Wednesday, 30 December 2015
frankwash: NIGERIAN ARMY-SHIITE CLASH: A POTENTIAL FOR SUNNI-...
frankwash: NIGERIAN ARMY-SHIITE CLASH: A POTENTIAL FOR SUNNI-...: The recent bloody clash between the Nigerian Army and Shiite Movement in Nigeria that took place in Zaria, Northern Nigeria, on Saturday 12t...
Tuesday, 22 December 2015
frankwash: NIGERIAN ARMY-SHIITE CLASH: A POTENTIAL FOR SUNNI-...
frankwash: NIGERIAN ARMY-SHIITE CLASH: A POTENTIAL FOR SUNNI-...: The recent bloody clash between the Nigerian Army and Shiite Movement in Nigeria that took place in Zaria, Northern Nigeria, on Saturday 12t...
NIGERIAN ARMY-SHIITE CLASH: A POTENTIAL FOR SUNNI-SHIA SECTARIAN CONFLICT IN NIGERIA.
The recent bloody clash between the Nigerian Army and Shiite Movement in Nigeria that took place in Zaria, Northern Nigeria, on Saturday 12th December, 2015, is capable of triggering Sunni-Shiite sectarian conflict in Nigeria if not carefully and diplomatically handled by the Nigerian Government. The Shia Muslims in Nigeria are led by Sheikh El-Zakzaky. They operate under the umbrella of the Islamic Movement of Nigeria.
The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is the head of Sunni Islam worldwide while the Islamic Republic of Iran is the leader of Shiite/Shia Islam globally. The Sunni constitute about 85% of the world's 1.6 billion Muslims while the Shiite constitute about 15%. Saudi Arabia and Iran are regional enemies in the Middle Middle East and arch rivals for control of politics of the Gulf Region, and by extension, the Islamic world. The history of hostility and rivalry between Sunni and Shia Islamic followers predates the modern era and can be traced to the succession disputes that followed the death of Prophet Mohammed, the founder of the Islamic religion, in the 7th Century AD.
As a conservative ''Wahhabi'' Sunni Islamic Kingdom Saudi Arabia has close ties with the United States of America, the United Kingdom and other western countries. On the other hand, Iran is a Twelver Shia Islamic Republic founded in an anti-western revolution in what is known as the Iranian Revolution of 1979. Both Saudi Arabia and Iran are perceived to have aspirations for leadership of Islam and have conflicting visions of stability and regional order. They also differ on the interpretation of Islam and who should head the Islamic world. Iran sees Saudi Arabia as a puppet state or agent of the United States in the Persian Gulf representing US interests rather than Islam. On her part, Saudi Arabia is concerned and worried about Iran's consistent desire to export its revolution across the board, thereby expanding its influence within the Persian Gulf -notably in post Saddam Iraq, the Levant and within further South, in addition to Iran's controversial, much debated nuclear nuclear program.
The enmity and rivalry between Saudi Arabia and Iran is playing out in the relations between the two nations and has contributed and continue to contribute to the sectarian conflict plaguing the Middle East. For instance, the Shia-Sunni divide as epitomized by Iran and Saudi Arabia is one of the major factors fueling the wars raging in Syria and Yemen. Iran, a Shia state supports President Assad of Syria who is an Allawite Shia minority fighting majority other Sunni groups in the Syrian civil war and also supports the Houthis Shia fighting the Sunni government of Yemen. Furthermore, Saudi Arabia is leading a military coalition made up of majority Sunni countries to fight the Houthis Shia fighters waging war against the government of Yemen.
Following the clash between the Nigerian Army, which in this case represents the Nigerian state, Iran was reported to have registered her anger and disappointment over the incident by summoning Nigeria's Foreign Affairs Minister, Godfrey Onyema and also called President Muhammadu Buhari, and warned that Nigeria should protect Shia Muslims in the country. On the part of Saudi Arabia, she was also reported to have called and praised the Nigerian government for cracking down on Shia Muslims, describing them as ''terrorists''.
On the surface, one may not take the calling of Nigerian government by Iran and Saudi Arabia to mean anything. However, looked at from a very critical diplomatic angle, it is a sign of formal involvement of Saudi Arabia and Iran in the internal affairs of Nigeria and also an attempt to import their mutual hostility, suspicion and religious rivalry into Nigeria. While Saudi sees the killing of Shia Muslims in Nigeria as fight against terrorists, Iran sees it as an attack on Shia Islam and accused Nigerian government of ''committing genocide'' against minority Shia Muslims in Nigeria. Iran further warned Nigerian government to protect Shia Muslims in the country, treat the wounded and compensate families of those that died in the clash with the army. This marks the beginning of involvement of Iran and Saudi Arabia in the Islamic religious politics of Nigeria, with the former supporting the Shia and the latter supporting the Sunni. It is important to note that Nigeria has more Sunni Muslims than the Shia. Iran feels that Nigerian government is persecuting minority Shia Muslims, and has warned that she is ready and willing to protect them. It is trite to also note that Iran has been accused of sponsoring the Shia Movement, also known as the Islamic Movement of Nigeria.
Furthermore, this open show of interests by Iran and Saudi Arabia in the internal affairs of Nigeria as a result of the Army-Shia clash, is coming at time when the government of Nigeria, headed byMuhammadu Buhari, himself a Sunni Muslim just joined a 34-state military alliance headed by Saudi Arabia and made up of Sunni Muslim states. The Saudis argue that the major aim of the alliance is to fight ''global Islamic terrorism''. Some might argue that Nigeria's joining of this alliance is a strategic move to defeat Boko Haram terrorism at home; but looked at from another angle or point of view, she has pitched tent with Sunni countries by joining the Saudi-led alliance and this tantamounts to a declaration of war against Shia Muslims and also capable of importing into Nigeria Sunni-Shia conflict rocking Syria, Yemen, Iraq and some other countries in the Islamic world.
Nigeria is a secular state with various religions. The country's constitution does not recognize any state religion, be it Christianity or Islam. Citizens of Nigeria are at liberty to practice any religion of their choice provided it is done in accordance with the law of the land and does not constitute security threat to the Nigerian state and and its citizens.
There is need for the Nigerian government to apply tact and shrewd diplomacy in handling the backlash of the Army-Shiite clash and the interferences from Iran and Saudi Arabia who are involved in sectarian conflict between Shia and Sunni Islam that has tore some countries in the Middle East and the Gulf region apart. Nigeria is a sovereign state and should not allow Saudi Arabia and Iran who are involved in a war for the 'SOUL' of Islam turn her into a battle ground for sectarian violence. We have been battling with the Boko Haram insurgency for close to seven years. This insurgency has led to the death of over 20,000 Nigerians and cost her over 6 trillion Naira and continues to gulp the country's resources even at a time she is groaning financially as a result of the dwindling fortune of oil, her economic mainstay, in the global oil market. Nigeria is therefore warned not to play into the hands of Saudi Arabia and Iran who are only interested in projecting their selfish religious and political interests beyond their shores and cause crisis in unsuspecting countries. Nigeria CANNOT afford a sectarian war between Sunni and Shia Muslims in her territory. Such states as Yemen, Syria, Iraq and others engulfed in Sunni-Shia sectarian conflicts have been reduced to rubble and the crises rocking them continue to rage with no end in sight. No nation or state survives a religious war.
The views expressed here are exclusively mine. I take responsibility for any errors: grammatical, typographical or otherwise that may be found in this article.
The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is the head of Sunni Islam worldwide while the Islamic Republic of Iran is the leader of Shiite/Shia Islam globally. The Sunni constitute about 85% of the world's 1.6 billion Muslims while the Shiite constitute about 15%. Saudi Arabia and Iran are regional enemies in the Middle Middle East and arch rivals for control of politics of the Gulf Region, and by extension, the Islamic world. The history of hostility and rivalry between Sunni and Shia Islamic followers predates the modern era and can be traced to the succession disputes that followed the death of Prophet Mohammed, the founder of the Islamic religion, in the 7th Century AD.
As a conservative ''Wahhabi'' Sunni Islamic Kingdom Saudi Arabia has close ties with the United States of America, the United Kingdom and other western countries. On the other hand, Iran is a Twelver Shia Islamic Republic founded in an anti-western revolution in what is known as the Iranian Revolution of 1979. Both Saudi Arabia and Iran are perceived to have aspirations for leadership of Islam and have conflicting visions of stability and regional order. They also differ on the interpretation of Islam and who should head the Islamic world. Iran sees Saudi Arabia as a puppet state or agent of the United States in the Persian Gulf representing US interests rather than Islam. On her part, Saudi Arabia is concerned and worried about Iran's consistent desire to export its revolution across the board, thereby expanding its influence within the Persian Gulf -notably in post Saddam Iraq, the Levant and within further South, in addition to Iran's controversial, much debated nuclear nuclear program.
The enmity and rivalry between Saudi Arabia and Iran is playing out in the relations between the two nations and has contributed and continue to contribute to the sectarian conflict plaguing the Middle East. For instance, the Shia-Sunni divide as epitomized by Iran and Saudi Arabia is one of the major factors fueling the wars raging in Syria and Yemen. Iran, a Shia state supports President Assad of Syria who is an Allawite Shia minority fighting majority other Sunni groups in the Syrian civil war and also supports the Houthis Shia fighting the Sunni government of Yemen. Furthermore, Saudi Arabia is leading a military coalition made up of majority Sunni countries to fight the Houthis Shia fighters waging war against the government of Yemen.
Following the clash between the Nigerian Army, which in this case represents the Nigerian state, Iran was reported to have registered her anger and disappointment over the incident by summoning Nigeria's Foreign Affairs Minister, Godfrey Onyema and also called President Muhammadu Buhari, and warned that Nigeria should protect Shia Muslims in the country. On the part of Saudi Arabia, she was also reported to have called and praised the Nigerian government for cracking down on Shia Muslims, describing them as ''terrorists''.
On the surface, one may not take the calling of Nigerian government by Iran and Saudi Arabia to mean anything. However, looked at from a very critical diplomatic angle, it is a sign of formal involvement of Saudi Arabia and Iran in the internal affairs of Nigeria and also an attempt to import their mutual hostility, suspicion and religious rivalry into Nigeria. While Saudi sees the killing of Shia Muslims in Nigeria as fight against terrorists, Iran sees it as an attack on Shia Islam and accused Nigerian government of ''committing genocide'' against minority Shia Muslims in Nigeria. Iran further warned Nigerian government to protect Shia Muslims in the country, treat the wounded and compensate families of those that died in the clash with the army. This marks the beginning of involvement of Iran and Saudi Arabia in the Islamic religious politics of Nigeria, with the former supporting the Shia and the latter supporting the Sunni. It is important to note that Nigeria has more Sunni Muslims than the Shia. Iran feels that Nigerian government is persecuting minority Shia Muslims, and has warned that she is ready and willing to protect them. It is trite to also note that Iran has been accused of sponsoring the Shia Movement, also known as the Islamic Movement of Nigeria.
Furthermore, this open show of interests by Iran and Saudi Arabia in the internal affairs of Nigeria as a result of the Army-Shia clash, is coming at time when the government of Nigeria, headed byMuhammadu Buhari, himself a Sunni Muslim just joined a 34-state military alliance headed by Saudi Arabia and made up of Sunni Muslim states. The Saudis argue that the major aim of the alliance is to fight ''global Islamic terrorism''. Some might argue that Nigeria's joining of this alliance is a strategic move to defeat Boko Haram terrorism at home; but looked at from another angle or point of view, she has pitched tent with Sunni countries by joining the Saudi-led alliance and this tantamounts to a declaration of war against Shia Muslims and also capable of importing into Nigeria Sunni-Shia conflict rocking Syria, Yemen, Iraq and some other countries in the Islamic world.
Nigeria is a secular state with various religions. The country's constitution does not recognize any state religion, be it Christianity or Islam. Citizens of Nigeria are at liberty to practice any religion of their choice provided it is done in accordance with the law of the land and does not constitute security threat to the Nigerian state and and its citizens.
There is need for the Nigerian government to apply tact and shrewd diplomacy in handling the backlash of the Army-Shiite clash and the interferences from Iran and Saudi Arabia who are involved in sectarian conflict between Shia and Sunni Islam that has tore some countries in the Middle East and the Gulf region apart. Nigeria is a sovereign state and should not allow Saudi Arabia and Iran who are involved in a war for the 'SOUL' of Islam turn her into a battle ground for sectarian violence. We have been battling with the Boko Haram insurgency for close to seven years. This insurgency has led to the death of over 20,000 Nigerians and cost her over 6 trillion Naira and continues to gulp the country's resources even at a time she is groaning financially as a result of the dwindling fortune of oil, her economic mainstay, in the global oil market. Nigeria is therefore warned not to play into the hands of Saudi Arabia and Iran who are only interested in projecting their selfish religious and political interests beyond their shores and cause crisis in unsuspecting countries. Nigeria CANNOT afford a sectarian war between Sunni and Shia Muslims in her territory. Such states as Yemen, Syria, Iraq and others engulfed in Sunni-Shia sectarian conflicts have been reduced to rubble and the crises rocking them continue to rage with no end in sight. No nation or state survives a religious war.
The views expressed here are exclusively mine. I take responsibility for any errors: grammatical, typographical or otherwise that may be found in this article.
Friday, 18 December 2015
frankwash: NGERIA: FAILURE OF AN OIL-BASED ECONOMY AND CONFUS...
frankwash: NGERIA: FAILURE OF AN OIL-BASED ECONOMY AND CONFUS...: The choice of topic of this article is not to raise unnecessary alarm about the current economic uncertainty in Nigeria or to make a mocke...
Wednesday, 9 December 2015
frankwash: MY TAKE ON THE MOVE BY NIGERIAN SENATE TO CENSOR U...
frankwash: MY TAKE ON THE MOVE BY NIGERIAN SENATE TO CENSOR U...: MY TAKE ON THE MOVE BY NIGERIAN SENATE TO CENSOR USE OF SOCIAL MEDIA BY NIGERIANS. Senator Bala Ibn Na'Allah, a senator representi...
Tuesday, 8 December 2015
MY TAKE ON THE MOVE BY NIGERIAN SENATE TO CENSOR USE OF SOCIAL MEDIA BY NIGERIANS.
MY TAKE ON THE MOVE BY NIGERIAN SENATE TO CENSOR USE OF SOCIAL MEDIA BY NIGERIANS.
Senator Bala Ibn Na'Allah, a senator representing Kebbi state in the Nigerian Senate, recently presented a bill in the Nigerian Senate to censor use of social media by Nigerians. This bill, if passed into law, would scrutinize activities of Nigerians on the social media: Facebook, Twitter, etc. The bill also proposes 2-year jail term or a fine of N2, 000, 000 for any Nigerian who posts anything considered offensive or unsavory against the government and political leaders of Nigeria.This move by Senator Na'Allah, is seen by many Nigerians as an attempt by the Senate to suppress free speech by majority of Nigerians, who do not have access to the conventional media, to air their views on their country's affairs.
For me, the proposed social censor bill before the Nigerian Senate, is not an important national matter. It is not a thing of priority and should not be given any attention by the Nigerian Senate.
Nigeria is in a democracy now and freedom of speech is one of the major pillars of democratic government, the world over. Our democracy would face grave dangers if freedom of speech by ordinary Nigerians, is trampled upon by the Senate. The Senate is therefore, advised to desist from further debating on the social media censor bill before it and concentrate its attention and energy on pressing national issues and challenges facing Nigeria, with a view to proffering solutions to them.
While I have no doubt that the social media bill before the Nigerian Senate will not see the light of the day, I also recommend areas of priority in Nigeria's national life that demand and deserve urgent attention and solutions from the Nigerian Senate:
1.The Nigerian Senate should make urgent and well thought out legislation on how to revive and diversify the Nigerian economy with a view to saving it from collapse in the face of dwindling fortune of crude oil, which is the country's mainstay.
