₦airaland Forum

manony:
I totally agree with you we need to stop being so unreasonable and there will be no development at no cost. But what we are having in Nigeria is no development at maximum cost and for you to raise an eyebrow to someone questioning what Nigeria wants to do with another loan will imply you know something is different about this loan compared to the past ones. So dont vouch for the proper usage of the loan but tell what you think will make it  different from other loans. For example, most people's hope for next year election being better than the last one is hinged on Jega being considered better than Iwu. So what can we say about this loan and the previous ones.
As for me saying 50% is spent on executives and legislature, you remember Sanusi said legislature consumes 25% and he has not being proved wrong; they couldnt even get him to apologise. And the legislature has said the executives get more than them, so you should see where I am coming from

No development at maximum cost? ? ? With regards to second part, refer to my previous post. Do I need to know 'something is different' about this loan to be able to understand that we would probably need a lot of money to be invested in infrastructure? I can't vouch for this loan (whatever that means) and I can't tell that it would be different from other loans because I am not Jonathan, that however, does not nullify the fact that Nigeria would very likely need to obtain loans if the government is to invest heavily in infrastructure (which is indeed a very important and capital intensive investment).

When you say things like 50% and 25%, it is good if you actually specify because then I know you actually understand what you are saying. 50% of what exactly? 25% of what? I hope you know it is not 25% of the budget, you know that right? ? I agree it is darn too high and outrageous, but no need to start throwing out numbers and percentages like water just to make a point. Sanusi argued that 25% of recurrent expenditure is spent on the legislature, so I am guessing you decided to do a simple extrapolation yourself and throw out 50% to arrive at that including the legislature? Now please do tell, how many legislatures do we have and how many people encompass the executives?

[quote author=baby.me link=topic=572173.msg7380889#msg7380889 date=1292931948]The President MAY not be the one that asked the bridge to be closed. You guys should remember that this is Naija and i strongly believe whoever ordered the closure of the bridge didn't get the directive from the President. Just my 2 cents [/quote]Actually thought the same thing, but when some people have made up their mind they have made up their mind and would refuse to consider any alternative explanations.

manony:
OK. Taking loan is not inherently evil but can you tell me what all past loans in this country had been used for. Please tell us what this particular loan will be used to achieve and can you sincerely vouch that the loan will truly be used for that purpose in a country where 50% of expenditure goes into servicing the executives and the legislature/

The first highlighted part is irrelevant to the future validity of loans. Using that argument we should probably give up on elections because they have been rigged in the past. I am not Goodluck Jonathan and hence cannot and do not need to be able to personally and "sincerely" vouch for the loan (apologies but what a very silly request to make). Too much of the country's recurrent expenditure goes to servicing the executives and legislature but it is not 50% (unless you can provide sources/references that state otherwise) so please no need to sex up figures to make your point. Based on the $3.7 billion dollar figure quoted I assume the loan refers to that passed by the legislature when the president asked for $5billion for investment in "critical infrastructure". No problem with that in itself now is there? You want development but at no cost? Privatise the power infrastructure and people cry foul, yet they want light. We need to stop being so unreasonable. Infrastructural development is not cheap, and I doubt Nigerian banks have enough capital to facilitate the loans required by government for infrastructural investment.

ojanta:
@blueshy i dont need u to take me serious,  my problem with u is that u should stop coating the bible u dont understand u act like the pharisees and sadducees,  walking around and claiming righteous,  , note i dont need your attention neither do i need to support me,

Quite unlike me but I really am tempted to call you an i.d.i.o.t in plain terms. Rather than do that though, I will ask you to highlight where in my post I quoted bible passages as defence. I mean, did you even read my post? Can you read?

