₦airaland Forum

I have always believed that this creature (Ribadu) is nothing but a "Political LovePeddler". As someone had previously noted, he went from Obasanjo's attack dog, to Tinubu's lap dog. Funny how advanced education (LLB, LLM) doesn't seem to have prepared that sorry bloc about the intricacies of politics. I guess if one is more blinded by misplaced ambition, it is easy to self-destruct.

Unfortunately for Nigeria, our system of education does not value recent history. So, those who are quick to call Buhari evil should watch this video and reflect.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6924381337553773948#

They say he has no agenda, nothing to offer.  Really?

How Buhari will fix Nigeria
Font size:    Femi Meyungbe-Olufunmilade 16/01/2011 00:00:00

Following the emergence of former Head of State, Gen. Muhammadu Buhari, as the presidential candidate of the Congress for Progressive Change (CPC), on January 4, 2011, at the Eagle Square, Abuja, venue of the CPC’s convention, attention has fully shifted to the issue of what the no-nonsense General will do with power if elected president at the 9 April, 2011 presidential poll. I recall some time in 2006 when I met the General at his Kaduna residence – a very modest structure on Sultan Road – and teased him with a question: "Sir, I hope the fire that burned in you as Head of State is still there to fix Nigeria if you are elected president in 2007?" He kept mum, smiling, as he served me a juice drink. Weeks later, I got a call from his Special Assistant, Sarkin Abba, to come to a suite at Transcorp Hilton, Abuja, where the General, who has neither a plot nor a house in Abuja, lodged, whereupon, I was presented with a copy of Buhari’s blueprint for Nigeria’s transformation. I am glad to announce that Gen. Buhari is revising that comprehensive blueprint to fix Nigeria in 2011. It is unparalleled in terms of deep understanding of the problems of Nigeria and its self-evident capacity to fix those problems; not just during Buhari’s tenure of office, but for all time.

While the blueprint covers a wide range of subjects from power supply to security, topping the list is governance. Buhari believes governance has virtually collapsed in Nigeria or, at best, grossly ineffective under the ruling PDP government. Creating a framework for good governance is therefore a sine qua non for any administration that sets much store by performance. To buttress his thesis of collapsed governance under the PDP, Gen. Buhari spoke in this vein at a recent event in Abuja: Some time ago, Nigeria’s former Minister of Finance who is presently a Managing Director with the World Bank, Dr. (Mrs) Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala, issued a document on Nigeria’s public finance from 1914 – 2010. The document shows that the revenue that accrued to the Nigerian government from 1914, when both the Northern and Southern Protectorates were amalgamated into a single administrative structure by Governor General Lord Lugard, till 1998, when the second military interregnum in Nigerian government ended, is not up to accruals between 1999 when the present dispensation of civil rule commenced and 2010. If you are in doubt, simply search the internet for a database of global oil prices from the late 1960s when Nigeria began exporting oil on a significant scale till 2010 and the volume of Nigerian oil exports over the period and you would get your cue.

The import of this illustration of collapsed governance thesis is that the scale of corruption manifesting in diverse guises, ranging from contract inflation/abandonment to jumbo allowances/ under-priced auction of public estates to political leaders in the name of monetization under the PDP-led Federal government within roughly a decade, is unparalleled in the history of Nigeria or indeed any country under heaven. More importantly, this illustration underscored the point that Nigeria’s problem is neither the lack of good blueprint nor paucity of funds. Nigeria has always had good blueprints. From independence we have had a series of Development Plans. In the late 1980s we switched to Rolling Plans. Vision 2010 soon followed. A few years after, the National Economic Empowerment and Development Strategy (NEEDS) came on board. Presently, the regime of Vision 20: 2020 is in vogue. Whatever their defects, had each of these series of blueprints been sincerely implemented in a series of budgets encapsulating their goals, objectives, and targets, Nigeria, in Gen. Buhari’s view, would have become an El-Dorado.

A core element of the governance content of the Buhari blueprint, in its revised form, is an innovation called Budget Implementation Monitoring System (BIMS). As a quick summary, BIMS is an e-Governance strategy that will virtually wipe out corruption and budget failure in Nigeria’s federal government. It is a software to be uploaded on the internet to report, on a quarterly basis, details of public revenue, allocation, and expenditure. In other words, each quarter, it furnishes the public with a breakdown of the budget in a given fiscal year, showing how much is allocated to each Ministry, Department and Agency (MDA), the projects and programmes the allocations are meant to execute, what progress has been made regarding actual execution of projects and programmes as at a given quarter, as well as remarks as to the cause of delay in execution or non-execution.

In effect, both President Buhari and the Nigerian public can monitor the progress of budget implementation by the MDAs. On the president’s part, he would be able to correct unintended implementation lapses or outright attempt to sabotage his budget, timeously, and not when it is already too late. If, for instance, a road project carries a remark of delayed execution due to non-release of funds, he could promptly summon both the Ministers of Finance and Works to explain why and get the project on track promptly. On the part of the public who commute on that road, they would be in a position to cry out that somebody is lying if the road carries the remark of, say 50 percent execution, when nothing has been done.

The vision undergirding BIMS transcends merely making budgets work, which is commendable enough, but to make governance a partnership of the governors and the governed: the quintessence Public-Private-Partnership (PPP). With anyone interested in budget implementation being able to monitor any aspect of the budget on the internet anywhere in the world, feedback ideas on how to post better service delivery with respect to items in the budget can be channeled to government by email or via the pages of newspapers. In this connection, both the government and the general public have to share blame for budget failure, when either of them fails to do its part in budget implementation and monitoring, respectively. This innovation, it should be pointed out, is a carry-over, albeit an improvement on the practice of Gen. Buhari , as military Head of State, of giving Weekly Statement of Account of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. Buhari believes that corruption thrives more when issues of public revenues and expenditures are shrouded in secrecy. By the time BIMS takes off, it would make the much-talked about Freedom of Information Bill gathering dust in the archives of an unwilling National Assembly superfluous.

Beyond its obvious, immediate benefits, BIMS, ultimately, is targeted at institutionalising an irreversible culture of probity in Nigeria’s public service. Buhari wants a new order in Nigeria where only those interested in rendering service would seek public office. His refrain at every public fora where he has dropped hints of what to expect in his presidency has been "zero-tolerance for corruption." I cannot here vouch that Buhari would not propose a bill stipulating capital punishment for thieves of public funds. As Head of State, we all saw how those who attempted to get rich by short cuts - hard drugs traffickers and armed robbers – were publicly executed. The latter category, if we may recall, got executed right in front of their family compounds. Buhari was that mad with thieves. Pen robbers may expect no less in the coming dispensation, starting 29 May, 2011. My sincerest advice to civil servants and politicians used to easy, unexplainable money is to retire from public service before General Nemesis catches up with them.

I wrote and published a satire titled "Barack Obama and the African Dreamers" to celebrate President Barack Obama’s victory at the polls in November 2008 before he was sworn-in. I then got a couple of emails from President Obama himself and his Chief Strategist, David Axelrod, one of which was an alert to log into the Obama’s Whitehouse website as it made its debut. I promptly did and beheld a message atop the website so simple and yet so deep: "Change has come to America." Nigerians can say the same of their country from 29 May 2011, if they do their best to elect Buhari their president this year. BIMS is only a tip of the iceberg. Within a year of Buhari presidency, oyinbo people would struggle to get the Nigerian visa as they now do with respect to China.

——‘Femi Meyungbe-Olufunmilade teaches Political Science at Igbinedion University, Okada. Edo State. Mobile: +234-80-57345436; Email: femiology@yahoo.com

Yes, this is at times intellectual, even academic, but I trust, it is not over the heads of some Nigerians.  So, read on.

Why I will vote for Buhari - Lamido Sanusi
Written by Sanusi Lamido Sanusi    
Tuesday, 16 November 2010 11:15

Sanusi Lamido Sanusi
If Buhari gets a nomination he will have my vote. I will vote for him not, like some have averred, because he is a northerner and a Muslim or because I think his candidacy is good for the north and Islam; I will vote for him not because I think he will make a good democrat or that he was not a dictator. I will vote for Buhari as a Nigerian for a leader who restored my pride and dignity and my belief in the motherland. I will vote for the man who made it undesirable for the “Andrews” to “check out” instead of staying to change Nigeria. – Sanusi Lamido Sanusi (2002)
BUHARISM: Economic Theory and Political Economy  By Sanusi Lamido Sanusi [LAGOS] July 22,2002

I have followed with more than a little interest the many contributions of commentators on the surprising decision of General Muhammadu Buhari to jump into the murky waters of Nigerian politics. Most of the regular writers in the Trust stable have had something to say on this. The political adviser to a late general has transferred his services to a living one. My dear friend and prolific veterinary doctor, who like me is allegedly an ideologue of Fulani supremacy, has taken a leading emir to the cleaners based on information of suspect authenticity. Another friend has contributed an articulate piece, which for those in the know gives a bird’s eye view into the thinking within the IBB camp. A young northern Turk has made several interventions and given novel expressions to what I call the PTF connection. Some readers and writers alike have done Buhari incalculable damage by viewing his politics through the narrow prism of ethnicity and religion, risking the alienation of whole sections of the Nigerian polity without whose votes their candidate cannot succeed.

With one or two notable exceptions, the various positions for or against Buhari have focused on his personality and continued to reveal a certain aversion or disdain for deeper and more thorough analysis of his regime. The reality, as noted by Tolstoy, is that too often history is erroneously reduced to single individuals. By losing sight of the multiplicity of individuals, events, actions and inactions (deliberate or otherwise) that combine to produce a set of historical circumstances, the historian is able to create a mythical figure and turn him into an everlasting hero (like Lincoln) or a villain (like Hitler). The same is true of Buhari. There seems to be a dangerous trend of competition between two opposing camps aimed at glorifying him beyond his wildest dreams or demonizing him beyond all justifiable limits, through a selective reading of history and opportunistic attribution and misattribution of responsibility.