2.The Nigerian Senate should work together with the executive arm of government to fix Nigeria's moribund refineries and also build new ones for Nigeria to attain energy independence and for Nigerians to have easy and abundant access to affordable refined petroleum products. The Senate should save Nigeria from the financial hemorrhage of dubious petroleum subsidies.
3.Senator Na'Allah should send a bill to the Senate that would encourage compulsory and if possible, free primary and secondary education for Nigerian female children, especially in the Northern part of Nigeria, who are forced into early marriage by the culture and tradition there.
4. Senator Na'Allah should send a bill to the executive, that would encourage job creation in all sectors of the economy for teaming unemployed millions of Nigerian youth.
5.The Nigerian Senate should synergise with the executive arm of government and fix the power sector in Nigeria.
6.If Nigerian Senate claims that it is copying China that does not allow free speech by its citizens; I humbly advise that it desist from that, bearing in mind that China is not a democracy while Nigeria is. However, things are working in China irrespective of the fact that she is not a democracy. This is because corruption is not entertained in China and the penalty for indulging in it is death sentence. I hereby advise Senator Na'Allah to forward a bill to the Senate that would recommend and uphold death sentence for corrupt Nigerian government officials who loot state resources and keep ordinary citizens of the country in perpetual hardship and penury.
7. The Nigerian Senate should cooperate with the other arms of government in Nigeria to adopt the true federalism that would empower every state in Nigeria with the legal and administrative capacity to harness and apply economic resources in its domain for development. This is the only way out of the economic challenges and underdevelopment facing Nigeria. I wish to warn that REAL, DANGEROUS and DESTRUCTIVE economic TSUNAMI, with grave consequences, will befall Nigeria, SOONEST, if she failed to adopt true federalism. The possibility for the price of crude oil to fall more than what the world is experiencing now is very high, with OPEC members feuding amongst themselves, over crude production quota. Now is the time for Nigeria to act. Failure to act, we would get to a stage where the Arab Spring kind of revolution would engulf Nigeria, as a result of economic hardship and suffering inflicted by the government, on the ordinary citizens of Nigeria.
8.The Nigerian Senate MUST pass a bill into law that would address and correct the numerous political, economic and social imbalances at the root of all the crises and woes bedeviling Nigeria. All forms of ethnic and religious killings in parts of the country MUST stop, and all those behind such killings MUST be brought to justice. Nigeria is a country built on injustice. This is the reason there is no peace in the country and peace would continue to remain a mirage to Nigeria except justice prevails in all areas of the country's life.
I wish to end this write-up by quoting my mentor, the legendary Nelson Mandela: ''For to be free is not merely to cast off one's chains, but to live in a way that respects and enhances the freedom of others. As the world marks the United Nations Human Rights Day on 10th December, 2015, I call on the Nigerian Senate to respect and uphold the inalienable rights of freedom of speech by the ordinary citizens of Nigeria. Let them devote their time to using their offices as 'LEGISLATORS' to put in place legislations, measures and political strategies that would ensure the welfare and security of citizens of Nigerians. This is the SUMMUM BONU that every responsible and responsive government owes citizens of state, anywhere in the world.
Senator Bala Ibn Na'Allah, a senator representing Kebbi state in the Nigerian Senate, recently presented a bill in the Nigerian Senate to censor use of social media by Nigerians. This bill, if passed into law, would scrutinize activities of Nigerians on the social media: Facebook, Twitter, etc. The bill also proposes 2-year jail term or a fine of N2, 000, 000 for any Nigerian who posts anything considered offensive or unsavory against the government and political leaders of Nigeria.This move by Senator Na'Allah, is seen by many Nigerians as an attempt by the Senate to suppress free speech by majority of Nigerians, who do not have access to the conventional media, to air their views on their country's affairs.
For me, the proposed social censor bill before the Nigerian Senate, is not an important national matter. It is not a thing of priority and should not be given any attention by the Nigerian Senate.
Nigeria is in a democracy now and freedom of speech is one of the major pillars of democratic government, the world over. Our democracy would face grave dangers if freedom of speech by ordinary Nigerians, is trampled upon by the Senate. The Senate is therefore, advised to desist from further debating on the social media censor bill before it and concentrate its attention and energy on pressing national issues and challenges facing Nigeria, with a view to proffering solutions to them.
While I have no doubt that the social media bill before the Nigerian Senate will not see the light of the day, I also recommend areas of priority in Nigeria's national life that demand and deserve urgent attention and solutions from the Nigerian Senate:
1.The Nigerian Senate should make urgent and well thought out legislation on how to revive and diversify the Nigerian economy with a view to saving it from collapse in the face of dwindling fortune of crude oil, which is the country's mainstay.
2.The Nigerian Senate should work together with the executive arm of government to fix Nigeria's moribund refineries and also build new ones for Nigeria to attain energy independence and for Nigerians to have easy and abundant access to affordable refined petroleum products. The Senate should save Nigeria from the financial hemorrhage of dubious petroleum subsidies.
3.Senator Na'Allah should send a bill to the Senate that would encourage compulsory and if possible, free primary and secondary education for Nigerian female children, especially in the Northern part of Nigeria, who are forced into early marriage by the culture and tradition there.
4. Senator Na'Allah should send a bill to the executive, that would encourage job creation in all sectors of the economy for teaming unemployed millions of Nigerian youth.
5.The Nigerian Senate should synergise with the executive arm of government and fix the power sector in Nigeria.
6.If Nigerian Senate claims that it is copying China that does not allow free speech by its citizens; I humbly advise that it desist from that, bearing in mind that China is not a democracy while Nigeria is. However, things are working in China irrespective of the fact that she is not a democracy. This is because corruption is not entertained in China and the penalty for indulging in it is death sentence. I hereby advise Senator Na'Allah to forward a bill to the Senate that would recommend and uphold death sentence for corrupt Nigerian government officials who loot state resources and keep ordinary citizens of the country in perpetual hardship and penury.
7. The Nigerian Senate should cooperate with the other arms of government in Nigeria to adopt the true federalism that would empower every state in Nigeria with the legal and administrative capacity to harness and apply economic resources in its domain for development. This is the only way out of the economic challenges and underdevelopment facing Nigeria. I wish to warn that REAL, DANGEROUS and DESTRUCTIVE economic TSUNAMI, with grave consequences, will befall Nigeria, SOONEST, if she failed to adopt true federalism. The possibility for the price of crude oil to fall more than what the world is experiencing now is very high, with OPEC members feuding amongst themselves, over crude production quota. Now is the time for Nigeria to act. Failure to act, we would get to a stage where the Arab Spring kind of revolution would engulf Nigeria, as a result of economic hardship and suffering inflicted by the government, on the ordinary citizens of Nigeria.
8.The Nigerian Senate MUST pass a bill into law that would address and correct the numerous political, economic and social imbalances at the root of all the crises and woes bedeviling Nigeria. All forms of ethnic and religious killings in parts of the country MUST stop, and all those behind such killings MUST be brought to justice. Nigeria is a country built on injustice. This is the reason there is no peace in the country and peace would continue to remain a mirage to Nigeria except justice prevails in all areas of the country's life.
I wish to end this write-up by quoting my mentor, the legendary Nelson Mandela: ''For to be free is not merely to cast off one's chains, but to live in a way that respects and enhances the freedom of others. As the world marks the United Nations Human Rights Day on 10th December, 2015, I call on the Nigerian Senate to respect and uphold the inalienable rights of freedom of speech by the ordinary citizens of Nigeria. Let them devote their time to using their offices as 'LEGISLATORS' to put in place legislations, measures and political strategies that would ensure the welfare and security of citizens of Nigerians. This is the SUMMUM BONU that every responsible and responsive government owes citizens of state, anywhere in the world.
Thursday, 26 November 2015
Welcome to Afrivid©: Photo:150 Nigeria Soldiers Slaughtered by Boko Har...
Welcome to Afrivid©: Photo:150 Nigeria Soldiers Slaughtered by Boko Har...: The missing 150 Nigerian soldiers might have been slaughtered by Boko Haram. It is alleged that Boko Haram used some chemical weapon to car...
Tuesday, 24 November 2015
frankwash: NGERIA: FAILURE OF AN OIL-BASED ECONOMY AND CONFUS...
frankwash: NGERIA: FAILURE OF AN OIL-BASED ECONOMY AND CONFUS...: The choice of topic of this article is not to raise unnecessary alarm about the current economic uncertainty in Nigeria or to make a mocke...
Thursday, 12 November 2015
DR GOODLUCK EBELE JONATHAN: SCAPEGOAT OF PDP 16-YEAR MISRULE OR VICTIM OF NORTH'S RESOLVE TO TAKE POWER? PART 1.
DR GOODLUCK EBELE JONATHAN: SCAPEGOAT OF PDP 16-YEAR MISRULE OR VICTIM OF NORTH'S REVOLVE TO TAKE POWER BACK? PART 1.
President Goodluck Ebele Azikiwe Jonathan is the first sitting president in Nigeria to be voted out from office since the country's independence in 1960. Mixed reactions trailed the outcome of Nigeria's 2015 presidential election as expected. For some, it was unthinkable for a sitting or incumbent president to lose an election to the opposition. For, others, the loss of the election by Dr Jonathan was not a surprise. To persons in this school of thought, the failure or inability ofJonathan's government to fix the plethora of social, economic and political woes and challenges bedeviling Nigeria is more than enough reason to be voted out of office.
Government has many functions and responsibilities. These functions and responsibilities can be reduced to two: protection of lives and property of citizens of state and ensuring of their welfare. Everything a government does comes under these two functions and responsibilities. Any government that fails to live up to expectations as far as these two things are concerned does not deserves to remain in office. This is the thrust of Social Contract, between persons in government and citizens of the state.
Many local and foreign political analysts and commentators have advanced various reasons behind the defeat of Dr Jonathan by General Muhammadu Buhari (rtd) in the Nigeria 2015 presidential election. As to be expected, many of these analysts and commentators are of the view that the inability of Dr Jonathan to provide solutions to the myriad of problems plaguing Nigeria was the chief reason for his political fall. To some of them, the determination of the North to take back power, having lost it , following President Yar'Adua's death in May 2010 is the cardinal factor behind his defeat at the polls. There is no argument that the two reasons provided above contributed in no small measure to the political demise of President Jonathan. In the remaining part of this article, I take a critical look at these two factors that have been advanced by political experts as reasons for Jonathan's defeat and conclude with my own view as to why he lost the election.
It has been noted earlier in this piece, that the essence of government in a state is to ensure the security and welfare of citizens of the state. The Theory of Social Contract as propounded by Thomas Hobbs, a British political philosopher, has it that persons in government, are in a social contract with citizens of the state. According to Hobbs, government officials hold power in trust on behalf of citizens of the state. This implies that the consent to govern a state comes from the citizens and state officials should use power to harness and deploy state resources for the welfare and benefit of every citizen. Hobbs further opines that any government that fails to take care of the security and welfare of its citizens does not deserve to remain in power and should be dismantled or uprooted from power by citizens of the state.
To start my analysis, the problems and challenges bedeviling Nigeria are almost as old as the country herself. At the return of democracy in 1999, Nigerians were full of hope and expectations that all the countries woes under the military would soon be a thing of the past and that the country would be a better place for every Nigerian. General Olusegun Obasanjo (rtd), who was the first democratically elected president of Nigeria, spent eight whooping years in power (1999-2007). H e was the first president to govern Nigeria under the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP). Opinions differ regarding the achievements of Obasanjo as president of Nigeria for eight years. However, at the end of his tenure in 2007, the major challenges facing Nigeria: unemployment, insecurity (especially in the Niger Delta then), corruption, weak economy, energy and power sector challenge and so on, were still there.
General Obasanjo was succeeded by late President Yar'Adua, another leader produced by the PDP. Yar' Adua's government was short-lived as the wicked hand of death took him from mother earth. Before his death however, late President Yar'Adua had the Seven Points Agenda as the cardinal state policy and road map for the development of Nigeria. During his short stay of about three years in power, Yar'Adua succeeded in instituting an electoral reform committee to reform and overhaul Nigeria's electoral system in order to bring about the conduct of free, fair and credible elections in Nigeria. He also reduced the pump price of petrol from N70 to N65 and created the Niger Delta Ministry and initiated an amnesty program for former fighters in the Niger Delta region, with a view to bringing an end to the crisis in the Niger Delta and as well as bring development to the region, while also ensuring that there is lasting peace in the region for conducive atmosphere for oil production upon which Nigeria's economy depends, to take place uninterrupted and undisturbed.
Dr Goodluck Jonathan formally became the president and commander-in-chief of the armed forces of the Federal Republic of Nigeria on May 6th, 2010, following the formal announcement of the the death of his boss, Alhaji Musa Yar'Adua.
The circumstances behind the emergence of Jonathan as the president of Nigeria and the consideration that he was from an humble background made the expectations of Nigerians from him to be very high. As it were, he came to power at a time Nigeria was facing numerous challenges in every facet of the country's national life and many Nigerians had expected him to proffer solutions to most, if not all the daunting challenges facing the country.
Amongst the monstrous challenges plaguing Nigeria then (and even now) were/are insecurity (especially the menace of Boko Haram), unemployment, poor state of economy, corruption on the part of state officials, challenges in power and energy sectors and so on. It is no longer news that president Jonathan has not been able, in the last five years to fix all these aforementioned challenges facing Nigeria.
Dr Jonathan's actions and in-actions regarding various national issues contributed to the failure of his administration. Chief amongst these were his inability to defeat Boko Haram, the kidnap of Chibok school girls, the Nigeria Immigration saga that led to the death of about twenty Nigerian job seekers and so on. To be fair to Jonathan, he put in efforts at fixing some of these challenges, but, his inability to fix them did not go down well with Nigerians and made many to vote against him in the last presidential election. I shall turn to the second factor, the resolve of Northerners to take power back.
It is not arguable that the North was instrumental to the emergence of General Olusegun Obasanjo as the president of Nigeria in 1999. As stated above, Obasanjo spent eight years in power. Under the zoning formula of the Peoples Democratic Party, a Northerner was supposed to spend eight years as president of Nigeria to balance the dynamics of ethnic and regional politics in Nigeria. It has also been noted above that President Yar'Adua, the Northerner who succeeded Obasanjo in 2007, died in 2010 in office. As required by the constitution of the federal republic of Nigeria, Yar'Adua was succeed by his then vice president, Dr Jonathan, a Southerner. The emergence of Jonathan as the president of Nigeria, as a consequence of Yar'Adua's death did not go augur well with the North. I do not intend to undertake a chronicle of the political drama that played out in the Nigerian power arena during Yar'Adua illness and even after his death as that is known to even a casual observer of Nigerian politics. However, it is well known that the North felt short-challenged by the non adherence to PDP zoning arrangement, following the death of their kinsman and the the rise of Jonathan to the office of the number citizen of Nigeria. This was the beginning of Jonathan's political problem which largely culminated in his defeat in the last presidential election in Nigeria.
To buttress the point above, some northern leaders did everything possible to undermine Jonathan's person as president and commander-in-chief of the armed forces of the federal republic of Nigeria. This can be found in the hostile and unfriendly attitude and posture of some of them towards him. Most notable act of aggression from the North was the threat by some northern leaders to make Nigeria ungovernable for Jonathan. It is believed also that the memo released by the impeached governor of Adamawa, Murtala Nyako, was a handiwork of the entire North and that it was an indication of the non acceptance of Jonathan's government and show of hostility by the North to him.