ojanta:
@galek and bluesky,  is easy for u to coat the bible,  and run your motuh,  .have u ever seen goodluck praying,  its easy to say than to act,  tell me one thing he has done,  right,  he always in lagos at least twices a week,  to achieve what,  book launching, vessel lanching, tv station birthday,  want wat else ,  showing that u know God,  or the bibile, u only need   just comon sense and information ,  and would be able to conclude,  how any people r able to buy a bag of rice for xmas now comparing to last years,  talk less of even being able to travel, think  well before u talk//// and stop coating the bible,  that u dont really understand,  action speaks better,

Apologies but I cannot take you seriously anymore. What on earth has your rant got to do with what I posted? If you don't have a reply then don't reply, it is better than posting for the sake of it.

ojanta:
he hasnt spent 6months and yet asking for a loan of $3.7b, how can we vote this kinda of man,  it so crazy to believe is is better i think he is going to reck,  naija,  the whole world was in economy mealdown,  niaja was even better at that time now that everything is sopposed to be great he is now tryingto take us down by borrowing money to run his campaign,  wat is the moni need for ,  we stilll expose oil and make $billion in a month y do we need the loan,  crazy assholes ruling our country,

Do you actually know what the loan is meant to be used for or are you just arguing that taking a loan is inherently evil? You will make a much better argument if you can actually discredit what the loan is proposed for otherwise its difficult to take you seriously (just saying).

Interesting write up. The part about possibly using up a whole tenure to fight past corrupt leaders makes sense and at the same time doesn't. All he needs to do is to create an empowered and non biased EFCC, and not get involved. At least he has made it clear he is determined to fight corruption but not focus on going after past leaders. I prefer knowing that now than voting for someone who makes noise about fighting corruption and then does nothing about it when he get in but actively starts a campaign of shielding corrupt past leaders (like the previous president). . .

WOW, is Sahara reporters running out of things to write?? This is getting a tad embarassing. This reminds me of a slow news day when apparently cover page story of a local news paper was 'boy kicks pigeon'. I could just imagine the cameras and gathering of the world press with reporters asking questions like; "now what foot did you use to kick it; your left or your right?" First it was the Fashola interview misreporting. . . Sahara reporters. . . .

alj harem1:
wrong wrong wrong

he is one of the africans that started AU and it began in his country,,,so where do u get your information from

Including Ghadaffi in any discourse involving pan africanism is oxymoronic and a terrible insult to the very idealogy.

chyz:
So who would you prefer or like to offer this idea?

Definitely not Ghadaffi. No African leader immediately comes to mind (I mean hey, the pool for good leaders on the continent isn't that deep). Even Jonathan or Zuma proposing something like this would have been less repulsive. Ghadaffi does not in anyway have Africa's interest at heart, only his personal ambition (my opinion).

I can't believe anybody even takes this guy seriously anymore. He is simply there for comic relief and the only thing more annoying than his rants are the way he always tries to sell himself as a spokesperson for Africa. How can a man who seems to look down on anything south of the sahara be talking of African unity? The last thing Africa (united or not) needs is another despot. The world needs to stop giving this man relevance.

Gbawe:
That is your stance. Dont expect everyone else to be similarly disposed . Especially if we consider the notion of a President who pronounces an individual free of guilt in public (thereby perverting the cause of justice) for a serious offence while pronouncing them guilty of the same offence in Private. It really is very simple and I think you have not thought this through properly to note that , very obviously, Jonathan is breaching the rule of law and clearly perverting the cause of justice by abetting wrongdoers . This is  a fundamental no-no for the President of any democratic nation and I cannot see how any politically astute citizen can think that Jonathan should not be criticised for this.

No need to state the obvious just for the sake of it, I never claimed to speak for everybody (you can go through my post and rediscover that for yourself). You say he pronounced an individual free of guilt and looking at what he actually said, I don't see it as an exoneration. Reading what he actually said, I wouldn't have jumped to the conclusion that he was exonerating Turai of guilt. If Jonathan is breaching the law because of calculated diplomacy, then I am afraid many world leaders would also have to be charged for similar offence (have you been reading the news?) so sorry Mr Gbawe that breach of the law is not "very obvious" to me. Sometimes it is simply a matter of applying commonsense logic to the scenario. Whatever gripes I may have with Jonathan will definately not be over this issue.

