Recent political developments in Nigeria have unearthed the true depth of the underlying spirit of her nationhood. It has also put to a simple test, the character of our political leaders; who are supposed to be advocates of sound democratic political culture. Unfortunately, the parochial interests of the nation’s political, tribal, and religious leaders have made nonsense of the culture of sound political leadership as prescribed in every healthy presidential democracy. It is very absurd that the political class has shamelessly turned Nigeria’s democracy on its head. This sad development is a clear demonstration that the noble democratic culture of good governance has been deliberately drowned in the pool of negative political scheming.
A curious observation of unfolding events in the country following the hospitalisation of President Musa Yar’Adua in King Faisal Hospital in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia would lead one to the bitter conclusion that Nigeria’s institutional framework has become too weak and consequently unable to carry the burden of Due Process, Rule of Law, and Fair Play. While Transparency and Accountability are the creation of the culture of Due Process, the Rule of Law promotes Justice and Fair Play. It is equally necessary to point out that National Peace and Unity are products of Fair Play. These principles are unarguably the pillars of every healthy society. Without them, political leadership will be of no benefit to the masses. This should help explain why Nigeria is still counted among the poorest countries in the world despite the abundant human and material resources in the country. It has also given a clue as to why Nigeria- the sixth largest producer of crude oil in the world relies on the importation of petrol and kerosene. Instead of this sad reality posing a huge challenge to our political leaders; they have with selfish intentions allowed the country to drift far into the ocean of anarchy and disintegration. Surprisingly, the political class is carrying on as if Nigeria has nothing to lose, even when the contrary is clearly the case.
Just like I have submitted in previous write-ups, Nigeria’s greatest problem is tribalism. It is owing to the deep rooted culture of tribalism that successive administrations have not been able to effectively fight corruption in the country. There is an unwritten law in Nigeria that forbids citizens from exposing or prosecuting fellow tribesmen for corrupt practices. That is the reason why public servants that earns less than N12m annually will build mansions and own fleet of exotic cars worth over N500m and still be conferred with chieftaincy titles without verifying the sources of the sudden wealth of their kinsmen and women.
Nigeria has been turned into a country where one must also have his or her tribesperson in position of authority in order to be employed, given a key appointment, or awarded a big contract. This anomaly is hugely responsible for why the issue of tribal lineage is regarded far above every other factor in the Nigerian society. In a nutshell; tribalism can only become rife in a country where there is no transparency, accountability, justice, and fair play.
Furthermore, tribalism promotes national poverty. It compels citizens to be lazy. In a tribal-induced bureaucracy, even people that sow nothing can reap bountifully simply because their tribesperson is in power. This is clearly against natural principle. The more we promote tribal agenda above constitutional provisions, the closer we get to the source of our disintegration. Everybody professes “One Nigeria” but is unwilling to make the necessary sacrifices to unite the various ethnic clusters in the country.
It is indeed a solid fact that the current political tension in the country is mainly as a result of an avoidable clash between forces of democracy and that of tribal interests. The northern belt of the country believes that based on a power sharing arrangement by the ruling PDP, the period spanning between 2007 and 2015 is their turn to occupy the Nigerian presidency. They therefore see the emergence of Goodluck Jonathan as the substantive president as a rude interruption of their political sail. This has forced quite a number of them to disregard the spirit of the constitution of the federal republic of Nigeria. They were forced by the spirit of PDP to quickly forget that even the presidential democracy has a character. Owing to all of these, most individual and group opinions from the north became infected with deep tribal sentiments. The consequence was the emergence of an overheated polity. History is starring at us; as we dance naked in the market square.
Power belongs to God. He gives power to whoever that pleases Him. God also takes away power whenever it pleases Him. One is therefore forced to wonder why people see and treat power with a “do-or-die” attitude. Perhaps, one should emphasise here that the basic aim of political power is to improve the lives of man and society through quality leadership. If that is the case, why are Nigerians fond of clinging onto power at all cost? It points to the fact that many people seek political power for reasons other than offering quality leadership. That is why it is uncommon for public servants in Nigeria to resign from office no matter the circumstances.
Just as Nigeria is bigger than any one individual or political party; the presidency is by far greater than a president. Most times, both military and political leaders are tempted to see themselves as sources of power. This accounts for why many public officers use power as if it were their personal property. Through this way, power is most times abused by those in authority.
As the political drama in Nigeria continues to unfold, one fact has emerged conspicuously. The northern belt of the country has spoken in very clear and loud voice: They want to secure their stake in PDP’s 2007-2015 power sharing arrangement. As long as PDP remains in power, no one can fault their position. No southerner is against a northerner becoming the president of the federal republic of Nigeria in 2011. It should however be noted that the constitution of the federal republic of Nigeria has collided with that of the PDP. Is the north saying the constitution of the federal republic of Nigeria should give way for that of PDP? It is for this reason that this writer is of the opinion that no section of this country should destroy our today in a bid to their secure tomorrow. We do not need to be reminded that tomorrow is the daughter of today. We all therefore need to protect our today so that it would grow up and give birth to both our sectional and collective tomorrow as the case may be.
It is indeed most unfortunate that President Yar’Adua fell sick. Everybody is concerned and has shown this by offering prayers for his quick recovery. The actions and inactions of a few persons have tended to create a false impression that the southern belt of the country is happy about the president’s poor health. This is not true. What has actually created a sharp divide is in the way and manner some close family members and aides of the Yar’Adua have handled the president’s ill-health. They have refused to accept the fact that a president is a public property. They have also forgotten that Nigeria is a presidential democracy with an operating constitution. Some sincere persons of northern extraction too have openly condemned the actions of the president’s family members and close aides.
More than that, the refusal of the president to activate section 145 of the constitution of the federal republic of Nigeria points to one direction: Those entrusted with the wellbeing of the president during this period of his ill-health are not in any way ready to trust any other person with power despite the unforeseen circumstances that has almost enveloped the country. Many are beginning to feel that the north is not ready to make the required sacrifices to enable this country move forward. The sacrifice is conspicuously stipulated in section 145 of the constitution of the federal republic of Nigeria. It was in recognition of this fact that the National Assembly in its wisdom declared Vice President Goodluck Jonathan as the acting president and Commander-In-Chief of the Armed Forces of the federal republic of Nigeria. Ordinarily, it was President Yar’Adua, and not the National Assembly that should have voluntarily brought about making Jonathan the acting president.
Only God knows what would have become of Nigeria if the National Assembly had not acted on time. To appreciate how far men can go, some persons are still faulting the intervention of the National Assembly. Their argument is that the absence of President Yar’Adua from office did not create any vacuum and therefore had no need to proclaim Vice President Jonathan as the acting president. It is quite ironical that those who claimed the absence of the president did not create any vacuum were the same people that ferried the 2009 Supplementary Budget to the convalescing President Yar’Adua in Saudi Arabia for signing. It was also the same set of people that asked a retiring Chief Judge of the federation to swear-in his successor. Are we not aware that federal permanent secretaries could not be sworn-in owing to the absence of the president? Whom do they want to deceive?
Monday, April 26, 2010
UNDERSTANDING THE ROLE OF MINISTERS IN A PRESIDENTIAL DEMOCRACY
Immediately following the proclamation of Dr. Goodluck Jonathan as Acting President and Commander-in-Chief of the Nigerian Armed Forces by the National Assembly, the presidency was inundated with calls for the dissolution of the Executive Council of the Federation. These calls came from the political community, socio-cultural organisations, faith-based groups, and the civil society.