To add salt to injury, Dr Jonathan, whom the core North sees as a USURPER, enjoying a mandate supposedly meant for the North, indicated his interest to contest in the 2015 presidential election with a view to be re-elected as president by Nigerians. This decision by Jonathan, was to the North, the last straw that broke the camel's back.
The presidential election had come and gone. The election saw the defeat of Jonathan and the emergence of Buhari as the president elect of Nigeria. The question now is: Was Jonathan a scapegoat of PDP's 16-year misrule or victim of North's resolve to take power back?
Watch out for an answer to this question in part 2 of this article.
N.B:
I wrote this article on 22, May 2015 and published it on my Google Plus account.
President Goodluck Ebele Azikiwe Jonathan is the first sitting president in Nigeria to be voted out from office since the country's independence in 1960. Mixed reactions trailed the outcome of Nigeria's 2015 presidential election as expected. For some, it was unthinkable for a sitting or incumbent president to lose an election to the opposition. For, others, the loss of the election by Dr Jonathan was not a surprise. To persons in this school of thought, the failure or inability ofJonathan's government to fix the plethora of social, economic and political woes and challenges bedeviling Nigeria is more than enough reason to be voted out of office.
Government has many functions and responsibilities. These functions and responsibilities can be reduced to two: protection of lives and property of citizens of state and ensuring of their welfare. Everything a government does comes under these two functions and responsibilities. Any government that fails to live up to expectations as far as these two things are concerned does not deserves to remain in office. This is the thrust of Social Contract, between persons in government and citizens of the state.
Many local and foreign political analysts and commentators have advanced various reasons behind the defeat of Dr Jonathan by General Muhammadu Buhari (rtd) in the Nigeria 2015 presidential election. As to be expected, many of these analysts and commentators are of the view that the inability of Dr Jonathan to provide solutions to the myriad of problems plaguing Nigeria was the chief reason for his political fall. To some of them, the determination of the North to take back power, having lost it , following President Yar'Adua's death in May 2010 is the cardinal factor behind his defeat at the polls. There is no argument that the two reasons provided above contributed in no small measure to the political demise of President Jonathan. In the remaining part of this article, I take a critical look at these two factors that have been advanced by political experts as reasons for Jonathan's defeat and conclude with my own view as to why he lost the election.
It has been noted earlier in this piece, that the essence of government in a state is to ensure the security and welfare of citizens of the state. The Theory of Social Contract as propounded by Thomas Hobbs, a British political philosopher, has it that persons in government, are in a social contract with citizens of the state. According to Hobbs, government officials hold power in trust on behalf of citizens of the state. This implies that the consent to govern a state comes from the citizens and state officials should use power to harness and deploy state resources for the welfare and benefit of every citizen. Hobbs further opines that any government that fails to take care of the security and welfare of its citizens does not deserve to remain in power and should be dismantled or uprooted from power by citizens of the state.
To start my analysis, the problems and challenges bedeviling Nigeria are almost as old as the country herself. At the return of democracy in 1999, Nigerians were full of hope and expectations that all the countries woes under the military would soon be a thing of the past and that the country would be a better place for every Nigerian. General Olusegun Obasanjo (rtd), who was the first democratically elected president of Nigeria, spent eight whooping years in power (1999-2007). H e was the first president to govern Nigeria under the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP). Opinions differ regarding the achievements of Obasanjo as president of Nigeria for eight years. However, at the end of his tenure in 2007, the major challenges facing Nigeria: unemployment, insecurity (especially in the Niger Delta then), corruption, weak economy, energy and power sector challenge and so on, were still there.
General Obasanjo was succeeded by late President Yar'Adua, another leader produced by the PDP. Yar' Adua's government was short-lived as the wicked hand of death took him from mother earth. Before his death however, late President Yar'Adua had the Seven Points Agenda as the cardinal state policy and road map for the development of Nigeria. During his short stay of about three years in power, Yar'Adua succeeded in instituting an electoral reform committee to reform and overhaul Nigeria's electoral system in order to bring about the conduct of free, fair and credible elections in Nigeria. He also reduced the pump price of petrol from N70 to N65 and created the Niger Delta Ministry and initiated an amnesty program for former fighters in the Niger Delta region, with a view to bringing an end to the crisis in the Niger Delta and as well as bring development to the region, while also ensuring that there is lasting peace in the region for conducive atmosphere for oil production upon which Nigeria's economy depends, to take place uninterrupted and undisturbed.
Dr Goodluck Jonathan formally became the president and commander-in-chief of the armed forces of the Federal Republic of Nigeria on May 6th, 2010, following the formal announcement of the the death of his boss, Alhaji Musa Yar'Adua.
The circumstances behind the emergence of Jonathan as the president of Nigeria and the consideration that he was from an humble background made the expectations of Nigerians from him to be very high. As it were, he came to power at a time Nigeria was facing numerous challenges in every facet of the country's national life and many Nigerians had expected him to proffer solutions to most, if not all the daunting challenges facing the country.
Amongst the monstrous challenges plaguing Nigeria then (and even now) were/are insecurity (especially the menace of Boko Haram), unemployment, poor state of economy, corruption on the part of state officials, challenges in power and energy sectors and so on. It is no longer news that president Jonathan has not been able, in the last five years to fix all these aforementioned challenges facing Nigeria.
Dr Jonathan's actions and in-actions regarding various national issues contributed to the failure of his administration. Chief amongst these were his inability to defeat Boko Haram, the kidnap of Chibok school girls, the Nigeria Immigration saga that led to the death of about twenty Nigerian job seekers and so on. To be fair to Jonathan, he put in efforts at fixing some of these challenges, but, his inability to fix them did not go down well with Nigerians and made many to vote against him in the last presidential election. I shall turn to the second factor, the resolve of Northerners to take power back.
It is not arguable that the North was instrumental to the emergence of General Olusegun Obasanjo as the president of Nigeria in 1999. As stated above, Obasanjo spent eight years in power. Under the zoning formula of the Peoples Democratic Party, a Northerner was supposed to spend eight years as president of Nigeria to balance the dynamics of ethnic and regional politics in Nigeria. It has also been noted above that President Yar'Adua, the Northerner who succeeded Obasanjo in 2007, died in 2010 in office. As required by the constitution of the federal republic of Nigeria, Yar'Adua was succeed by his then vice president, Dr Jonathan, a Southerner. The emergence of Jonathan as the president of Nigeria, as a consequence of Yar'Adua's death did not go augur well with the North. I do not intend to undertake a chronicle of the political drama that played out in the Nigerian power arena during Yar'Adua illness and even after his death as that is known to even a casual observer of Nigerian politics. However, it is well known that the North felt short-challenged by the non adherence to PDP zoning arrangement, following the death of their kinsman and the the rise of Jonathan to the office of the number citizen of Nigeria. This was the beginning of Jonathan's political problem which largely culminated in his defeat in the last presidential election in Nigeria.
To buttress the point above, some northern leaders did everything possible to undermine Jonathan's person as president and commander-in-chief of the armed forces of the federal republic of Nigeria. This can be found in the hostile and unfriendly attitude and posture of some of them towards him. Most notable act of aggression from the North was the threat by some northern leaders to make Nigeria ungovernable for Jonathan. It is believed also that the memo released by the impeached governor of Adamawa, Murtala Nyako, was a handiwork of the entire North and that it was an indication of the non acceptance of Jonathan's government and show of hostility by the North to him.
To add salt to injury, Dr Jonathan, whom the core North sees as a USURPER, enjoying a mandate supposedly meant for the North, indicated his interest to contest in the 2015 presidential election with a view to be re-elected as president by Nigerians. This decision by Jonathan, was to the North, the last straw that broke the camel's back.
The presidential election had come and gone. The election saw the defeat of Jonathan and the emergence of Buhari as the president elect of Nigeria. The question now is: Was Jonathan a scapegoat of PDP's 16-year misrule or victim of North's resolve to take power back?
Watch out for an answer to this question in part 2 of this article.
N.B:
I wrote this article on 22, May 2015 and published it on my Google Plus account.
DR GOODLUCK EBELE JONATHAN: SCAPEGOAT OF PDP 16-YEAR MISRULE OR VICTIM OF NORTH'S RESOLVE TO TAKE POWER BACK? PART 2.
DR GOODLUCK EBELE JONATHAN: SCAPEGOAT OF PDP 16 -YEAR MISRULE OR VICTIM OF NORTH'S RESOLVE TO TAKE POWER BACK? PART 2.
In attempting to answer the question as to whether Dr Goodluck Ebele Jonathan is a scapegoat of PDP 16-year misrule or victim of the resolve of the people of Northern Nigeria to take power back, it is imperative and appropriate to take a cursory look at the meaning of scapegoat. After this, I shall examine the last sixteen years of PDP rule in Nigeria, with emphasis on their inability to provide solutions to the myriads of challenges confronting Nigeria, as well as the loss of power by the North in 2010 as a result of the death of their son and kinsman, late Musa Yar'Adua, and how that uttered the balance of power in Nigerian politics in favour of the South-South region of Nigeria, at the expense of the North.
Here are some of the definitions of scapegoat. Google defines scapegoat as ''A person or group that is made to bear the blame for others''. Marriam Webster Dictionary defines scapegoat as ''A person who is unfairly blamed for something that others have done''.
As noted in part 1 of this article, the Peoples Democratic People (PDP), was the ruling party in Nigeria from 1999 to 2015. In 1999 when the PDP took over power in Nigeria, there were numerous social, economic and political challenges bedeviling Nigeria as a state. The essence of a government in a state is to harness and deploy state resources to bring about overall national growth and development, for the good and benefit of citizens of the state. Against this backdrop, at the return of democratic rule in 1999, there were huge expectations on the part of Nigerians from their government to solve most, if not all the challenges plaguing the country from independence through the military era, to the end of military rule in 1999.
The first beneficiary of power in Nigeria, at the return of democracy in Nigeria, was Chief Olusegun Obasanjo. He was in power under the umbrella of the PDP, for two consecutive tenures of four years each from 1999-2007, that was for a period of eight years. Many local and international analysts and commentators on Nigeria still differ on Obasanjo's achievements in eight years. However, amongst other things, it was under him that the telicom sector was privatized and this saw the coming of private telicom companies like MTN, ECONET (now AIRTELL), GLO, and so on, into the Nigerian telecommunication market. Telecom services are now available to almost 70% of Nigerians and the rigours and difficulties associated with access to telecom services during the days of Nigerian Telecommunication Limited (NITEL), a monopoly telecom company that was owned by the Nigerian government are no longer there. Chief Obasanjo was also said to have left about $45 billion in Nigeria's foreign reserves as at the time he was leaving power in 2007. However, at the end of his tenure in 2007, the challenges of unemployment, corruption in government, insecurity (especially in the Niger Delta), energy and refineries, power sector failure (even after claiming to have spent over $16 billion on power generation) and impunity were still very much high in Nigeria.
Late President Yar' Adua, who succeeded Chief Obasanjo in May 2007, had a short-lived government of less than three years. He became incapacitated in November 2009 and died in May 2010. He was however, able to reduce the price of petrol from 70 Naira to 65 Naira, set up amnesty programme for former fighters in the Niger Delta area of Nigeria; create the Ministry of Niger Delta to bring about economic and social development of the the oil producing region of Nigeria, amongst other things.
Dr Jonathan succeeded late Musa Yar'Adua in May 2010 following the former's death. The challenges of insecurity, corruption, power/energy sectors failure, weak and mono-product economy, and so on were very much alive at the time of Jonathan's ascension to power in 2010. He completed late Yar'Adua's first tenure and contested in 2011, emerging victorious. It would not amount to an exaggeration to say that there were high expectations from Nigerians for Jonathan to fix Nigeria in view of the numerous woes confronting the country and the circumstances surrounding his ascendancy to power. The Jonathan administration will come to and end on May 29, 2015. That Nigeria now faces more troubles in every area of her national life than she did in 2010 is a pointer to the fact that Jonathan's government has not been able to fix the country in the last five years. As it were the challenges of insecurity (Boko Haram), corruption, power/energy crises, impunity in our national life, unemployment and so on, still display their ugly heads in Nigeria now, more than ever before. I now turn to the northern factor.
Some political experts have said that Dr Jonathan lost the 2015 Nigerian presidential election to General Buhari (rtd) because of the resolve of the core Muslim North of Nigeria to take power back having lost it in 2010 as a consequence of the death of their son and kinsman, Musa Yar'Adua. This created room for Dr Jonathan, a Southerner, to become the president of Nigeria. The rise of Jonathan to the office of the number one citizen of the federal republic of Nigeria did not go down well with the core Muslim North of Nigeria. The North had argued that another Northern be made to continue as president of Nigeria in fulfillment of the purported PDP's zoning agreement, which provided for power rotation between the Northern and the Southern parts of Nigeria. Unfortunately for the North, the Nigerian constitution, the supreme law of the country, stipulates that the vice president of Nigeria should be swore in as substantive president of the country in the event of the death of the president and commander-in-chief of armed forces of the country. The constitution held sway and saw the emergence of Dr Jonathan
as president and commander-in-chief of the armed forces of the federal republic of Nigeria. This did not go down well with Northerners, who felt short-changed and also saw Jonathan as an usurper and an illegitimate president enjoying a mandate 'SUPPOSEDLY' meant for the North. This the beginning of Jonathan's political problem as president of Nigeria.
In conclusion, the failure of the Peoples Democratic Party leadership to fix Nigeria in sixteen years and give better and quality life to Nigerians contributed immensely to their defeat in the last general election in Nigeria. From the definitions of scapegoat above, it would not be completely right and accurate to submit that Dr Jonathan is a scapegoat of PDP's misrule. This is because scapegoat suggests innocence and non involvement on the part of the person that is been blamed for what other have done. In the case of Nigeria, Jonathan was a president under the umbrella of PDP like Obasanjo and late Yar'Adua. Altogether, the PDP spent sixteen years in power without been able to fix the woes facing Nigeria. It would be more sensible to talk about the collective failure of PDP as a party than to talk about Jonathan as a scapegoat of PDP's misrule. The reality is that Nigerians were fed up and frustrated with the PDP and resorted to an alternative, the All Progressives Congress (APC). Now, on whether Dr Jonathan is a victim of North's resolve to take over power at the centre, the reality as has been noted earlier, is that the North was not happy about Yar'Adua death because it made them lose power and ultimately saw the emergence of Jonathan as president of Nigeria. The North that had spent about forty years in power, since Nigeria's independence, fifty five years ago, only had access to it for a paltry three years (Yar'Adua's short-lived tenure) in the last sixteen years. It is imperative to note that the northern part of Nigeria has never joked with power since Nigeria's independence in1960, in view of the economic challenges faced by the region as a consequence of natural factors. This is because power grants them unlimited and unfettered access to Nigeria's oil and other resources and northern politicians control about 85% of oil blocks ownership in the Nigeria. More so, Northerners believe that only 'ONE OF THEIR OWN' can and will protect their political and economic interests in Nigeria. This explains their hostile disposition towards Jonathan's government since 2010. It is my candid opinion that the 2015 presidential election was a 'now or never' moment for the North. Therefore, I am constrained to conclude that the determination of northern political elite to take back power was a more decisive factor that led to the defeat of Dr Jonathan. Put succinctly, while I agree that inability of Jonathan to fix the catalog of woes in the Nigerian social, economic and political sectors led to his defeat, I am of the strong opinion that North's resolve to take power back at all cost was the key factor behind his political fall.
Frank, Chukwuka Osimi is a Historian, HMO Officer/PRO, Blogger, Analyst and Commentator on national and international affairs. The views expressed in this article are exclusively mine. I take responsibility for any form of errors that may be found in the article.