Gbawe:
While we are highlighting sections of the article , I hope you read and understood what was written below?


The article makes it clear that Jonathan contradicted himself. Another way to say that Mr. President lied. Interprete issues however you want. The simple point is that Jonathan exonerated Turai publicly of guilt while castigating her leading role in the same matter in private.

Read the so called "contradiction" I highlighted in my previous post again and stop quoting third party narratives. I don't see what he said as an exoneration of guilt from Turai. The leaks are disclosing to the public discussions made in privacy bereft of the need for dimplomacy or political correctness. The leaks have exposed more worrying issues in Nigeria than this (which I don't really see as an issue). If I was going to criticise Jonathan about anything this definately wouldn't be it or even on the list (that is my view, sorry but I can't help you if you can't deal with it).

Gbawe:
Na wa for some of you apologists of Jonathan !!!! The man publicly stated that Turai played no part in the Yar Adua dissapearance saga only to then confess in private that Turai was responsible for the turmoil Nigeria faced by keeping our former President hidden from everyone!!!!

At the very least , it is obvious that Turai should and co can and should be charged for several serious offences!!!!! What they did , in any serious country, would be regarded as acts of high treason.  This should be clear to Jonathan and he has no business deliberately lying to publicly exonerate Turai when he confessed in private that she orchestrated everything. If he kept silent and stated nothing publicly as regards Turai that is fine because some of us may conclude he does not want to spend his time fighting everyone. To go and exonerate her outrightly of any guilt shows that Jonathan is an unprincipled and insincere President who does not have an abiding sense of right and wrong.

What Turai and others did was treasonous. If Jonathan cannot take them on , even as President, then better he remains silent rather than lie because he wants to pacify everyone to include serious wrongdoers.

Spare me the drivel about being a 'Jonathan apologist' (because I don't agree with you). I will highlight what stood out for me in the article you posted.

WikiLeaks reveals secret talks between Jonathan and US envoy By Ayo Okulaja
December 10, 2010 07:19AM

Contradicting an earlier statement by President Goodluck Jonathan that Turai Yar'Adua, wife of former president, did not know about the controversy surrounding the late president's ill-health, Wikileaks has revealed that Mr. Jonathan confided in the US envoy to Nigeria that the uncertainty was created by a cabal led by the first lady.

In its latest releases of cables from US diplomats around the world, Wikileaks yesterday revealed that a meeting held between Mr. Jonathan, then acting president of Nigeria and the then US envoy, Robin Sanders, on February 26 in the vice president's lodge.

He explained to her that the controversy surrounding the then ailing president was "created by four people: Turai Yar'Adua [the ailing president's wife]; his Chief Security Officer (CSO), [Yusuf Mohammed Tilde]; his Aide-de-Camp (ADC), [Col. Mustapha Onoedieva]; and his Chief Economic Advisor, [Professor Tanimu Yakubu]."

The late President Umaru Yar'Adua, was sneaked into the country three months after been incommunicado in Saudi Arabia and was never seen until a casket bearing his body was buried.
The leaks revealed that Mr. Jonathan lamented that "he does not know their motives, but expected it was likely for nefarious purposes."

He also reportedly told Ms. Sanders that "people are angry," and did not want to allow those surrounding Yar'Adua to replicate the control and access similar to what they had done in Jeddah for the past three months.

Mr. Jonathan had absolved Mrs. Yar'Adua of any blame over the secrecy that surrounded the illness and death of the late president while speaking during a 50-minute maiden presidential media, saying security agents attached to the president were the ones who made access to Mr. Yar'Adua impossible for anyone, including himself when he was acting president.