From all the comments that laced the demand for the dissolution of the cabinet, one could easily pick out a consensus opinion. There was an overwhelming need for the acting president to put in place a cabinet that would work as an indivisible team. The reason for this popular opinion cannot be overemphasized.
Just before the dissolution of the last cabinet, it had become very obvious that the Executive Council of the Federation was divided along two camps. While one of the factions was made up of President Yar’Adua’s sympathisers, the other comprised of supporters of Acting President Jonathan. Nigerians saw this ugly development as a huge threat to the security, peace, unity, and progress of the country. The already precarious political atmosphere was made worse with wild rumours of coup plots. Nigeria’s fragile democracy was indeed under a serious threat.
It is the opinion of this writer that many do not understand the real meaning of loyalty in a constitutional democracy. This was actually the main reason why the last cabinet became polarised along two lines. Ordinarily, the loyalty of members of the cabinet and every other public officer is supposed to be directed to the federal republic of Nigeria as clearly suggested in the National Pledge. Loyalty is not supposed to be directed to the president or vice president. Let’s consider the unambiguous wordings of the National Pledge:
I pledge to Nigeria my country
To be faithful, loyal and honest
To serve Nigeria with all my strength
To defend her unity
And uphold her honour and glory
So help me God.
It is not stated anywhere that loyalty should be directed at any one individual or office. The framers of the National Anthem knew before hand the dangers associated with misdirected loyalty. Unfortunately, our political actors ignored the sound warnings.
Being a constitutional democracy, the vice president was not empowered to perform certain official assignments. It was for this very reason that the 2009 Supplementary Budget was flown to Saudi Arabia for President Yar’Adua to endorse. It was in the same vein that the retiring Chief Justice of the Federation was asked to swear-in his successor. This was novel in the history of Nigeria. The vice president could not also swear-in federal Permanent Secretaries because of lack of constitutional mandate. There were so many other things the vice president could not do owing to constitutional bottleneck. The country was almost grinding to a halt. It was for all of these reasons that Nigerians applauded the decision of the National Assembly to intervene in the political crisis that arose from President Yar’Adua’s refusal to invoke section 145 of the constitution of the federal republic of Nigeria. It was quite evident from the reactions of Nigerians that majority of citizens and the international community were desirous of peace and development in the country. News of the dissolution of the Executive Council of the Federation by Acting President Goodluck Jonathan on the 10th of March, 2010 was therefore received with great joy.
This writer would however note at this point that the enthusiasm that greeted the dissolution of the cabinet by Acting President Jonathan waned as soon as the presidency sent the list of ministerial nominees to the National Assembly for consideration and confirmation. Like in previous cases, this was expected owing largely to a number of factors that come to play during ministerial nominations. Most important among them is the issue of political exigency. It is strongly believed that federal ministers play very important roles in the politics of their respective home states. As such, major political actors scheme to have their candidates make the ministerial list. Sometimes, stakeholders even engage in smear campaigns or propaganda against their suspected rivals.
The spirit of presidential democracy suggests that there must be a cabinet so as to properly constitute the executive arm of government. This idea is to help eliminate any dictatorial element in a democratic political leadership. Here in Nigeria, there is a whole lot of misunderstanding of the role of ministers in a presidential democracy. This is mainly as a result of the wrong opinion people hold about political power. The cardinal aim of government is to better the lots of man and society. This is achieved through the articulation of sound ideas which are developed into policy frameworks. The direction of government is usually reflected in its policies. To provide for easy coordination and monitoring, government policies are streamlined into fiscal instruments also known as budget.
The major role of ministers is to articulate sound ideas that will help achieve government’s objectives. It is expected that after the signing of the appropriation bill into law, each minister would work towards achieving a 100% implementation of recurrent and capital proposals as they relate with their respective ministries. Unfortunately, many cabinet members are more interested in politicking than executing their official briefs. There are no longer traces of passion and patriotism among ministers. This is one reason why many MDAs are unable to implement up to just 20% of their sectional budget proposals. Many even fail to exhaust their votes at the end of the financial year when there are whole lot of work to be done. To check against this negative attitude of cabinet members, the presidency should take the issue of performance very seriously as highlighted by Senate President David Mark recently. It is the opinion of this writer that any minister who is unable to execute a minimum of 85% of approved budget proposals should be relieved of his or her post. The presidency must however ensure that funds are approved and made available to the various MDA’s as at when due. This would however require improving the revenue generating mechanisms of government. In order to achieve this objective, government must show enough political will in the battle against graft. Through this, enough financial resources would be saved for its developmental agendas. Furthermore, government must do well to invest massively in the non-oil sector. This would help boost the nation’s revenue strategy.
From all the comments that laced the demand for the dissolution of the cabinet, one could easily pick out a consensus opinion. There was an overwhelming need for the acting president to put in place a cabinet that would work as an indivisible team. The reason for this popular opinion cannot be overemphasized.
Just before the dissolution of the last cabinet, it had become very obvious that the Executive Council of the Federation was divided along two camps. While one of the factions was made up of President Yar’Adua’s sympathisers, the other comprised of supporters of Acting President Jonathan. Nigerians saw this ugly development as a huge threat to the security, peace, unity, and progress of the country. The already precarious political atmosphere was made worse with wild rumours of coup plots. Nigeria’s fragile democracy was indeed under a serious threat.
It is the opinion of this writer that many do not understand the real meaning of loyalty in a constitutional democracy. This was actually the main reason why the last cabinet became polarised along two lines. Ordinarily, the loyalty of members of the cabinet and every other public officer is supposed to be directed to the federal republic of Nigeria as clearly suggested in the National Pledge. Loyalty is not supposed to be directed to the president or vice president. Let’s consider the unambiguous wordings of the National Pledge:
I pledge to Nigeria my country
To be faithful, loyal and honest
To serve Nigeria with all my strength
To defend her unity
And uphold her honour and glory
So help me God.
It is not stated anywhere that loyalty should be directed at any one individual or office. The framers of the National Anthem knew before hand the dangers associated with misdirected loyalty. Unfortunately, our political actors ignored the sound warnings.
Being a constitutional democracy, the vice president was not empowered to perform certain official assignments. It was for this very reason that the 2009 Supplementary Budget was flown to Saudi Arabia for President Yar’Adua to endorse. It was in the same vein that the retiring Chief Justice of the Federation was asked to swear-in his successor. This was novel in the history of Nigeria. The vice president could not also swear-in federal Permanent Secretaries because of lack of constitutional mandate. There were so many other things the vice president could not do owing to constitutional bottleneck. The country was almost grinding to a halt. It was for all of these reasons that Nigerians applauded the decision of the National Assembly to intervene in the political crisis that arose from President Yar’Adua’s refusal to invoke section 145 of the constitution of the federal republic of Nigeria. It was quite evident from the reactions of Nigerians that majority of citizens and the international community were desirous of peace and development in the country. News of the dissolution of the Executive Council of the Federation by Acting President Goodluck Jonathan on the 10th of March, 2010 was therefore received with great joy.
