held in Niko Hotel, while NIDO-MY is under no obligation to attend all programmes organized by the High Commission, it has been the principle of the outgoing NIDO-MY Executive that only programme that official invitation is issued, is that which its official shall attend. We challenge Mr. Anegbeh to provide such evidence, specifying when, how and who delivered the official invitation that he claimed was issued to NIDO-MY Executives.

After leveling concocted, malicious allegations against the outgoing NIDO-MY Executives, Mr. Anegbeh felt he has garnered sufficient reason to pass vote of no confidence on this leadership of a Non-Governmental Organization over which he doesn’t have any right whatsoever. However, overwhelmed by absolute authoritarianistic syndrome that was driving him deep into committing grave unconstitutional errors and by extension, overstretching his duty limits, Mr. Anegbeh declared in the sixth paragraph that, “At this juncture, you will agree with me that there is a compelling need for change and put the structure of NIDO-MY on a sound footing.” Is this not the same Mr. Anegbeh, who, un-solicitedly declared in the 2nd paragraph of his diplomatic coup d'état speech that “let me once again seize this opportunity to thank the pioneer … the outgoing team for the arduous task for putting NIDO-MY on track and on proper footing as envisioned by the Federal Government of Nigeria.” This diabolic trait at play is typical of a sociopath who according to a web source is:

typically defined as someone who lies incessantly to get their way and does so with little concern for others. A sociopath is often goal-oriented (i.e., lying is focused - it is done to get one's way). Sociopaths have little regard or respect for the rights and feelings of others. Sociopaths are often charming and charismatic, but they use their talented social skills in manipulative and self-centered ways.
(see,ww.truthaboutdeception.com/lying-and, a, /types-of-liars.html)
Thereafter, the reasons why lies were woven together, un-constitutionalism officialized and authoritarianism diplomatized, was made manifest when Mr. Anegbeh announced that, “consequently, a Care Taker Committee (CTC) is hereby constituted to pilot the affairs of NIDO-MY for three months pending when the election would be conducted.” With this absolutist, anarchist and unconstitutional declaration, Mr. Anegbeh has used the premises and the name of the Nigerian Government to stage a diplomatic coup d'état, which will be fought with all logical and legal means available. This unprecedented diplomatic transgression would, as a result of actions that are being taken, be made the first and the last in the annals of Nigerian Foreign Affairs Commission.

The illegitimate CTC setup by Mr. Anegbeh if critically examined is made up of people of mixed sort. Some are known to have one or two criminal records in Malaysia as it is Mr. Williams Ididi Italumeh who was involved in a credit scam/money swindling fraud while transacting business of admission racketeering. Following the electoral defeat suffered by Mr. Ididi as a treasurer candidate during the 2008 NIDO-MY elections, he wrote to challenge the outcome of his election. Mr. Anegbeh made spirited effort to make sure that justice was subverted in order to declare Mr. Ididi as the winner of the treasurership election. The 2008 NIDO-MY Electoral Committee Chairperson, Dr. Yusuf Ibrahim Arowosaye, a practicing lawyer and University lecturer warned Mr. Anegbeh of the implications of his untoward bid to influence Mr. Ididi’s petition and even caution him that he, Mr. Anegbeh, does not have the right of interference in NIDO-MY affairs. The petition was after detailed investigation, dismissed for lack of merit and locus. Again, Mr. Ididi is observed to be frequent at the Nigeria High Commission premises than at Universiti Putra Malaysia (UPM), where he is student. He was one of the sources used in sending the fractionalizing text message used in summoning the illegal c assembly where he was unilaterally and unconstitutionally declared a member of the Anegbeh’s faction of NIDO-MY by the latter.

Mr. Patrick Nwabueze Okechukwu is another questionable character on the list of the illegitimate CTC that was set up by Anegbeh. Although a lecturer at the University Sedaya College Malaysia, he has known records as a dubious admission racketeerer. One of the victims of Mr. Okechukwu was a student who was deceived that he has been successfully offered graduate admission into Multi Media University (MMU) Malaysia. The innocent chap who had completed his undergraduate programme in one of the Nigerian universities was later made to know by this lecturer turned admission agent that he could only be enrolled into an undergraduate programme at MMU’s Malaka campus. It took the intervention of well-meaning Nigerians to bail the victim out of this messy travail by getting him admission offer into UPM as a graduate student and this was done without any charges. The man who has since completed his master’s programme and now on his doctorate’ programme revealed that many people are victims of Mr. Nwabueze’s racketeering work. All of this is known to Mr. Anegbeh. Birds of a feather, it is said, flock together.

Another name on the list of Mr. Anegbeh with dubious record is Mr. Popoola Mufutau, who years back in Malaysia made the newspaper headlines for fake currency. Mr. Mufutau was on a number of occasions, prior to the 50th Independence Anniversary scolded by Mr. Anegbeh as peddler of dubious business. It was during the fundraiser for the 50th Independence Anniversary that Mr. Anegbeh announced Mr. Mufutau as a changed person.

The likes of Ms Aisha Lawal Kolo, a student at Limkokwing University, Malaysia and Mrs. Adebola Babatunde (student at Universiti Utara Malaysia), when contacted by the NIDO-MY Secretariat, confessed that prior to the said meeting, they were never aware of anything called NIDO-MY. Both of them said that they were contacted directly and indirectly by Mr. Anegbeh. They revealed there is a National assignment that requires their attention. They were misinformed that leadership vacuum exists in NIDO-MY and that this well structured body, neither has a constitution, nor, is it properly focused. These two women narrated how surprised they were to see their names on the iniquitous CTC list. We have no reason to doubt the innocence of these two women as victims of misinformation. They have pledged to dissociate themselves from such unlawful activities. Below are copies of the letters to Ms Aisha Lawal Kolo and Mrs. Adebola Babatunde written to the innocent duo.

Fw: Anegbehgate: The Aborted Diplomatic Coup D'etat and Scam Aimed at Hijacking the Leadership of NIDO-MALAYSIA
,
From: Nigeria Ikeja <abudugana2000@yahoo.com>
,
View Contact
To: aisha8106@yahoo.co.uk
Cc: abdulk3@yahoo.co.uk
________________________________________

Dear Ms Aisha Lawal Kolo,

Thanks for hosting us yesterday. Your innocence about the illegitimate gathering which, against your wish, you were lured to attend was evident during our lively interaction.

It was pleasing to note that it was with shock that you heard your name being mentioned as a member of the illegitimate Care Taker Committee (CPC) that was unlawfully set up by Mr. Anegbeh.

You are assured of being exonerated of any complicity that may arise from the Diplomatic Coup D’état that was stagged by Mr. Anegbeh to destabilize the affairs of NIDOMY, a Non-Governmental Organization.

It is our hope that as promised, you will not be involved in any way in the activities of this infamous CPC.

Since you are yet to be a registered member of NIDOMY, as some who is within the brace of qualified potential member, please, if you so wish to be our registered member, visit our website, www.nidomy.org to download, fill and submit the membership application form to our Secretariat.

As a piece of advice, please make sure that in the near future, adequate findings about any gathering you are invited to is made, because, ignorance, it is said, is no excuse in law.

While assuring you of our esteemed regards as a constitutionally existing Non-Governmental Organization, it is our pleasure to send, the article and Secretariat report below as a way of further exposing the despicable motives behind the inflammatory meeting which you attended against your will on 20 November, 2010 at the Nigeria High Commission.

Thanks and my regards.