The discourse has been thus impoverished through personalization and we are no closer at the end of it than at the beginning to a divination of the exact locus or nexus of his administration in the flow of Nigerian history. This is what I seek to achieve in this intervention through an exposition of the theoretical underpinnings of the economic policy of Buharism and the necessary correlation between the economic decisions made and the concomitant legal and political superstructure.

Taxonomy

Let me begin by stating up front the principal thesis that I will propound. Within the schema of discourses on Nigerian history, the most accurate problematization of the Buhari government is one that views it strictly as a regime founded on the ideology of Bourgeois Nationalism. In this sense it was a true off-shoot of the regime of Murtala Mohammed. Buharism was a stage the logical outcome of whose machinations would have been a transcendence of what Marx called the stage of Primitive Accumulation in his Theories of Surplus Value. It was radical, not in the sense of being socialist or left wing, but in the sense of being a progressive move away from a political economy dominated by a parasitic and subservient elite to one in which a nationalist and productive class gains ascendancy. Buharism represented a two-way struggle: with Global capitalism (externally) and with its parasitic and unpatriotic agents and spokespersons (internally).

The struggle against global capital as represented by the unholy trinity of the IMF, the World Bank and multilateral “trade” organizations as well that against the entrenched domestic class of contractors, commission agents and corrupt public officers were vicious and thus required extreme measures. Draconian policies were a necessary component of this struggle for transformation and this has been the case with all such epochs in history. The Meiji restoration in Japan was not conducted in a liberal environment. The Industrial Revolution in Europe and the great economic progress of the empires were not attained in the same liberal atmosphere of the 21st Century. The “tiger economies” of Asia such as Taiwan, South Korea, Indonesia and Thailand are not exactly models of democratic freedom. To this extent Buharism was a despotic regime but its despotism was historically determined, necessitated by the historical task of dismantling the structures of dependency and launching the nation on to a path beyond primitive accumulation. At his best Buhari may have been a Bonaparte or a Bismarck. At his worst he may have been a Hitler or a Mussolini. In either case Buharism drawn to its logical conclusion would have provided the bedrock for a new society and its overthrow marked a relapse, a step backward into that era from which we sought escape and in which, sadly for all of us we remain embedded and enslaved. I will now proceed with an elaboration of Buharism as a manifestation of bourgeois economics and political economy.

The Economic Theory of Buharism

One of the greatest myths spun around Buharism was that it lacked a sound basis in economic theory. As evidence of this, the regime that succeeded Buhari employed the services of economic “gurus” of “international standard” as the architects of fiscal and monetary policy. These were IMF and World Bank economists like Dr. Chu Okongwu and Dr Kalu Idika Kalu, as well as Mr SAP himself, Chief Olu Falae (an economist trained at Yale). At the time Buhari’s Finance Minister, Dr Onaolapo Soleye (who was not a trained economist) was debating with the pro-IMF lobby and explaining why the naira would not be devalued I was teaching economics at the Ahmadu Bello University. I had no doubt in my mind that the position of Buharism was based on a sound understanding of neo-classical economics and that those who were pushing for devaluation either did not understand their subject or were acting deliberately as agents of international capital in its rampage against all barriers set up by sovereign states to protect the integrity of the domestic economy. I still believe some of the key economic policy experts of the IBB administration were economic saboteurs who should be tried for treason.

When the IMF recently owned up to “mistakes” in its policy prescriptions all patriotic economists saw it for what it was: A hypocritical statement of remorse after attaining set objectives. Let me explain, briefly, the economic theory underlying Buhari’s refusal to devalue the naira and then show how the policy merely served the interest of global capitalism and its domestic agents. This will be the principal building block of our taxonomy.

In brief, neo-classical theory holds that a country can, under certain conditions, expect to improve its Balance of Payments through devaluation of its currency. The IMF believed that given the pressure on the country’s foreign reserves and its adverse balance of payments situation Nigeria must devalue its currency. Buharism held otherwise and insisted that the conditions for improving Balance of Payments through devaluation did not exist and that there were alternate and superior approaches to the problem. Let me explain.

The first condition that must exist is that the price of every country’s export is denominated in its currency. If Nigeria’s exports are priced in naira and its imports from the US in dollars then, ceteris paribus, a devaluation of the naira makes imports dearer to Nigerians and makes Nigerian goods cheaper to Americans. This would then lead to an increase in the quantum of exports to the US and a reduction in the quantum of imports from there per unit of time. But while this is a necessary condition, it is not a sufficient one. For a positive change in the balance of payments the increase in the quantum of exports must be substantial enough to outweigh the revenue lost through a reduction in price. In other words the quantity exported must increase at a rate faster than the rate of decrease in its price. Similarly imports must fall faster than their price is increasing. Otherwise the nation may be devoting more of its wealth to importing less and receiving less of the wealth of foreigners for exporting more! In consequence, devaluation by a country whose exports and imports are not price elastic leads to the continued impoverishment of the nation vis a vis its trading partners. The second, and sufficient, condition is therefore that the combined price elasticity of demand for exports and imports must exceed unity.

The argument of Buharism, for which it was castigated by global capital and its domestic agents, was that these conditions did not exist clearly enough for Nigeria to take the gamble. First our major export, oil, was priced in dollars and the volume exported was determined ab initio by the quota set by OPEC, a cartel to which we belonged. Neither the price nor the volume of our exports would be affected by a devaluation of the naira. As for imports, indeed they would become dearer. However the manufacturing base depended on imported raw materials. Also many essential food items were imported. The demand for imports was therefore inelastic. We would end up spending more of our national income to import less, in the process fuelling inflation, creating excess capacity and unemployment, wiping out the production base of the real sector and causing hardship to the consumer through the erosion of real disposable incomes. Given the structural dislocations in income distribution in Nigeria the only groups who would benefit from devaluation were the rich parasites who had enough liquidity to continue with their conspicuous consumption, the large multi-national corporations with an unlimited access to loanable funds and the foreign “investor” who can now purchase our grossly cheapened and undervalued domestic assets.

In one stroke we would wipe out the middle class, destroy indigenous manufacturing, undervalue the national wealth and create inflation and unemployment. This is standard economic theory and it is exactly what happened to Nigeria after it went through the hands of our IMF economists under IBB. The decision not to devalue set Buharism on a collision course with those who wanted devaluation and would profit from it-namely global capitalism, the so-called “captains of industry” (an acronym for the errand boys of multinational corporations), the nouveaux-riches parasites who had naira and dollars waiting to be spent, the rump elements of feudalism and so on. Buharism therefore was a crisis in the dominant class, a fracturing of its members into a patriotic, nationalist group and a dependent, parasitic and corrupt one. It was not a struggle between classes but within the same class. A victory for Buharism would be a victory for the more progressive elements of the national bourgeoisie. Unfortunately the fifth columnists within the military establishment were allied to the backward and retrogressive elements and succeeded in defeating Buharism before it took firm root. But I digress.

Having decided not to devalue or to rush into privatization and liberalization Buharism still faced an economic crisis it must address. There was pressure on foreign reserves, mounting foreign debt and a Balance of Payments crisis. Clearly the demand for foreign exchange outstripped its supply. The government therefore adopted demand management measures. The basic principle was that we did not really need all that we imported and if we could ensure that our scarce foreign exchange was only allocated to what we really needed we would be able to pay our debts and lay the foundations for economic stability. But this line of action also has its drawbacks.

First, there are political costs to be borne in terms of opposition from those who feel unfairly excluded from the allocation process and who do not share the government’s sense of priorities. Muslims for example cursed Buhari’s government for restricting the number of pilgrims in order to conserve foreign exchange.

Second, in all attempts to manage demand through quotas and quantitative restrictions there is room for abuse because there is always the incentive of a premium to be earned through circumvention of due process. Import licenses become “hot cake” and the black market for foreign exchange highly lucrative. This policy can only succeed if backed by strong deterrent laws and strict and enforcible exchange rules. Again it is trite micro-economic theory that where price is fixed below equilibrium the market is only cleared through quotas and the potential exists for round tripping as there will be a minority willing and able to offer a very high price for the “artificially scarce” product. So again we see that the harsh exchange control and economic sabotage laws of Buharism were a necessary and logical fallout of its economic theory.

Conclusion

I have tried to show in this intervention what I consider to be the principal building blocks of the military government of Muhammadu Buhari and the logical connection between its ideology, its economic theory and the legal and political superstructure that characterized it. My objective is to raise the intellectual profile of discourse beyond its present focus on personalities by letting readers see the intricate links between disparate and seemingly unrelated aspects of that government, thus contextualizing the actions of Buharism in its specific historical and ideological milieu. I have tried to review its treatment of politicians as part of a general struggle against primitive accumulation and its harsh laws on exchange and economic crimes as a necessary fallout of economic policy options. Similarly its treatment of drug pushers reflected the patriotic zeal of a bourgeois nationalist establishment.

As happens in all such cases a number of innocent people become victims of draconian laws, such as a few honest leaders like Shehu Shagari and Balarabe Musa who were improperly detained. The reality however is that many of those claiming to be victims today were looters who deserved to go to jail but who would like to hide under the cover of a few glaring errors. The failure of key members of the Buhari administration to tender public and unreserved apology to those who may have been improperly detained has not helped matters in this regard.

This raises a question I have often been asked. Do I support Buhari’s decision to contest for the presidency of Nigeria? My answer is no. And I will explain.

First, I believe Buhari played a creditable role in a particular historical epoch but like Tolstoy and Marx I do not believe he can re-enact that role at will. Men do not make history exactly as they please but, as Marx wrote in the 18th Brumaire, “in circumstances directly encountered, given and transmitted from the past.” Muhammadu Buhari as a military general had more room for manoevre than he can ever hope for in Nigerian Politics.

Second, I am convinced that the situation of Nigeria and its elite today is worse than it was in 1983.Compared to the politicians who populate the PDP, ANPP and AD today, second republic politicians were angels. Buhari waged a battle against second republic politicians, but he is joining this generation. Anyone who rides a tiger ends up in its belly and one man cannot change the system from within. A number of those Buhari jailed for theft later became ministers and many of those who hold key offices in all tiers of government and the legislature were made by the very system he sought to destroy. My view is that Nigeria needs people like Buhari in politics but not to contest elections. Buhari should be in politics to develop Civil Society and strengthen the conscience of the nation. He should try to develop many Buharis who will continue to challenge the elements that have hijacked the nation.