In attempting to answer the question as to whether Dr Goodluck Ebele Jonathan is a scapegoat of PDP 16-year misrule or victim of the resolve of the people of Northern Nigeria to take power back, it is imperative and appropriate to take a cursory look at the meaning of scapegoat. After this, I shall examine the last sixteen years of PDP rule in Nigeria, with emphasis on their inability to provide solutions to the myriads of challenges confronting Nigeria, as well as the loss of power by the North in 2010 as a result of the death of their son and kinsman, late Musa Yar'Adua, and how that uttered the balance of power in Nigerian politics in favour of the South-South region of Nigeria, at the expense of the North.
Here are some of the definitions of scapegoat. Google defines scapegoat as ''A person or group that is made to bear the blame for others''. Marriam Webster Dictionary defines scapegoat as ''A person who is unfairly blamed for something that others have done''.
As noted in part 1 of this article, the Peoples Democratic People (PDP), was the ruling party in Nigeria from 1999 to 2015. In 1999 when the PDP took over power in Nigeria, there were numerous social, economic and political challenges bedeviling Nigeria as a state. The essence of a government in a state is to harness and deploy state resources to bring about overall national growth and development, for the good and benefit of citizens of the state. Against this backdrop, at the return of democratic rule in 1999, there were huge expectations on the part of Nigerians from their government to solve most, if not all the challenges plaguing the country from independence through the military era, to the end of military rule in 1999.
The first beneficiary of power in Nigeria, at the return of democracy in Nigeria, was Chief Olusegun Obasanjo. He was in power under the umbrella of the PDP, for two consecutive tenures of four years each from 1999-2007, that was for a period of eight years. Many local and international analysts and commentators on Nigeria still differ on Obasanjo's achievements in eight years. However, amongst other things, it was under him that the telicom sector was privatized and this saw the coming of private telicom companies like MTN, ECONET (now AIRTELL), GLO, and so on, into the Nigerian telecommunication market. Telecom services are now available to almost 70% of Nigerians and the rigours and difficulties associated with access to telecom services during the days of Nigerian Telecommunication Limited (NITEL), a monopoly telecom company that was owned by the Nigerian government are no longer there. Chief Obasanjo was also said to have left about $45 billion in Nigeria's foreign reserves as at the time he was leaving power in 2007. However, at the end of his tenure in 2007, the challenges of unemployment, corruption in government, insecurity (especially in the Niger Delta), energy and refineries, power sector failure (even after claiming to have spent over $16 billion on power generation) and impunity were still very much high in Nigeria.
Late President Yar' Adua, who succeeded Chief Obasanjo in May 2007, had a short-lived government of less than three years. He became incapacitated in November 2009 and died in May 2010. He was however, able to reduce the price of petrol from 70 Naira to 65 Naira, set up amnesty programme for former fighters in the Niger Delta area of Nigeria; create the Ministry of Niger Delta to bring about economic and social development of the the oil producing region of Nigeria, amongst other things.
Dr Jonathan succeeded late Musa Yar'Adua in May 2010 following the former's death. The challenges of insecurity, corruption, power/energy sectors failure, weak and mono-product economy, and so on were very much alive at the time of Jonathan's ascension to power in 2010. He completed late Yar'Adua's first tenure and contested in 2011, emerging victorious. It would not amount to an exaggeration to say that there were high expectations from Nigerians for Jonathan to fix Nigeria in view of the numerous woes confronting the country and the circumstances surrounding his ascendancy to power. The Jonathan administration will come to and end on May 29, 2015. That Nigeria now faces more troubles in every area of her national life than she did in 2010 is a pointer to the fact that Jonathan's government has not been able to fix the country in the last five years. As it were the challenges of insecurity (Boko Haram), corruption, power/energy crises, impunity in our national life, unemployment and so on, still display their ugly heads in Nigeria now, more than ever before. I now turn to the northern factor.
Some political experts have said that Dr Jonathan lost the 2015 Nigerian presidential election to General Buhari (rtd) because of the resolve of the core Muslim North of Nigeria to take power back having lost it in 2010 as a consequence of the death of their son and kinsman, Musa Yar'Adua. This created room for Dr Jonathan, a Southerner, to become the president of Nigeria. The rise of Jonathan to the office of the number one citizen of the federal republic of Nigeria did not go down well with the core Muslim North of Nigeria. The North had argued that another Northern be made to continue as president of Nigeria in fulfillment of the purported PDP's zoning agreement, which provided for power rotation between the Northern and the Southern parts of Nigeria. Unfortunately for the North, the Nigerian constitution, the supreme law of the country, stipulates that the vice president of Nigeria should be swore in as substantive president of the country in the event of the death of the president and commander-in-chief of armed forces of the country. The constitution held sway and saw the emergence of Dr Jonathan
as president and commander-in-chief of the armed forces of the federal republic of Nigeria. This did not go down well with Northerners, who felt short-changed and also saw Jonathan as an usurper and an illegitimate president enjoying a mandate 'SUPPOSEDLY' meant for the North. This the beginning of Jonathan's political problem as president of Nigeria.
In conclusion, the failure of the Peoples Democratic Party leadership to fix Nigeria in sixteen years and give better and quality life to Nigerians contributed immensely to their defeat in the last general election in Nigeria. From the definitions of scapegoat above, it would not be completely right and accurate to submit that Dr Jonathan is a scapegoat of PDP's misrule. This is because scapegoat suggests innocence and non involvement on the part of the person that is been blamed for what other have done. In the case of Nigeria, Jonathan was a president under the umbrella of PDP like Obasanjo and late Yar'Adua. Altogether, the PDP spent sixteen years in power without been able to fix the woes facing Nigeria. It would be more sensible to talk about the collective failure of PDP as a party than to talk about Jonathan as a scapegoat of PDP's misrule. The reality is that Nigerians were fed up and frustrated with the PDP and resorted to an alternative, the All Progressives Congress (APC). Now, on whether Dr Jonathan is a victim of North's resolve to take over power at the centre, the reality as has been noted earlier, is that the North was not happy about Yar'Adua death because it made them lose power and ultimately saw the emergence of Jonathan as president of Nigeria. The North that had spent about forty years in power, since Nigeria's independence, fifty five years ago, only had access to it for a paltry three years (Yar'Adua's short-lived tenure) in the last sixteen years. It is imperative to note that the northern part of Nigeria has never joked with power since Nigeria's independence in1960, in view of the economic challenges faced by the region as a consequence of natural factors. This is because power grants them unlimited and unfettered access to Nigeria's oil and other resources and northern politicians control about 85% of oil blocks ownership in the Nigeria. More so, Northerners believe that only 'ONE OF THEIR OWN' can and will protect their political and economic interests in Nigeria. This explains their hostile disposition towards Jonathan's government since 2010. It is my candid opinion that the 2015 presidential election was a 'now or never' moment for the North. Therefore, I am constrained to conclude that the determination of northern political elite to take back power was a more decisive factor that led to the defeat of Dr Jonathan. Put succinctly, while I agree that inability of Jonathan to fix the catalog of woes in the Nigerian social, economic and political sectors led to his defeat, I am of the strong opinion that North's resolve to take power back at all cost was the key factor behind his political fall.
Frank, Chukwuka Osimi is a Historian, HMO Officer/PRO, Blogger, Analyst and Commentator on national and international affairs. The views expressed in this article are exclusively mine. I take responsibility for any form of errors that may be found in the article.
Wednesday, 4 November 2015
frankwash: NGERIA: FAILURE OF AN OIL-BASED ECONOMY AND CONFUS...
frankwash: NGERIA: FAILURE OF AN OIL-BASED ECONOMY AND CONFUS...: The choice of topic of this article is not to raise unnecessary alarm about the current economic uncertainty in Nigeria or to make a mocke...
NGERIA: FAILURE OF AN OIL-BASED ECONOMY AND CONFUSION IN THE LAND.
The choice of topic of this article is not to raise unnecessary alarm about the current economic uncertainty in Nigeria or to make a mockery of the appalling situation . The article has two aims or objectives. First, it seeks to draw attention to the economic quagmire Nigeria finds herself as a result of the dwindling fortune of crude oil, which is her major foreign exchange earner. Second, the article also attempts to proffer solutions to the economic misfrtune the country finds herself as a direct consequence of the fall in prices of crude oil in the global market.
In May 2015, I wrote an article, titled: 'Nigeria: The Practice of Feeding Bottle Federalism and Financial Misfortune of Component Parts'. I had argued in that article that a country that relies heavily on the export of single commodity for her foreign exchange earning to service her economy and attend to other affairs of state was doomed to face serious financial misfortune once the commodity suffers a dwindling fortune as a result of vagaries surrounding its sales. I went further and submitted that Nigeria's financial mess would not have been that appalling had she diversified her economy with the money earned from sales of crude oil sales for decades. I also opined that inability of many state governments to generate revenue internally which made them overdependent on the central government; coupled with corruption on the part of those in power made the financial situation of the country worse than it would have been. It was also my candid submission in that article that the inability of the federal, state and local governments in Nigeria to pay salaries of their employees and also attend to other affairs of government financially, would continue so long as the country continued to rely on crude oil as the only key foreign exchange earner, with corruption still in the system. I concluded the article by positing that every state and local government in Nigeria must begin to get involved in revenue generation and depend less on monthly financial allocations from the federal government.
Five months after President Mohammed Buhari came into power as the President and Commander-in- Chief of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, the economic misfortune that befell Nigeria, over a year ago, as a direct consequence of the drastic fall in the price of crude oil has remained unabated and aggravated instead. A pertinent question to ask is: Does Nigeria not know that this mono-product or oil-based economy is not working?
For about five decades, Nigeria had earned hundreds of billions of US Dollars from export of crude oil to other countries, especially during periods of oil booms. Unfortunately however, successive governments in Nigeria did not use the humongous amount of money realized from sales of crude oil to fix and diversify the economy, fix infrastructure, build new industries, fix power and many other critical areas relevant to the survival and prosperity of the country and her citizens. What happened instead, was that persons in government, at the federal, state and local levels, looted the billions of dollars the country made from sales of crude oil for their personal aggrandizement and luxuries, with billions of dollars of stolen Nigerian money kept abroad in unknown foreign accounts serving the economic interests of the host institutions and countries.
The fall in the price of crude oil in the international market over a year ago, led to serious economic shock waves in the Nigerian economy and the country lacks that necessary economic infrastructures and shock absorbers to receive and withstand the shock waves. What we are witnessing therefore, in Nigeria, regarding current economic misfortune of the country is an accumulated or long time negative effect of the refusal of successive Nigerian governments to use the money earned in the past to fix the country's economy with a view to reviving and revamping its various facets such as industrialization/manufacturing, agriculture, tourism, mining, power and so on. This is compounded by the presence of an endemic, contagious and seemingly incurable corruption that has eaten deep into every fabric of Nigeria's national life.
The chickens have gone to roost. The mono-product or oil-based economy has failed Nigeria because the country's political leaders in the past five decades were carried away by the billions of dollars earned from the commodity, refused to develop the economy, looted for their generations unborn and had thought (perhaps erroneously), that the oil economy would remain buoyant forever. Now, the entire country, especially the poor masses are suffering years of accumulated consequences of the wickedness and lack of focus and direction of persons who arrogated to themselves 'leaders of Nigeria'.
There is a saying that a blind man does not need to be told that a building where he, is burning. The die is cast as far as Nigerian economy is concerned and all the negative indexes of a sick and failing economy are evident everywhere in the country. To add credence to the fact that the Nigerian economy is sick, the president of Nigeria, Muhammadu Buhari, recently raised an alarm that the country is broke and that his government would not be able to sustain 37 ministers/ministries and pay workers. To buttress President Buhari's alarm about the poor state of the economy of Nigeria, a former military head of state of Nigeria, General Yakubu Gowon (retired), had also said, a few days back that the country is siting on a keg of gun powder, waiting to explode, as a result of the danger of youth unemployment caused by corruption on the part of Nigerian government officials. Gowon had won that something urgent must be done to curb corruption in government and provide jobs for teaming unemployed millions of Nigerian youth before it was too late.
The economic misfortune being experienced in Nigeria is as a result of the dwindling fortune of oil, her major export earner, and failure of successive governments to diversify the economy, save for rainy days and plan for the future. We now face manifestations of current economic and financial misfortune in Nigeria in forms of massive job losses or retrenchment, rise in robberies and other violent crimes, kidnappings, salary and pay cuts, closing down or folding up of companies, resurgence of fuel scarcity in some states of the federation, sale of petroleum products above government pump prices and so on. The overall negative consequence of all these is poor quality life and hardship for ordinary Nigerians. Without an iota of exaggeration, there is economic confusion, uncertainty and anxiety in Nigeria. Many employers of labour, including federal, state, local governments and even private organisations, either decline to pay salaries of their workers or pay them late. Things are really difficult for many Nigerians now as many cannot even afford their normal bills and other financial responsibilities. However, it must be admitted that most of the challenges facing Nigeria today, were there before Buhari became president. What matters, is his ability and capacity to stop them from aggravating and ultimately fix them .
As I conclude, I wish to state that Nigerians are aware of the poor state of their economy. This was caused by decades of over dependence on an oil-based economy and inherent corruption in government. Elections and campaigns are over and it is time for work; not talk. President Buhari was voted into power by over 15 million Nigerians based on his promise to fix the economy and other challenges facing Nigeria. What is paramount now is the need to put in place, immediate, holistic and long lasting economic measures and strategies to rescue the economy. That President Buhari has admitted to the sad economic reality when he declared a few days back that Nigeria is broke and cannot pay salaries of workers and attend to other affairs of state, is not enough. He MUST roll up his sleeves for the job for which he was elected to do. He and his newly constituted economic team of ministers MUST swing into action and begin to fix the country and its economy.There is need to present a holistic and workable economic strategy and blue print for fixing the economy. His government- must, without further hesitation, swing into action and tackle Nigeria's challenges head on. Now is the time for the government to begin to shift attention from oil and embark on urgent diversification of the economy and develop other aspects of it with a view to generating more jobs and creating other sources of revenue generation from agriculture, tourism, industrialization, service delivery, education and so on. It is also imperative to block all the leakages in government, thereby stopping officials of government from stealing public funds meant for development. There is urgent need to fix the power and energy sectors and create conducive economic environment for businesses to thrive in the country. The President has to adopt a positive and encouraging attitude in his official statements and reactions to issues of state. The adoption of true federalism would also go a long way in bringing an end to the economic woes of the states and local governments in Nigeria, as it would empower them with the constitutional capacity to harness, tap and utilize resources in their domains for development. Above all, all Nigerians must join hands with the government in fixing their country for their collective benefit.
In May 2015, I wrote an article, titled: 'Nigeria: The Practice of Feeding Bottle Federalism and Financial Misfortune of Component Parts'. I had argued in that article that a country that relies heavily on the export of single commodity for her foreign exchange earning to service her economy and attend to other affairs of state was doomed to face serious financial misfortune once the commodity suffers a dwindling fortune as a result of vagaries surrounding its sales. I went further and submitted that Nigeria's financial mess would not have been that appalling had she diversified her economy with the money earned from sales of crude oil sales for decades. I also opined that inability of many state governments to generate revenue internally which made them overdependent on the central government; coupled with corruption on the part of those in power made the financial situation of the country worse than it would have been. It was also my candid submission in that article that the inability of the federal, state and local governments in Nigeria to pay salaries of their employees and also attend to other affairs of government financially, would continue so long as the country continued to rely on crude oil as the only key foreign exchange earner, with corruption still in the system. I concluded the article by positing that every state and local government in Nigeria must begin to get involved in revenue generation and depend less on monthly financial allocations from the federal government.