Adebiyi Jelili A. Abudugana
Secretary General, NIDOMY

Anegbehgate: The Aborted Diplomatic Coup D'etat and Scam Aimed at Hijacking the Leadership of NIDO-MALAYSIA
,
From: Nigeria Ikeja <abudugana2000@yahoo.com>
,
View Contact
To: adebola4mine@yahoo.com
Cc: abdulk3@yahoo.co.uk; suleyman@iium.edu.my; suleiman Muyibi <smuyibi@yahoo.co.uk>; ismaeelbit@gmail.com; ib_oladapo@yahoo.com; kabir70@gmail.com; fiachike@yahoo.co.uk
________________________________________

Dear Mrs Adebola Babatunde,

Thanks for our heart-to-heart phone conversations of 20, 21 and 23 November, 2010. Your innocence about the illegitimate gathering which, you were deceived to attend, based on the dummy that it was a call for National assignment, was evident during our lively interactions. As the Secretariat General of NIDOMY, I hope to take your words that you are a law abiding citizen and responsible mother who will never be involved in anything untoward.


It was pleasing to note that it was with shock that you heard your name being mentioned as a member of the illegitimate Care Taker Committee (CPC) that was unlawfully set up by Mr. Anegbeh. It was even more surprising that your were hoodwinked by Mr. Anegbeh, to believe, amongst other erroneous things, that NIDOMY does not have a legitimate and democratically elected leadership.

You are assured of being exonerated of any complicity that may arise from the Diplomatic Coup D’état that was stagged by Mr. Anegbeh to destabilize the affairs of NIDOMY, a Non-Governmental Organization.

It is our hope that as promised, you will not be involved in any way in the activities of this infamous CPC.

Since you are yet to be a registered member of NIDOMY, as some who is within the brace of qualified potential member, please, if you so wish to be our registered member, visit our website, www.nidomy.org to download, fill and submit the membership application form to our Secretariat. Upon the confirmation of your membership, you will be provided with our Constitution, which Mr. Anegbeh mischievously claimed as non-existent.

As a piece of advice, please make sure that in the near future, adequate findings is made about any gathering you are invited to attend, because, ignorance, it is said, is no excuse in law.

While assuring you of our esteemed regards as a constitutionally existing Non-Governmental Organization, it is our pleasure to send, the article and Secretariat report below as a way of further exposing the despicable motives behind the inflammatory meeting which you attended against your will on 20 November, 2010 at the Nigeria High Commission.

Thanks and my regards.

Adebiyi Jelili A. Abudugana
Secretary General, NIDOMY

Dr. Moukhtar Mohammed Mai whose name was, without any prior notification, also included on the blacklisted CTC list has also written to the arrowhead of the coup. Please see the doc below.
























Let it be on record that the outgoing NIDOMY Executives will not succumb to attempt by Mr. Anegbeh and his buddies, to hijack our beloved Organization nor make it infected with drug peddlers, admission racketeers, marriage scammers, human traffickers, and full-blown or sympathizers of fraudsters. It was because of these sorts of characters that Mr. Anegbeh is trying to smuggle into NIDO-MY that our Organization was for a long time denied registration by the Malaysian government. Same set of damnable characters were the ones, who once NIDO-MY once lose its moral right to attract members of impeccable status. We say no to plunge Mr. Anegbeh’s reckless adventure to take NIDO-MY into the dark era.

We have fought tooth and nail to place NIDO-MY on the right track. With zero tolerance for crime and questionable activities, the incumbent President, Dr. AbdulKarim initiated and institutionalized series of internal mechanisms that ensured that no member of his administration is incidentally or directly linked with anything untoward. Different approaches were also used to institutionalize and support various groups that are committed to the same objective. All these bear on our regime’s effort to register NIDO-MY, which practically, could be said to have sailed through. This is another rare feat in the history of the Organization. It took disciplined leadership and commitment to our re-branding initiative to achieve this. Therefore, we will fight with all means logical, and legitimate to resist, stampede and put a halt to Mr. Anegbeh’s plot to hijack NIDO-MY and take our Association into the dark era.

We are proud to flout our achievements as leaders who have done their best to serve with vision and astute commitment to our electoral pledges. It has been our philosophy that the NIDO-MY will never again relate or admit questionable characters as members. Guided by this value, the Dr. AbdulKarim-led NIDO-MY leadership desisted from soliciting any form of open-for-all financial assistance as this was one way through which questionable characters could have penetrated our ranks. If Mr. Anegbeh has made use of this philosophy during the 50th Independence anniversary fundraiser, probably, he would not have landed himself in the messy situation he is now. As an alternative, we, the outgoing leadership of NIDO-MY developed a look-inward financial income generation policy thrust which leveraged on the executive members, the obligation of financing projects embarked upon. It was through this that we financed our Website project, another first of its kind in the history of NDOMY and other ones.

As intellectuals who are blessed with the powers of hindsight and as those who have learnt from past experience, our leadership cardinalized well-crafted, waterproof and constitutionally bounded membership admittance rules which have been institutionalized within a policy framework that can only admit men of integrity. This measure was taken in order to safeguard against the emergence of faceless groups that will take this budding Organization into the dark era. If this is one of our crimes, as a mission oriented leadership, then, Mr. Anegbeh, we accept our fate and do not regret our actions.

It is based on the above backdrop that we have refused to be distracted by fringe elements, nocturnal marauders, diplomatic coup d’état plotters, glorifiers of illegality, to provoke, distract, factionalize, hijack and hand over NIDO-MY to people of questionable characters and peddlers of diabolic interest.

We thank our members for maintaining their calm, despite the fact they are been provoked beyond the bounds of human possible tolerance limit. Our leadership also expresses its gratitude to the esteemed members of the courteous and dogged-minded Electoral Committee, EC, whose nominations were effected by non-defaulters and approved by men of proven integrity.

Conclusion

With this suicidal diplomatic summersault and officialization of arbitrariness, vis-à-vis the unlawful interference in the affairs of a Non-Governmental Organization, “orderliness,” as stated the outgoing Vice-President, Dr. Abdul Kabir Solihu, “and arbitrariness are on a collision course. The former will surely triumph over the latter”. Our leadership will never consent to any attempt to take NIDO-MY back into the dark era. Our doors remain shut against people of damnable past and the criminal minded ones who are tarnishing the image of our country in the foreign land.

Since the Federal Government has been indicted by Mr. Anegbeh as the brain behind his untoward action, we therefore request that:

1. The Federal Government should issue a statement of disclaimer of its non-involvement in the damnable action of Mr. Anegbeh, High Commission staff and their cohort to unlawfully hijack the leadership and affairs of NIDO-MY, A Non-Governmental Organization.
2. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs should effect the posting of a new High Commissioner to Malaysia since Mr. Anegbeh’s tenure has not only elapsed but also, retired from service since June 2010.
3. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs should investigate other staff of the Commission who have been indicted in the said plot and sanction them accordingly.
4. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs should be mandated to retract the speech read by Mr. Anegbeh during the illegal gathering which he chaired on the 20 November, 2010 and declared the CTC as creation of illegality
5. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs should write an official apology to the entire members of NIDO-MY for the pains they have been made to go through owing to the inaction of their staff in Malaysia

As we anticipate prompt and remedying action from the necessary quarters, we wish to assure our members that NIDO-MY affairs is entirely theirs and that there exists no other recognized NIDO-MY leadership except the one they have constitutionally elected.

Anegbehgate: The Aborted Diplomatic Coup D’état and Scam Aimed at Hijacking the Leadership of NIDO-MALAYSIA

It is a known reality that since its inauguration as a Non-Governmental body, various chapters of Nigerians in the Diaspora Organization (NIDO), are being faced with assorted challenges. While the European and American Chapters of this Non-Governmental Organization have grappled mostly with internally instigated leadership problems, the most dynamic Asian Chapter of this body, NIDOMY is known to be free from such plague.

Nonetheless, within the first four years of its existence, NIDOMY has struggled intensely to purge itself of questionable characters that once succeeded to ascend to leadership positions. The Organization whose leadership in the last two years has for the first time in its history maintained a non-involvement in any known or unknown criminal activities is now entangled in a Diplomatic Coup D'etat cum scam that is known as the Anegbehgate. The brains instigating this embarrassing situation, as well as the rationale behind this mischievous adventure constitute the focus of this piece.