This writer would however note at this point that the enthusiasm that greeted the dissolution of the cabinet by Acting President Jonathan waned as soon as the presidency sent the list of ministerial nominees to the National Assembly for consideration and confirmation. Like in previous cases, this was expected owing largely to a number of factors that come to play during ministerial nominations. Most important among them is the issue of political exigency. It is strongly believed that federal ministers play very important roles in the politics of their respective home states. As such, major political actors scheme to have their candidates make the ministerial list. Sometimes, stakeholders even engage in smear campaigns or propaganda against their suspected rivals.
The spirit of presidential democracy suggests that there must be a cabinet so as to properly constitute the executive arm of government. This idea is to help eliminate any dictatorial element in a democratic political leadership. Here in Nigeria, there is a whole lot of misunderstanding of the role of ministers in a presidential democracy. This is mainly as a result of the wrong opinion people hold about political power. The cardinal aim of government is to better the lots of man and society. This is achieved through the articulation of sound ideas which are developed into policy frameworks. The direction of government is usually reflected in its policies. To provide for easy coordination and monitoring, government policies are streamlined into fiscal instruments also known as budget.
The major role of ministers is to articulate sound ideas that will help achieve government’s objectives. It is expected that after the signing of the appropriation bill into law, each minister would work towards achieving a 100% implementation of recurrent and capital proposals as they relate with their respective ministries. Unfortunately, many cabinet members are more interested in politicking than executing their official briefs. There are no longer traces of passion and patriotism among ministers. This is one reason why many MDAs are unable to implement up to just 20% of their sectional budget proposals. Many even fail to exhaust their votes at the end of the financial year when there are whole lot of work to be done. To check against this negative attitude of cabinet members, the presidency should take the issue of performance very seriously as highlighted by Senate President David Mark recently. It is the opinion of this writer that any minister who is unable to execute a minimum of 85% of approved budget proposals should be relieved of his or her post. The presidency must however ensure that funds are approved and made available to the various MDA’s as at when due. This would however require improving the revenue generating mechanisms of government. In order to achieve this objective, government must show enough political will in the battle against graft. Through this, enough financial resources would be saved for its developmental agendas. Furthermore, government must do well to invest massively in the non-oil sector. This would help boost the nation’s revenue strategy.
THERE IS NOTHING WRONG IN SUBSIDISING FUEL
In taking into consideration the quality of arguments being made by government agents championing the crusade to remove fuel subsidy in recent times, one can conveniently conclude that there is a whole lot of misunderstanding of what government is all about. For the avoidance of doubt; the primary aim of government is to promote the well-being of its citizenry. This can be done through fiscal policies and socio-political engineering. Unknown to the army of anti-subsidy apostles, fuel subsidy is largely the only benefit being enjoyed by Nigerian masses. It is no longer news that the average Nigerian family provides its own electricity, water, and security. Under normal circumstances, these fundamental services are supposed to be provided by government at an affordable rate.
There is no doubt that Nigerian workers are among the least remunerated in the world. While public servants in smaller African countries can rely on their monthly salaries for feeding, transportation, rent, and medical exigencies; same cannot be said of civil servants in Nigeria. This is so because; the bulk of their incomes are expended on providing electricity, water, and security. Little or nothing is therefore left to take care of their feeding, transportation, rent, health and academic needs of their children.
While it is a naked fact that the removal of fuel subsidy will inflict heavier economic burden on the Nigerian masses, government seem not to bother a bit. The nation’s economic advisers and fiscal policy formulators have painfully chosen to blindly follow World Bank and IMF theories without first appreciating the fact that the socio-economic framework of Nigeria is not strong enough to withstand subsidy removal. No leader has ever succeeded without the application of common sense. It took common sense for Hugo Chavez of Venezuela to return the South American country back on the track of growth and prosperity. Little wonder why Venezuela is reputed to be the country with the cheapest petrol- just 4₵ or N6 per litre. It is all about common sense.
As the sixth world’s largest producer of crude oil, Nigerians are condemned to queue for hours to buy petrol and kerosene even at very exorbitant rates. The nation’s four refineries have never worked up to its installed capacities. Without shame, government officials have come out to openly blame corruption for this sordid tale. First, was the issue of cross-boarder smuggling of petroleum products. It was sickening to hear the former Minister of Finance, Dr. Mansur Mukhtar argue that the low price of fuel in the country has encouraged the smuggling of the commodity across the nation’s border.
While government have continued to argue that the smuggling of petroleum products across the nation’s boarders is partly responsible for scarcity, no Customs official has been punished for dereliction of duty. Rather, it is the Nigerian masses that are being punished for the sins of the Nigerian Customs and associated security agencies at the country’s boarder posts. How can a serving minister make such a grave indictment on key government agencies and yet nothing happens. The much noised about rule of law of the present administration should be dismissed as a farce. Were it to be in developed societies, this high level indictment of the Customs and security agencies in the nation’s border posts by the Minister of Finance is enough for several top government officials to resign.
It is usually hard to believe when top ranking government officials argue that it is only through deregulation that corruption in the downstream sector of the petroleum industry can be eliminated. What efforts has government done to bring to book all those involved in corrupt practices in the petroleum sector? To me, this is a clever way of government telling the world that it has lost the anti-graft war. To a very large extent, all the noise about fight against graft is just but a charade. Our leaders should stop deceiving the masses. To do this, the federal government should without hesitation disband both the EFCC and ICPC until a time when we are ready to arrest the growing tide of corruption in high places.
The patience of Nigerian masses is running out very fast. Let me emphasise here that it was mainly for the fear of military intervention and possible disintegration of the nation that Nigerians ignored the charade that was the 2007 presidential elections. The planned removal of fuel subsidy will definitely place regrets on the heads of the masses. It is very likely that Nigerians would come in their millions to ask for Yar’Adua’s head.
Apart from the fact that corruption has almost turned out to be a way of life in Nigeria, federal roads in the country are among the worst in the whole of Africa. The power sector has become a source of shame and embarrassment to Nigerians. More than thirty months into the four year term of the present administration, current power situation is so bad that it cannot support any meaningful economic development. Businesses are closing daily and unemployment figures reaching to high heavens. The educational sector has completely collapsed, while quality health care services are accessed only by the very few rich ones among us. Crime rate has reached an alarming state despite all the guns and armoured personnel carriers provided for the Nigeria Police.
Nigeria should borrow a leaf from the Norwegians. The best way to fight crime is through the even distribution of wealth. When citizens live above poverty line, crime rate will drop naturally. I do not think the removal of fuel subsidy has any thing to do with even distribution of wealth.
The shallow argument that monies saved through the removal of fuel subsidies would be invested in other critical sectors of our economy is an insult on our sensibilities. The problem with Nigeria is not the lack of financial resources to grow our economy. Our problem is bad leadership. When we have good leaders, corruption will be put in its proper place.
More than anything; the federal government should not allow forces in the international oil market to destroy the very essence of government. Perhaps, I should build a monument here to highlight the fact that many Nigerian workers spend over 50% of their salaries on transportation alone. This has not only affected the quality of their meals; the health and educational needs of their children and dependants are relegated to the background. This is the main platform for the growing of illiteracy, poverty, and crime in our society. Only recently, the nation was shocked with the sad news of mass failure of Nigerian students in both WAEC and NECO.