Five months after President Mohammed Buhari came into power as the President and Commander-in- Chief of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, the economic misfortune that befell Nigeria, over a year ago, as a direct consequence of the drastic fall in the price of crude oil has remained unabated and aggravated instead. A pertinent question to ask is: Does Nigeria not know that this mono-product or oil-based economy is not working?
For about five decades, Nigeria had earned hundreds of billions of US Dollars from export of crude oil to other countries, especially during periods of oil booms. Unfortunately however, successive governments in Nigeria did not use the humongous amount of money realized from sales of crude oil to fix and diversify the economy, fix infrastructure, build new industries, fix power and many other critical areas relevant to the survival and prosperity of the country and her citizens. What happened instead, was that persons in government, at the federal, state and local levels, looted the billions of dollars the country made from sales of crude oil for their personal aggrandizement and luxuries, with billions of dollars of stolen Nigerian money kept abroad in unknown foreign accounts serving the economic interests of the host institutions and countries.
The fall in the price of crude oil in the international market over a year ago, led to serious economic shock waves in the Nigerian economy and the country lacks that necessary economic infrastructures and shock absorbers to receive and withstand the shock waves. What we are witnessing therefore, in Nigeria, regarding current economic misfortune of the country is an accumulated or long time negative effect of the refusal of successive Nigerian governments to use the money earned in the past to fix the country's economy with a view to reviving and revamping its various facets such as industrialization/manufacturing, agriculture, tourism, mining, power and so on. This is compounded by the presence of an endemic, contagious and seemingly incurable corruption that has eaten deep into every fabric of Nigeria's national life.
The chickens have gone to roost. The mono-product or oil-based economy has failed Nigeria because the country's political leaders in the past five decades were carried away by the billions of dollars earned from the commodity, refused to develop the economy, looted for their generations unborn and had thought (perhaps erroneously), that the oil economy would remain buoyant forever. Now, the entire country, especially the poor masses are suffering years of accumulated consequences of the wickedness and lack of focus and direction of persons who arrogated to themselves 'leaders of Nigeria'.
There is a saying that a blind man does not need to be told that a building where he, is burning. The die is cast as far as Nigerian economy is concerned and all the negative indexes of a sick and failing economy are evident everywhere in the country. To add credence to the fact that the Nigerian economy is sick, the president of Nigeria, Muhammadu Buhari, recently raised an alarm that the country is broke and that his government would not be able to sustain 37 ministers/ministries and pay workers. To buttress President Buhari's alarm about the poor state of the economy of Nigeria, a former military head of state of Nigeria, General Yakubu Gowon (retired), had also said, a few days back that the country is siting on a keg of gun powder, waiting to explode, as a result of the danger of youth unemployment caused by corruption on the part of Nigerian government officials. Gowon had won that something urgent must be done to curb corruption in government and provide jobs for teaming unemployed millions of Nigerian youth before it was too late.
The economic misfortune being experienced in Nigeria is as a result of the dwindling fortune of oil, her major export earner, and failure of successive governments to diversify the economy, save for rainy days and plan for the future. We now face manifestations of current economic and financial misfortune in Nigeria in forms of massive job losses or retrenchment, rise in robberies and other violent crimes, kidnappings, salary and pay cuts, closing down or folding up of companies, resurgence of fuel scarcity in some states of the federation, sale of petroleum products above government pump prices and so on. The overall negative consequence of all these is poor quality life and hardship for ordinary Nigerians. Without an iota of exaggeration, there is economic confusion, uncertainty and anxiety in Nigeria. Many employers of labour, including federal, state, local governments and even private organisations, either decline to pay salaries of their workers or pay them late. Things are really difficult for many Nigerians now as many cannot even afford their normal bills and other financial responsibilities. However, it must be admitted that most of the challenges facing Nigeria today, were there before Buhari became president. What matters, is his ability and capacity to stop them from aggravating and ultimately fix them .
As I conclude, I wish to state that Nigerians are aware of the poor state of their economy. This was caused by decades of over dependence on an oil-based economy and inherent corruption in government. Elections and campaigns are over and it is time for work; not talk. President Buhari was voted into power by over 15 million Nigerians based on his promise to fix the economy and other challenges facing Nigeria. What is paramount now is the need to put in place, immediate, holistic and long lasting economic measures and strategies to rescue the economy. That President Buhari has admitted to the sad economic reality when he declared a few days back that Nigeria is broke and cannot pay salaries of workers and attend to other affairs of state, is not enough. He MUST roll up his sleeves for the job for which he was elected to do. He and his newly constituted economic team of ministers MUST swing into action and begin to fix the country and its economy.There is need to present a holistic and workable economic strategy and blue print for fixing the economy. His government- must, without further hesitation, swing into action and tackle Nigeria's challenges head on. Now is the time for the government to begin to shift attention from oil and embark on urgent diversification of the economy and develop other aspects of it with a view to generating more jobs and creating other sources of revenue generation from agriculture, tourism, industrialization, service delivery, education and so on. It is also imperative to block all the leakages in government, thereby stopping officials of government from stealing public funds meant for development. There is urgent need to fix the power and energy sectors and create conducive economic environment for businesses to thrive in the country. The President has to adopt a positive and encouraging attitude in his official statements and reactions to issues of state. The adoption of true federalism would also go a long way in bringing an end to the economic woes of the states and local governments in Nigeria, as it would empower them with the constitutional capacity to harness, tap and utilize resources in their domains for development. Above all, all Nigerians must join hands with the government in fixing their country for their collective benefit.
Friday, 30 October 2015
frankwash: NIGERIANS AND ANTI-CORRUPTION POLEMICS
frankwash: NIGERIANS AND ANTI-CORRUPTION POLEMICS: NIGERIANS AND ANTI-CORRUPTION POLEMICS For the purpose of this article, it would be appropriate to offer a working definition of polemic...
NIGERIANS AND ANTI-CORRUPTION POLEMICS
NIGERIANS AND ANTI-CORRUPTION POLEMICS
For the purpose of this article, it would be appropriate to offer a working definition of polemics and corruption respectively. This would no doubt, throw some light on the subject matters and help present a clearer picture and understanding of the topic.
According to Wikipedia, a polemic is a contentious argument that is intended to support a specific position via attacks on a contrary position. Polemics are usually seen in arguments about controversial topics.
On the definition of corruption, Wikipedia puts it this way: ''In philosophical, theological, or moral discussions, corruption is the abuse of bestowed power or position to acquire personal benefit. Corruption includes many activities, including bribery and embezzlement''.
There is no doubt, that corruption among political office holders in Nigeria, is the major bane of Nigeria since independence. It is responsible for the plethora of economic, social and political problems and woes plaguing Nigeria. This has caused and still causes untold hardship for millions of Nigerians, who live in abject poverty in the midst of 'immense economic resources' in their father's land.
There seems to be a unanimous agreement among Nigerians that corruption is the major problem facing their country. Unfortunately, however, there is no unison or agreement among Nigerians, on the meaning or definition of corruption; who is corruption and how to go about the fight against corruption. Put succinctly, corruption is a very polemic topic or subject among Nigerians. Its discussion as a topic, causes a barrage of altercations, recriminations, quarrels, debates and even physical exchanges among Nigerians along tribal, party and even religious lines. This is the thrust of the topic: Nigerians and anti-corruption fight.
Now, a very pertinent question that readily comes to mind regarding the question of corruption and who is corrupt in Nigeria, is whether Nigerians do not know the meaning of corruption and how to determine whether an individual is corrupt or not. This question becomes imperative in view of the consideration that many Nigerians deliberately refuse to agree on what corruption means and who should be prosecuted for engaging in acts of corruption and who should not. For me, like every other burning issue in Nigeria, the views of Nigerians on corruption reflect the wider disagreements and political, religious and ethnic divides among them on key issues and challenges confronting the country. The judgements of many Nigerians on issues of corruption are how to go about the anti-corruption fight, especially as it has to do with who to prosecute and otherwise, are influenced by sentiments and emotions based on tribal, party and even religious inclinations. This disagreement or polemics among Nigerians regarding anti-corruption fight in the country is a major reason the quest to win the war against the biggest monster facing Nigeria may be a mirage for years to come.
At this juncture it will be imperative to take a look at some popular allegations of corruption leveled against some political leaders in Nigeria and the polemics generated by them.
DR. GOODLUCK JONATHAN
It has been alleged by the All Progressives Congress, the APC, and some Nigerians, that the most corrupt government in Nigeria is/was that of former President Goodluck Jonathan. It is said that trillions of Naira were stolen by government officials under the watchful eyes of Dr Goodluck Jonathan as President and Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces of the Federal Republic of Nigeria from 2010 to 2015. For instance, the former Governor of the Central Bank of Nigeria, now Emir of Kano, Lamido Sanusi, after playing with various conflicting figures, told the world that the sum of twenty billion United States Dollars ($20, 000, 000, 000) was missing, stolen or was not remitted by the Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation (NNPC), under the watchful eyes of Dr. Goodluck Jonathan as President of Nigeria. This is equivalent to the sum of four trillion Nigerian Naira, which is about Nigeria's annual budget for the year 2015.
As expected, this grave allegation of financial corruption leveled against the government of Goodluck Jonathan by Sanusi, sparked off a barrage of polemics among Nigerians. As it were, the APC as an opposition political party then, and millions of its supporters used the missing twenty billion dollars saga as an instrument of political and electioneering campaign against Jonathan as they were pretty sure, even before investigation, that such money actually got missing or stolen under him. It is trite to add that the missing 20 billion dollars saga and other numerous cases of corruption leveled by the the then opposition party, contributed in no small measure to the defeat of Jonathan in the 2015 Nigerian presidential election.
On the contrary however, responding to Sanusi's allegation, the then Peoples Democratic government of Dr. Jonathan had argued that the allegation of missing 20 billion dollars was baseless and unfounded. It had maintained that Sanusi was confused as he had presented various conflicting figures, before settling for 20 billion dollars. Supporters of the PDP nationwide were not left out in the fray generated by the alleged missing 20 billion Naira as many of them had aligned with their party's position that no money was missing.
SANUSI LAMIDO SANUSI
Another allegation of corruption that generated a barrage of polemics among Nigerians was that against the former Governor of the Central Bank of Nigeria, Lamido Sanusi, who is now the Emir of Kano. In March, 2014, the Financial Reporting Council of Nigeria, had released a damming report accusing Sanusi of financial impropriety while in office as the head of Nigeria's apex bank. The 13-page report by the FRCN had revealed a far reaching allegations of financial impropriety against Sanusi. The report accused him of committing numerous acts of financial recklessness and misconduct that are/were inconsistent with the vision of the apex bank. The report had it that several millions of Naira either went missing or was appropriated and spent by Sanusi with due process and without approval from the Federal Government of Nigeria. The direct and immediate outcome of the this was the suspension of Sanusi from office as governor of Nigeria's Central Bank and his replacement by Sarah Alade, by then President Jonathan.
Sanusi's suspension and replacement from office by Dr. Goodluck Jonathan led to serious polemics and cacophony among Nigerians. The APC and its supporters as well as many Northerners saw it as witch-hunting of Sanusi by the Jonathan government. This was also made more serious by the fact that Sanusi's ordeal coincided with with his whistle blowing that 20 billion dollars had gone missing under Jonathans watch. So, for many supporters and sympathizers of Sanusi, Jonathan was only out to humiliate him out of office because of his whistle blowing of corruption against him. However, many supporters of the PDP were of the view that Sanusi's removal from office was justifiable as they believed that he actually committed monumental financial malpractices while in office as CBN governor.
ROTIMI AMAECHI.
Another Nigerian, whose alleged case of corruption has generated and still generates rancorous noise and polemics among Nigerians, is the former Governor of Rivers State, Mr. Rotimi Amaechi. The PDP in Rivers State and its supporters have accused Rotimi Amaechi of looting several billions of Naira belonging to the state while in office as governor. The then governor of Rivers State, Mr. Wike Nyesom, whose election as governor of Rivers State has been annulled by the state election tribunal, has alleged that Mr. Amaechi stole over 57 billion Naira from the state treasury among other cases of corruption leveled against him. In his response, Mr. Amaechi has denied and still denies ever stealing a dime belonging to the Rivers State government while in office. Responding to a question on this at the Senate chambers, during his screening as minister, Amaechi said this to the world: ''Believe me, if there is anyone who does not like corruption, its me....... I have never taken bribe in my life''. Some may say this is a political answer and statement. It is up to anyone that feels so strongly that he likes corruption or has ever taken bribe to provide evidence to that effect. As expected, Amaechi's supporters in Rivers State and other parts of Nigeria are of the view that Amaechi did not loot Rivers treasury, arguing that anyone that feels strongly otherwise should provide evidence to that effect or go to court to establish his case. Amaechi, on his part, argues that his enemies are behind his ordeal, maintaining that even the panel of inquiry set up by Mr. Wike to probe his alleged case of corruption in office, did not indict him of corruption. Amaechi's case of corruption became more controversial than any other one in Nigeria following his nomination as minister of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, by President Buhari. Following this development, the polemics over Amaechi's corruption case shifted to Nigerian National Assembly, where legislators disagreed sharply along party lines whether he should be cleared or not. However, at last, precisely Thursday 29/10/2015, the Nigerian Senate under the leadership of the All Progressives Congress, confirmed Amaechi as minister of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, even after senators from the PDP staged a walk out, following inability to resolve their differences with their counterparts from the APC, over Amaechi.
Having taken a cursory look at some instances of allegations of corruption against some Nigerian leaders, lets briefly examine the current anti-corruption fight by the APC-government of President Buhari and the polemics being generated by it.
PRESIDENT BUHARI'S ANTI-CORRUPTION FIGHT
We now have a new government in Nigeria headed by President Muhammadu Buhari of the All Progressives Congress. President Buhari was voted into power by over 15 million Nigerians based on his promise to fight corruption, bring an end to the Boko Haram menace rocking Nigeria and fix power and the economy, amongst other things.
President Buhari's anti-corruption fight so far since assumption of office on May 29, 2015, seems to be generating monumental polemics among Nigerians even more than before. In the course of his election campaigns, Buhari had promised Nigerians and the world that he was going to fight corruption and bring corrupt persons in Nigeria. However, his tone changed after he was voted into office when said he was going to limit his anti-corruption probe to only Dr. Jonathan's government. This did not go down well with a cross section of Nigerians, the PDP and sympathizers of Jonathan who saw and still see it as an attempt to witch-hunt Jonathan and his former government officials. On his part, former President Jonathan had said it a few days before leaving office as president that there was nothing wrong with the intention of his successor to look into the books of past governments in Nigeria with a view to seeing if there were cases of corruption on the part of those in such governments. He added that he was in support of probe of past governments in Nigeria but that it should not be limited to only his government as every past government in Nigeria since independence had soiled it hands in corruption.
As it is now, the PDP is the current opposition party in Nigeria, having lost power to the APC in the last general election. The PDP has released several statements accusing the APC-federal led government of Nigeria of engaging in selective anti-corruption fight. The PDP alleges that the Buhari government is rewarding corrupt APC leaders and members with ministerial positions and other offices while intimidating, arresting and charging their counterparts in the PDP with the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission and other government agencies charged with the responsibility for fighting corruption in Nigeria. The PDP in a statement, mentioned the rewarding or compensation of the former governors of Lagos and Rivers states, Fashola and Amaechi respectively, with ministerial positions by the the Buhari government as well as the compensation of former governors of Bayelsa and Kogi states, Timipriye Sylva and Prince Abubakar Audu with APC governorship tickets of their states for the 2015 governorship elections in the two states. However, the ruling party has dismissed PDP's claims as baseless, arguing that any Nigerian that feels strongly that any APC member is corrupt should provide evidence or go to court to stop such a person from being appointed into an office. In all this, the reactions and arguments of many Nigerians are been influenced by their party, ethnic, regional and religious sentiments and emotions; and the polemics continue.