The immediate cause of this crisis is the insistence of Mr. Anegbeh Peter, the retired High Commissioner to Malaysia to impose some hand-picked individuals as the successor of the outgoing leadership. In one of the meetings attended by the author of this piece alongside the outgoing President of NIDOMY, Dr. AbdulKarim S. Mohammed, Mr. Anegbeh declared in the presence of those in attendance that he has finalized the selection of names that would take over from the outgoing leadership. Mr. Anegbeh also stated that Dr. AbdulKarim shall be appointed to head this group of hand-picked individuals.

Reading meanings into my facial expressions and reactions to his outburst, Mr. Anegbeh audaciously declared whoever is dissatisfied with his arrangement should proceed to make use of the media and other channels to air his objections. Mr. Anegbeh boasted that as a sacred cow that enjoys the protection of the powers that be, such efforts will not affect his plans in the least. To establish how strongly connected he is, Mr. Anegbeh requested his critics to wonder why he was still running the affairs of the Commission months after he has not only retired from the civil service but also paid his severance allowance.

As soon Mr. Anegbeh made his final submission, Dr. AbdulKarim informed the former that he is neither interested in re-contesting for the post of the Organization’s president nor ready to be part of such unconstitutional arrangement. Before venturing into the major agenda upon which the meeting was focused on, Dr. AbdulKarim informed Mr. Anegbeh that at the appropriate time, he would be briefed on the transitional process that is hinged on necessary constitutional provisos of the Organization. This said, Dr. AbdulKarim opened discussion on the plans of NIDOMY to invite the likes of Mallam Nuhu Ribadu as Guest speakers in the event being proposed to make the 50th Independence anniversary of Nigeria as well as NIDOMY 2nd Annual Diaspora Day. Issues were also raised on the Commission’s plan as par the 50th Independence anniversary of Nigeria.

Prior to this meeting, there have been reports that during some of the Local Organizing Meeting(s) conveyed by Mr. Anegbeh to plan for the Commission’s 50th Independence anniversary of Nigeria, promises were made to appoint some of the LOC’s members as part of the team to be hand-picked. These members, amongst others, were one of the sources from which fund was sourced and obtained from, to sponsor the 50thIndependence anniversary of Nigeria because it was said that no fund was provided by the Federal Government of Nigeria to mark the event. It was during this fund soliciting drive that Mr. Anegbeh made promises meant to guarantee the interest of this particular segment of the fundraising sources. Realizing the benefits to be made out of such deal, the concerned individuals made generous cash, commodity and other forms of donations to the both the High Commission and Mr. Anegbeh as an individual. For the records, ten and six thousand Ringgits were the respective minimum amounts levied by Mr. Anegbeh on the Malaysians who have been conducting businesses in Nigeria for a long and short time. They were forced to make on the spot donations and pledges. What a national embarrassment!

However, when the news of the NIDOMY constitutionally inaugurated Electoral Committee (EC) reached the retired High Commissioner, frantic efforts were made by him to nullify the process. He toyed with different ideas which were aimed at getting his aims achieved. Those who were banking on him to deliver as promised ignored the transition process because it was felt that nothing can stop the all-powerful Anegbeh from delivering. As it was dawning on the potential benefactors of the donation-for-NIDOMY Executive positions-deal that things may not work as planned, Mr. Anegbeh came under increasing pressure and could not withstand the consequential backlash. Probably, he was afraid of what this particular segment of the donors could do to expose the volume of money that was realized through the 50th Independence anniversary fundraiser.

When Mr. Anegbeh realized foisting hand-picked individuals on the Organization as its new leaders won’t work, then, he came up with another idea by suggesting the setting up of Committees. These Committees, he enunciated, would be in charge of the affairs of NIDOMY after the outgoing Executive body is dissolved. Again, he was made to realize Committees could only complement the activities of the Executive body and not take over the latter’s responsibilities.

However, signs that things might work according to Anegbeh’ plans started to emerge when he smartly botched the attempt to hold NIDOMY’s AGM on the 13 November 2010 by putting forth why the High Commission’s premises won’t be available for this purpose on the said day. His reasons were that the High Commission would be handicapped as a result of playing host to the 900-membered Nigerian delegations who were to attend a world conference of Accountants, here, in Malaysia. It was also said that during the same period, the High Commission would be hosting Auditors from Nigeria. Based on these factors, NIDOMY Executive went ahead to postpone its AGM until 20 November, 2010.

The retired High Commissioner, Mr. Anegbeh made a deft maradonic u-turn, by requesting for an extended familiarizing meeting comprising the outgoing NIDOMY Executives, the EC members, the aspirants and those whose names have been penciled to serve on various Committees. This meeting, he ironically fixed for 13 November 2010. The outcome of the meeting was not in the retired Higher Commission’s favour, so, his request for a low-key meeting on 15 November, 2010. Again, he was disappointed with the outcome of this meeting.

When later contacted on the availability of the premises of the High Commission as the venue for the Organization’s AGM and elections scheduled for 20 November, 2010, Mr. Anegbeh summoned efforts to notify the NIDOMY President of his plans for that day.
Cognizant of the fact that the NIDOMY President was not cooperating with him, Mr. Anegbeh contacted Prof. Suleyman A. Muyibi in order to make him buy into his agenda.

Mr. Anegbeh briefed Prof. Muyibi how he plans to announce the names of the members that are to populate the Committee that would man the affairs of NIDOMY on an interim basis. In the consequence, the electoral process, would as planned the retired High Commissioner, be dismissed as null and void. This was relayed to the NIDOMY Executive members by the Prof. Consultations were made within the ranks of the Executive members on the next line of action which in effect gave birth to well-thought decisions.

It was decided that the AGM and the elections be postponed in order to map out strategies aimed at neutralizing Mr. Anegbeh's plans. This decision was effected and well received by our members. One of his plans as it was discovered after serious meditation and based on facts from certain sources was to create a full blown crisis situation by instigating his expectant benefactors to disrupt NIDOMY AGM and elections. On the basis of this, he would set up a reconciliation Committee which is to be populated by those who shall forge ahead to execute his predesigned agenda.
While planning to strategize on the next line of action, the attention of the NIDOMY Executive was drawn to a text message which emanated from the High Commission, calling for NIDOMY AGM and elections. After frantic efforts, NIDOMY Executive laid their hands on the outrageous text message that was sponsored by Mr. Anegbeh to factionalize and destabilize the activities of the Organization.

This development spurred author of this piece to make effort to speak with some of the staff of the High Commission and other stakeholders. After several attempts, Madam Francisca Marinho and Mrs. Dupe Quist Adebiyi, two senior staff of the High Commission were reached. It took hours of intellectual engagement before these two members of the High Commission staff were made to realize that they have no such powers being exercised by them. They were also informed of the actionable consequences of the High Commission’s inactions.

During the aforesaid conversation which lasted hours, one of the staff in question alleged that the present NIDOMY Executives were not elected but selected by Mr. Anegbeh. This grave historical distortion was corrected by calling the attention of Mrs. Dupe Quist Adebiyi to the fact that like the retired High Commissioner and other members of the Commission’s staff, she witnessed the fiercely contested election that ushered in the outgoing leadership of NIDOMY. Before, it was being said that NIDOMY does not have a constitution, now, what is being rumoured is what the outgoing Executives were selected by Mr. Peter Anegbeh.

Not minding the actionable implications of his inactions, Mr. Anegbeh proceeded with the conduct of the AGM of his camp of NIDOMY. A meeting that was mainly attended by Mr. Anegbeh’s town people and the expectant benefactors of his inactions recorded a worrying attendance.
This diplomatic coup d’état arising as a result of the scam whereby NIDOMY Executive positions were offered to the highest bidders ( Anegbehgate) is now seriously being fought by the outgoing NIDOMY Executives. Abuja intervention is now being sought to call the retired Diplomat to order and act decisively by imposing necessary sanctions on the members of staff of the High Commission who were involved in this aborted diplomatic coup d’état cum scam. Interventionists support is at the moment pouring in from concerned individuals who are afraid of how Anegbeh’s inaction could spell doom for the battered image of Nigerians in Malaysia.