The purchasing power of citizens is determined by their take home pay. When the price of crude oil goes up in the international market in a deregulated economy, crude oil earnings jump. In the same vein, the pump price of petrol and other related products too increases while the take home pay of workers remains stagnant. This development no doubt reduces the purchasing power of citizens. Subsidies are therefore given whenever the fiscal instruments of deregulation exceed pre set bench mark. Ordinarily, bench marks are set with the nation’s socio-economic framework in mind. That is to say, deregulation has a human face. It should not be different in Nigeria. It should be noted that in most developed countries where fuel subsidy has been removed, the salary of an average worker is able to provide for his or her family’s feeding, transportation, health care, and social needs. They are even able to make savings. The BIG question is: How many Nigerians earn monthly salaries that can sustain them and their families for up to one week, not to talk of making savings?
Government’s position on the removal of fuel subsidy can be conveniently related to the conflict between ASUU and the federal government. Most persons supporting the federal government’s position are those who either have their children in foreign universities or are fortunate to have had their wards go through university. In the same vein, the bulk of those pushing for the removal of petrol subsidy can afford to buy petrol even at N500 a litre. They do not bother about the fate of over 100m poor Nigerians that cannot afford a litre of petrol at N65.
Nigeria belongs to both the poor and rich. For a very long time now, the poor have lost their stake in the Nigerian Project. The nation’s political culture is such that the masses do not have any means of holding their leaders accountable. The electoral law does not make elected officials respect the feelings of voters. As it stands now, fuel subsidy is the only benefit Nigerian masses enjoy. Unfortunately, the government has commenced plans to withdraw this single benefit.
Frankly, fuel subsidy is the least of Nigeria’s problems. Our major problems are corruption, tribalism, the failure of rule of law, and poor political leadership. I can bet the president that even if government succeeds in going against the wishes of the Nigerian masses by removing fuel subsidy; the forces of corruption, tribalism, injustice, and poor political leadership would in no distant time swallow whatever gains that would be made. This does not make any sense. Government is therefore encouraged to allow poor Nigerian masses hold onto the single benefit of fuel subsidy pending when the nation’s socio-economic framework would be strong enough to support deregulation. This is the truth and nothing but the whole truth. So help us God!
There is no doubt that Nigerian workers are among the least remunerated in the world. While public servants in smaller African countries can rely on their monthly salaries for feeding, transportation, rent, and medical exigencies; same cannot be said of civil servants in Nigeria. This is so because; the bulk of their incomes are expended on providing electricity, water, and security. Little or nothing is therefore left to take care of their feeding, transportation, rent, health and academic needs of their children.
While it is a naked fact that the removal of fuel subsidy will inflict heavier economic burden on the Nigerian masses, government seem not to bother a bit. The nation’s economic advisers and fiscal policy formulators have painfully chosen to blindly follow World Bank and IMF theories without first appreciating the fact that the socio-economic framework of Nigeria is not strong enough to withstand subsidy removal. No leader has ever succeeded without the application of common sense. It took common sense for Hugo Chavez of Venezuela to return the South American country back on the track of growth and prosperity. Little wonder why Venezuela is reputed to be the country with the cheapest petrol- just 4₵ or N6 per litre. It is all about common sense.
As the sixth world’s largest producer of crude oil, Nigerians are condemned to queue for hours to buy petrol and kerosene even at very exorbitant rates. The nation’s four refineries have never worked up to its installed capacities. Without shame, government officials have come out to openly blame corruption for this sordid tale. First, was the issue of cross-boarder smuggling of petroleum products. It was sickening to hear the former Minister of Finance, Dr. Mansur Mukhtar argue that the low price of fuel in the country has encouraged the smuggling of the commodity across the nation’s border.
While government have continued to argue that the smuggling of petroleum products across the nation’s boarders is partly responsible for scarcity, no Customs official has been punished for dereliction of duty. Rather, it is the Nigerian masses that are being punished for the sins of the Nigerian Customs and associated security agencies at the country’s boarder posts. How can a serving minister make such a grave indictment on key government agencies and yet nothing happens. The much noised about rule of law of the present administration should be dismissed as a farce. Were it to be in developed societies, this high level indictment of the Customs and security agencies in the nation’s border posts by the Minister of Finance is enough for several top government officials to resign.
It is usually hard to believe when top ranking government officials argue that it is only through deregulation that corruption in the downstream sector of the petroleum industry can be eliminated. What efforts has government done to bring to book all those involved in corrupt practices in the petroleum sector? To me, this is a clever way of government telling the world that it has lost the anti-graft war. To a very large extent, all the noise about fight against graft is just but a charade. Our leaders should stop deceiving the masses. To do this, the federal government should without hesitation disband both the EFCC and ICPC until a time when we are ready to arrest the growing tide of corruption in high places.
The patience of Nigerian masses is running out very fast. Let me emphasise here that it was mainly for the fear of military intervention and possible disintegration of the nation that Nigerians ignored the charade that was the 2007 presidential elections. The planned removal of fuel subsidy will definitely place regrets on the heads of the masses. It is very likely that Nigerians would come in their millions to ask for Yar’Adua’s head.
Apart from the fact that corruption has almost turned out to be a way of life in Nigeria, federal roads in the country are among the worst in the whole of Africa. The power sector has become a source of shame and embarrassment to Nigerians. More than thirty months into the four year term of the present administration, current power situation is so bad that it cannot support any meaningful economic development. Businesses are closing daily and unemployment figures reaching to high heavens. The educational sector has completely collapsed, while quality health care services are accessed only by the very few rich ones among us. Crime rate has reached an alarming state despite all the guns and armoured personnel carriers provided for the Nigeria Police.
Nigeria should borrow a leaf from the Norwegians. The best way to fight crime is through the even distribution of wealth. When citizens live above poverty line, crime rate will drop naturally. I do not think the removal of fuel subsidy has any thing to do with even distribution of wealth.
The shallow argument that monies saved through the removal of fuel subsidies would be invested in other critical sectors of our economy is an insult on our sensibilities. The problem with Nigeria is not the lack of financial resources to grow our economy. Our problem is bad leadership. When we have good leaders, corruption will be put in its proper place.
More than anything; the federal government should not allow forces in the international oil market to destroy the very essence of government. Perhaps, I should build a monument here to highlight the fact that many Nigerian workers spend over 50% of their salaries on transportation alone. This has not only affected the quality of their meals; the health and educational needs of their children and dependants are relegated to the background. This is the main platform for the growing of illiteracy, poverty, and crime in our society. Only recently, the nation was shocked with the sad news of mass failure of Nigerian students in both WAEC and NECO.
The purchasing power of citizens is determined by their take home pay. When the price of crude oil goes up in the international market in a deregulated economy, crude oil earnings jump. In the same vein, the pump price of petrol and other related products too increases while the take home pay of workers remains stagnant. This development no doubt reduces the purchasing power of citizens. Subsidies are therefore given whenever the fiscal instruments of deregulation exceed pre set bench mark. Ordinarily, bench marks are set with the nation’s socio-economic framework in mind. That is to say, deregulation has a human face. It should not be different in Nigeria. It should be noted that in most developed countries where fuel subsidy has been removed, the salary of an average worker is able to provide for his or her family’s feeding, transportation, health care, and social needs. They are even able to make savings. The BIG question is: How many Nigerians earn monthly salaries that can sustain them and their families for up to one week, not to talk of making savings?