Third, I do not think Nigerians today are ready for Buhari. Everywhere you turn you see thieves who have amassed wealth in the last four years, be they legislators, Local Government chairmen and councilors, or governors and ministers. But these are the heroes in their societies. They are the religious leaders and ethnic champions and Nigerians, especially northerners, will castigate and discredit anyone who challenges them. Unless we start by educating our people and changing their value system, people like Buhari will remain the victims of their own love for Nigeria.

Fourth, and on a lighter note, I am opposed to recycled material. In a nation of 120million people we can do better than restrict our leadership to a small group. I think Buhari, Babangida and yes Obasanjo should simply allow others try their hand instead of believing they have the monopoly of wisdom.

Having said all this let me conclude by saying that if Buhari gets a nomination he will have my vote (for what it is worth). I will vote for him not, like some have averred, because he is a northerner and a Muslim or because I think his candidacy is good for the north and Islam; I will vote for him not because I think he will make a good democrat or that he was not a dictator. I will vote for Buhari as a Nigerian for a leader who restored my pride and dignity and my belief in the motherland. I will vote for the man who made it undesirable for the “Andrews” to “check out” instead of staying to change Nigeria. I will vote for Buhari to say thank you for the world view of Buharism, a truly nationalist ideology for all Nigerians. I do not know if Buhari is still a nationalist or a closet bigot and fanatic, or if he was the spirit and not just the face of Buharism. My vote for him is not based on a divination of what he is or may be, but a celebration of what his government was and what it gave to the nation.

Is it possible that those who berate this man don't even know him?  Read and digest.

Muhammadu Buhari: The Untiring Persona at 68
 

Born on Thursday the 17th December, 1942 in Daura, Katsina state, to a Fulani Chief, Ardo Adamu of Dumurkol, a village near Daura, and Hajiya Zulaihatu, a Hausa woman. He was a Gambo or Leko, as he arrived after the death of his older twin siblings. It is  what the Yorubas would refer to as Idowu. That is the story of the parenthood of Major General Muhammadu Yassim Yinusa Buhari, the officer gentleman who at three critical times, was well positioned to amass wealth for himself illegally but did not.




After attending primary schools at Daura and Mai’adua between 1948 and 1952, followed by a year stint at Katsina  model school in 1953 and Katsina Provincial secondary school (now Government college Katsina)  between 1956 and 1961; Buhari had a choice of training as a teacher, studying agriculture or joining the Army. He chose the profession of the arms. As a cadet, he was made a sergeant which was an early recognition of his leadership qualities by his superiors.




It was in August 1975 that Muhammadu Buhari first came into national visibility when he was appointed Military Governor of the North Eastern by the Murtala Muhammed’s regime. After the death of the General Murtala Muhammed, the new Lt. General Olusegun Obasanjo government appointed him as the Federal Commissioner for Petroleum resources (March 1976-July 1978) and later, Chairman of Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation, June 1978-July 1978. It was during his stewardship at the Petroleum ministry that two of the nation’s refineries (Warri and Kaduna) were built.




In 1983, the patriotic fervor of Buhari was rudely put to test when the Chadians, in a mindless expansionist adventure, invaded and occupied 19 islands in Lake Chad within Nigerian territory. As the General Officer Commanding (GOC) the 3rd armored corps, the then Brigadier Muhammadu Buhari successfully carried out a blockade forcing the return of the territories and thereafter pursued the Chadians as far as 50kms into Chadian territory. On an Internet discourse, Major-General (retired) Ishola Williams commented on this military feat thus: “He applied forward defense strategy at its best.”




Major-General Muhammadu Buhari bestrode the nation’s governance when he led the military putsch that overthrew the civilian regime of Alhaji Shehu Shagari. Prior to the take-over, the four-year-incursion of the civilian government had been horrific for Nigerians. The economy had been recklessly mismanaged to the extent that a chieftain of the ruling National Party of Nigeria, Alhaji Umaru Dikko, once asserted that there was no poverty in Nigeria because he had not seen any Nigerian feeding from the baggage dump! In his maiden speech, General Muhammadu Buhari left no one under any illusion that his regime came on a rescue mission from the executive brigandage of the civilian regime. As a last line, he opined: “This generation of Nigerians, and indeed future generations, have no country other than Nigeria. We shall remain here and salvage it together.”




The 20-month era of strong leadership espoused what later became known as ‘Buharinomics’, which simply put is an admixture of frugality, probity, respect for contractual agreements, expunction of  all covert or overt attempts at subjugating the Nigerian economy to world powers and above all, economic policy with Nigeria as the center-piece. It is therefore, without any whiff of equivocation to state that the boldest attempt in the last thirty years at alleviating the pains of the teeming masses was during the enactment of Buharinomics. It was not surprising that the inflation rate was lowered by more than 18 points, from 23.2% in 1983 to 5.5% in 1985! The Buhari regime rebuffed all entreaties by IMF and World Bank to devalue the naira, remove subsidies on services and increase pump price on fuel.




It was arduous for the regime to cleanse the mess of the Shagari regime, which was characterized by unprecedented indiscipline –fiscal, institutional and governmental. With the mantra of War Against Indiscipline (WAI), a new direction was charted for Nigerians in ethical behavior in Public places.




With a persona that is hinged on self-abnegation, it was possible to insist on transparency within the polity. A military governor was relieved of his appointment for awarding N163,000 (one hundred and sixty three thousand naira) contract without  due consultation with the state executive council. The preceding politicians that corruptly enriched themselves were prosecuted and given long prison sentences. The former Director of NYSC, Col Peter Obasa and his accountant, Folorunsho Kila were found guilty and sentenced to 21years.




Owing to the damaging effect of currency trafficking outside the Nation’s shores, the Buhari administration decided to change the colors of the currency notes in April 1984. This yielded the desired result as N5Billion excess liquidity was mopped off! As a back-lash on this exercise, there was insidious story from a section of the media that the Buhari regime allowed the Emir of Gwandu, Alhaji Jokolo to bring in 53 suitcases during the currecy change, thereby insinuating a case of double-standard. Let it be said from the onset, the opinion tenaciously held on to about this incident was what was sold to the unsuspecting Nigerian public by a section of the press. So much hoodwinked that Buhari's explanation had never been heard!


This is what Buhari said about this:




"This is a typical case of the press believing what they want to believe. I hope it is not a reflection of the Nigerian society. I hope one day you will find the time to interview the Vice President on this. I understand he was the Customs officer in charge of the Murtala Mohammed airport, perhaps he knows more about it than myself. I have explained this so many times but the press write what they want to write and not what is factual."




Going down the memory lane, he added: "I recall the day in question. We were playing squash with my ADC when his father, the late Emir was returning to the country. He was a well-respected person. I prompted Jokolo to go and receive him even when he had no intention of doing so. By some coincidence his father was returning with my late chief of protocol who was an ambassador in Libya. He returned with his three wives and about 16 children. Everything about him including the handbag of his wives was counted as a suitcase. I explained this myself but nobody believed me."




The Vice-President referred to is Alhaji Atiku Abubakar, the man that is now desperately fighting for PDP nomination.




Some months ago when he Alhaji Atiku Abubakar gave inkling into his interest in the nation's presidency, anxious journalists wanted to know from him how he would manage the formidable competition from IBB. He smiled and calmly told them, "You people do not know that my friendship with General Babangida had been for at least ten years before i knew the late General Shehu Musa-Yar'adua."




As an undergraduate, I did a little bit of mathematical induction. Without doubt, Alhaji Atiku Abubakar was very friendly with General IBB (the serving Chief of Army staff) at the time of this 53-suitcase saga. We cannot infer anything yet, it is necessary to delve a little into IBB's subterfuge and fifth-columnist-posturing during the Buhari regime.




During the infamous Nigerian Medical Association (NMA)-induced doctors' strike of 1984/85 , Dr Fashakin (a former NMA President in Ife zone) had in an internet discourse, graciously acknowledged the 'logistics' support extended to the 'fleeing'  NMA executive members by the same Gen. IBB.




Col.Halilu Akilu (as Director military Intelligence) was reporting to Gen IBB as the Chief of Army staff. For inexplicable reason (except for sheer idiocy), Akilu ordered soldiers to invade the 2-park-lane-Apapa residence of the late Sage, Chief Obafemi Awolowo. Sometime ago, General Buhari was cornered and asked specifically about this incident. He said, "I did not order anybody to do this. It was the handiwork of the fifth columnist in our midst."




The Newsprints ordered by Concord Press (owned by Chief MKO Abiola) were seized by the Buhari regime because of infraction of the subsisting importation regulation. On the day (27th August, 1985) the Buhari regime was toppled, an airplane owned by Concord airline ferried General IBB from Minna to Lagos to assume leadership of the Nation. Did that suggest a friendship that facilitated the successful removal of the regime?




Was there a possibility of an alliance by General IBB and Alhaji Atiku Abubakar to embarrass the Buhari regime? I strongly believe so! I therefore make bold to declare that the 53-suitcase issue was a hoax! You are at liberty to hold on to your impression.


Buhari may have his foibles (as all humans do) but what his detractors cannot take away from him is his personal discipline with no avaricious desire for unjust gain. This means he is a man who has succeeded in putting his own self into some form of self -abnegation. Such is the man that can usher in a fresh air from the fouled political atmosphere within the polity. I challenge anyone to point to any assassination or assassination attempt (with the imprimatur of the state) during the Buhari regime. But what happened after his removal? All the succeeding regimes have been guilty of clandestinely eliminating voices of dissent within the polity. Though Gen IBB came smiling at everyone, including the Press; but before 15 months of his reign, a notable journalist had already been ‘parcel-bombed’!  We virtually lost count of unresolved state-organized murders during the infamous civilian regime of Baba Iyabo the imperial president. The explanation for the unresolved assassination Chief Bola Ige SAN, the regime's minister of Justice still leaves much to be desired! This spate of murders to settle political scores has, unwittingly or wittingly, been replicated by the state governors. It is a rarity to find a state governor without murderous squads roaming freely for the next assignment to satisfy their sponsors.