Were you the one trying to see Turai? So in what position are you to tell us who and who wasn't making it difficult for Jonathan to see Yar Adua? Were you there to see Turai standing in front of the door with a shotgun and turning people away? What is most amusing is you trying to espouse YOUR OWN conclusions as that of the article. After reading the article I don't in anyway get the impression that Jonathan is exonerating Turai, he is simply saying what he is saying - security agents attached to the president were the ones who made access to Mr. Yar'Adua impossible for anyone - whether some key security officers were influenced or coerced by Turai is another matter. Furthermore, you have to take this as diplomatic speak expected in an interview, so please come up with better arguments. I repeat, I don't really see anything wrong in what he said. Turai was not a gateman or ADC.

Don't really see anything wrong in his statement. If there are things to castigate Jonaathan about this is definately not one of them (personal opinion).

Beaf:
Tell me under whose govt you felt this so called "clear vision /direction and an agenda."

1. Babangida
2. Abacha
3. Obasanjo
4. Yar Adua

People just seem to be making up standards as they go along, but I feel it is only because this govt is the very first under which practical standards can begin to be discussed and that bewilders the average Nigerian who is more used to being beaten and spat on, who is also used to climbing over his next door neighbour and stamping his own kids underfoot in a vain bid to get a few drops of fuel. Times have changed, thanks to GEJ and there is more to come.

Dude I have simply decided I will not bother with you anymore. Perhaps the fact that you feel the need to use Babangida, Abacha, Obasanjo and YarAdua as benchmarks for comparison says it all. You sound like a wife who has been so battered by her husband she doesn't know any better and hence sees it as normal. I make no apologies for having reasonable expectations, especially from a leader who came in the way Jonathan did, no forseeable godfather to please, etc. Please just ignore my posts from now on because I won't bother. It is not that we might have differing views, but more about the fact that you are only in it to "win" arguments in such pettishly childish ways, rather than actually having sincere and objective discussions where ever Jonathan is concerned (something I find disingenuous and irritating; definately not above the standards set by those on the forum who seem to dislike him based solely on his ethnicity (won't name names)). Have a nice day

agitator:
You just hit the nail on the head. Painful but the truth, if you are humble you are weak. If Jonathan had made bold to take over power and the president miraculously returned, they would have criticized him as well. for wanting to overthrow the president.

I don't completely agree with you. I think people just want someone who can take control of the affairs of the country and give it some sense of direction. Do you feel this current leadership has a clear vision /direction and an agenda? If so please what are they and how are we going to get there?

DapoBear:
Nah, looks pretty legit (minus my typo of MWH instead of MW.) Coal and natural gas prices have soared it appears, bumping up the price to like $2-3k per KW:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/10/business/worldbusiness/10energy.html?_r=1

So $2 or $3 per watt, 40K MW, , roughly $100 billion seems reasonable.

I strongly dislike this 10 year plan the article has in mind, that is too pessimistic and slow.

If you empower the state of Lagos to provide electricity for itself and charge market rates, I think they can do it in 3 or 4 years. They already have an IPP project (http://www.aes.com/aes/index?page=country&cat=NG) that generates 270 MW through 9 gas-power barges (7% of the nation's supply.)

Not quite clear how much this can be scaled up (perhaps for technical reasons one cannot go from 9 barges to 40 or 50 barges), but at least in theory I really think that Lagos could supply all of its own power needs (other states might have difficulty getting foreign investors to supply the billions in capital required, Lagos on the other hand doesn't have this type of problem.)

That is, assuming that Lagos could charge its citizens fair value (or slightly above) for the electricity generation. Unfortunately, due to moronic federal government policies, Lagos (or any other state) is not allowed to do this. . .

Debosky beat me to it. 100billion for 40000MW makes absolutely no sense.

DapoBear:
Here is an article suggesting that we'll need $100 Billion to get to 40,000 MWH:
http://www.vanguardngr.com/2010/12/power-nigeria-needs-100bn-to-attain-40000mw-ptfp/


Where the hell is the money going to come for this? The Nigerian gov't cannot afford it. We need private capital, private investors if we want power in the country.