The Author, Mr. Adebiyi Abudugana can be reached through abudugana2000@yahoo.com

Jonathan Goodluck’s Family, Sahara Reporters, Ribadu or Adewuyi: Who Lied Against Who

While appraising comments on one of my articles on the ignominious act of public treasury pilfering, and money laundering by the consort of the Nigeria president, Mrs. Dame Patience Goodluck, I stumbled across an impious rejoinder.

In this Machiavellian rejoinder filled with statements that run riot to truth, Mr. Ayo wrote:
Our attention has been drawn to a malicious on-line news report on Sahara Reporters about the recent trip of Her Excellency…The report also made reference to the EFCC case of which Mrs. Jonathan has since been absolved. This is a case on which investigation had been concluded and Mrs. Jonathan was not found culpable, but the distracters continue to make a mountain out of a mole hill.

Although Ayo was making a specific reply to a Sahara Reporters’ article on Mrs. Jonathan’s gold buying trip to Dubai, the major focus was on Mr. President’s wife infamous act of public robbery and money stashing in foreign banks. Since I have been persistently making an issue out of this high profile case of administrative misdemeanor, I felt the necessity of exposing the rejoinder as a tissue of lies.

Ayo, the salaried image rescuer of the Nigeria’s first family submitted:
If she had been found culpable, we are certain that Nuhu Ribadu would have charged her to court because she has no immunity. We want to state categorically that Mrs. Jonathan has no link with the seized N104 million and has no knowledge of any $13.5 million Dollars. In fact, there was never an incident of $13.5 million Dollars…we challenge Sahara Reporters to contact Mr. Nuhu Ribadu or Mrs Farida Waziri to get the facts of the matter.

May I call reader’s attention to the fact that, on September 11, 2006, Mr. Osita Nwajah, the EFCC spokesman made a public declaration that a whopping sum of $13.5 million Dollars (US) was seized from Mrs. Patience Jonathan, the wife of then Governor of Bayelsa State, Mr. Goodluck Jonathan. Until now, Mallam Nuhu Ribadu has neither made any known public verbal or oral denial of this declaration nor is the EFCC known to have issued any statement of rebuttal.

For the Nigeria’s first family to have claimed that there was never an incident of $13.5 million Dollars shows a crooked attempt on their part. Such statement was neither made before Jonathan became President nor before Mallam Nuhu Ribadu negotiated his freedom with the latter. In other words, it was after Jonathan became the President of Nigeria and Ribadu struck a deal with Jonathan on his freedom that the Nigeria’s first family could be courageous to make any bold public declarative statement that they never stole $13.5 million Dollars from the public treasury. Why this period and never before? Is this not suggestive of a possible bargain between Ribadu and Jonathan’s family, such which shortchanged facts of history and which required rob my back, I rob your back reciprocating compromise?

Before proceeding further, a trenchant look may be necessary at the earlier quoted part of the scandalous rejoinder as its syntax, organization and sequencing shows that Nuhu Ribadu’s name was used to authenticate the bogus claim which the rejoinder advanced. To this extent, note be taken of the statement’s take off point which reads, “If she had been found culpable, we are certain that Nuhu Ribadu would have charged her to court because she has no immunity.”

Also, we may further need to break this statement into two parts vis: “If she had been found culpable,” “we are certain that Nuhu Ribadu would have charged her to court because she has no immunity.” In the second part, Nuhu Ribadu’s name featured as that down-to-earth anti-corruption crusader who would never hesitate to prosecute any known case of corruption, let alone when it involves somebody without immunity.

Was it not on the strength of this Ribadu’s hard earned dreaded image that sometimes in 2006, he, Nuhu Ribadu challenged in the hollow chambers, members of the senate that, “…tell me now, the name of anybody who has collected the 50 million naira from anybody and you will see what I will do about it.” What followed was total silence as the Senators knew that daring Nuhu Ribadu was an invitation to jail.

Therefore, as claimed in the rejoinder, that Nuhu Ribadu did not charge Mr. President’s wife for steeling, and money laundering and her husband as an accomplice, meant Jonathan and Patience had not be found culpable of committing any act of public treasury robbery. In other words, if there had been an established case of fraud committed by Patience Goodluck, Ribadu would have not only exposed and prosecuted the case, but also, make sure that as it was with Tafa Balogun, Patience is sent to jail. As claimed since Madam Patience was not prosecuted by Nuhu Ribadu, then, it means the first family had no link with the seized N104 million; also, that the stolen $13.5 million Dollars was just a creation of imagination. Little wonder, Ayo wrote:

“We want to state categorically that Mrs. Jonathan has no link with the seized N104 million and has no knowledge of any $13.5 million Dollars. In fact, there was never an incident of $13.5 million Dollars…we challenge Sahara Reporters to contact Mr. Nuhu Ribadu or Mrs Farida Waziri to get the facts of the matter.

That a challenge was thrown to any doubting Thomases to contact Mr. Nuhu Ribadu or his successor, further shows this claim does carry with it, a measure of authority that the persons whose names were mentioned could refute nor could it be found, any official document that incriminates the person of Mr. President’s wife. Since the claim was also made, Nuhu Ribadu had not issued a rebuttal but only known to have been making statements that if offered to serve by Jonathan, he would graciously embrace the opportunity. His silence confirms the complicity of his name as a partner in crime who might have negotiated his freedom and acquittance from corrupt charges based on robs my back, I rob your back compromise approach.

Not daunted by the new look of things; one may need to remind Ribadu, Ayo and the Nigeria’s first family of a plenary section of the Senate which held on September 27, 2006. On this historic day, Nuhu Ribadu who was then in charge of EFCC took to the stage in the hollow chamber to brief the Senate on the report of its Commission on anti-corruption activities.

It was on this day that Ribadu dared the Senators to name anybody who collected 50 million naira from anybody during the Third Term saga, claimed that the biggest fraudster ever in the world was a Nigerian and dropped the following shattering bombshell which shall be quoted verbatim. He, Nuhu Ribadu declared:

Abia is number one (of corrupt state) not because it is number one alphabetically, but because we have one of the biggest established cases of stealing, money laundering, diversion of fund against Governor Kalu. The governor used his mother, daughter, wife and brother to divert N35billion to build his business empire including Slok Airlines, Slok Pharmaceuticals and newspaper house…Governor Bola Ahmed Tinubu corruption is of international dimension.There is s also a petition against the Governor of Bayelsa’s wife. She was involved in laundering the sum of one hundred and four million into foreign account. She is also being investigated.

Rattled by this revelation all the indicted governors issued strong statements which tagged Ridadu’s outburst as a witch-hunting agenda scripted by Obasanjo and others, to bushwhack their political adversaries. Among those who dispatched rejoinders was Keneth Ekpelu, the then spokesperson to Madam Jonathan Goodluck. He wrote;
The first lady wishes to restate her unreserved respect for the institution of the EFCC and wishes Bayelsans and Nigerians at large to continue to support the organization in its effort to attain a corruption-free Nigeria, “She, however wishes to point out the need to separate the EFCC’s honest quest for justice from the posturing of her husband’s opponents who strangely perceive her as the soft spot in his political armour and won’t stop hammering away at her until their decisions to oust him from office are met.

Dennis Sami, the then spokesperson for Governor Jonathan Goodluck also registered his reaction by saying the allegations were a “charade,” the target of which was the Governor.

From the foregoing analysis, it is obvious that Mrs. Jonathan’s claim, “We want to state categorically that Mrs. Jonathan has no link with the seized N104 million and has no knowledge of any $13.5 million Dollars,” is a scandalous attempt to distort history and burry a well documented case of treasury robbery. That Ribadu is yet to refute this spurious claim or sue the first family for using his name for authenticating false as truth, means, it was done with his express permission.