It is against this backdrop that Nigerians, I mean concerned Nigerians believe that the next leadership is critical in moving the nation to the next level. It is clearly important that we can no longer operate the culture of government by settlement whereby less than 600 individuals collectively consume 25% of the nation's budget; according to the recent startling statistics by the CBN governor, Sanusi Lamido Sanusi.




Buhari had said he intends to extend the work-hours of Nigerians to 24-7; which means the people should be free to move about at whatever time of the day as they choose. Who is able to do this? It is not what someone reads to us from a speech prepared by a consultant; but from someone whose antecedents bespeak of refusal to pander to the antics of the Breton Woods' institutions to further impoverish our people.




It was a clear attestation of his Spartan lifestyle that the Abacha military regime entrusted the management of the Petroleum Trust Fund (PTF) under his watch. There is no gain saying that PTF literally became the project arm of the government: Drugs supply to hospitals (especially Universities’ medical centers), road projects to hitherto unexplored rural areas clearly attest to his scrupulous assiduity.




What is the state of the republic as we speak? The parlous state of the economy is aptly captured in the fact that for the past eight months, the foreign reserves have been depleted by $8Billion, with the inflation rate as high as 14% and still rising. More worrisome is the depletion of the excess crude account from $22Billion to $470million with no corresponding economy-impacting capital projects to justify the expenditure.




Newton's second law of Motion states that: "Everybody continues in a state of rest or uniform motion unless compelled by an external force."  If there is no meaningful intervention from a confirmed patriot, our democracy (or demonstration of craze, apology to Fela Anikulapo-Kuti) is doomed for failure.




It is for these reasons and many more that General Muhammadu Buhari has taken up the gauntlet (through the support of Nigerians across the geo-political divide) to save the polity just one more time. The espousal of the new Nigeria would be dependent on the choice we make in April 2011. The Executive Presidents we have had in the last twelve years have not emerged from their visionary desire for the office but as a result of overbearing superimposition by entrenched interests. That would largely account for the rudderless leadership that had, unfortunately, been foisted on us. On the contrary, Muhammadu Buhari, with his antecedents of transparent and impactful governance, has with again shown uncanny indefatigability in offering himself for the needed rescue operation on the nation. Will this third attempt be the defining moment for the Nigerian nation? We stand at the threshold of history as true greatness beckons!




God bless the Federal Republic of Nigeria.




Engr. Rotimi Fashakin






28, Oguntona Crescent,




Gbagada, Lagos.




Email: rotfash@yahoo.comrotfash@yahoo.com

Some, especially those who have a rather deep-seated hate for Buhari, mainly becuase of his northern origin, have gone as far as to declare the man "clueless".  But, as it turns out, the man has some international recognition.  Please read:

NIGERIA: Ten Years of Democracy


Text of OReNGA Special Lecture delivered by General Muhammadu Buhari, GCFR, at the Oxford Research Network on Government in Africa, OReNGA, at Manor Road Lecture Theatre of the University of Oxford on May 10, 2010

Introduction

It gives me a great pleasure to have this opportunity of addressing you this afternoon.  It is such a rare privilege for me that I should stand before you here, on the grounds of Oxford University, Britain’s oldest and perhaps the world’s most famous university, to tell you a few things about Nigerian democracy that you probably already know. This is not meant to be an academic paper, but a reflection of an old soldier who has transformed into a politician. It is a practical narrative of major political events in the last ten years and my opinion thereon based on facts enumerated.

I should like to start by thanking the people of the Oxford Research Network on Government in Africa, OReNGA for their kind invitation to me to speak on this occasion.  Their abiding interest, dedication and determination to aid and monitor the cause of democratization in Africa are a source of hope and encouragement to many of us.

May I also congratulate you, the good people of Britain for the orderly way you have just concluded the general election last week. You are the envy of all civilized world.

As the third wave of democratization gets under way and as the fifth attempt to install democratic rule in the country gets underway, it is a very good time to take stock of what has been happening to the democratic experiment in Nigeria within the last decade.

This afternoon, I will be speaking on the topic:  Nigeria: Ten Years of Democracy; and I should perhaps warn you from the beginning that my speech is largely going to be a depressing story of a democracy without democrats, and of elections without the electorate having much say in the process.

It is painful to talk about one’s country – especially outside its shores – but as I am speaking at the world’s foremost academic institution I am obliged to say it warts and all.

As many in the audience who are familiar with our country know, Nigeria came into existence when Lagos Colony and the British Northern Nigeria and Southern Nigeria protectorates were amalgamated in 1914. In 1939 the Protectorate of Southern Nigeria was split into Western Nigeria and Eastern Nigeria. In 1946, Northern members for the first time became part of the governance; and the country was formally made a Federation.

The period from the time of the amalgamation to independence lasted about 46 years; but within this relatively short time, the colonial enterprise was able to impart the best traditions and practices of British parliamentary democracy, bequeath a merit-based public service and principles of federalism which were particularly well suited to Nigeria’s pluralistic society.

This imposition of colonial rule on societies at different stages and paths to development can be compared to a clash of celestial galaxies leading to reorientation or outright destruction of certain essential features of the weaker galaxies.

Nonetheless the essential forms of Federalism, democratization and modern principles of government have been implanted in Nigeria.

While its First Republic lasted, Nigeria was the example and toast of Africa.  Unfortunately, the democratic experiment lasted less than six years before the government was overthrown by soldiers.  And since 1966 a succession of coups, counter-coups, and a civil war punctuated by short-lived civilian regimes has characterized the Nigerian political scene.

For the people of Nigeria governance became a cycle in which they exchanged one class for another; the one, in a so-called exercise of their sovereign right to elect their leaders, and, the other, in order to curb the excesses of that same class.  Civilians go and soldiers come. In neither case do the people really decide. In the former, the political class routinely rigs the election; and, in the latter, the military can always justify its coming by pointing at all the rigging and the corruption that goes with it.

People have effectively been disenfranchised by their own circumstances on the one hand, and by their leaders’ perfidy on the other.  As a result, today, Nigeria is approaching a situation where as I said earlier democracy is being practiced without democrats and elections are being conducted with scant regard for the electorate.

Decades of the arbitrariness of military and civilian rule have combined to rob Nigeria of a chance to develop its political, economic and cultural potentials to any meaningful extent.

Prepared by both history and geography for a continental leadership role, Nigeria is yet to properly claim that position.

Nonetheless, Nigeria occupies a strategic position on the African continent; it plays a benign, big-brotherly dominating role in the West-African sub-region; and has, through the interplay of a number of factors, come to exercise an indisputable political leadership role in Africa.

With 150 million people, Nigeria is Africa’s most populous nation. As the world’s sixth largest oil producer, it has the potential to become the continent’s leading economic power.  But because of perennial bad governance, the country’s potential has not been realized.  Its vast non-oil potential has remained untapped and its huge oil earnings have largely been misappropriated.

According to the World Bank, Nigeria has, within the last three decades, for instance, earned $500billion from oil revenues; but because of this misappropriation, more than 70% of Nigerians today still live on less than one American dollar a day. The infrastructure is still shoddy and the preliminary elements of an advanced industrial society are missing.

The politicians have not learnt their lesson and the military rulers have fallen victims of the sins of the politicians—corruption in the eyes of the people.

Each leadership class has thoroughly discredited itself and every stated effort at reform seems to contain the seeds of its own destruction and is invariably doomed from the beginning.

In the clash between the ballot and the bullet, no side came out the winner – with Nigeria always the loser.

The ballot is not respected by the government and the price of protecting it is too high for the people to pay; but the bullet, once universally feared, is now generally out of fashion. In the circumstance, despite its failure to agree on many things, the Nigerian elite have finally developed a national consensus around democracy – even though it is democracy only in name.

But in spite of decades of democratization, Nigeria’s major problems have remained largely unresolved.  The most important of these are: the issue of national unity, economic management and development and democratization itself.  Nigeria’s unity is everyday being tested by ethnic, religious and orchestrated regional tensions; its economic management has been corrupt, incompetent and inefficient, its development at best slow or none at all—sometime even negative—and its march towards democratization haphazard and in fits and starts.

With one out of every five Africans a Nigerian and with almost 4% of total world oil supply within its borders, Nigeria cannot be abandoned by the world to its own devices.

Because of its petroleum, population and potential, the humanitarian, political and economic consequences of violent state failure in Africa’s giant promise to be incalculable and an emergency beyond anything the world can handle.

For example, there are, by some accounts, 300,000 Nigerians with dual citizenships or permanent residencies in Britain.

An implosion in Nigeria would lead to most of these people heading for Britain and it would be an impossible situation given the overcrowding on these islands. It would make the Uganda Asian crisis look like a minor incident. If only for this reason, therefore, what happens in Nigeria should be of interest to the world since it will have very bitter consequences beyond its borders and well beyond the shores of the African continent.

Nigeria is yet to pass the irreducible minimum test of democracy. This test demands that, first, elections into office not just hold, but be seen to be free and fair, and be conducted and supervised by an independent electoral body, that is assisted by an impartial security apparatus for maintaining peace, order and security.

Second, it demands that the judiciary be impartial and independent.  Third, it demands that there must be in place elements of good governance to ensure full accountability.  Fourth, it demands that smooth, democratic transitions to handover be sustained over at least three consecutive elections.

In both 2003 and 2007, the government rigged the elections at every stage and at every level throughout the country as attested to by local and foreign election observers.  And from all indications, unless something is done quickly, it would do so again. 

We believe it couldn’t have been in a position to do what it had done without the support or silence of the Western World; which effectively made the developed world an accomplice in the rot happening in our country today.

We see an element of double standards in all this. A disregard of the popular will as a result of election rigging is more disagreeable and a lot more painful than even a military coup, since the former is done in the name of democracy, while the latter is at least honest about its intentions to end it. If the West wishes to contribute to genuine democratization, it should begin to treat the so-called elections that are believed by all to have been rigged as no better than a military coup d’état. It is also to West’s credibility and standing to treat elections in Africa with the same degree of seriousness.