Government’s position on the removal of fuel subsidy can be conveniently related to the conflict between ASUU and the federal government. Most persons supporting the federal government’s position are those who either have their children in foreign universities or are fortunate to have had their wards go through university. In the same vein, the bulk of those pushing for the removal of petrol subsidy can afford to buy petrol even at N500 a litre. They do not bother about the fate of over 100m poor Nigerians that cannot afford a litre of petrol at N65.
Nigeria belongs to both the poor and rich. For a very long time now, the poor have lost their stake in the Nigerian Project. The nation’s political culture is such that the masses do not have any means of holding their leaders accountable. The electoral law does not make elected officials respect the feelings of voters. As it stands now, fuel subsidy is the only benefit Nigerian masses enjoy. Unfortunately, the government has commenced plans to withdraw this single benefit.
Frankly, fuel subsidy is the least of Nigeria’s problems. Our major problems are corruption, tribalism, the failure of rule of law, and poor political leadership. I can bet the president that even if government succeeds in going against the wishes of the Nigerian masses by removing fuel subsidy; the forces of corruption, tribalism, injustice, and poor political leadership would in no distant time swallow whatever gains that would be made. This does not make any sense. Government is therefore encouraged to allow poor Nigerian masses hold onto the single benefit of fuel subsidy pending when the nation’s socio-economic framework would be strong enough to support deregulation. This is the truth and nothing but the whole truth. So help us God!
TRIBALISM & CORRUPTION WORSE THAN MILITANCY
For sometimes now, the activities of Niger Delta militants have posed serious concerns to the Nigerian nation and the international community. But strangely, the presidency has continued to act in manners that clearly suggest it does not understand the root causes of militancy in the Niger Delta region. For the avoidance of doubt, militancy in the Niger Delta is a response to the grave injustice in the sharing of oil and gas revenue between the federal government and the oil bearing states. President Yar’Adua must therefore dig deeper or else; he would end up in a shallow pit.
The foundation of the problems threatening the survival of Nigeria goes beyond militancy. Nobel Laureate, Professor Wole Soyinka was right when he picked holes in the presidential offer of amnesty to Niger Delta militants. From all indications, amnesty will only succeed in temporarily reducing the activities of militants owing to the manner the peace deal is being pursued. From the look of things, the presidential offer of amnesty is fair in spirit but arrogant in nature. Even the timing too is very faulty. It has therefore turned out to look as if the presidency is deliberately ignoring the main source of the problem of insecurity in the Niger Delta. This has caused many people- natives and non Niger Deltans to lose confidence in the amnesty deal.
To begin with, there is already a very deep and faulty assumption by many in government and the military that militancy is the main challenge being faced by Nigeria. It is for this reason that the federal government has appropriated huge amounts of human, material, and financial resources towards maintaining peace and security in the Niger Delta region in the last two years. It is most pertinent to note that no amount of guns and bombs can bring about genuine peace and security in the midst of grave injustice. There is clearly an overwhelming reality of injustice in the sharing of oil and gas wealth.
To many discerning minds, the offer of amnesty to repentant militants is a clever way of suppressing genuine demands of the Niger Delta people. To achieve this goal, the issue of criminal elements in the “struggle” have been placed on the podium of national discourse. On the other hand, the element of injustice against the Niger Delta people has been buried in a shallow grave in Aso Rock. Justice and fair play have been murdered! The truth is that; even if the federal government succeeds in using amnesty to suppress genuine agitations of the Niger Delta people, the Nigerian nation would still be hunted by the ghosts of justice and fair play.
The greatest threat to the survival of Nigeria was the civil war of 1967 to 1970, where about 500,000 people died either from hunger or military operations. It is necessary to point out that this unfortunate war was fuelled mainly by deep tribal sentiments. In the same vein, the wanton scaling down of derivation principle from 50% in 1960 to the current 13% was also induced by profound tribal sentiments. There is a strong belief among the Niger Delta people that derivation principle would have remained at 50% if God had blessed the nation’s super tribes with oil and gas. Therefore, after several political efforts failed, militancy was introduced to make the Nigerian nation allow the Niger Delta people too taste the same kind of benefits the super tribes enjoyed when groundnut, cocoa, and palm oil where the main stay of the nation’s economy.
The voluntary offer of amnesty and unconditional pardon to repentant militants by President Yar’Adua is arrogant in nature because the presidency has deliberately chosen to put the cart before the horse. Ordinarily, it would have been more appropriate if the offer of amnesty had come after the consideration and part implementation of the recommendations of the Ledum Mitee led Niger Delta Technical Committee (NDTC).
In trying to find solutions to the Niger Delta question, the federal government is bent on digging from the bottom of the problem. This is wrong. The massive weight of injustice may collapse on the labourers under. These labourers are mostly Niger Deltans; genuinely desirous of lifting the region out of the pit of insecurity and underdevelopment. It would therefore be proper that President Yar’Adua first remove the mud of injustice covering the sharing formula of revenue from oil and gas. As recommended by the NDTC, derivation principle should be raised to 50%. With this, there would no longer be any moral, political, or economic justification for militancy. With 50% derivation principle, oil installations would no longer become targets of Niger Delta militants. Rather, militancy would be domesticated. Niger Delta politicians would be forced to become accountable to the people. With transparent and accountable leadership culture, the Niger Delta region will experience accelerated development. This is the surest way through which the presidency can effectively solve the problems of militancy and insecurity in the Niger Delta region.
Let no one be deceived by the false opinion that the Niger Delta people are dissenting because of neglect by succeeding Nigerian federal governments. This is clearly a deviation from the truth. In fact, it is a very huge distraction. We must realise that Nigeria is a federation. As such, no federating unit(s) is supposed to wait for Abuja to dictate the pace and direction of its development. By the instrumentality of both the NDDC and Ministry of the Niger Delta, the pace and direction of development of the region would conveniently fall into the hands of the federal government. This is risky and not in the spirit of federalism. It is even perilous for any group of people to have their destinies in the hands of others. Despite the fact that the NDDC and Ministry of Niger Delta are manned by natives of the region, it is non-Niger Deltans that dictate the tone.
While moving a motion to amend Anthony Enahoro’s historic independence motion on the floor of the Federal House of Representative on the 31st of March, 1953; the leader of the Northern People Congress (NPC), Sir Ahmadu Bello submitted that: “Every community is the best judge of its own situation. In this regard, Mr. President, the people of the North are the best judges of their own situation and we cannot commit ourselves to fixing a date for the attainment of self government. We are fully aware of all the implications involved and we want to make it abundantly clear that the destiny of the North is in the hands of the people of the North and for the 1956 date, it should be amended to substitute as soon as practicable.” The real implication of Sir Ahmadu Bello’s submission as it relates to the Niger Delta question is that both the newly created Ministry of Niger Delta and NDDC cannot naturally address the developmental challenges of the region. This is simply because; Niger Delta people are the best judges of their own situation. 50% derivation is the only way the Niger Delta people can have their destinies in their own hands.