Was it not the Ribadu-led EFCC which stated that, “We had reason to believe the seized funds (N104 million) belonged to the public. In a sworn statement, Mrs. Nwosu implicated Patience Jonathan.”
Was it not the same Ribadu-led EFCC that went to court to prosecute this case in a suit number FHC/ABJ/M/340/06 filed on August 21, 2007 at the Federal High Court, Abuja.

It is on record that while filing this case, EFCC named Mrs. Patience Jonathan, wife of Goodluck Jonathan, as an accomplice in the N104million-money laundering case involving Mrs. Nancy Ebere Nwosu. The said money as reveled Ribadu-led EFCC was on the order of Mrs Patience Goodluck, laundered into a First Bank of Nigeria account number 3292010060711 held in the name of Nansolyvan Public Relations Limited by one Hanner Offor. Accordingly, in the Commission’s affidavit used in supporting the suit’s originating summons, Ofem Uket, the EFCC prosecuting officer declared:

Our investigations revealed that Mrs. Patience Jonathan, wife of the Governor of Bayelsa State, was the person who instructed one Hanner Offor to launder the said sum of N104, 000, 000 into the account of Nansolyvan Public Relations Limited with First Bank of Nigeria Plc (FBN), Niger House, Marina, Lagos.

In the face of this documented evidence, which I challenge Ayo Adewuyi, the Nigeria’s first family and Ribadu to disprove, it has been exposed the true face who the liars are. The liar is neither me nor Sahara Reporters as claimed Ayo and cohorts, rather, those who conspired to issue Jonathan’s family, a clean bill of health.
Concrete effort must now be made to challenge this case before a competent court in the land, therefore, my suggestion that signatures be mobilized to force the EFCC to commence the trial of these cases. However, since the EFCC is compromised, I am afraid, justice that is already denied will be legitimized. Therefore, I challenge human right groups, labour unions, Save Nigeria Group and other Non-Governmental bodies to take up this case by not only staging a national demonstration but also, fashioning out the modalities through which justice will be seen done to the case.

On the final note, let Ribadu be aware that just like excellence expires with time, so is one’s hard built reputation gets soiled when one takes to dishonourable Associates. The desperation of Ribadu to serve his fatherland under questionable personalities whom he made us known are treasury looters speaks volume about his least known side. It may be true that all the allegations leveled against Ribadu by the leadership of late Presider, Umar Yar’Adua are founded, after all, he chose, in preference to the legal means, the Aso Rock facilitated freedom and acquittance. With your claim that you cannot wait to be appointed to serve under Jonathan Goodluck, you have demonstrated your real identity, however, it may not be too late for you to retrace your steps, retract your commitment to a government whose hands are soiled in a criminal case that is well known by you and the whole world.
The writer, Mr. Adebiyi Jelili Abudugana, a former UNILAG student union leader can be reached through abudugana2000@yahoo.com

Recently, the Nigeria High Commission in Malaysia has been in the eyes of the news for two major reasons. These are for an alleged fraudulent activity of the Commission and the menace of kidnapping scare that is fast assuming a dangerous trend among some segments of the Nigerian Disaporic Community in Malaysia.

These issues which were reported in some national dailies and online news media have generated heated debates and attracted rejoinders from both established activists cum public intellectuals as well as internet activist/intellectuals who are grandstanding as advocates of truth and objectivity. I was so traumatized, so, my decision to keep silent. Out of respect and appreciation for what I stand for, a number of concerned persons who were not happy with my unusual silence have requested that I make my opinion on these issues known. Yet, I requested them to allow hold my fire, that is, keep my silence. Notwithstanding the reactions which my studied silence has attracted, I have been on the high alert regarding how people have been reacting to these issues.
So far, the beauty of it all is that people have been freely exercising their rights to advance personal opinion on these issues, but, such rights, as Kunle, a friend would sagely say, is not a ticket to re-writing history. Realizing that dubious attempt is being made, consciously or subconsciously to abuse the facts of history, I have decided to pen some few lines aimed at putting these contending issues in their proper perspective.

In respect of the kidnapping issue, the response of Mr. Peter J.E. Anegheh, the Nigeria High Commissioner to Malaysia, that was published in the Daily Trust edition of June 5, 2010 calls for attention. Mr. Peter who registered his anxiety over this worrisome development proclaimed, “the High Commission is the Nigeria the students have in Malaysia and I am the head, Therefore, I am worried.” This statement shows that the High Commissioner is fully aware of his responsibility as the Chief Welfare Officer of Nigerians in Malaysia and thus, placing on him the burden to be proactive in curtailing any untoward act that may jeopardize the wellbeing of the citizens under his care. This statement makes me feel uncomfortable as the reality on ground indicates that predominantly, Nigerians in Malaysia have not found the Commission the Nigeria they have in Malaysia.

Prior to the audience which the High Commissioner granted Ibrahim I. Dooba and Abdullahi Y. Bello who penned the piece earlier referred to, a yet to be acknowledged effort was made by one Mr. Eze Emmanuel, a Nigerian student in Malaysia. Worried by the unwholesome activities of some Nigerians in Malaysia, Eze issued a mail, under the message heading, “Save our Soul” to the High Commissioner on March 14, 2010. Eze who detailed how he was attacked by some Nigerians in his apartment on February 21, 2010, did not only request the intervention of the High Commission, he also promised to provide leading clue on how the activities of these groups can be grounded. This mail was not responded to, not until after it was published in the March 16, 2010 edition of the Nigerian Tribune.

On the strength of Tribune’s publication and not based on the responsiveness of the Commission to its duties and obligations, a meeting was held with him on March 22, 2010, in which the Commission was represented by Mr Ibrahim Hamidu. Although he appreciated the latter’s adroitness, Eze issued another mail on March 23, 2010 requesting for the attention of the High Commissioner on what should be done. When asked why he issued another mail to the High Commissioner, Eze’s reply was that he was not happy that the Commission abdicated from its responsibility by referring him to the Malaysian Chapter of the Nigerians in the Diaspora Organization, NIDOMY as the appropriate and competent body that can handle the issue. Not deterred by this unsatisfactory response, Eze writes in his March 23, 2010 mail to the High Commissioner:

“Your Excellency, as hopeless and as seemingly irredeemable the situation is right now, I am profoundly convinced that adequate, timely and immediate steps can be taken to either eliminate or drastically reduce this dangerous trend. I decided to write this mail to you because I strongly believe the High Commission can be the engine and the driving force for controlling this ugly situation… Your Excellency, my main concern here is in the approach to realizing this objective. I believe in a holistic approach which combines both containment and engagement mechanisms and which is both coercive and persuasive…And I strongly believe that the Nigeria High Commission can be the facilitator of this idea”

After waiting endlessly for a positive action from the Commission which prides itself as the “Nigeria which the students have in Malaysia,” Eze had no choice than to contact NIDOMY president who after a good sense of judgment handed over the case to me. In our interaction, I made Eze realize how it would be impossible for NIDOMY to handle an issue of this gravity and categorically stated that it was the High Commission’s responsibility. I pledged my personal intervention which we were both working on when the sad development of kidnapping broke out. I was stunned to read stories crediting the High Commission with genuine efforts aimed at bringing under control, menace of gangstersim, and cultism that is now rampant among most Nigerian undergraduate students in Malaysian private colleges and universities.

Eze’s experience is just one of the several complaints of insensitivity on the part of the High Commissioner and his staff. One of them who can be singled out was one Mr. Mohammed Arzika, who, to the best of my knowing, unlike others, never looked down on fellow Nigerian citizens with disdain. When issues involve the son of who is who, media interviews will be granted to create a wrong impression that the Commission is in charge. While my argument should not be mistaken as placing the crime on the Commission, my motive is to make a case for lack of adequate and timely proactive measures from the Commission as well as accusing the High Commissioner in particular, and the Commission as a whole of reckless abandonment of the thrust reposed on them. One may need to walk around and ask Nigerians who are resident in Malaysia about their harrowing experience in the hands of the Commission. How can one explain a High Commissioner who on arriving the Commission premises asked fellow citizens of his country, “ who are these people?,”; “what are they doing here?.” One of those to whom he posed the question was smart enough to ask him, “is that the first thing to say… I think you are supposed to have first say, good morning.” Rather than take to correction, he hissed on them and went into his office. It was in the same Commission that Nigerians were called goats. What else could be demeaning?