Alright, here is a screenshot of a powerpoint presentation I googled. Basically, generating electricity requires enormous amounts of cash. If we keep it in the hands of the gov't, it will never happen. It needs to be privatized so people have a profit incentive to come up with the billions of dollars required. If gov't managed, the gov't will underfund it and mess it up.

http://i55.tinypic.com/v33iv4.png

EDIT: Here is a link to the (Lagos-specific) powerpoint I saw this in: http://www.cbcglobal.org/CBCG_Library/AYO%20Gbeleyi,%20Power.ppsx

I seriously doubt that figure. I read the source you quoted. Papers should stop pulling figures from thin air. Yes It will be expensive and in the billions of dollars to get 40000mw, but nowhere near 100billion dollars.

Blazay:
I just love my Northerners.
See?
No fighting.

Thank God for small mercies, Jonathan does not have any opponent from the Southern part of Nigeria for assassins to start flying all over the place.

Thank you IBB. If Atiku did not get the ticket, you were my next best option.

Give me a Northerner anyday, anytime. I will even prefer to dig up Yaradua all over again.

Yes, and have a person who didn't achieve anything of significance in three years for another four years, how very progressive you are.

PapaBrowne:
Very Impressive job by Fashola!!

That Sahara Reporters dude, Sowore is not too different from a miscreant!!

I understand the sentiment but let us be fair in our assesment. Watch the interview again if you need to, intelligent responses no doubt, but he did not even touch on the Tinubu issue.

SapeleGuy:
The idea of an Amnesty was and is flawed. Paying money to individuals will not put much needed infrastucture into the region. Show me anywhere in the constitution of the country where Yaradua had the right to grant amnesty.

Forget the militants for a second, and ask yourself what the has been done to repair the neglect of the region?

Unfortunately people were too quick to praise Yar Adua over amnesty and ministry of Niger Delta, counting them as monumental achievements of an administration that did not achieve much (to put it lightly). How does amnesty and ministry of Niger Delta address the fundamentally flawed federal structure we run in the country?

Interesting interview and intelligent responses from Fashola (better than I have seen from even a lot of western politicians), but to be fair he did not touch on the Tinubu issue that was raised.

deor03:
So you want EFCC to investigate thesame Amnesty given to Niger Delta Militants managed by Niger Deltans?

Dog eating Dog here man !.

Nobody is actually fighting for anybody, Militants are criminals taking advantage of the neglects of the Niger delta to create anarchy and line their pockets from oil bunkering.

With all the money Asari and his likes made from the Crisis, How many people from Niger Delta have they awarded scholarship to ?

I understand where you are coming from and I get the sentiment in the bolded line of argument, but that is not the issue.

Jakumo:
Realist:   We all know how incredibly evil Germany's Hitler and Cambodia's Pol Pot were.

Revisionist :   Oh yeah ? Prove that statement to me.  Were you there ?  Where are the internet links ?

Realist :  You have GOT to be kidding me.  Are you seriously asking me to prove those dictators were bloodthirsty monsters?

Revisionist :  Sure.  This is the internet, and any claim NOT backed up by LINKS should be regarded with scepticsm.

Realist : Why don't you find the links yourself with a simple Google search ?  Or better still, just visit a library someday.

Revisionist :  Are you refusing to provide me with links to prove your point ? 

Realist : Haven't you ever seen those TV documentaries about the Nazi Holocaust ?

Revisionist :  I have watched Spiderman reruns on TV, but that doesn't mean I need to believe such a creature exists.

Realist : Many survivors of Nazi death camps are still alive today, with serial numbered tattoos to prove what they experienced.

Revisionist : Hey, I could tattoo that I love Paris Hilton on my arm, but that doesn't prove she has ever so much as heard of me.

No need to rant, just stick to the issue. Buhari was a military dictator, so was Obasanjo (no one here is pretending otherwise). However it seems it was only in the Buhari regime that the corruption problem was seriously tackled (and sucessfully too). That my friend is the issue at hand, that out of the the current list of presidential aspirants Buhari seems one of the more credible candidates in a country that seriously needs to reign in corruption and growing debt. Why not try to stick to that issue instead of having discussions with yourself?