In 2007 within a few months of each other elections were held in Zimbabwe and Nigeria. In Zimbabwe the opposition won a majority in the House—and topped the Presidential polls.

Western governments and press pulled out all the stops to heavily criticize the elections and belabored Mugabe with threats of further sanctions.

Nigeria’s elections by all accounts were the worse yet the West turned a blind eye to this huge crime.

Clearly, it will be an extremely short sighted strategy if short-term economic considerations are allowed to weaken the resolve and divert the attention of the major Western countries from giving sustained and principled support for and backing to our democratizing enterprise.

What the West doesn’t get from democracy, it is unlikely to continue to get from those subverting it; and it goes without saying that in our partnership with the West today, the support it gives to our effort to democratize will be as crucial and critical as anything we ourselves do.

Under certain circumstances what it does may indeed prove to be of even greater and more immediate consequences.

In the end, of course, only with stable and sustainable democracy in our part of the world can long-term oil supplies be guaranteed.  For this and many other reasons, I believe the West cannot just walk away from the problems facing democratization in Africa.

If it does, the continent will descend into a new and more deadly era of uncreative authoritarianism and a reversal into barbarism—the kind we see in Burma and North Korea.

But it is not just free and fair elections that the ruling party will not allow; it will not even contemplate allowing a democracy-friendly atmosphere to come into being.

The biggest blunder of Nigeria’s ruling class has been its failure to build strong and stable social system to provide the kind of atmosphere that democracy needs to take root and flourish.  The ruling elite is also guilty of deliberately promoting the social fragmentation that creates, feeds and reinforces religious and ethnic identities to the exclusion of civic and national identities.

And of recent, it has instituted and bequeathed to the nation a do-or-die attitude that treats the pursuit of office as a matter of life and death, leading to authoritarian governance that is at variance with the spirit of cooperation and consultation that democratization demands.

But perhaps our country’s ruling party’s greatest miscalculation that will ultimately prove its undoing is the pervasiveness of corruption it has spawned.

This unprecedented lack of accountability has seen a section of the political class at all levels misappropriating the entire national patrimony for itself.  This has now effectively polarized Nigerian society like never before, and may in fact be behind all the so-called ethnic and religious crises erupting now and again.  Corruption is now total and wholesale and people’s hitherto feeble resolve to resist it is slowly but surely crystallizing into an angry and bitter revolutionary current.

Once all this reaches a point of no-return, this current will erupt and precipitate a wave of mayhem over the land.  No power outside can contain it; and no government or any combination of do-gooder governments can manage or be able to offer sufficient relief to the hordes of tens of millions of refugees that an implosion of the Nigerian state will unleash on the sub-region and beyond.

In addition, it will create a series of smaller implosions and pockets of un-governability across the entire hinterland of the West African sub-region, with the proliferation of militant terror gangs along its coastline, a development that will make today’s Somali coast look like an idyllic paradise of calm. It ought to be clear even in our context that those who attempt to make legitimate change difficult are in essence making illegitimate change easy. 

And those in power as a result of this basic disregard and rejection of the expression of the popular will, and those desperately aspiring to it through the same method are merely pushing Nigerian people towards terminal despondency, and the great and promising Nigerian state towards possible state failure or what has recently been called pre-modern formlessness.

Tortuous Path to Democracy

Beset by the numerous challenges of nationhood and nation-building, Nigeria was struggling to find its place in the shade when, barely six years after independence, soldiers struck, toppling the nascent democracy.  In an attempt to justify their act, the coup makers of 1966 accused the leadership of incompetence, and it has since become a self-fulfilling prophecy.

As the worlds’ sixth largest oil producer, it is supposed to have the biggest economy south of the Sahara outside South Africa, and has all the potential to emerge as the continents’ leading economic and industrial—and political—power. This has not happened and is not likely to happen any time soon. Nigeria’s perennial challenge has been how to turn all these potentialities into established facts on the ground.

Since independence there have altogether been 14 changes of government in Nigeria—three times as soldiers took over power from civilians; three times as they handed it back to them; and three times as civilians succeeded civilians; and five times as the military wrested power from its own class in palace coups or through death by natural and unnatural causes.

The first military take over came barely six years after independence; and since then the military had ruled the country for 37 of its half a century of existence. 

All these spates of military incursions and frantic experimentation with democratic rule have ostensibly been attempts to remove government and install better democratic rule. And for a long time it seemed as though it had become almost a political game of musical chairs with soldiers and politicians acting as alternative political parties. And today, with the benefit of hindsight, we could justifiably count the eight years [1999-2007] of President Obasanjo as an extension of authoritarian military rule.

The first serious attempt to return Nigeria to democratic rule was taken by General Murtala Muhammad.  Almost immediately after toppling the government of General Yakubu Gowon in 1975, General Muhammad laid down a political transition programme to hand over power to politicians in 1979.  Though he was assassinated in 1976, the military scrupulously adhered to his handover timetable. The pace was fast—almost frenetic.

A constitution drafting committee was set up to draw up a new presidential constitution. This was published in 1978. Thereafter, the ban on politics imposed after the 1966 coup was lifted.  The new constitution provided for a bi-cameral legislature with an upper Senate and a lower House of Representatives.  Seven new states were created.  Elections conducted under the new constitution led to the emergence of the Second Republic led by President Shehu Shagari on October 1, 1979.

The Second Republic proved to be short-lived, because within four years, the soldiers were back, this time under my leadership and with the same charges against the political class.

And these charges had remained the same since they were first made in 1966—financial and economic mismanagement, corruption, incompetence and electoral malpractices. Barely 20 months after I had taken over power and before my government had had time to announce its handover time table, my government was overthrown. 

The military would again attempt to handover in 1993, but only succeeded in doing so in 1999; but the same charges of corruption and election rigging had still refused to go away.  For a polity that was trying to democratize, these charges were indeed serious in a very fundamental way – and, unfortunately, they were accurate and true.  But with the passage of time, the charges would now be made even more accurately and could justifiably be thrown in either direction, by soldiers against civilians and vice versa.

Meanwhile pressure from all directions continued to mount on soldiers for a return to barracks and for the military as a class to disengage from governance.

The collapse of communism and the demise of the Soviet Union brought democracy not only to the totalitarian regimes of Eastern Europe and the Balkans; it also accentuated the unfolding of the so-called third wave of democratization that would sweep Africa in the last decade of the 20th century.

It is said that this brought civil rule and multi-party democracy to military regimes and one-party dictatorships in Africa.

The truth was that it really did nothing of the kind.  It didn’t bring true democracy to Africa; it only made the demand for it tolerable to regimes otherwise impulsively intolerant of its very essence.

For Africa’s totalitarian regimes, democratization merely became a new Godsend, a very convenient opportunity for self-legitimization.  The people wanted election: let them have it.

After the election, the regimes, now with even greater confidence, could call themselves democratic.  In the end, democratization might end up nothing more than a process to create a façade to hide the ugly face of dictatorships and provide them with an aid to preserve the status quo.

In the 1993 handover attempt, the military overreached itself when it annulled the result of an election it had itself conducted, and was generally thought to be going well.

The annulment, which was greeted by protests, precipitated the struggle that intermittently continued until a new civilian regime took over power six years later.

Generally seen as free and fair, the election that brought Obasanjo to power in 1999 raised people’s hopes; but Obasanjo himself proved such a big disappointment and an unmitigated failure.

People were promptly cured of their illusion that the mere holding of an election indicates successful democratization. It doesn’t—it only indicates that democratization is a long term project, time is needed to create, develop, understand, respect and develop trust in the new institutions and processes required to establish a new civic democratic culture. 

The whole purpose of democratization is to make people able, through free, fair and periodic elections to choose or change leaders who will form a government that respects the rule of law, ensures the people’s basic rights and can be changed peacefully. This is not all that obvious just merely because an election has taken place.

A government resulting from a successful democratizing effort must also guarantee freedom of operation for the opposition and for civil society organizations to enable them defend people’s basic rights and protect the pillars of democracy; and address the issues of gender participation and pluralism.

But the real failure of both military and civilian regimes in Nigeria, while they are busy handing or taking over governments, was that neither of them thought it necessary to do anything concrete to entrench this type of democratic culture.

When in power, the military to a large extent, saw its ultimate responsibility as merely arranging to hand over power to politicians—the supposed trustees of democracy—and the politicians saw theirs as ruling in the name of democracy without doing anything to enhance its fortunes.

Meanwhile, democracy itself is not there.  And that is why Nigeria has not been able to pass the test of conducting at least three successful free and fair elections and smooth handover of power to the opposition.

Instead of handing over, an election was annulled and popular disgust with the military came to an all-time high.  People were up in arms and the military faced its own special internal dilemma.  Revalidating the cancelled elections was too bitter a capitulation for the military to contemplate; but holding another round of elections was out of the question, because the credibility for holding it was not there. This was the dilemma facing Nigeria as the third wave unfolded.

Left without options the military leadership stepped down, leaving behind a hurriedly-arranged interim government—an unstable, thinly disguised diarchy that collapsed shortly afterwards.  General Sani Abacha, defence minister in the interim government, took over as the new head of state. 

Decade of Decadence

Even though up to the closing years of the last century most of Nigeria’s pressing problems had still not been resolved, and it was proving difficult to arrive at a consensus on a number of pressing national issues; at least on one issue, such a consensus would seem to have been reached – the issue of the desirability of a democratic form of government.

With the coming of the so-called third wave of democratization, expectations for the expansion of democratic space had put pressure for reform on all governments of Africa. 

In the case of Nigeria, this was further aided by some sharp counsel from the United Nations and additional pressure from the Commonwealth, the governments of Canada and the United States of America. This was the kind of pressure Nigerians wished our friends abroad would have exerted after the rotten elections of 2003 and 2007.

Thus, even though in 1998, General Sani Abacha, who had shown absolute contempt for Western opinion, was scheming to succeed himself, the democratic current was such that he knew that he could not do so as a military officer.