Professor Wole Soyinka, Chief Martins Elechi- governor of Ebonyi State and many other prominent scholars have argued that since Nigeria is a federation; every state in the country was supposed to develop at its own pace and direction. This is the beauty of fiscal federalism. As against the fears of many, fiscal federalism will encourage healthy competition among states. A healthy competition will promote diversification of the economy. There would also no longer be the traditional “waiting” for the monthly federation account allocation from Abuja. We must not forget the fact that there is no part of this country that is not naturally endowed. There are very many countries on the face of the earth that do not have oil and yet, doing better than Nigeria. Our leaders are only lazy and non creative. This has caused the federal government to appropriate too much money to it self. To justify her greed, the federal government has been compelled to get involved in areas that should have ordinarily been handled by state governments.
Frankly, the federal government do not have any business with agriculture, housing, urban development, transportation, provision of water, secondary health care, and post primary education. The federal Ministry of Works, Housing, and Urban Development is a rape on the states. State governments are better placed to develop our rural and urban areas. By the time the federal government reverts to the practice of fiscal federalism; state governments would receive more money from the monthly federation accounts allocation. This is because; all the monies usually appropriated for urban development and associated sectors would be shared among the states.
Let me at this point emphasise that tribalism is the foundation of Nigeria’s numerous problems. Because of tribal interests, our past military and political leaders could not locate proper solutions to combat the hydra-headed problems of corruption. It is now strictly unNigerian to indict or expose a fellow tribesman for corruption. Colonial Britain planted the seed of tribalism in Nigeria. She did this for her own selfish economic interests. Before the birth of the Nigerian nation following the amalgamation of the Northern and Southern Protectorates in 1914, the numerous tribes were not offered any opportunity to discuss their future. Such discussion would have enabled the tribes to set safeguards and standards on how they would co-exist. This arrangement would have also helped to protect the rights and privileges of both the major and minor tribes so as to avoid conflicts.
The whole world is aware that Isaac Boro decided to pull the Ijaws out of the Nigerian nation in 1966 owing to the domineering nature of Nigeria’s super tribes. Tribalism seeks to give undue advantage to tribal interests. At some point in time in the history of Nigeria, tribalism became so popular that derivation principle was reduced when crude oil took over the place of groundnut, cocoa, and palm oil. It took various efforts, including militancy for derivation to climb to 1.5%, 3%, and the present 13%. The raw message the super tribal zealots are now preaching to the Niger Delta people is: “Half bread is better than none.” This half bread is represented by the NDDC and the newly created Ministry of Niger Delta. The question following all of these is: “Why give half, when the full would suffice?” 50% derivation is the full loaf of bread the Niger Delta people are demanding. This is the reason for militancy in the region. Unfortunately, criminal elements were able to infiltrate a genuine struggle that was aimed primarily at righting the wrongs caused by the nation’s past leaders. It is also necessary to point out that high-level youth unemployment, poverty, and “do or die” politics were the holes through which the criminal elements entered the Niger Delta struggle.
It is my humble opinion therefore that for Nigeria to move forward, the presidency should not isolate and deal with the problems of militancy in the Niger Delta region alone. This selective action would not take Nigeria any further than where we are presently. It would rather push us into a ditch. I am calling on President Yar’Adua to dig deeper by ignoring tribal sentiments in finding genuine solutions to the Niger Delta question. He should quickly sponsor an executive bill that seeks to increase derivation principle to 50%. He should also intensify the war against graft. The EFCC and ICPC have gone to bed since he took over from Chief Obasanjo. It is only then that Nigeria would experience peace and progress.
Should the president fail to do so, it would appear to mean he does not appreciate the evils of tribalism and corruption. Without any fear of contradiction; tribalism and corruption have done Nigeria more damage than militancy. So why fight only militancy? If the amount of force used to fight Niger Delta militants are directed at super tribal zealots and corrupt Nigerians, this country would enjoy peace, unity, development and prosperity.
The foundation of the problems threatening the survival of Nigeria goes beyond militancy. Nobel Laureate, Professor Wole Soyinka was right when he picked holes in the presidential offer of amnesty to Niger Delta militants. From all indications, amnesty will only succeed in temporarily reducing the activities of militants owing to the manner the peace deal is being pursued. From the look of things, the presidential offer of amnesty is fair in spirit but arrogant in nature. Even the timing too is very faulty. It has therefore turned out to look as if the presidency is deliberately ignoring the main source of the problem of insecurity in the Niger Delta. This has caused many people- natives and non Niger Deltans to lose confidence in the amnesty deal.
To begin with, there is already a very deep and faulty assumption by many in government and the military that militancy is the main challenge being faced by Nigeria. It is for this reason that the federal government has appropriated huge amounts of human, material, and financial resources towards maintaining peace and security in the Niger Delta region in the last two years. It is most pertinent to note that no amount of guns and bombs can bring about genuine peace and security in the midst of grave injustice. There is clearly an overwhelming reality of injustice in the sharing of oil and gas wealth.
To many discerning minds, the offer of amnesty to repentant militants is a clever way of suppressing genuine demands of the Niger Delta people. To achieve this goal, the issue of criminal elements in the “struggle” have been placed on the podium of national discourse. On the other hand, the element of injustice against the Niger Delta people has been buried in a shallow grave in Aso Rock. Justice and fair play have been murdered! The truth is that; even if the federal government succeeds in using amnesty to suppress genuine agitations of the Niger Delta people, the Nigerian nation would still be hunted by the ghosts of justice and fair play.
The greatest threat to the survival of Nigeria was the civil war of 1967 to 1970, where about 500,000 people died either from hunger or military operations. It is necessary to point out that this unfortunate war was fuelled mainly by deep tribal sentiments. In the same vein, the wanton scaling down of derivation principle from 50% in 1960 to the current 13% was also induced by profound tribal sentiments. There is a strong belief among the Niger Delta people that derivation principle would have remained at 50% if God had blessed the nation’s super tribes with oil and gas. Therefore, after several political efforts failed, militancy was introduced to make the Nigerian nation allow the Niger Delta people too taste the same kind of benefits the super tribes enjoyed when groundnut, cocoa, and palm oil where the main stay of the nation’s economy.
The voluntary offer of amnesty and unconditional pardon to repentant militants by President Yar’Adua is arrogant in nature because the presidency has deliberately chosen to put the cart before the horse. Ordinarily, it would have been more appropriate if the offer of amnesty had come after the consideration and part implementation of the recommendations of the Ledum Mitee led Niger Delta Technical Committee (NDTC).
In trying to find solutions to the Niger Delta question, the federal government is bent on digging from the bottom of the problem. This is wrong. The massive weight of injustice may collapse on the labourers under. These labourers are mostly Niger Deltans; genuinely desirous of lifting the region out of the pit of insecurity and underdevelopment. It would therefore be proper that President Yar’Adua first remove the mud of injustice covering the sharing formula of revenue from oil and gas. As recommended by the NDTC, derivation principle should be raised to 50%. With this, there would no longer be any moral, political, or economic justification for militancy. With 50% derivation principle, oil installations would no longer become targets of Niger Delta militants. Rather, militancy would be domesticated. Niger Delta politicians would be forced to become accountable to the people. With transparent and accountable leadership culture, the Niger Delta region will experience accelerated development. This is the surest way through which the presidency can effectively solve the problems of militancy and insecurity in the Niger Delta region.