MY TAKE
Corruption is the major bane facing Nigeria. It is responsible for the country's underdevelopment and the numerous social and economic challenges bedeviling Nigerians. Corruption is corruption and a spade must be called a spade, not shovel. Drawing from the definition of corruption earlier given in this article, it is clear that is largely a moral and ethical question or issue. It therefore follows that any Nigerian political leader that is involved in corruption is committing moral and ethical sin against fellow Nigerians. Wikipedia offers bribery and embezzlement as some of the instances of corruption. It is not arguable that some, if not most Nigerians in government (pas and present) were/are involved in acts of bribery and embezzlement of public funds. This is very common among government officials that approve contracts and procurement. They are fond of inflating contract sums and accepting bribes from contractors.
If corruption could be reduced to bribery and embezzlement, it is logical to assume that majority of government officials are corrupt as many of them cannot be said to be free from taking bribes and embezzling state funds. It is my personal opinion that any government official (past or present), that is worth over a billion Naira is corrupt. Some many not agree to this position of mine and I do not expect anyone to. The highest number of years any political office holder could spend in power under the provisions of the Nigerian Constitution is eight. Though we have had few cases of some legislators and others spending up to twelve years in governments. No Nigerian political leader, be that person president or whoever should earn more than one billion (legitimately) from salaries and allowances even if he or she spends more than eight years in power. My assumption here that any Nigerian political leader that is worth over one billion Naira after leaving office does not fail to take into consideration what they spend on various things and areas, including luxuries, while in office.
The major challenge therefore about fight against corruption in Nigeria is that many Nigerians themselves have deliberately refused to agree on who is corrupt and who should be prosecuted for corruption and otherwise. Political, regional and ethnic sentiments and emotions have blinded many Nigerians from standing for the truth as far as anti-corruption fight is concerned in the country. More so, Nigeria is a country that worships materialism and wealth. This explains why many Nigerians are biased when it comes to issues of corruption as some of them are beneficiaries of corruption one way or another. Furthermore, the high rate of poverty among millions of Nigerians does not help matters as some Nigerians rely on the remnants they receive from corrupt political leaders and are therefore ready to fight anyone that dare talks about corruption on the part of their benefactors. The saddest part of the the story is that ordinary Nigerians are divided along party, tribal, regional and even religious lines when it comes to issues of corruption, who is corrupt or not and who should be prosecuted for corruption of not. On the other hand, the political class is united when it comes to looting/stealing Nigeria's wealth, irrespective of their party, religious and ethnic affiliations. The masses of Nigeria are the ones who bear the brunt of corruption in form unemployment, hunger, poverty, poor socio-economic infrastructure, poor power supply and more. This is one of the major banes and paradoxes of Nigeria.
I wish to concluded by positing that Nigerian political leaders play politics with corruption along party, tribal and regional lines. However, the fact remains that they are united in looting Nigeria's resources through their bogus salaries and allowances and involvement in corruption through bribery and embezzlement of public funds, among others. Nigerians MUST put an end to the polemics among them and unite in their opposition against corruption and corrupt leaders in the country. We must take our destiny in our hands and insist that the theory of Social Contract must stand. This is the only way our leaders can be made accountable to us, shun corruption and use state resources to fix the country for the benefit of her citizens. The essence of government is to use power in the deployment and application of state resources for the welfare and security of citizens of state; not for those in power to loot state resources and keep the citizens in perpetual penury and hardship.
For the purpose of this article, it would be appropriate to offer a working definition of polemics and corruption respectively. This would no doubt, throw some light on the subject matters and help present a clearer picture and understanding of the topic.
According to Wikipedia, a polemic is a contentious argument that is intended to support a specific position via attacks on a contrary position. Polemics are usually seen in arguments about controversial topics.
On the definition of corruption, Wikipedia puts it this way: ''In philosophical, theological, or moral discussions, corruption is the abuse of bestowed power or position to acquire personal benefit. Corruption includes many activities, including bribery and embezzlement''.
There is no doubt, that corruption among political office holders in Nigeria, is the major bane of Nigeria since independence. It is responsible for the plethora of economic, social and political problems and woes plaguing Nigeria. This has caused and still causes untold hardship for millions of Nigerians, who live in abject poverty in the midst of 'immense economic resources' in their father's land.
There seems to be a unanimous agreement among Nigerians that corruption is the major problem facing their country. Unfortunately, however, there is no unison or agreement among Nigerians, on the meaning or definition of corruption; who is corruption and how to go about the fight against corruption. Put succinctly, corruption is a very polemic topic or subject among Nigerians. Its discussion as a topic, causes a barrage of altercations, recriminations, quarrels, debates and even physical exchanges among Nigerians along tribal, party and even religious lines. This is the thrust of the topic: Nigerians and anti-corruption fight.
Now, a very pertinent question that readily comes to mind regarding the question of corruption and who is corrupt in Nigeria, is whether Nigerians do not know the meaning of corruption and how to determine whether an individual is corrupt or not. This question becomes imperative in view of the consideration that many Nigerians deliberately refuse to agree on what corruption means and who should be prosecuted for engaging in acts of corruption and who should not. For me, like every other burning issue in Nigeria, the views of Nigerians on corruption reflect the wider disagreements and political, religious and ethnic divides among them on key issues and challenges confronting the country. The judgements of many Nigerians on issues of corruption are how to go about the anti-corruption fight, especially as it has to do with who to prosecute and otherwise, are influenced by sentiments and emotions based on tribal, party and even religious inclinations. This disagreement or polemics among Nigerians regarding anti-corruption fight in the country is a major reason the quest to win the war against the biggest monster facing Nigeria may be a mirage for years to come.
At this juncture it will be imperative to take a look at some popular allegations of corruption leveled against some political leaders in Nigeria and the polemics generated by them.
DR. GOODLUCK JONATHAN
It has been alleged by the All Progressives Congress, the APC, and some Nigerians, that the most corrupt government in Nigeria is/was that of former President Goodluck Jonathan. It is said that trillions of Naira were stolen by government officials under the watchful eyes of Dr Goodluck Jonathan as President and Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces of the Federal Republic of Nigeria from 2010 to 2015. For instance, the former Governor of the Central Bank of Nigeria, now Emir of Kano, Lamido Sanusi, after playing with various conflicting figures, told the world that the sum of twenty billion United States Dollars ($20, 000, 000, 000) was missing, stolen or was not remitted by the Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation (NNPC), under the watchful eyes of Dr. Goodluck Jonathan as President of Nigeria. This is equivalent to the sum of four trillion Nigerian Naira, which is about Nigeria's annual budget for the year 2015.
As expected, this grave allegation of financial corruption leveled against the government of Goodluck Jonathan by Sanusi, sparked off a barrage of polemics among Nigerians. As it were, the APC as an opposition political party then, and millions of its supporters used the missing twenty billion dollars saga as an instrument of political and electioneering campaign against Jonathan as they were pretty sure, even before investigation, that such money actually got missing or stolen under him. It is trite to add that the missing 20 billion dollars saga and other numerous cases of corruption leveled by the the then opposition party, contributed in no small measure to the defeat of Jonathan in the 2015 Nigerian presidential election.
On the contrary however, responding to Sanusi's allegation, the then Peoples Democratic government of Dr. Jonathan had argued that the allegation of missing 20 billion dollars was baseless and unfounded. It had maintained that Sanusi was confused as he had presented various conflicting figures, before settling for 20 billion dollars. Supporters of the PDP nationwide were not left out in the fray generated by the alleged missing 20 billion Naira as many of them had aligned with their party's position that no money was missing.
SANUSI LAMIDO SANUSI
Another allegation of corruption that generated a barrage of polemics among Nigerians was that against the former Governor of the Central Bank of Nigeria, Lamido Sanusi, who is now the Emir of Kano. In March, 2014, the Financial Reporting Council of Nigeria, had released a damming report accusing Sanusi of financial impropriety while in office as the head of Nigeria's apex bank. The 13-page report by the FRCN had revealed a far reaching allegations of financial impropriety against Sanusi. The report accused him of committing numerous acts of financial recklessness and misconduct that are/were inconsistent with the vision of the apex bank. The report had it that several millions of Naira either went missing or was appropriated and spent by Sanusi with due process and without approval from the Federal Government of Nigeria. The direct and immediate outcome of the this was the suspension of Sanusi from office as governor of Nigeria's Central Bank and his replacement by Sarah Alade, by then President Jonathan.
Sanusi's suspension and replacement from office by Dr. Goodluck Jonathan led to serious polemics and cacophony among Nigerians. The APC and its supporters as well as many Northerners saw it as witch-hunting of Sanusi by the Jonathan government. This was also made more serious by the fact that Sanusi's ordeal coincided with with his whistle blowing that 20 billion dollars had gone missing under Jonathans watch. So, for many supporters and sympathizers of Sanusi, Jonathan was only out to humiliate him out of office because of his whistle blowing of corruption against him. However, many supporters of the PDP were of the view that Sanusi's removal from office was justifiable as they believed that he actually committed monumental financial malpractices while in office as CBN governor.
ROTIMI AMAECHI.
Another Nigerian, whose alleged case of corruption has generated and still generates rancorous noise and polemics among Nigerians, is the former Governor of Rivers State, Mr. Rotimi Amaechi. The PDP in Rivers State and its supporters have accused Rotimi Amaechi of looting several billions of Naira belonging to the state while in office as governor. The then governor of Rivers State, Mr. Wike Nyesom, whose election as governor of Rivers State has been annulled by the state election tribunal, has alleged that Mr. Amaechi stole over 57 billion Naira from the state treasury among other cases of corruption leveled against him. In his response, Mr. Amaechi has denied and still denies ever stealing a dime belonging to the Rivers State government while in office. Responding to a question on this at the Senate chambers, during his screening as minister, Amaechi said this to the world: ''Believe me, if there is anyone who does not like corruption, its me....... I have never taken bribe in my life''. Some may say this is a political answer and statement. It is up to anyone that feels so strongly that he likes corruption or has ever taken bribe to provide evidence to that effect. As expected, Amaechi's supporters in Rivers State and other parts of Nigeria are of the view that Amaechi did not loot Rivers treasury, arguing that anyone that feels strongly otherwise should provide evidence to that effect or go to court to establish his case. Amaechi, on his part, argues that his enemies are behind his ordeal, maintaining that even the panel of inquiry set up by Mr. Wike to probe his alleged case of corruption in office, did not indict him of corruption. Amaechi's case of corruption became more controversial than any other one in Nigeria following his nomination as minister of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, by President Buhari. Following this development, the polemics over Amaechi's corruption case shifted to Nigerian National Assembly, where legislators disagreed sharply along party lines whether he should be cleared or not. However, at last, precisely Thursday 29/10/2015, the Nigerian Senate under the leadership of the All Progressives Congress, confirmed Amaechi as minister of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, even after senators from the PDP staged a walk out, following inability to resolve their differences with their counterparts from the APC, over Amaechi.
Having taken a cursory look at some instances of allegations of corruption against some Nigerian leaders, lets briefly examine the current anti-corruption fight by the APC-government of President Buhari and the polemics being generated by it.
PRESIDENT BUHARI'S ANTI-CORRUPTION FIGHT
We now have a new government in Nigeria headed by President Muhammadu Buhari of the All Progressives Congress. President Buhari was voted into power by over 15 million Nigerians based on his promise to fight corruption, bring an end to the Boko Haram menace rocking Nigeria and fix power and the economy, amongst other things.
President Buhari's anti-corruption fight so far since assumption of office on May 29, 2015, seems to be generating monumental polemics among Nigerians even more than before. In the course of his election campaigns, Buhari had promised Nigerians and the world that he was going to fight corruption and bring corrupt persons in Nigeria. However, his tone changed after he was voted into office when said he was going to limit his anti-corruption probe to only Dr. Jonathan's government. This did not go down well with a cross section of Nigerians, the PDP and sympathizers of Jonathan who saw and still see it as an attempt to witch-hunt Jonathan and his former government officials. On his part, former President Jonathan had said it a few days before leaving office as president that there was nothing wrong with the intention of his successor to look into the books of past governments in Nigeria with a view to seeing if there were cases of corruption on the part of those in such governments. He added that he was in support of probe of past governments in Nigeria but that it should not be limited to only his government as every past government in Nigeria since independence had soiled it hands in corruption.
As it is now, the PDP is the current opposition party in Nigeria, having lost power to the APC in the last general election. The PDP has released several statements accusing the APC-federal led government of Nigeria of engaging in selective anti-corruption fight. The PDP alleges that the Buhari government is rewarding corrupt APC leaders and members with ministerial positions and other offices while intimidating, arresting and charging their counterparts in the PDP with the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission and other government agencies charged with the responsibility for fighting corruption in Nigeria. The PDP in a statement, mentioned the rewarding or compensation of the former governors of Lagos and Rivers states, Fashola and Amaechi respectively, with ministerial positions by the the Buhari government as well as the compensation of former governors of Bayelsa and Kogi states, Timipriye Sylva and Prince Abubakar Audu with APC governorship tickets of their states for the 2015 governorship elections in the two states. However, the ruling party has dismissed PDP's claims as baseless, arguing that any Nigerian that feels strongly that any APC member is corrupt should provide evidence or go to court to stop such a person from being appointed into an office. In all this, the reactions and arguments of many Nigerians are been influenced by their party, ethnic, regional and religious sentiments and emotions; and the polemics continue.
MY TAKE
Corruption is the major bane facing Nigeria. It is responsible for the country's underdevelopment and the numerous social and economic challenges bedeviling Nigerians. Corruption is corruption and a spade must be called a spade, not shovel. Drawing from the definition of corruption earlier given in this article, it is clear that is largely a moral and ethical question or issue. It therefore follows that any Nigerian political leader that is involved in corruption is committing moral and ethical sin against fellow Nigerians. Wikipedia offers bribery and embezzlement as some of the instances of corruption. It is not arguable that some, if not most Nigerians in government (pas and present) were/are involved in acts of bribery and embezzlement of public funds. This is very common among government officials that approve contracts and procurement. They are fond of inflating contract sums and accepting bribes from contractors.
If corruption could be reduced to bribery and embezzlement, it is logical to assume that majority of government officials are corrupt as many of them cannot be said to be free from taking bribes and embezzling state funds. It is my personal opinion that any government official (past or present), that is worth over a billion Naira is corrupt. Some many not agree to this position of mine and I do not expect anyone to. The highest number of years any political office holder could spend in power under the provisions of the Nigerian Constitution is eight. Though we have had few cases of some legislators and others spending up to twelve years in governments. No Nigerian political leader, be that person president or whoever should earn more than one billion (legitimately) from salaries and allowances even if he or she spends more than eight years in power. My assumption here that any Nigerian political leader that is worth over one billion Naira after leaving office does not fail to take into consideration what they spend on various things and areas, including luxuries, while in office.
The major challenge therefore about fight against corruption in Nigeria is that many Nigerians themselves have deliberately refused to agree on who is corrupt and who should be prosecuted for corruption and otherwise. Political, regional and ethnic sentiments and emotions have blinded many Nigerians from standing for the truth as far as anti-corruption fight is concerned in the country. More so, Nigeria is a country that worships materialism and wealth. This explains why many Nigerians are biased when it comes to issues of corruption as some of them are beneficiaries of corruption one way or another. Furthermore, the high rate of poverty among millions of Nigerians does not help matters as some Nigerians rely on the remnants they receive from corrupt political leaders and are therefore ready to fight anyone that dare talks about corruption on the part of their benefactors. The saddest part of the the story is that ordinary Nigerians are divided along party, tribal, regional and even religious lines when it comes to issues of corruption, who is corrupt or not and who should be prosecuted for corruption of not. On the other hand, the political class is united when it comes to looting/stealing Nigeria's wealth, irrespective of their party, religious and ethnic affiliations. The masses of Nigeria are the ones who bear the brunt of corruption in form unemployment, hunger, poverty, poor socio-economic infrastructure, poor power supply and more. This is one of the major banes and paradoxes of Nigeria.