A relationship could be established between this lackadaisical attitude of the High Commission staff and how the case of Luqman Abdul Salam and Abdulalhi Bolajoko Uthman was handled. Having considered the facts on ground, I strongly add my voice to those who are of the opinion that the case was not given proper representation by the High Commission. This, among several burning issues which are detailed in my diary will be given paid attention in the book I am writing on my experience in a foreign land. Among several begging questions, why is it that the High Commissioner never heeded the advice that a delegation be sent by his leadership to speak to the Nigerian student community in Luqman and Abdullahi’s school.

While it will be wrong to say nothing was done by the Commission, it is my unmistaken opinion that some of their actions complicated the case, therefore, making it difficult to get these innocent young chaps adequate and befitting representation that was much deserved. As a researcher on Middle-Eastern studies and a student of history, I have read how Commissions that worth their salts handled cases of Luqman and Abdullahi’s sort, therefore, if judgment is to be based on this, the Nigeria High Commission in Malaysia fell short of expectation.

On the issue of the ticketing expenses that was alleged to have been siphoned by some top ranking staff of the High Commission, effort is being made together with some action oriented individuals to formally get EFFC invited as it is felt that Mr. Mr Olawepo John’s article which brought this to our attention has not followed EFCC’s formal procedures. John’s claim may not be far from the truth; however, it is our hope that with EFCC being dragged into the case, the truth will prevail.

On a concluding note, those from the immediate community of Luqman and Abdullahi should know that, more than the High Commission, through one sinister plot or the other and series of compulsive responses that defile all aspects of moral standards, they held back the wheel of advocacy that was being championed to prosecute their case to a logical conclusion. For timorous reasons, characteristic of pseuds and villains, they starved the struggle of the desired moral support, and that these individuals cannot see dignity in silence, it means they are surely off ethical limits of existence. Regardless of whether we despise those who stood up to fight the cause, whether we hate or love their persons, approved or disapproved of their approaches, those who were not manly to offer hands of comaradie to fellow colleagues when needed the most, should know that theirs is never the role of an unbiased umpire as they were part of the betrayals.

The writer, Mr. Adebiyi Jelili Abugana, a former UNILAG Student leader can be reached through abudugana2000yahoo.com. The opinions expressed therein are in no way reflective of any Organization where I am holding elective position.

Regardless of its historio-moral contestations, the controversial May 29 2003, marked a day when for the second time in its post-independence history, Nigeria transited from Military to the Civilian rule. This day remains historically significant due to some momentous, yet, tumultuous developments that trailed its dawn. The most significant of these developments were the challenges that evolved as a result of the cancellation of June 12 elections. How our response to these challenges, relative the evolution of May 29 constitutes the reason why we have failed is what this article sets out to interrogate.

The journey to May 29, had begun with the cancellation of the June 12, 1993 presidential election, the most credible election ever in Nigeria’s history, which, for vested reasons, was cancelled by the despotic IBB’s regime. The cancellation of the election that was overwhelmingly won by the Social Democratic Party presidential flag bearers, Bashorun M.K.O Abiola and Amb. Baba Gana Kingibe was as result of some intrigues which involved some military gangsters and civilian bigots. These civilian chauvinists include, from different parts of the country, a cross section of individuals, and “Royal” fathers who are still playing critical roles in the affairs of our nation. Why did this people conspire against Abiola and the masses that elected him, one may wish to know? There are many ways this could be explained but for the purpose of clarity, it seems more logical to intricate a concise response by first explaining why Abiola won the elections with a landslide margin and later, spell out why this worked against his mandate?

One of the major reasons why Abiola won was his extraordinary philanthropic spirit. Abiola’s large heartedness benefitted Muslims and non-Muslims of diverse tribal spread across different geo-political zones of the country. This endeared him to the Nigerian masses who felt he was a special creature of God, who had been anointed and entrusted with the custodianship of ever replenishing warehouse of wealth for which humanity is to benefit without any inhibition. He neither betrayed the trust nor the impoverished, thus, his unequalled popularity as a house hold name in Nigeria.

Also, Abiola was all through his life, known to be a detribalized Nigerian. Unlike most Nigerian politicians, particularly those of the Yoruba extraction from which Abiola hailed, he lived and practised the project and politics, Truly Nigeria. This was to work in his favour when he chose to contest the presidency as there was no controversy about his established federating personality. In other words, all regions of the country, minority and the majority saw him as an able representation of their interests. Thus, this was why his ticket could not be interpreted subject to neither Yoruba nor Southern dichotomies. For related reasons, the electorates were not bugged by the Muslim-Muslim ticket on which he vied for the number one post in the land.

Besides, the delightful ability of Abiola to analyze issues using the tool of logic, and intellectual persuasion, reeling off-hand, hard and genuine facts to back up his claim, placed him far and above other millionaire and political colleagues of his. This was a great asset which won Bahorun Abiola the hearts of intellectuals during the presidential debate between him and Alhaji Bashir Tofa, his National Republican Convention’s counterpart.
The highlighted factors, combined with the clout which Abiola wielded among those that matters coupled with his financial chest made him a toast of the electorate who had no misgiving that he, Abiola, the Saviour of the Masses, would truly bail the country out of its perennial problems. In the consequence, he emerged victorious by dwarfing Tofa with a mouth agaping margin. This victory meant different things to different people, therefore, the grand conspiracy that led to the election’s eventual annulment.

The hard fact is that most people that pretended to be protagonist of the restoration of Abiola’s mandate were hypocrites who were either playing the vengeance card or driven by aggrandizing obsession. To those whose voice dominates the South-West politics, especially the core Awoist, Abiola’s emergence made them develop cold feet. His, they perceived, would encroach on their political foothold and possibly, banish them to the fringe of the Southwestern political map. This reaction has its historical root in the Abiola-Awolowo political face-off of the first and second Republic. Another justification for this claim is that with Abiola’s overwhelming acceptance by the Yorubas, it would have been easier for him to redraw the Yoruba map of political alliance by creating a more viable, and inclusive alternative political as opposed to the largely ethicized and exclusivist Awoist camp. My intention should not be mistaken as comparing or ridiculing the higly revered Pa Awo, rather, I am making a bold attempt to deconstruct how the core Awoist reacted to Abiola’s victory based on its implication on the political future of their camp. There is also the need to clarify that Abiola’s acceptance by the Yorubas was in fact not because his candidature was sold to them by the Yoruba leaders. Rather, it was based on the earlier enumerated factors that he won the hearts of the Yorubas as it was with the case with the people of other tribal extraction. However, little did Abiola know that those whose political fortunes are threatened by his phenomena political rise will never sleep until their perceived his political fall is achieved.

For similar or related reasons, other tiny but powerful civilian political cabals saw the man’s emergence as a doom that should be averted. The Northern pro-June 12 cancellation cabal which though centrifuged round the influence of IBB was coordinated by Sultan Dasuki, while Arthuz Nzeribe and Emmanuel Iwuanyawu combined to coordinate the pro- June 12 forces which comprised those who were from the South-East and South-South. It was these Lazarus who constitute the known and hidden hidden hands who gave IBB the moral backing needed to announce the cancellation of the June 12 elections. Some of these individuals were quick to lead protests that were to take place after the IBB infamous stepping aside speech.

The true identity of some of these betrayals of the June 12 election was to soon manifest when they mandated some of their trusted and refined minds to work with the late despot, General Sani Abacha. Among these were those whose membership of the Abacha’s regime had the approval of those who has constituted themselves as Yoruba’s tinny political gods. This was also the case with those groups from other regions who had earlier joined hands with IBB to act the ignoble cancelation script as they also had their inputs into the illegal administration of Abacha. Some of these betrayals who are still active in the political process have earned themselves the nomenclature, Abacha politicians.