Let no one be deceived by the false opinion that the Niger Delta people are dissenting because of neglect by succeeding Nigerian federal governments. This is clearly a deviation from the truth. In fact, it is a very huge distraction. We must realise that Nigeria is a federation. As such, no federating unit(s) is supposed to wait for Abuja to dictate the pace and direction of its development. By the instrumentality of both the NDDC and Ministry of the Niger Delta, the pace and direction of development of the region would conveniently fall into the hands of the federal government. This is risky and not in the spirit of federalism. It is even perilous for any group of people to have their destinies in the hands of others. Despite the fact that the NDDC and Ministry of Niger Delta are manned by natives of the region, it is non-Niger Deltans that dictate the tone.
While moving a motion to amend Anthony Enahoro’s historic independence motion on the floor of the Federal House of Representative on the 31st of March, 1953; the leader of the Northern People Congress (NPC), Sir Ahmadu Bello submitted that: “Every community is the best judge of its own situation. In this regard, Mr. President, the people of the North are the best judges of their own situation and we cannot commit ourselves to fixing a date for the attainment of self government. We are fully aware of all the implications involved and we want to make it abundantly clear that the destiny of the North is in the hands of the people of the North and for the 1956 date, it should be amended to substitute as soon as practicable.” The real implication of Sir Ahmadu Bello’s submission as it relates to the Niger Delta question is that both the newly created Ministry of Niger Delta and NDDC cannot naturally address the developmental challenges of the region. This is simply because; Niger Delta people are the best judges of their own situation. 50% derivation is the only way the Niger Delta people can have their destinies in their own hands.
Professor Wole Soyinka, Chief Martins Elechi- governor of Ebonyi State and many other prominent scholars have argued that since Nigeria is a federation; every state in the country was supposed to develop at its own pace and direction. This is the beauty of fiscal federalism. As against the fears of many, fiscal federalism will encourage healthy competition among states. A healthy competition will promote diversification of the economy. There would also no longer be the traditional “waiting” for the monthly federation account allocation from Abuja. We must not forget the fact that there is no part of this country that is not naturally endowed. There are very many countries on the face of the earth that do not have oil and yet, doing better than Nigeria. Our leaders are only lazy and non creative. This has caused the federal government to appropriate too much money to it self. To justify her greed, the federal government has been compelled to get involved in areas that should have ordinarily been handled by state governments.
Frankly, the federal government do not have any business with agriculture, housing, urban development, transportation, provision of water, secondary health care, and post primary education. The federal Ministry of Works, Housing, and Urban Development is a rape on the states. State governments are better placed to develop our rural and urban areas. By the time the federal government reverts to the practice of fiscal federalism; state governments would receive more money from the monthly federation accounts allocation. This is because; all the monies usually appropriated for urban development and associated sectors would be shared among the states.
Let me at this point emphasise that tribalism is the foundation of Nigeria’s numerous problems. Because of tribal interests, our past military and political leaders could not locate proper solutions to combat the hydra-headed problems of corruption. It is now strictly unNigerian to indict or expose a fellow tribesman for corruption. Colonial Britain planted the seed of tribalism in Nigeria. She did this for her own selfish economic interests. Before the birth of the Nigerian nation following the amalgamation of the Northern and Southern Protectorates in 1914, the numerous tribes were not offered any opportunity to discuss their future. Such discussion would have enabled the tribes to set safeguards and standards on how they would co-exist. This arrangement would have also helped to protect the rights and privileges of both the major and minor tribes so as to avoid conflicts.
The whole world is aware that Isaac Boro decided to pull the Ijaws out of the Nigerian nation in 1966 owing to the domineering nature of Nigeria’s super tribes. Tribalism seeks to give undue advantage to tribal interests. At some point in time in the history of Nigeria, tribalism became so popular that derivation principle was reduced when crude oil took over the place of groundnut, cocoa, and palm oil. It took various efforts, including militancy for derivation to climb to 1.5%, 3%, and the present 13%. The raw message the super tribal zealots are now preaching to the Niger Delta people is: “Half bread is better than none.” This half bread is represented by the NDDC and the newly created Ministry of Niger Delta. The question following all of these is: “Why give half, when the full would suffice?” 50% derivation is the full loaf of bread the Niger Delta people are demanding. This is the reason for militancy in the region. Unfortunately, criminal elements were able to infiltrate a genuine struggle that was aimed primarily at righting the wrongs caused by the nation’s past leaders. It is also necessary to point out that high-level youth unemployment, poverty, and “do or die” politics were the holes through which the criminal elements entered the Niger Delta struggle.
It is my humble opinion therefore that for Nigeria to move forward, the presidency should not isolate and deal with the problems of militancy in the Niger Delta region alone. This selective action would not take Nigeria any further than where we are presently. It would rather push us into a ditch. I am calling on President Yar’Adua to dig deeper by ignoring tribal sentiments in finding genuine solutions to the Niger Delta question. He should quickly sponsor an executive bill that seeks to increase derivation principle to 50%. He should also intensify the war against graft. The EFCC and ICPC have gone to bed since he took over from Chief Obasanjo. It is only then that Nigeria would experience peace and progress.
Should the president fail to do so, it would appear to mean he does not appreciate the evils of tribalism and corruption. Without any fear of contradiction; tribalism and corruption have done Nigeria more damage than militancy. So why fight only militancy? If the amount of force used to fight Niger Delta militants are directed at super tribal zealots and corrupt Nigerians, this country would enjoy peace, unity, development and prosperity.
MISUNDERSTANDING THE MEANING OF LOYALTY IN A DEMOCRACY
This writer is among the community of Nigerians who have argued that President Yar’Adua is human and should therefore be seen and treated as such. It is for this reason that I have not seen anything wrong in the president falling sick. However, events in the last two months have cast huge doubt over our understanding of the real meaning of leadership in a democratic society. This unfortunate deficiency has led to actions and comments that have not only helped to heat up the polity, but also created deep disaffection in government circles in recent times.
Rather than put national interest first, most of those who have key roles to play in uniting and promoting democratic ideals in this country are known to have indulged in defending their nocturnal interests. It was through such negative culture that tribalism and corruption took root and destabilised the Nigerian nation immediately after gaining political independence from Britain in 1960. There is no gainsaying that the Nigerian Civil War of 1966 to 1970 was ignited by unreasonable political and tribal sentiments. Forty years after, Nigeria has not still recovered from the loss brought about by that avoidable conflict. This is the strongest reason why this writer was worried about how the Aondoakaas handled the issue of the president’s illness.
For the sake of this piece, an Aondoakaa is a government official that does not know where loyalty should be directed. The National Pledge is explicitly clear about this:
I pledge to Nigeria my country
To be faithful, loyal and honest
To serve Nigeria with all my strength
To defend her unity
And uphold her honour and glory
So help me God.
No mention was made of the president. What most of the nation’s Aondoakaas are doing with regards the ill-health of President Yar’Adua is nothing but sheer eye service. There is actually no need for such in a healthy democracy. In fact, eye service is mostly practiced during military dictatorships, where the rulers assume maximum powers. Dictators are usually so hungry for power that they are prepared to do anything possible to be on the driving seat. As a result, people do many unthinkable things in order not to be seen as being against the system. But unlike the unfortunate picture the Aondoakaas are painting all over the place, neither Musa Yar’Adua nor Goodluck Jonathan are power hungry. The Aondoakaas have only taken undue advantage of the opportunity of the president’s ill health to bend his gentle will to protect either their personal and tribal interests.