Beaf:
How does tyranny operate? Oh yes! A journalist could have been jailed for reporting that there was fuel scarcity so long as Buhari felt embarrassed.

http://www.derechos.net/ijc/monitor/0328.html

You already answered my question so there was no need for another copy and paste. There was no ban on telling the truth, however, there was serious restriction of the press as tends to be the norm in military dictatorships.

Beaf:
I can only advice you to seek out an original transcript of Decree 4. The description in the bolded is 100% correct. Press men were jailed for reporting the truth, simply because it embarrassed Buhari's tyranical govt. That is the only reason, there isn't a lot of bad news about his 1 year tyranny, its called brutal management of press freedom. Buhari is a wooden man with a wooden worldview, a very dangerous man indeed.

I would advice Buhari's supporters to swing behind Ribadu instead, he is a 100% saner prospect with similar (but a million times more refined) character attributes.

Buhari did not pass a law that made reporting the truth illegal, please stop embarassing yourself. You could say that reporters reporting certain types of stories were jailed (as was common in military regimes), different from saying reporting the truth was banned. Please stop. So if a road was built or there was fuel scarcity and it was reported, you are trying to tell me that the journalist reporting such stories were jailed?

Ribadu is a saner prospect in your estimation. I am willing to consider Ribadu but I don't even know how serious the man is taking it anymore, I am yet to see a serious campaign strategy from his camp.

Beaf:
Just go over the current thread and convince me that 99% of the responses from his supporters is any different from what one would expect from a fizzing mob of Ayatollahs. Their responses have been high on the neanderthal/scary factor and low on fact/commonsense; this isn't shocking though, because that is the sort of crowd a tyrant like Buhari can be expected to pull; an almost invisible sprinkling of disillusioned members of the intelligensia and feral hordes of antisocial types.

Why would anyone gravitate toward the author of the draconian Decree 4? How could a man who jailed members of the press for publishing stories that embarrassed the govt, whether they were true or not attract you? I am let down by that, you of all people shouldn't be in that group.

Perhaps even more alarming is the rate at which you copy and paste search engine articles to act as 'end alls' in your supposed arguments. Why don't we put things in context first of all. Buhari was a leader in a military dictatorship. Buhari did not put the 'official/public secret act' (pretty much an antithesis to the FOI bill people have been shouting for) in the Nigerian constitution, a clause that has been bastardised by various regimes for their own use in trampling press freedom. What is even more embarassing is how you boldly highlight the "making the report of truth a very serious offence in the country" section of the copy and paste article. Buhari passed a law/decree that made reporting the truth illegal? Are you actually reading what you are typing?

I don't mind you not liking Buhari as a presidential prospect (I am not even a big Buhari fan), I would just appreciate some sincerity and openess in your discourse rather than all the blind propaganda. Now why don't we go back to the statement I made and see if we can focus on the essence of my postings.

Sky Blue:
I really don't know why, but I kind of expected better from you.

Amusing that the only references you could get are 'biafranigeriaworld' and 'nigerdeltacongress'.

And here is another link
http://www.nigeriavillagesquare.com/articles/nvs/politicians-would-be-the-first-victims-of-sharia-if-properly-implemented-buhari.html
why not try to actually read it instead of going on hearsays.

I still maintain that out of the present crop of presidential aspirants which include GEJ, Atiku, IBB, Donald Duke (don't even know how serious he is about the whole thing anymore), etc; Buhari seems one of the more credible candidates.  Corruption is a major issue that needs to be tackled, and I don't see Atiku or IBB or GEJ tackling it with the ruthlesness required. We simply need to compare the level of systemic civil service corruption prevalent during the regimes in which many of these names were involved. I am till this day still waiting to see what Jonathan's stand is on corruption in Nigeria and possible plans of tackling it.