After destiny dwelled a decisive blow on Abacha when he succumbed to the cold hands of death, it was much anticipated that Abiola’s mandate would be restored. One would have expected those active players who were known to have been canvassing for the restoration of the June 12 mandate to have ceased this opportunity to force the AbduSalam Abubakar’s regime to reinstate Abiola’s mandate. This was never the case. Though one cannot make a generalizing claim, the bitter truth is that the activism tempo decreased. Instead, moral supports was covertly or overtly offered for those who were pressurizing Abiola to relinquish his mandate. It was while this was going on, to balance the equation and clear the way, Abiola was eliminated following a well planned conspiracy known to have international blessing. After this happened, there was neither any sustained demonstration nor any tangible effort to seek redress especially from the active layers who were ahead in leading “pro-June 12” rallies. A good student of politics with a background experience of revolutionary or barricade struggle may be in a better position to know that something had gone wrong. This raises big question about the personalities of those within the active layer and their real motive.

Shape of things to come was to follow the politics of realignment and convergence as General AbduSalam Abubakar unveiled his transition agenda. This ushered in a democratic era which produced Obasanjo as the president. Those who determined Obasanjo’s mandate where those who annulled the June 12 elections. It was well thought that one of them, Obasanjo should be allowed to rule, more so that he hails from the South-West as it was with the late Abiola. It was this group and those with similar background that, directly or indirectly also determined to a reasonable extent, and in one form or the other, those who were to rule in various states as governors, local government chairpersons and counselors. So, it can be said that we only continued with those group of individuals who not only sabotaged the June 12 elections but are known to have failed the nation. The new entrants who rode on the back of these groups can in no way be divorced from the ways of these tinny lords, therefore, one reason why those who have been ruling us until now cannot be said to be responsible and responsive leaders laden with the visionary instinct that is required to rule us.
On a specific note, if a stock is to be taken of those who in various capacities emerged victorious in the 1999 elections, it will be realized that just few among them obtained their party’s ticket based on merit. In other words, between 90 and 90% of those in elected positions obtained their tickets through questionable and skewed process. For those within this significant brace from the South-West, money and loyalty to the AD party hierarchy, and Afenifere, especially Pa Abraham Adesanya determined who got what. Although few got their tickets based on proven track records, neither substance, manifestorial package nor the people were allowed to decide via the primaries, those who were to flag the party’s ticket. In the north, money, religious, godfatherism were also the deciding factors that determined who got what. Others were those who benefited from the large heart of those who scuttled the June 12 elections as their anointed candidates merely worked over the primaries, which in most instances as it was with the South-West, candidates were handpicked and imposed on the party and people by the godfathers. Money and godfatherism contoured the terrain in the South-South and South-East. So, the 1999 elections was that which pitched against one another, products of money, godfathering, and religious politics, therefore leaving the masses with no real credible action from which leaders were to be selected from.

As a fall out, those who emerged through this flawed democratic process abandoned the masses interest by pursuing vested agenda. Pursuance to this, most of these individuals wasted no time in rescuing themselves from the bondage of their godfathers, therefore, the major reason why in the fourth republic, political gangstersism, and party in-fighting, caused by the fall out between political sons and their godfathers were a recurrent and dominant trend among all the political parties that won elective posts. This was one of the major factors that led to the collapse of AD, and the split of the Afenifere into dissenting rows and columns, consequently, making its once mighty political powers to be dwarfed. The South-East and South-South as well as the North had their own share of such upheavals. This merely consumed some political actors and dissident political sons but did not herald the demise of any major visible regional political party.

It was these intervening factors that explain the level of wealth plundering and abandonment of the onerous state building responsibilities that were witnessed between 1999 and 2003. The worst of pillaging was to take place at the local government levels where local government chairpersons and counselors whose emergence in the first instance, was dominantly at the mercy of their state governors, were mainly conduit pipes through which the latter were siphoning money. At the state level, going by the role played by money in obtaining tickets, the need to fulfill the contractual terms signed with the godfathers, through oiling their political machinery with stolen money and by awarding them juicy contracts, corruption rose to a record high. The investors needed to make whopping profit, and the only way this could be done was to loot the treasury, an act which the godfathers and political sons got enmeshed in. More than the godfathers, the political sons needed the financial chess to free themselves from the godfathers’ domineering influences, so, the estrangement that was to take place between the duo.

This pathetic scenario was to sustain itself in the 2003 elections as primaries conducted by most political parties were, on a more notorious scale, fraught with the aforementioned factors. However, one must highlight that the 2003 electoral process was worse than that of the 1999. So, the disaster that was to befall the electorate after the 2003 elections was of greater disillusion. The Awoist lost the South-West to the exception of Lagos as they were outflanked by Obasanjo, one of the anti-June 12 elements. Gangesterism became definitive of the political leadership, hence, the reasons why some bastards held their states to ransom because of self-vested pledges that were not fulfilled. Adedibu and Chris Uba make a good example of the post-2003 election case study while the Sarakites-Lawalites fratricidal tussle exemplifies the example of how gangstersim took over the 2003 electoral process.

Since victory in 2003 elections cost more resources than in 1999, so, one is less perturbed by the level of treasury looting that was to subsequently take place both at the national and state level. While Obasanjo led the national pillaging efforts, the state governors were in charge of liquidating their state resources. Developmental efforts became summarily halted, hence, the near collapse of basic amenities in virtually all the states of the federation. With the fallout between Obasanjo and Atiku, coupled with a host of other factors, the infamous do-or-die electoral method was resorted to by Obasanjo and the PDP as a means of sustaining their wish at all costs. Other major political parties followed suit, so, the level of barbarity that trailed the conduct of 2007 elections, the worst in Nigeria’s political history. The aftermath of this is the increasing state of depravity in the land, although, two or three individuals could be considered as kings among the blinds.

It may at this point be categorically stated, that, the factors which orchestrated the cancelation of the June 12 elections, our immediate reaction and how the post-June challenges were taken over and exploited to achieve vested political interests by a tinny group of powerful cabals lay down the foundation of why democracy has failed in solving our perennial problems. With the ongoing trend within the opposition and ruling parties, the hope is dim that democracy will usher in those dividends that are much expected. Like a wild dog, the godfathers are on the loose; menacingly transversing the political landscape and plotting to see their political machinations for the forth coming 2011elections land them the much anticipated victory. These self perpetuating reasons which explain in part why we have failed will need to be attended to if we are to experience a reversal of the travails which our nation is experiencing now. More than ever, the masses need to determine those that lead them at all stages of the electoral process and must evolve credible opposition unlike the diabolic ones that are presently playing this role. How to do this, is an issue that will be addressed in one of my forth coming articles.

The writer, Mr. Adebiyi Jelili Abudugana, a former UNILAG student union leader can be reached through abudugana2000@yahoo.com

How the Nigeria High Commission in Malaysia Defrauded Its Citizens: EFCC Attention Please!


Sometimes on January 19, 2010, two Nigerians, Luqman Abdul Salam and Abdulalhi Bolajoko Uthman were arrested and detained for alleged involvement in terrorist acts. These Nigerians, whose innocence is presumed as they were neither tried in any competent court nor pronounced guilty for the alleged offence, were subsequently deported to Nigeria sometimes in March, 2010. Before their deportations were effected, series of meetings were held between the Malaysian government and their Nigerian counterpart that was ably represented by some staff of the Nigeria High Commission in Malaysia.

Simultaneously, other meetings were also held with the families of the detainees. As findings revealed, some of these meetings involved the representatives of Nigerians in Diaspora Organization, Malaysia (NIDOMY).

When it had dawned that Luqman and Abdulalhi will be deported, subsequent deliberations were to focus on how to obtain flight tickets for the detainees and their families and how to get them safe landing on arrival in Nigeria. This was after the Malaysian government had realized that the alleged case of terrorism could not be substantiated, hence, the need to use some other avenues to dispose of the case as earlier as possible. That was a wise decision as the initial global publicity which the arrest had earlier gathered was turning against the Malaysian government as emergent facts were exposing the arrest as one of such that was based on false claims.