The decision by the Aondoakaas to drive the Nigerian vehicle with a flat tyre even when there is a dependable spare speaks volume. It has revealed two critical issues: Nigeria’s Vice Presidential institution has been utterly rubbished. This is undemocratic and capable of distorting the history of this nation. Furthermore, the devaluation of the exalted office of the vice president will deny Nigeria the benefits of “two good heads are better than one” theory. Secondly, the narrow gullies dividing the nation’s numerous tribes would be widened. Tribal concerns are now being considered first before national interests. It only points to the sad fact that Nigeria’s political and traditional leaders have rested the foundation of this country on very weak pillars.
One question begging for answer is: Will the Aondoakaas be glad to see Nigeria disintegrate in the very near future? The unity of a multi-tribal country like Nigeria cannot be sustained by mere rhetoric. It would require high dose common sense, justice, and fair play. Unfortunately, we are very far from it!
Whether the nation’s Aondoakaas like it not; the highly suspicious signing of the 2009 Supplementary Budget by the president in his sick bed in Saudi Arabia and the swearing-in of a Chief Justice of the Federation by a serving Chief Justice have unarguably jolted our fragile democracy. Rather than portraying leadership as an ideal platform to serve humanity, the Aondoakaas are making many to see political power as a potent weapon to advance nocturnal interests.
All the goodwill Nigeria lost by way of a poorly organised general election in 2007 would have been redeemed with a matured handling of the president’s illness. By this alone, the international community has once again confirmed that Nigeria is not ready yet for democracy. South Africa and Ghana are not waiting for us.
When Yar’Adua assumed the presidency in 2007, many Nigerians were very hopeful. He was bold enough to openly accept that the elections that ferried him to Aso Rock was far from being credible and promised electoral reforms. More than half way into his four year tenure, no one is sure if the issue of electoral reform is still important to him. According to recent newspaper reports, what is upper most in President Yar’Adua’s mind now is how to handle the issue of domestic and international terrorism.
It is no longer news that the much talked about 7 Point Agenda too has failed. This failure has nothing to do with health status of the president. President Yar’Adua is a victim of his own actions. He made the greatest mistake of his political career by surrounding himself with a squad of Aondoakaas. A president does not need to be 100% healthy to deliver the dividends of democracy. Franklin Roosevelt of the United States is a good example. Steady electricity, motorable roads, functional hospitals, well funded schools, and social security for the unemployed are products of good governance. President Hugo Chavez of Venezuela is not a superman. He is just an ordinary mortal like anyone else. While a litre of petrol sells for just N6 in Venezuela, those of us in oil producing communities in Bayelsa State buy same quantity for N150. Education is free at all levels in that South American country.
Yar’Adua’s ill-health and go slow culture is not the problem with Nigeria. It is the Aondoakaas that is our problem. This writer believes that the making of Goodluck Jonathan as acting president has further demonstrated that democracy has the capacity to promote the unity and development of this country. Nevertheless, justice and fair play are the pillars of democracy.
Rather than put national interest first, most of those who have key roles to play in uniting and promoting democratic ideals in this country are known to have indulged in defending their nocturnal interests. It was through such negative culture that tribalism and corruption took root and destabilised the Nigerian nation immediately after gaining political independence from Britain in 1960. There is no gainsaying that the Nigerian Civil War of 1966 to 1970 was ignited by unreasonable political and tribal sentiments. Forty years after, Nigeria has not still recovered from the loss brought about by that avoidable conflict. This is the strongest reason why this writer was worried about how the Aondoakaas handled the issue of the president’s illness.
For the sake of this piece, an Aondoakaa is a government official that does not know where loyalty should be directed. The National Pledge is explicitly clear about this:
I pledge to Nigeria my country
To be faithful, loyal and honest
To serve Nigeria with all my strength
To defend her unity
And uphold her honour and glory
So help me God.
No mention was made of the president. What most of the nation’s Aondoakaas are doing with regards the ill-health of President Yar’Adua is nothing but sheer eye service. There is actually no need for such in a healthy democracy. In fact, eye service is mostly practiced during military dictatorships, where the rulers assume maximum powers. Dictators are usually so hungry for power that they are prepared to do anything possible to be on the driving seat. As a result, people do many unthinkable things in order not to be seen as being against the system. But unlike the unfortunate picture the Aondoakaas are painting all over the place, neither Musa Yar’Adua nor Goodluck Jonathan are power hungry. The Aondoakaas have only taken undue advantage of the opportunity of the president’s ill health to bend his gentle will to protect either their personal and tribal interests.
The decision by the Aondoakaas to drive the Nigerian vehicle with a flat tyre even when there is a dependable spare speaks volume. It has revealed two critical issues: Nigeria’s Vice Presidential institution has been utterly rubbished. This is undemocratic and capable of distorting the history of this nation. Furthermore, the devaluation of the exalted office of the vice president will deny Nigeria the benefits of “two good heads are better than one” theory. Secondly, the narrow gullies dividing the nation’s numerous tribes would be widened. Tribal concerns are now being considered first before national interests. It only points to the sad fact that Nigeria’s political and traditional leaders have rested the foundation of this country on very weak pillars.
One question begging for answer is: Will the Aondoakaas be glad to see Nigeria disintegrate in the very near future? The unity of a multi-tribal country like Nigeria cannot be sustained by mere rhetoric. It would require high dose common sense, justice, and fair play. Unfortunately, we are very far from it!
Whether the nation’s Aondoakaas like it not; the highly suspicious signing of the 2009 Supplementary Budget by the president in his sick bed in Saudi Arabia and the swearing-in of a Chief Justice of the Federation by a serving Chief Justice have unarguably jolted our fragile democracy. Rather than portraying leadership as an ideal platform to serve humanity, the Aondoakaas are making many to see political power as a potent weapon to advance nocturnal interests.
All the goodwill Nigeria lost by way of a poorly organised general election in 2007 would have been redeemed with a matured handling of the president’s illness. By this alone, the international community has once again confirmed that Nigeria is not ready yet for democracy. South Africa and Ghana are not waiting for us.
When Yar’Adua assumed the presidency in 2007, many Nigerians were very hopeful. He was bold enough to openly accept that the elections that ferried him to Aso Rock was far from being credible and promised electoral reforms. More than half way into his four year tenure, no one is sure if the issue of electoral reform is still important to him. According to recent newspaper reports, what is upper most in President Yar’Adua’s mind now is how to handle the issue of domestic and international terrorism.
It is no longer news that the much talked about 7 Point Agenda too has failed. This failure has nothing to do with health status of the president. President Yar’Adua is a victim of his own actions. He made the greatest mistake of his political career by surrounding himself with a squad of Aondoakaas. A president does not need to be 100% healthy to deliver the dividends of democracy. Franklin Roosevelt of the United States is a good example. Steady electricity, motorable roads, functional hospitals, well funded schools, and social security for the unemployed are products of good governance. President Hugo Chavez of Venezuela is not a superman. He is just an ordinary mortal like anyone else. While a litre of petrol sells for just N6 in Venezuela, those of us in oil producing communities in Bayelsa State buy same quantity for N150. Education is free at all levels in that South American country.
Yar’Adua’s ill-health and go slow culture is not the problem with Nigeria. It is the Aondoakaas that is our problem. This writer believes that the making of Goodluck Jonathan as acting president has further demonstrated that democracy has the capacity to promote the unity and development of this country. Nevertheless, justice and fair play are the pillars of democracy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