I wish to concluded by positing that Nigerian political leaders play politics with corruption along party, tribal and regional lines. However, the fact remains that they are united in looting Nigeria's resources through their bogus salaries and allowances and involvement in corruption through bribery and embezzlement of public funds, among others. Nigerians MUST put an end to the polemics among them and unite in their opposition against corruption and corrupt leaders in the country. We must take our destiny in our hands and insist that the theory of Social Contract must stand. This is the only way our leaders can be made accountable to us, shun corruption and use state resources to fix the country for the benefit of her citizens. The essence of government is to use power in the deployment and application of state resources for the welfare and security of citizens of state; not for those in power to loot state resources and keep the citizens in perpetual penury and hardship.
Wednesday, 14 October 2015
frankwash: NIGERIA: THE PRACTICE OF FEEDING BOTTLE FEDERALISM...
frankwash: NIGERIA: THE PRACTICE OF FEEDING BOTTLE FEDERALISM...: NIGERIA: THE PRACTICE OF FEEDING BOTTLE FEDERALISM AND FINANCIAL MISFORTUNE OF COMPONENT PARTS. It is often said that Nigeria is ...
Monday, 12 October 2015
PRESIDENT MUHAMMADU BUHARI'S ECONOMIC LIFESTYLE, NIGERIAN POLITICAL INVESTORS AND THE REST OF US.
PRESIDENT MOHAMMADU BUHARI'S ECONOMIC LIFESTYLE, NIGERIAN POLITICAL INVESTORS AND THE REST OF US. WRITTEN 02/06/2015.
General Mohammadu Buhari (rtd) became the substantive president and commander-in-chief of the armed forces of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, following his swearing in on 29 May, 2015 by the chief justice of Nigeria.
President Mohamadu Buhari is not a new comer in Nigerian politics. He was the military head of state of Nigeria from 1983 to 1985. As a military leader, he was reputed to be a no-nonsense man that handled Nigeria with an iron fist for the two years he was in power. He was said to have applied draconian laws in handling state affairs generally, which made many see him as a dictator even till date. More so, the retired general from Katsina State in Northwestern Nigeria, is said to be incorruptible, courageous, bold, prudent and economical in management of state resources (though not all agree that he has all these attributes and virtues).
There is no doubt that a major challenge facing Nigeria since independence in 1960 is poor management or mismanagement of state resources on the part of persons at the helms of affairs. You may call it corruption if you like, as it encompasses all acts of unlawful financial practices in government and public offices in general . This has been the major bane of Nigeria since independence. It is responsible for the country's underdevelopment and the plethora of social, economic and political woes plaguing her as a state.
It is the view of some Nigerians that Buhari's economical and prudent nature and the fact that he is not ostentatious pust him in a strategic position to manage Nigeria's resources for over all national development. He was said to have patronise the economic class of the British Airways that he boarded to London recently and also rejected the luxury car provided by the British Prime Minister, David Cameron to convey him from London Airport.But can Buhari stick to this frugality that is has been known for? Will the political class not frustrate his efforts to fix Nigeria if he refuses to allow them access to Nigeria's wealth for their personal and selfish aggrandizement? Is Buhari really economical or is he pretending? How well can he cope and be liked by the elite in a country that is notorious for great opulence by the wealthy? Why did Buhari contest for the office of the Nigerian president that appears to be an exclusive preserve of the rich since independence? Only time shall provide answers to these burning questions.
The rate of corruption in Nigeria especially during the military era and in the past sixteen years since the country's return to democracy in 1999, has reached an alarming and unbearable proportion. Corruption was one of the major factors that led to the fall of the PDP-led federal government in the last presidential election in Nigeria. The electoral revote that saw the defeat of the Peoples Democratic Party ultimately ushered into power, at the federal level, the former opposition party, the All Progressives Congress, with Mohammadu Buhari as president of Nigeria. Many analysts and commentators have contended that the emergence of Buhari as president of the Federal Republic of Nigeria is a confirmation of the confidence reposed in him by those Nigerians who voted him, and believe that he is capable of fighting corruption and fixing the country thereby, making it a better place for the benefit of every Nigerian.
There is a very remarkable and salient line from Buhari's inaugural speech delivered immediately after been sworn in as the president of Nigeria. To quote him: ''I belong to everybody, and I belong to nobody''. This powerful statement credited to President Buhari has been trending in the conventional as well as the social media in the past few days he was sworn as president of Nigeria. Technically and diplomatically, President Buhari, by this statement made it clear that he is president of every Nigerian, including the common man, and that he is not liable or answerable to political godfathers or godmothers in Nigeria, therefore demonstrating clearly that he is not ready and willing to be at the beck and core of the so-called political big wigs, godfathers or those I have chosen to describe as 'political investors' in Nigeria.
The political influence or weight of political investors over political office holders in Nigeria, the president inclusive, CANNOT be overemphasized. These men and women, who are either past presidents, senators, governors, business men, traditional and religious leaders, etc, could be described as the pillars behind the throne. Many of them are known to operate from behind the scene but influence greatly, actions and decisions of political office holders in Nigeria, who most times, have appeared to be puppets or stooges whose actions are scripted and teleguided by these so-called godfathers or political investors in Nigeria.
In the case of President Buhari, we were told, during the course of his election campaigns, that he is a poor Nigerian, who even though had access to Government in the past, did not corruptly amass state resources and therefore, did not enrich himself at the expense of ordinary or poor Nigerians. President Buhari also told the world that he had obtained his APC presidential nomination form partly on loans as he was unable to raise the money for the form.While I express huge reservation here it is not my task to determine whether President Buhari actually obtained some loans to add to the money at his disposal for the purpose of collecting the presidential nomination form of his political party, the All Progressive Congress. I do know however, that President Mohammadu Buhari was one time military administrator of defunct Northeastern State in the 1970s, Minister of Petroleum under Obasanjo's military government, and more recently, Chairman of the defunct Petroleum Trust Funds, under late General Sani Abacha's government in the 1990s.
President Buhari is known to have disdain and great intolerance for corruption and embezzlement of public funds. As has been noted above, he borrowed some money in form of loans to collect his party presidential nomination form. Collection of party nomination form is not the main thing that cost money in an election but the actual electioneering and campaigns. In Nigeria, billions of Naira are injected into election campaigns from start to finish. In the case of President Buhari, we were told that he was sponsored and supported by market men and women as well as commoners from the length and breath of Nigeria. While I may I agree that this was the case to an extent, it cannot be disputed that President Buhari must have received huge financial support from big wigs in his party and those I refer to as political investors in Nigeria.
Political investors are persons who invest in politics for the purpose of profit making. In Nigeria, they include mufti-billionaire business men and women, political godfathers and godmothers, amongst them present and past political leaders, so-called elder statemen and women, and so on. A major characteristic of political investors is that they are business men and women who invest in persons wishing to contest for political positions or offices for the benefits they stand to gain. They are always in government and continue to sponsor persons to attain political offices, not because they like such persons but because of what they stand to benefit in the event that they win political power.
For President Buhari, therefore, all those political investors who may have put in their financial resources into his political adventure did so because of what they stand to gain should he gain access to power. Politics is an investment in Nigeria. Those who put their resources into it do expect to get rewarded by the government they are supporting. In the light of the above therefore, one may argue that those who assisted President Buhari in one way or another to rise to the one number office in Nigeria see him as a means to an end, that is their own political end. There is a saying that there are no permanent friends but permanent interests in politics. I wish to state however, that there is no permanent interest in politics as interest too changes depending on the political circumstances and expediences of the time.
Buhari's political party, the APC, is an amalgam of various political parties, groups and interest who came together mainly for the purpose of wresting power from the PDP. There are political investors in APC just like in any other political party in Nigeria. Now that the APC has taken over power at the federal level and in more than twenty states in Nigeria, how does President Buhari settles the interest of those political investors who supported him, while also taking care of the interests of ordinary Nigerians. This question becomes very imperative in view of the dwindling financial fortune of Nigeria as a consequence of the drastic fall n the price of crude oil in the international market, Nigeria's major earner.
A renowned political analyst and commentator has said that President Buhari needs to make sure he takes care of the interests of those that supported him to office while also using Nigeria's resources for state development for the benefits of every Nigerian. In his words, ''President Buhari has to make sure there is money in the hands of politicians''. However, the body language of President Buhari since he was sworn into power on 29 May, 2015, seems to suggest that he is not ready to use Nigeria's money to service political investors who had invested in his political ambition. He aptly demonstrated this when he said that he ''belongs to nobody', a clear warning to political racketeers and profiteers in Nigeria, that the new president of Nigeria may not be ready to use the country's money to service them in the name of godfatherism.
Does President Buhari have the nerve to lead Nigeria without using state resources to favour political investors or godfathers? Only time shall tell. His economical and frugal nature does seems to suggest that he would be able to use our state resource to fix Nigeria. It has been categorically stated earlier in this piece that the appropriation of Nigeria's resources by the political class is a major reason behind the country's underdevelopment and the barrage of woes bedeviling her. In all this, the ordinary citizens are the ones bearing the brunt and consequences of corruption in Nigeria in form of unemployment, hunger, scarcity and high cost of petroleum products, poor power supply and so on. As I conclude, I wish to say that many Nigerians are in favour of the prudent or economical application of their country's resources to develop their country for their own benefit. Against this backdrop, they MUST support President Buhari in his determination to change what appears to have been the statuesque since independence: appropriation of the country's wealth by the ruling class and their cronies. They are those I refer to as political investors here. The rest of us are the ordinary citizens or masses of Nigeria. If Buhari is able to fix Nigeria with our support, the country would be an Eldorado for every Nigerian. If he is unable because of the forces of political investors and godfathers who have been the stumbling block to Nigeria's development since independence, your guess would be as good as mine. We therefore need to support the president to rescue Nigeria from the hands of political investors that have held the country to the jugular since 1960 for the good of the rest of us.
Frank, Chukwuka Osimi is a PRO/MHO Officer, historian, writer and blogger. He writes from Lagos, Nigeria. I take responsibility for any errors that may be found in this article. I wrote this article on 02/06/2015.
General Mohammadu Buhari (rtd) became the substantive president and commander-in-chief of the armed forces of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, following his swearing in on 29 May, 2015 by the chief justice of Nigeria.
President Mohamadu Buhari is not a new comer in Nigerian politics. He was the military head of state of Nigeria from 1983 to 1985. As a military leader, he was reputed to be a no-nonsense man that handled Nigeria with an iron fist for the two years he was in power. He was said to have applied draconian laws in handling state affairs generally, which made many see him as a dictator even till date. More so, the retired general from Katsina State in Northwestern Nigeria, is said to be incorruptible, courageous, bold, prudent and economical in management of state resources (though not all agree that he has all these attributes and virtues).
There is no doubt that a major challenge facing Nigeria since independence in 1960 is poor management or mismanagement of state resources on the part of persons at the helms of affairs. You may call it corruption if you like, as it encompasses all acts of unlawful financial practices in government and public offices in general . This has been the major bane of Nigeria since independence. It is responsible for the country's underdevelopment and the plethora of social, economic and political woes plaguing her as a state.
It is the view of some Nigerians that Buhari's economical and prudent nature and the fact that he is not ostentatious pust him in a strategic position to manage Nigeria's resources for over all national development. He was said to have patronise the economic class of the British Airways that he boarded to London recently and also rejected the luxury car provided by the British Prime Minister, David Cameron to convey him from London Airport.But can Buhari stick to this frugality that is has been known for? Will the political class not frustrate his efforts to fix Nigeria if he refuses to allow them access to Nigeria's wealth for their personal and selfish aggrandizement? Is Buhari really economical or is he pretending? How well can he cope and be liked by the elite in a country that is notorious for great opulence by the wealthy? Why did Buhari contest for the office of the Nigerian president that appears to be an exclusive preserve of the rich since independence? Only time shall provide answers to these burning questions.
The rate of corruption in Nigeria especially during the military era and in the past sixteen years since the country's return to democracy in 1999, has reached an alarming and unbearable proportion. Corruption was one of the major factors that led to the fall of the PDP-led federal government in the last presidential election in Nigeria. The electoral revote that saw the defeat of the Peoples Democratic Party ultimately ushered into power, at the federal level, the former opposition party, the All Progressives Congress, with Mohammadu Buhari as president of Nigeria. Many analysts and commentators have contended that the emergence of Buhari as president of the Federal Republic of Nigeria is a confirmation of the confidence reposed in him by those Nigerians who voted him, and believe that he is capable of fighting corruption and fixing the country thereby, making it a better place for the benefit of every Nigerian.
There is a very remarkable and salient line from Buhari's inaugural speech delivered immediately after been sworn in as the president of Nigeria. To quote him: ''I belong to everybody, and I belong to nobody''. This powerful statement credited to President Buhari has been trending in the conventional as well as the social media in the past few days he was sworn as president of Nigeria. Technically and diplomatically, President Buhari, by this statement made it clear that he is president of every Nigerian, including the common man, and that he is not liable or answerable to political godfathers or godmothers in Nigeria, therefore demonstrating clearly that he is not ready and willing to be at the beck and core of the so-called political big wigs, godfathers or those I have chosen to describe as 'political investors' in Nigeria.
The political influence or weight of political investors over political office holders in Nigeria, the president inclusive, CANNOT be overemphasized. These men and women, who are either past presidents, senators, governors, business men, traditional and religious leaders, etc, could be described as the pillars behind the throne. Many of them are known to operate from behind the scene but influence greatly, actions and decisions of political office holders in Nigeria, who most times, have appeared to be puppets or stooges whose actions are scripted and teleguided by these so-called godfathers or political investors in Nigeria.
In the case of President Buhari, we were told, during the course of his election campaigns, that he is a poor Nigerian, who even though had access to Government in the past, did not corruptly amass state resources and therefore, did not enrich himself at the expense of ordinary or poor Nigerians. President Buhari also told the world that he had obtained his APC presidential nomination form partly on loans as he was unable to raise the money for the form.While I express huge reservation here it is not my task to determine whether President Buhari actually obtained some loans to add to the money at his disposal for the purpose of collecting the presidential nomination form of his political party, the All Progressive Congress. I do know however, that President Mohammadu Buhari was one time military administrator of defunct Northeastern State in the 1970s, Minister of Petroleum under Obasanjo's military government, and more recently, Chairman of the defunct Petroleum Trust Funds, under late General Sani Abacha's government in the 1990s.
President Buhari is known to have disdain and great intolerance for corruption and embezzlement of public funds. As has been noted above, he borrowed some money in form of loans to collect his party presidential nomination form. Collection of party nomination form is not the main thing that cost money in an election but the actual electioneering and campaigns. In Nigeria, billions of Naira are injected into election campaigns from start to finish. In the case of President Buhari, we were told that he was sponsored and supported by market men and women as well as commoners from the length and breath of Nigeria. While I may I agree that this was the case to an extent, it cannot be disputed that President Buhari must have received huge financial support from big wigs in his party and those I refer to as political investors in Nigeria.
Political investors are persons who invest in politics for the purpose of profit making. In Nigeria, they include mufti-billionaire business men and women, political godfathers and godmothers, amongst them present and past political leaders, so-called elder statemen and women, and so on. A major characteristic of political investors is that they are business men and women who invest in persons wishing to contest for political positions or offices for the benefits they stand to gain. They are always in government and continue to sponsor persons to attain political offices, not because they like such persons but because of what they stand to benefit in the event that they win political power.