Of note and importance to the objective at hand, was the meeting which held on March 8, 2010 at the premises of the Nigeria High Commission in Malaysia. In attendance were the wives of Luqman and Abdulalhi, a friend and relative whose identities could not be authenticated. Also, in attendance were some NIDOMY officials. Matters related to the imminent deportation of Luqman and Abdulalhi were raised. In this particular meeting, the families were reliably informed by the Nigeria High Commissioner that the Nigerian Government will take up the responsibility of their ticketing expenses as well as those of their husbands. The said amount was around 14815 American Dollars. The provision for the family members’ tickets was as reportedly argued by the High Commissioner; on the ground that since they were on dependent-visas, then, the latter’s deportation automatically qualifies them for immediate extradition as well. The events which culminated into this was after a series of deliberation and exchanges of correspondence were transacted between the High Commission and the Nigeria Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

On March 10, 2010, it was authoritatively learnt that the Nigeria High Commission Malaysia received from the Nigerian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, approval for the issuance of the flight tickets. As earlier promised, the approval covered the detainees and their nuclear family members with whom they were legally residing in Malaysia. It was in this meeting that Chief Peter J.E. Anegbeh, the Nigerian Higher Commissioner to Malaysia, cleared the air that the detainees were not on the Nigeria list of wanted persons as rumoured by the Malaysian government. When the news of this development filtered into the knowing of the Nigerian populace in Malaysia, they were full of praises for the Commission whose image has nosedived before this unfortunate development.

The much expected deportation which took place some days afterward, commenced with Luqman Abdul Salam, who, was deported to Nigeria on March 13, 2010. Abdulalhi Bolajoko Uthman’s own was effected the following day, that is, on March 14, 2010. Respectively, both arrived Nigeria on March 14, and 15, 2010.

Based on the purported ticketing arrangement by the High Commission, the wives and children were expected to join the deportees some days later. Two weeks afterward, this could not take place. People started to wonder what could have gone wrong with the High Commission’s arrangement. Were they playing games? people begun to wonder. As there was no positive news from the High Commission, people started suspecting a foul play. However, no genuine effort could be made to challenge the concerned authorities as nearly everybody was either afraid of being tagged agent provocateur or being named as one of the wanted persons.

After a month had also gone without the purported ticketing arrangement being honoured, it was then that it dawned on people and the families of the deportees that the Commission has abandoned the affected people to sort out themselves.

Following this depressing development, people started making spirited effort to source for alternative means through which the flight expenses could be taken care of. Much could not be raised from the immediate Nigerian community in Malaysia. As findings reveal, this was mainly due to the fear that anybody could be arrested without trial based on the Malaysian Internal Security Act, ISA, on whose ground those guys were arrested, detained and deported.

As the hope of raising fund to secure the flight tickets was fading day-after-day, one Malaysian citizen who was not in the scheme of things volunteered to secure the travelling tickets for Luqman’s family. The man who was reported to have soft for Luqman as a trustworthy fellow and unique Nigerian was among the Malaysian citizens who felt unhappy that their government was merely prosecuting Luqman based on cooked allegations.

This developed spurred some sections of the Nigerian community who had been following the case since the arrest was effected to intensify efforts in soliciting fund needed to defray the flight bills of Abdulalhi’s family members. After networking with some individuals in Nigeria, a non-governmental organization took up the challenge, so, Abdulalhi’s family members were able to make it back home.

With the circumstances that surrounded how the flight expenses were taken care of, some curious minded members of the Nigerian diasporic community in Malaysia who earlier had been raising the theory of a possible foul play summoned the courage to investigate what had happened to the money that was released by the Nigerian government. In the bid to do this, they reached out to those from who first-hand information could be sourced. A lead which raised weighty doubt on the initial claim that it was the Nigeria High Commission that took care of Luqman and Abdulalhi’s flight expenses, was in the process of the investigative effort stumbled upon. This was to become a curtain raiser which led to the eventual revelation on how the money was diverted and shared among some top ranking officers within the Commission.

After a brainstorming section in which they pieced together available fact at their disposal, the investigative team made further contacts which enabled them authenticate the identity of those who paid for Luqman and Abdulalhi’s flight expenses.

As was realised, it turned out to be a bogus claim, the Nigeria High Commission’s declaration that they were responsible for Luqman and Abdulalhi’s flight expenses to Nigeria. The Commission that claimed to have obtained the tickets was not even aware of the day and time Luqman and Abdulalhi were to be deported. The High Commission got to know of these details some few hours when the guys were to be taken to the airport. It was after this information got to their knowing that the Commission sent a delegation to receive these guys at the Kuala Lumpur International Airport where their flights were scheduled to take off.

When asked by the deportees why the Commission representatives had merely joined them at the airport, the delegation exposed itself by replying that it was not quite long that they knew of the day and date of their deportation. The simple question to be asked, is, had the Commission procured the tickets as claimed wouldn’t the take off time and date be boldly written on the tickets? May be, it was not written on the tickets they bought. Even, on arrival in Nigeria, the deportees had a little delay with the immigration who also alleged that the time of their deportation was not communicated to them.

Without wanting to make any assumption that may jeopardise the effort of the investigative team, categorical questions were asked from the appropriate persons, if the officials of the Malaysian government uttered any categorical statement on who paid for the ticketing expenses. The response was in the affirmative, hence, making it to be established beyond any reasonable doubt, the fact that this was taken up by the Malaysian government. So, it was at this point that it became a stark reality that the approved and released fund had been siphoned.

Since the approval issued by the Nigerian government covered the family of the detainees, then, as it was with the ticketing expenses of Luqman and Abdulalhi which was embezzled, same was the case with their family’s approved and released flight expenses.

Still not satisfied with the outcome of the investigation, attempt was made to unearth how the embezzlement card was played and who plaid what role.

Further investigation revealed that while the approval of the Nigerian Ministry of Foreign Affairs was being expected, it was well known by Chief Peter J.E. Anegbeh, the Nigeria High Commissioner to Malaysia and members of his Commission’s kitchen clique that, a similar arrangement was being put up by the Malaysian government. This was neither communicated to the stakeholders with whom the case was being prosecuted nor the Nigerian government which was processing the request forwarded to it by the Commission.

So, when the approved money was released by the Nigerian government for the ticketing expenses of the entire family members, the delay tactics approach was used by the conspiring officers to get their ulterior aim achieved. It was learnt that signals that things will work in their favour manifested when the Malaysian government provided for Luqman and Abdulalhi’s tickets. Also, it was expected that those of the families would also be provided for by the Malaysian government as it was their calculation that they would be deported with their husbands. This was their expectation, but, things never turned out as prospected.

While the Commission’s expectation of the official deportation of the families lasts, some concerned individuals who felt there was no need for the families of Luqman and Abdulalhi to stay back in Malaysia without their husbands took up the initiative to take care of their flight expenses. With this, things worked out in favour of the officials who were involved in the plot to siphon the money that was meant to procure the travelling tickets for the affected persons.

Another factor which made it easy for the plot to be successfully hatched was that the arrest, detention and deportation of these guys was overshadowed by the tension which late Yar’Adua’s health generated. So, it was part of the embezzlement game plan that in so far some stakeholders in the Nigerian Ministry of Foreign Affairs are carried along, the moribund state of affairs will make it difficult to get such fraud detected.

On this note, well meaning Nigerians’ intervention is being solicited to get the EFCC to launch an immediate investigation into this case of abuse of public trust being perpetrated by the staff of the Nigeria High Commission in Malaysia. The leadership of Jonathan is taken to task on this matter as failure to act on time will send negative signals to the genuineness of his government’s much professed zero-tolerance for sleaze.

Mr Olawepo John, a researcher can be reached through okiki_olo@yahoo.com