He had to choose the democratic option, but died before he could organize the election to help actualize his dream. He was succeeded by General Abdulsalami Abubakar.

On coming to power in June 1998, General Abubakar drew up a handover timetable of less than one year at the end of which former military head of state, General Olusegun Obasanjo emerged president.

Following a hard battle, which was perhaps the only properly-held primary election in the PDP, he defeated Dr. Alex Ekwueme to become the party’s presidential candidate.

And by this time, there was wide agreement among a cross-section of the nation’s political elite that, in the spirit of national reconciliation and in part-atonement for the annulment of the June 12, 1993 election, the candidature of Obasanjo be supported.  He went on to win the election in 1999, supported by everyone in Nigeria with the notable exception of his own Yoruba people.  And today, with the benefit of hindsight, we must acknowledge that they must have known what they were doing.

In contrast to the well-known and accepted practice, for successor-governments to accept and honour without condition all the contractual obligations of their predecessors, in a blanket move, Obasanjo repudiated and cancelled all agreements entered into six months before he became president.

By cancelling all the contractual obligations entered into by his predecessor, he was thereby giving notice to the world that in his treatment of Nigerians he could neither be guided by the past nor be restrained even by the law.

Not surprisingly, within his first term in office, he committed more constitutional breaches than the National Assembly could keep count, and there were several attempts in the National Assembly to impeach him on account of them. 

Two of the most serious of these were his blatant interference in the conduct of the business of the National Assembly and his serial failure to implement the national budgets as passed.

Two things made it possible for Obasanjo to weather these storms and escape impeachment.  One was the unhealthy and undemocratic tendency inherent in any arrangement in which the ruling party also controlled the legislature; and two, the fact that individual legislators from the opposition parties could be compromised and co-opted.

He also launched a reform of the public service that depended on and was anchored by officials who had neither the required and relevant experience of the civil service nor thorough understanding of its ethic. The result was the systematic destruction of what had remained of the public service—and with it what little accountability there was in the system.

Clearly, corruption had not been fought by Obasanjo with the required seriousness; it was merely integrated and institutionalized. Corrupt practices were being perpetrated and further entrenched under the guise of such grandiose names as “reform programme” “due process” and the like.

No doubt, Obasanjo continued to talk at length about his intention to fight corruption and reform the public sector; but besides the establishment of some commissions not much was achieved.  And in the end, even those who had initially supported aspects of the fight against corruption were forced to admit that it was all a ruse—being waged selectively and without much sincerity by Obasanjo.

And the result was quick to show.  Numerous instances of corrupt practices by officials close to the president as well as persistent allegations of corruption against members of his family have been documented. 

A permanent secretary who is a relation, and personally very close to the president was charged in court for stealing N400 million, about one and a half million pounds; but the Attorney-General of the Federation entered a nolle prosequi and withdrew the case on the orders of the president. In addition, nothing has happened to one of the ruling party chieftains close to him who was unable to account for N600m or two and a quarter million pounds of public monies in his custody for the rehabilitation of roads nationwide. The money is gone but the roads have still not been rehabilitated.

A member of Transparency International before his election, Obasanjo invited the anti-corruption watchdog to advise him. After studying the situation, it forwarded its recommendations to him—and he promptly pushed them aside.

And according to a Transparency International report released in the second year of Obasanjo’s presidency, Nigeria was still among the five most corrupt nations in the world, and more than 70% of all the corruption in Obasanjo’s government was going on in the presidency.

And in a clear case of a flagrant abuse of office and misuse of power and privilege, he built a personal presidential library using funds openly solicited from federal contractors and other public and private institutions.  Circular letters were said to have been sent out from the offices of the Governor of the Central Bank of Nigeria, the Director General of the Nigerian Stock Exchange and Group Managing Director of the Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation directing banks, registered companies and oil companies to donate towards the construction of the library. And they did. A former head of state was reported to have quipped that this indeed amounted to “executive extortion.”

And he would think nothing of deceiving the nation, as he took his political cue from outside the country. Less than three months after Obasanjo’s inauguration, the pressure for democratizing was later to be formalized at the 35th summit of the Organization of African Unity in Nigeria in August 1999, at which forceful seizure of power was criminalized.

The following year the Warsaw Declaration urged governments to actively resist all instances of rigging, reject all unconstitutional changes of government wherever they occurred and embrace the principle of peaceful resolution of disputes.

Obasanjo’s primary constituency had always been the international community.  He pandered to it, he worshipped it and would sacrifice everything to be accepted abroad.  To the end of the decade and his two terms, the world would see him exporting democracy but not practicing it at home.

With an electoral process that was deeply flawed, a political class and military that were very overbearing and corrupt, and a society experiencing deep conflict situations, the practice of democracy and governance couldn’t but be self-serving.

Despite all the noise, the electoral democratic façade merely afforded Obasanjo the chance to successfully conceal his authoritarian and unaccountable style of leadership.  He had nothing but disdain for his countrymen.

Throughout his tenure, Obasanjo was busy showing false concern for issues that would ingratiate him to the Western World, busy exporting democracy but unwilling to allow it thrive at home.  The world saw this on how he ran the country in his first four years.  He wouldn’t brook any opposition in the People’s Democratic Party and modeled it in his own image, such that no inkling of internal democracy existed in the workings of the ruling party.

His stewardship of the party as a so-called party leader notwithstanding the presence of party chairman, and his stewardship of the country were disastrous misadventures.  In his two terms, he couldn’t solve even the most basic problems facing Nigeria.

The country has been pejoratively referred to as a nation of the failure of the 3F’s—food, fertilizer and fuel, essential commodities that were always in short supply.

And the coming of Obasanjo has added the fourth F—the failure of faith.  Faith has failed to heal the wounds that his coming has inflicted on the nation.

While there were religious crisis before he became president, only during his time did the nation begin to witness this cynical attempt to exploit these crises for political purposes.  And this began on his very first term.

And as the end of his second term reared, he employed every trick in the trade to elongate his constitutional term-limit. He offered money to legislators and other influence peddlers. He set agents of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, the anti-graft agency, against opponents of his third term, but the bid was defeated by the unprecedented unity of Nigerians.  And in the end, it all came to pass that a hitherto heralded statesman had been reduced by inordinate ambition to the status of a petty, intolerant partisan politician.

Abusing the power of incumbency in all its ramifications, he rigged his own re-election in blatant and crude fashion – a rigged election that would be bettered in its venality only by the one he supervised to rig in his successor.  This has been universally condemned, even by the benefitting successor, as the worst election in Nigeria’s political history.

From the very beginning, Obasanjo’s successor was greatly hampered by a lingering crisis of legitimacy.  By his own admission and the testimony of local and international observers, the election that brought him to power was deeply flawed: the result was, in fact, announced before the counting of votes had gone half way.

After his inauguration, the new president offered an open invitation to the opposition to join him in a Government of National Unity.  Many opposition figures stayed away but some elements went over to take up the appointments offered.  Not surprisingly, corruption continued unabated; the only thing that changed was the identity of those involved.

But otherwise, there was nothing new offered by the new government besides a poorly formulated and even more poorly articulated—and unimplemented—Seven-Point Agenda that became the mantra which those in government chanted.

No blue print to achieve resourceful economic management, broaden educational opportunity, ensure food security, reduce absolute poverty was produced by the government.  The challenge of making development feasible and sustainable appeared beyond the competence of the government and its advisers.

The one area on which the people of Nigeria have now put their hope is that of electoral reform which the government has promised to do.

This would look like hoping against hope; because the conduct of all elections subsequent to the promised reform proved even more deplorable.

But even when taken at its face value, the apparent acceptance of the Federal Government of the urgent necessity of such a reform, appear to be directed only to statutory amendment of the Act, and adjustment of the attitude of the executive arm and its agencies.   

Unfortunately the judiciary appears not to be in focus for the reform project.  Existing facts, however, leave no one in doubt that without a reform of judicial attitude to election petitions and appeals, all the orchestrated effort at enhancing the credibility of our electoral process may not yield a positive result.

Under section 246(3) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, the Court of Appeal is the final court for appeals from the Election Petition Tribunal decisions in respect of governorship and legislative elections, and the first instance trial tribunal for Presidential election petitions.  Most of the tribunals and courts appear to be manifesting difficulty in maintaining the balance of justice as evidenced by the recurrent inconsistencies in the judgments emanating from some of those tribunals and courts.

This situation which is occasioned by a deliberate disregard of the doctrine of stare decisis has not only constituted a source of embarrassment to a large segment of the Law Community in Nigeria, but has thrown the law into substantial uncertainty in certain areas.

Without prejudice to one having been a direct victim of this unfortunate failure of judicial neutrality, a few examples of this judicial anomaly might be necessary.

Take for an example the issue of whether non-compliance with the Practice Direction made by the President of the Court to aid the judicial process in election petitions could lead to a dismissal of a petition which is already valid under the Electoral Act.                                                                         

This issue arose in some petitions that came on appeal to the court of Appeal, Port Harcourt Division.  In one of the appeals the Court most eruditely held and I quote:

            “The overall purpose of Practice Directions is to ensure, enhance and facilitate the determination of election petitions on their merit and not in any way, to punish parties for the slightest mistakes in the presentation and prosecution of their cases.

“Any interpretation of the Directions, which tend to drive away people with genuine and serious complains arising from the periodical elections we have in this country, from the only avenue available statutorily for ventilating such complaints would be an encouragement of the continuation of the disregard for our electoral laws and the Constitutions in the conduct of the election.

[And]…it is purely and strictly technical to insist on the compliance with the provision of paragraph 3(1) in the circumstances of the Appellants’ case when pre-hearing session had already commenced and was in progress at the time the non-compliance was raised”.

End of quote.

This decision is, from available literature, consistent with the position of the position of the Supreme Court of Nigeria.

But in another appeal, the same Court in the same Division resolved that same issue in favour of dismissing the petition for non-compliance with the same paragraph of the Practice Direction.  The same position was taken in another appeal.  In the three cases the petitions were similarly dismissed as abandoned while the petitioners were present and participating in the pre-hearing proceedings.  In the third case, the court expressly declared that a practice Direction provision was sacrosanct.