Beaf:
Why am I not surprised at the way some of Buhari's followers sound like members of Boko Haram and Al Qaeda. The General just doesn't inspire masses of the educated (tyrants never do).
The tyrant had a way of jailing and sacking news people for reporting the truth. Here is a summary of a very public sacking of a reporter who related on NTA Network News that the missing $2.8billion had been traced to Buhari's London bank account:

http://www.thenigerianvoice.com/nvnewsp/37756/1/pagenum2/the-arab-world-wants-nigeria-dead-latest-and-up-da.html

I can produce more on the tyrant, Buhari and the press, but lets hear from his fizzing mob of Ayatollahs.

I really don't know why, but I kind of expected better from you.

Jakumo:
With pleasure, Sky Blue.

http://news.biafranigeriaworld.com/archive/2003/oct/12/005.html

http://nigerdeltacongress.com/barticles/buhari_and_signifying_monkeys.htm

A google search will yield the above links and more.  Former military tyrant Buhari is a self-avowed Islamic supermacist, whose insane delusions include a dream that the Koran must one day be symbolically "dipped in the waters of the Atlantic Ocean", after the all Nigerian non-muslim (infidels) have been forcibly "re-educated" to accept the imposition of Sharia amputation "law".

Amusing that the only references you could get are 'biafranigeriaworld' and 'nigerdeltacongress'.

And here is another link
http://www.nigeriavillagesquare.com/articles/nvs/politicians-would-be-the-first-victims-of-sharia-if-properly-implemented-buhari.html
why not try to actually read it instead of going on hearsays.

I still maintain that out of the present crop of presidential aspirants which include GEJ, Atiku, IBB, Donald Duke (don't even know how serious he is about the whole thing anymore), etc; Buhari seems one of the more credible candidates.  Corruption is a major issue that needs to be tackled, and I don't see Atiku or IBB or GEJ tackling it with the ruthlesness required. We simply need to compare the level of systemic civil service corruption prevalent during the regimes in which many of these names were involved. I am till this day still waiting to see what Jonathan's stand is on corruption in Nigeria and possible plans of tackling it.

Jakumo:
Evidently, sir, you have mistaken me for someone who gives a flying phuck about the particular religious cult to which Osama "Baboon" Buhari belongs.  As it turns out, I am not in the least bit concerned how you, or anyone else, characterize my widely-held observations about that thieving savage Buhari who, after installing himself as dictator by military force in the late 1980s, gleefully herded innocent multitudes into dungeons where many died or were killed, while presiding over the most repressive police state ever inflicted upon Nigeria till date.  Ayatollah Buhari WILL rot in hell, and will NEVER again taste power until that time is due.

Oh alright then, just to please you I will respectfully refer to Ayatollah Baboon Buhari as a semi-literate sadistic torturer renowned for publicly ululating his mad expectation that Nigeria should goose-step back to the 18th Century when entire nations were subjugated by maniacal religious fanatics who committed genocide in the name of imaginary supreme beings sitting up in the clouds, even as they pillaged national wealth with reckless abandon.   Are you happy now, sir ?

Still looking for the substance in this post . . . IBB and not Buhari, put Nigeria in the IOC. I maintain that based on the list of candidates aspiring for presidential office, Buhari remains one of the most credible. Whether that is a testament to the dire straits the country finds itself in or more a testament to his character is left for anyone to personally decide. One thing I will not forget was his perseverance going through the courts for many months, tendering evidence against the sham elections that gave the country Yar Adua (was not the first time he was doing that either). Corruption needs to be ruthlessly tackled, and with the way things stand I don't see Jonathan being the person to do that. If you have even just a handful of articles that allude to Buhari being corrupt please feel free to paste them and stop with the verbose pontificating.

Honestly speaking at the rate things are going I really don't mind considering Buhari out of the current list of presidential hopefuls. You can say whatever you want to say about the man but out of the list of aspirants he seems to be the one with the most integrity (my view).