The question that arises for lawyers and laymen alike is: What is the law on that point since the Court of Appeal is the final court for these elections?

Another example is the glaring inconsistency between the decisions in the one state Governorship appeal, as delivered by the same Justices of another state Division of the Court. 

The grounds upon which the election of the two P.D.P. governors was challenged was the same:  that each of them was not qualified to contest the election.  Both were members of the All Nigeria Peoples Party (ANPP), and both left the party belatedly at the same time in order to take advantage of offered P.D.P. tickets with the attendant INEC cover and protection.  The Court of Appeal held that the one state governor was qualified but that his other state counter-part was not.

The inconsistency of the two decisions based on similar laws and facts was cause for concern for many Nigerians, lawyers and non-lawyers alike, more so when the governor whose election was confirmed happens to be the son-in-law of the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.

It is as a result of the discordant tunes emanating from the Court of Appeal, and the confusion thus created in the certainty of the law, that there is a strong demand from the opposition for the amendment of section 246(3) of the Nigerian Constitution to enable the Supreme Court harmonize the divergent views expressed in the Court of Appeal judgments on election petition appeals to that court.

But that is not to say that all is well even at the Supreme Court itself where, in some cases, judgments were written without recourse to the content of the record of appeal³, an attitude that can best be described as a judicial abomination.   

How else can a situation in which the supreme court (by a majority decision of 4 to 3) sustained a finding by the court of appeal that the petitioner tendered evidence from only four states of the federation when glaringly on record as marked Exhibits are INEC certified documented results from polling units, wards and local government areas from twenty nine states out of thirty six, some of which results were in fact, as shown on the exhibits, written either before the April 21, 2007 the election day or after April 23, 2007, the day the official ‘result’ was announced and with twenty eight state results inconsistent with the final result?

It is on the basis of these adjudicatory anomalies, which are unfortunately being condoned by the National Judicial Council, that one holds the view that the effort at electoral reform will come to naught if the judiciary does not first reform the attitude of some of its members.

Yet even if the judiciary reform itself that in itself will not guarantee free and fair elections; because the involvement of the judiciary in the matter is only when results are disputed.

But perhaps the main obstacle to Nigeria’s democracy and democratizing effort are really the elite political power groups which, though themselves separated by suspicions and mistrust are united in their determination to thwart any attempts to deepen the hold of democratic culture on Nigerian society.  Made up of self—serving politicians, political godfathers, top bureaucrats and associated business tycoons, they have imposed a culture on Nigerian society that is opposed to any kind of accountability.

Next Nigerian Decade: Challenges

The Next Nigerian Decade will present several severe challenges which must be met decisively and effectively if the polity is to endure. The questions of national identity, national integration, the issues of the legitimacy of authority and the transformation of Nigerian society into a true political community have still not been properly and definitively addressed, and a lot will depend on when and how quickly they are asked and answered.  How the next Nigerian Decade looks will very much depend on how the following challenges are tackled and faced.

Reform—Democracy has definitely come to stay and is probably the only thing on which most Nigerians agree.  But the irreducible minimum they expect in order to fight for it, defend it, value it and cherish it is that elections must be free and fair.  Elections have taken place in Nigeria but they will only be free and fair if people want them to be and are ready to defend their votes.  Much will also depend on the success of civil society organizations.

As watch dogs for democratic governance, civil society organizations are new to Nigeria, and therefore their effect is still marginal. While it is growing, the growth has been attended by many problems.

Perhaps the most important of these problems is that of inexperience in agenda-setting and lack of competence in advocacy.  In addition, membership of these organizations is generally small and often fragmented along ethno-religious or regional lines.  Many suffer from a lack of accountability and financial sustainability and ultimately the question of who owns or runs it.

Are they really concerned about democratization at home or are they busy pursuing some foreign agenda? There are also the issues of gender and political pluralism that must be faced and overcome.

But the long term solution to these problems must include learning to base interpersonal relationships on mutual respect; and it will help when the government becomes alive to its responsibility for good economic management and for enforcing the law.

A lot also will depend on the role the press plays.  The Nigerian press is hampered in its investigations by the non-passage of the Freedom of Information Act for which a bill has been lying at the National Assembly for the past four years.  Indeed, nothing signifies the lack of seriousness of the government than this prevarication. 

There is still a widespread belief in Nigeria that because of the lack of professionalism, corruption and partisanship of some of its members, the Nigerian press is open to abuse by its practitioners and by its proprietors: that it has been shallow in its coverage, selective in its exposures and often banal in its commentaries. But the Nigerian press has acquitted itself well during the nationwide opposition to President Obasanjo’s bid for term elongation.

But perhaps the most important key to successful governance and sound economic management is an efficient public service; and one of the more obvious reasons for the ascendancy of corruption in Nigeria has been the absence of such a service.

Over the years, this service has undergone several reform programmes of doubtful value, all of which seemed aimed at compromising its political neutrality, permanency of tenure, impartiality and expertise.

As the mechanism for implementing the policies enunciated by the government, the service must remain politically neutral, and the appointment, promotion and discipline of its officers must lie completely outside the competence of politicians or their subordinate appointees.  This is the absolute minimum that the service must meet.

As a result of the reform of 1988 and the one carried within the last decade, corruption became the order of the day, and almost all aspects of these reforms have tended to exacerbate rather than solve the problem.

Niger Delta—The issue of the violence in the Niger Delta has been a long standing and running sore for Nigeria.  For long treated as the country’s economic backwater, it has suffered neglect at the hands of both local and federal leaders.

It has been mishandled in the past; and it is being mishandled even now. Today, the problem has gone beyond the creation of a ministry or buying off gangs of militants.

Because of its economic importance and current disposition, what it needs is an ecological and economic rescue plan akin to America’s Marshal Plan for Europe.  With expert and sympathetic handling and with the right economic stimulus, it should prove possible for Port Harcourt and Yenagoa to become the Amsterdam and Rotterdam of the Niger Delta within a few decades.

Future—For Nigeria and much of the rest of Africa and other non-performing regions of the world, the international environment is nowadays no longer benign or as indulgent as it was in the past.

And not surprisingly, the world has apparently got tired of putting an unwilling continent on its priority list—a continent that is better at blaming its past than planning for its future.

The world is today telling Africa to get its acts together; learn to earn its keep; and, by its own effort, lift itself up before it can look for—and get—outside support and cooperation. 

This is not to say that the world is no longer interested in its fate; what it means is that the developed world will no longer go out of its way to help make that future a better one without Africa’s responsible participation.  We must accept that Africa must share responsibility for its present and its future in a world that is fast becoming a true global village.

And whether we are aware of it or not, ready for it or not, the fact is that globalization is already here.  It is the new international culture and is here in its three broad aspects—a global culture, a global economy and a global political order all of them propelled by an almost intrusive technological revolution, a need for economic liberalization and a wave of democratization—none of which can, or should, be avoided or ignored. 

To know whether Nigeria is democratizing and ensure that it remains democratic we only need ask that its leaders be chosen in a free and fair election, that its government respects the rule of law and protects people’s basic civil liberties, and that there is a free market in operation, with a strong civil society operating and peaceful handover of power becomes the order of the day.

As things stand today, democracy stands in danger of failing in Nigeria. That is why it is so crucial that the promised electoral reform be carried out as spelt out in the document submitted by the government-appointed Justice Uwais electoral reform panel.

It is common knowledge that Politicians are often vilified, especially during an election period.  In the current context of Nigerian election, one candidate who has been getting more than his own share of calumny is Gen. Muhammadu Buhari.  On this forum, many active/hyper-active people have engaged in all sorts of exchanges to demonstrate their respective positions about candidate Buhari.  Since some of these conversations have bothered on the absurd, I thought it might be helpful to point some of these debaters--particularly those that are foaming at the mouth--to some materials that can enlighten their minds.

First, begin with an abridge history of successive governments in Nigeria over the years:


If General Obasanjo, why not General Buhari?
Posted by News Updates on March 18, 2011 at 1:00am
View News Updates's blog
By Duro Onabule (duroonabule@gmail.com)  Friday, March 18, 2011

This appreciation of General Muhammadu Buhari was first published in this column over four years ago. To be precise, January 26, 2007. It is reproduced today in view of its relevance.

If I were the average Nigerian, (without being immodest) I would not be writing today in stout defence of General Muhammadu Buhari, former head of state, who is under seemingly well-co-ordinated criticisms for no other reason than exercising his constitutional and political right of seeking elective public office. The major charge against General Buhari is that during his tenure, he violated human rights.

Well, I was a victim of that charge because I was detained more than ten times usually over week-ends from Friday till Monday or Tuesday. My longest detention was for a fortnight for criticisms in my column in the defunct National Concord or for critical editorials of the paper which mostly I did not even write but had to take the responsibility as the editor. My experiences in detention at Awolowo Road NSO camp were traumatic and yet educative enough that General Buhari (or anybody in his position) could never know or approve what was being done in the name of government. So I never held it against General Buhari.

Military rule anywhere in the world is an emergency which is not a tea party. Even in a democratic set up and in a supposed civilised society, human rights are suspended to deal with a prevailing unusual situation. Just two examples. Following the declaration of emergency in the defunct western region, the administrator, Dr. Koye Majekodunmi clamped the star performers led by Chief Obafemi Awolowo and Chief S. L. Akintola into detention disguised as restriction. Also, rather than tolerate anarchy, the British government sent the feuding Irish (either as insurgents or belligerents) into long detention without trial and dignified the apparent violation of human rights as internment, a policy which operated for many years.

Then, there was this incident which should now be judged on its merit. As the story went, in the build-up to December 1983 military coup, a certain Major Bamidele picked up the information and as a loyal officer, promptly reported to his General Officer Commanding (GOC) Third Division, Major General Muhammadu Buhari, who, as a precautionary measure, sent the poor officer (Bamidele) into guard room. When the coup eventually took place, General Buhari emerged head of state.

It was a renewed era of retirement/dismissals in the armed forces and public service. Among those listed for retirement if not dismissal was the same Major Bamidele obviously because of the “stain” of detention on his service record without knowing or bothering to know the origin of that stain. But General Buhari owned up as the cause of Major Bamidele’s problem, or at least that was the implication of General Buhari’s gesture in deleting the officer’s name from those to be removed from the army. Such courageous and humane gesture could not have come from a devil General Buhari as he is now being wrongly portrayed to be.

When therefore I met President Ibrahim Babangida at Dodan Barracks on September 9, 1985 at his request with the offer of being his Chief Press Secretary, one of my suggestions to IBB on the spot was that nothing should happen to Generals Buhari and (the late) Tunde Idiagbon, an assurance which I obtained.
Then, eight years ago, the same charges currently being levelled against General Buhari were similarly levelled against General Olusegun Obasanjo in a desperate attempt to frustrate his constitutional right of aspiring to the leadership of this country. But I almost all alone (on the pages of National Concord) defended Obasanjo. I never foresaw that General Buhari would ever face the same fire. By the way, the very same people who fiercely opposed Obasanjo eight years ago are the choir boys around him today.

Hence, close examination of the charges against General Buhari will show that the man simply took a cue from his military commanders-in-chief and civilian prime minister. One of such commanders-in-chief was General Obasanjo and if despite such charges, the same Obasanjo exercised his right under the Constitution to contest presidential elections in 1999, why should General Buhari not exercise the same constitutional right to aspire to the Presidency?
By the way, we should stop deceiving ourselves with this “Chief” title when addressing President Obasanjo. A military general should be proud of his professional career. Hence, there were General Eisenhower (American), General De Gaulle (French), General Juan Peron (Argentinian), General Moshe Dayan (Israel), General Sharon (also Israel) etc.

We are therefore discussing Nigerian military generals who preceded General Buhari as Nigerian leaders.
General Buhari’s strength (some would call it weakness) is his bluntness which of all people, South West politicians should even appreciate compared to the trap, if not betrayal, which earned them (South West politicians) the political massacre of 2003. Buhari said he would tamper with the press.
We (journalists) therefore knew the risk we were taking. Hence I was detained many times, while Tunde Thompson and Nduka Irabor were jailed with a retroactive law. But did Buhari or the army introduce retroactive legislation into governance in Nigeria or was Buhari the first head of state to tamper with the press?

May the late prime minister Tafawa Balewa continue to rest in peace. The Federal Government in 1964 hurriedly amended the newspaper law stipulating six months jail for publishing “rumour” even if true, a desperate measure to curb the guts of the media especially in view of the prolonged tension generated by the 1962 political crisis in the Action Group/West regional government. (“Even a minister grumbles,” i.e. against corruption), editor of the defunct Sunday Express, the late Dapo Fatogun, was jailed for six months. Later, editor of Nigerian Tribune, the late Ayo Ojewunmi, was also jailed for six months.

After the army struck in January 1966, General Aguiyi Ironsi clamped the editor of defunct DRUM magazine, the late Nelson Ottah, into detention quite rightly, for publishing a cartoon which further injured the feelings of a section of the country on the fatal casualties of the January 1966 unsuccessful mutiny. Neither General Ironsi nor his successor General Yakubu Gowon threatened to tamper with the press. But Gowon’s regime stopped publication of the Daily Times group for ten days and clamped Alhaji Babatunde Jose, Chairman/Managing Director, Henry Odukomaya, editor of Daily Times and some others into detention without trial. Their offence? Imminent publication of the autopsy report on the unsolved murder of Chief Medical Adviser, Federal Ministry of Health, Dr Ademola, younger brother of Nigeria’s then Chief Justice Adetokunbo Ademola.

Dr Ademola’s mysterious murder at his Ikoyi residence was (as usual in Nigeria) linked to the impending medical report of the cause of the death in a helicopter crash, of the then Chief of Air Staff, Colonel Alao. Within his short tenure of six months, the late General Murtala Mohammed also got university lecturer, the late George Ohombamu arraigned in a Lagos Court for false publication of his (Murtala Mohammed’s) alleged personal assets. Then General Obasanjo, as military ruler, tampered with the publication of NEWBREED magazine.

If all these happened under General Buhari’s former commanders-in-chief and did not count against General Obasanjo’s return to public office, why should Buhari be singled out for unfair demolition exercise? What is more, the situation was not different under Buhari’s military and (supposedly) civilian successors.
President Babangida’s regime proscribed Newswatch magazine, closed down the Concord, Punch newspapers. General Abacha’s administration had the distinction of opening and closing the same Concord newspapers. President Obasanjo’s civilian regime should therefore have had a better record rather than laughably querying General Buhari’s claim to democracy. Otherwise, why was AIT transmission house shut down? Was the station of Freedom Radio in Kano not closed down? Only lately too were journalists at two Abuja-based publications harrassed by security operatives.

It was of course wrong of the Buhari administration to have detained ex-President Shehu Shagari in a house while Vice President Alex Ekwueme was detained at Kirikiri prison both in Lagos. For the critics, the insinuation of ethnic favour is there. We must therefore cite a similar situation. Four Nigerians were standing trial purportedly for treason. Since then, two – Dr Fasehun and Gani Adams – from President Obasanjo’s south west have regained their freedom or at least, been released on bail?

Why have the remaining two – Alhaji Asari Dokubo and MASSOB leader Uwazuruike – from eastern part of the country not regained their freedom or been released on bail? If there is any evidence implicating these two, what is holding up their trial? Nobody should be deceived that in Nigeria, bail for such high profile cases could ever be granted without the knowledge and indeed the approval of the presidency.

It was also wrong of General Buhari to have suspended two traditional rulers, Emir Ado Bayero of Kano and Oba Sijuwade of Ile-Ife. What has that got to do with Buhari’s current aspiration to the presidency? If anything, ordinary suspension of these two traditional rulers should in fact earn General Buhari commendation compared to the humiliation to which civilian leaders and military rulers before and after General Buhari subjected traditional rulers. Better put, which is milder, suspension or outright deposition? Now, holding such a charge against General Buhari wrongly created the impression that he was the first and only leader to have committed what is no more than a cultural deviance.

No such charge was made against Papa Awo in 1979 and 1983 to query his suitability to contest presidential elections? That was notwithstanding the fact that the old man’s administration in the defunct western region was the first to depose a traditional ruler Oba Adeyemi (father of the present) Alaafin of Oyo in 1954, followed in 1958 with the deposition of Olota of Ota. Northern premier, the late Ahmadu Bello followed suit by deposing Sir Muhammadu Sanusi as Emir of Kano in 1957. Premier Dennis Osadebay of the then newly-created Mid-west region deposed the reigning Oba Erejuwa, Olu of Warri in 1964.
The army was less than a year in ruling Nigeria when the second military governor of the then western region, Colonel (as he then was) Robert Adebayo deposed Olowo of Owo, Oba Olateru Olagbegi. That was under the regime of General Gowon.

Return of civilian rule in 1979 was to resume the humiliation of traditional rulers for political purposes, without realising that the new constitution not only was supreme but also instantly nullified any other law, state or federal, which conflicted with the provisions of the constitution. The most notable was the Chiefs’ Law Cap. 23 which devolved on the component south western states from the old western region. Hence, in 1981, the late Bisi Onabanjo, as Ogun State governor purported to have deposed the Awujale of Ijebuland, Oba Sikiru Adetona under the invalid Chiefs’ Law. Oba Adetona won the epic long drawn legal war to remain on the throne.

In 1982, the then civilian governor of Kano State, Abubakar Rimi, issued a query to the same Emir Ado Bayero of Kano which the latter’s loyal subjects considered an affront to warrant state-wide violent revolt with heavy casualties among whom was one of the governor’s key political advisers.
Intermittent return of military and civilian administrations did not change the situation. Under General Buhari’s regime, two traditional rulers mentioned earlier were suspended for six months each. But under the IBB regime, the then military governor of the then Gongola State, the late Colonel Yohanna Madaki deposed the Emir of Muri, gloating in the process that he (the governor) had dealt a heavy blow to feudalism (his exact words).
General Sani Abacha never saw eye to eye with Sultan Ibrahim Dasuki of Sokoto, an opportunity which the then Sokoto State military governor, Brigadier-General Muazu seized to depose the monarch.

The present Obasanjo regime has also recorded its stain in humiliating traditional rulers with the deposition of Emir Mustapha Jokolo of Gwandu by Governor Aliero of Kebbi State. With all these, how justifiable is it to cite General Buhari as being unsuitable for the presidency, merely for suspending rather than deposing traditional rulers?

Backdating any law is most unfair especially when such decision involves taking lives. Therefore, on the surface, the charge against General Buhari on the 1984 Drugs Offences Decree may appear to hold. But it depends on the circumstances. In truth, the man who committed the offence before the decree came into force, that is when the offence did not carry death penalty should have been sentenced to jail term, a position which I took in this column (then) in the National Concord. However, those who committed the drugs offence after the Decree carrying death sentence came into force deserve no sympathy. In Cuba, for example, drugs offence carries death penalty. When therefore the country’s erstwhile defence minister, General Ochoa, a fellow revolutionary was involved in drug trafficking, President Castro carried out the death sentence and replaced him with his (Castro’s) younger brother, who will most likely be the new Cuban president should Castro leave the scene.

What is more, retroactive legislation was not started by General Buhari nor by the army. Backdating of laws is as old as the first republic especially the old western region with the Chiefs’ Law to stabilise the Olubadan succession tussle between the government’s preferred candidate and his rival supported by the late Adegoke Adelabu, then uncrowned King of Ibadan politics. Adegoke Adelabu grabbed the initiative by installing his candidate. Chief Awolowo’s government was seemingly helpless amidst imminent anarchy and the determination to install the government candidate. The answer was a Chiefs’ Law making it a criminal offence punishable by long term imprisonment for anybody to install a traditional ruler except a candidate approved by the government, or for anybody to allow himself to be installed a traditional ruler without government’s approval. The law was backdated to compel both Adelabu and his candidate to give up the battle.

So, it depends on the circumstances. In that case, for peace and good governance in the land, the government of western region had to act.

To be continued next week

Daily Sun