For President Buhari, therefore, all those political investors who may have put in their financial resources into his political adventure did so because of what they stand to gain should he gain access to power. Politics is an investment in Nigeria. Those who put their resources into it do expect to get rewarded by the government they are supporting. In the light of the above therefore, one may argue that those who assisted President Buhari in one way or another to rise to the one number office in Nigeria see him as a means to an end, that is their own political end. There is a saying that there are no permanent friends but permanent interests in politics. I wish to state however, that there is no permanent interest in politics as interest too changes depending on the political circumstances and expediences of the time.
Buhari's political party, the APC, is an amalgam of various political parties, groups and interest who came together mainly for the purpose of wresting power from the PDP. There are political investors in APC just like in any other political party in Nigeria. Now that the APC has taken over power at the federal level and in more than twenty states in Nigeria, how does President Buhari settles the interest of those political investors who supported him, while also taking care of the interests of ordinary Nigerians. This question becomes very imperative in view of the dwindling financial fortune of Nigeria as a consequence of the drastic fall n the price of crude oil in the international market, Nigeria's major earner.
A renowned political analyst and commentator has said that President Buhari needs to make sure he takes care of the interests of those that supported him to office while also using Nigeria's resources for state development for the benefits of every Nigerian. In his words, ''President Buhari has to make sure there is money in the hands of politicians''. However, the body language of President Buhari since he was sworn into power on 29 May, 2015, seems to suggest that he is not ready to use Nigeria's money to service political investors who had invested in his political ambition. He aptly demonstrated this when he said that he ''belongs to nobody', a clear warning to political racketeers and profiteers in Nigeria, that the new president of Nigeria may not be ready to use the country's money to service them in the name of godfatherism.
Does President Buhari have the nerve to lead Nigeria without using state resources to favour political investors or godfathers? Only time shall tell. His economical and frugal nature does seems to suggest that he would be able to use our state resource to fix Nigeria. It has been categorically stated earlier in this piece that the appropriation of Nigeria's resources by the political class is a major reason behind the country's underdevelopment and the barrage of woes bedeviling her. In all this, the ordinary citizens are the ones bearing the brunt and consequences of corruption in Nigeria in form of unemployment, hunger, scarcity and high cost of petroleum products, poor power supply and so on. As I conclude, I wish to say that many Nigerians are in favour of the prudent or economical application of their country's resources to develop their country for their own benefit. Against this backdrop, they MUST support President Buhari in his determination to change what appears to have been the statuesque since independence: appropriation of the country's wealth by the ruling class and their cronies. They are those I refer to as political investors here. The rest of us are the ordinary citizens or masses of Nigeria. If Buhari is able to fix Nigeria with our support, the country would be an Eldorado for every Nigerian. If he is unable because of the forces of political investors and godfathers who have been the stumbling block to Nigeria's development since independence, your guess would be as good as mine. We therefore need to support the president to rescue Nigeria from the hands of political investors that have held the country to the jugular since 1960 for the good of the rest of us.
Frank, Chukwuka Osimi is a PRO/MHO Officer, historian, writer and blogger. He writes from Lagos, Nigeria. I take responsibility for any errors that may be found in this article. I wrote this article on 02/06/2015.
PRESDIDENT MUHAMMADU BUHARI'S ECONOMIC LIFESTYLE, NIGERIAN POLITICAL INVESTORS AND THE REST OF US.
PRESIDENT MUHAMMADU BUHARI'S ECONOMIC LIFESTYLE, NIGERIAN POLITICAL INVESTORS AND THE REST OF US. WRITTEN 02/1O/2015.
General Mohammadu Buhari (rtd) became the substantive president and commander-in-chief of the armed forces of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, following his swearing in on 29 May, 2015 by the chief justice of Nigeria.
President Mohamadu Buhari is not a new comer in Nigerian politics. He was the military head of state of Nigeria from 1983 to 1985. As a military leader, he was reputed to be a no-nonsense man that handled Nigeria with an iron fist for the two years he was in power. He was said to have applied draconian laws in handling state affairs generally, which made many see him as a dictator even till date. More so, the retired general from Katsina State in Northwestern Nigeria, is said to be incorruptible, courageous, bold, prudent and economical in management of state resources (though not all agree that he has all these attributes and virtues).
There is no doubt that a major challenge facing Nigeria since independence in 1960 is poor management or mismanagement of state resources on the part of persons at the helms of affairs. You may call it corruption if you like, as it encompasses all acts of unlawful financial practices in government and public offices in general . This has been the major bane of Nigeria since independence. It is responsible for the country's underdevelopment and the plethora of social, economic and political woes plaguing her as a state.
It is the view of some Nigerians that Buhari's economical and prudent nature and the fact that he is not ostentatious pust him in a strategic position to manage Nigeria's resources for over all national development. He was said to have patronise the economic class of the British Airways that he boarded to London recently and also rejected the luxury car provided by the British Prime Minister, David Cameron to convey him from London Airport.But can Buhari stick to this frugality that is has been known for? Will the political class not frustrate his efforts to fix Nigeria if he refuses to allow them access to Nigeria's wealth for their personal and selfish aggrandizement? Is Buhari really economical or is he pretending? How well can he cope and be liked by the elite in a country that is notorious for great opulence by the wealthy? Why did Buhari contest for the office of the Nigerian president that appears to be an exclusive preserve of the rich since independence? Only time shall provide answers to these burning questions.
The rate of corruption in Nigeria especially during the military era and in the past sixteen years since the country's return to democracy in 1999, has reached an alarming and unbearable proportion. Corruption was one of the major factors that led to the fall of the PDP-led federal government in the last presidential election in Nigeria. The electoral revote that saw the defeat of the Peoples Democratic Party ultimately ushered into power, at the federal level, the former opposition party, the All Progressives Congress, with Mohammadu Buhari as president of Nigeria. Many analysts and commentators have contended that the emergence of Buhari as president of the Federal Republic of Nigeria is a confirmation of the confidence reposed in him by those Nigerians who voted him, and believe that he is capable of fighting corruption and fixing the country thereby, making it a better place for the benefit of every Nigerian.
There is a very remarkable and salient line from Buhari's inaugural speech delivered immediately after been sworn in as the president of Nigeria. To quote him: ''I belong to everybody, and I belong to nobody''. This powerful statement credited to President Buhari has been trending in the conventional as well as the social media in the past few days he was sworn as president of Nigeria. Technically and diplomatically, President Buhari, by this statement made it clear that he is president of every Nigerian, including the common man, and that he is not liable or answerable to political godfathers or godmothers in Nigeria, therefore demonstrating clearly that he is not ready and willing to be at the beck and core of the so-called political big wigs, godfathers or those I have chosen to describe as 'political investors' in Nigeria.
The political influence or weight of political investors over political office holders in Nigeria, the president inclusive, CANNOT be overemphasized. These men and women, who are either past presidents, senators, governors, business men, traditional and religious leaders, etc, could be described as the pillars behind the throne. Many of them are known to operate from behind the scene but influence greatly, actions and decisions of political office holders in Nigeria, who most times, have appeared to be puppets or stooges whose actions are scripted and teleguided by these so-called godfathers or political investors in Nigeria.
In the case of President Buhari, we were told, during the course of his election campaigns, that he is a poor Nigerian, who even though had access to Government in the past, did not corruptly amass state resources and therefore, did not enrich himself at the expense of ordinary or poor Nigerians. President Buhari also told the world that he had obtained his APC presidential nomination form partly on loans as he was unable to raise the money for the form.While I express huge reservation here it is not my task to determine whether President Buhari actually obtained some loans to add to the money at his disposal for the purpose of collecting the presidential nomination form of his political party, the All Progressive Congress. I do know however, that President Mohammadu Buhari was one time military administrator of defunct Northeastern State in the 1970s, Minister of Petroleum under Obasanjo's military government, and more recently, Chairman of the defunct Petroleum Trust Funds, under late General Sani Abacha's government in the 1990s.
President Buhari is known to have disdain and great intolerance for corruption and embezzlement of public funds. As has been noted above, he borrowed some money in form of loans to collect his party presidential nomination form. Collection of party nomination form is not the main thing that cost money in an election but the actual electioneering and campaigns. In Nigeria, billions of Naira are injected into election campaigns from start to finish. In the case of President Buhari, we were told that he was sponsored and supported by market men and women as well as commoners from the length and breath of Nigeria. While I may I agree that this was the case to an extent, it cannot be disputed that President Buhari must have received huge financial support from big wigs in his party and those I refer to as political investors in Nigeria.
Political investors are persons who invest in politics for the purpose of profit making. In Nigeria, they include mufti-billionaire business men and women, political godfathers and godmothers, amongst them present and past political leaders, so-called elder statemen and women, and so on. A major characteristic of political investors is that they are business men and women who invest in persons wishing to contest for political positions or offices for the benefits they stand to gain. They are always in government and continue to sponsor persons to attain political offices, not because they like such persons but because of what they stand to benefit in the event that they win political power.
For President Buhari, therefore, all those political investors who may have put in their financial resources into his political adventure did so because of what they stand to gain should he gain access to power. Politics is an investment in Nigeria. Those who put their resources into it do expect to get rewarded by the government they are supporting. In the light of the above therefore, one may argue that those who assisted President Buhari in one way or another to rise to the one number office in Nigeria see him as a means to an end, that is their own political end. There is a saying that there are no permanent friends but permanent interests in politics. I wish to state however, that there is no permanent interest in politics as interest too changes depending on the political circumstances and expediences of the time.
Buhari's political party, the APC, is an amalgam of various political parties, groups and interest who came together mainly for the purpose of wresting power from the PDP. There are political investors in APC just like in any other political party in Nigeria. Now that the APC has taken over power at the federal level and in more than twenty states in Nigeria, how does President Buhari settles the interest of those political investors who supported him, while also taking care of the interests of ordinary Nigerians. This question becomes very imperative in view of the dwindling financial fortune of Nigeria as a consequence of the drastic fall n the price of crude oil in the international market, Nigeria's major earner.
A renowned political analyst and commentator has said that President Buhari needs to make sure he takes care of the interests of those that supported him to office while also using Nigeria's resources for state development for the benefits of every Nigerian. In his words, ''President Buhari has to make sure there is money in the hands of politicians''. However, the body language of President Buhari since he was sworn into power on 29 May, 2015, seems to suggest that he is not ready to use Nigeria's money to service political investors who had invested in his political ambition. He aptly demonstrated this when he said that he ''belongs to nobody', a clear warning to political racketeers and profiteers in Nigeria, that the new president of Nigeria may not be ready to use the country's money to service them in the name of godfatherism.
Does President Buhari have the nerve to lead Nigeria without using state resources to favour political investors or godfathers? Only time shall tell. His economical and frugal nature does seems to suggest that he would be able to use our state resource to fix Nigeria. It has been categorically stated earlier in this piece that the appropriation of Nigeria's resources by the political class is a major reason behind the country's underdevelopment and the barrage of woes bedeviling her. In all this, the ordinary citizens are the ones bearing the brunt and consequences of corruption in Nigeria in form of unemployment, hunger, scarcity and high cost of petroleum products, poor power supply and so on. As I conclude, I wish to say that many Nigerians are in favour of the prudent or economical application of their country's resources to develop their country for their own benefit. Against this backdrop, they MUST support President Buhari in his determination to change what appears to have been the statuesque since independence: appropriation of the country's wealth by the ruling class and their cronies. They are those I refer to as political investors here. The rest of us are the ordinary citizens or masses of Nigeria. If Buhari is able to fix Nigeria with our support, the country would be an Eldorado for every Nigerian. If he is unable because of the forces of political investors and godfathers who have been the stumbling block to Nigeria's development since independence, your guess would be as good as mine. We therefore need to support the president to rescue Nigeria from the hands of political investors that have held the country to the jugular since 1960 for the good of the rest of us.
Frank, Chukwuka Osimi is a PRO/MHO Officer, historian, writer and blogger. He writes from Lagos, Nigeria. I take responsibility for any errors that may be found in this article. I wrote this article on 02/06/2015.
General Mohammadu Buhari (rtd) became the substantive president and commander-in-chief of the armed forces of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, following his swearing in on 29 May, 2015 by the chief justice of Nigeria.
President Mohamadu Buhari is not a new comer in Nigerian politics. He was the military head of state of Nigeria from 1983 to 1985. As a military leader, he was reputed to be a no-nonsense man that handled Nigeria with an iron fist for the two years he was in power. He was said to have applied draconian laws in handling state affairs generally, which made many see him as a dictator even till date. More so, the retired general from Katsina State in Northwestern Nigeria, is said to be incorruptible, courageous, bold, prudent and economical in management of state resources (though not all agree that he has all these attributes and virtues).
There is no doubt that a major challenge facing Nigeria since independence in 1960 is poor management or mismanagement of state resources on the part of persons at the helms of affairs. You may call it corruption if you like, as it encompasses all acts of unlawful financial practices in government and public offices in general . This has been the major bane of Nigeria since independence. It is responsible for the country's underdevelopment and the plethora of social, economic and political woes plaguing her as a state.
It is the view of some Nigerians that Buhari's economical and prudent nature and the fact that he is not ostentatious pust him in a strategic position to manage Nigeria's resources for over all national development. He was said to have patronise the economic class of the British Airways that he boarded to London recently and also rejected the luxury car provided by the British Prime Minister, David Cameron to convey him from London Airport.But can Buhari stick to this frugality that is has been known for? Will the political class not frustrate his efforts to fix Nigeria if he refuses to allow them access to Nigeria's wealth for their personal and selfish aggrandizement? Is Buhari really economical or is he pretending? How well can he cope and be liked by the elite in a country that is notorious for great opulence by the wealthy? Why did Buhari contest for the office of the Nigerian president that appears to be an exclusive preserve of the rich since independence? Only time shall provide answers to these burning questions.
The rate of corruption in Nigeria especially during the military era and in the past sixteen years since the country's return to democracy in 1999, has reached an alarming and unbearable proportion. Corruption was one of the major factors that led to the fall of the PDP-led federal government in the last presidential election in Nigeria. The electoral revote that saw the defeat of the Peoples Democratic Party ultimately ushered into power, at the federal level, the former opposition party, the All Progressives Congress, with Mohammadu Buhari as president of Nigeria. Many analysts and commentators have contended that the emergence of Buhari as president of the Federal Republic of Nigeria is a confirmation of the confidence reposed in him by those Nigerians who voted him, and believe that he is capable of fighting corruption and fixing the country thereby, making it a better place for the benefit of every Nigerian.
There is a very remarkable and salient line from Buhari's inaugural speech delivered immediately after been sworn in as the president of Nigeria. To quote him: ''I belong to everybody, and I belong to nobody''. This powerful statement credited to President Buhari has been trending in the conventional as well as the social media in the past few days he was sworn as president of Nigeria. Technically and diplomatically, President Buhari, by this statement made it clear that he is president of every Nigerian, including the common man, and that he is not liable or answerable to political godfathers or godmothers in Nigeria, therefore demonstrating clearly that he is not ready and willing to be at the beck and core of the so-called political big wigs, godfathers or those I have chosen to describe as 'political investors' in Nigeria.
The political influence or weight of political investors over political office holders in Nigeria, the president inclusive, CANNOT be overemphasized. These men and women, who are either past presidents, senators, governors, business men, traditional and religious leaders, etc, could be described as the pillars behind the throne. Many of them are known to operate from behind the scene but influence greatly, actions and decisions of political office holders in Nigeria, who most times, have appeared to be puppets or stooges whose actions are scripted and teleguided by these so-called godfathers or political investors in Nigeria.
In the case of President Buhari, we were told, during the course of his election campaigns, that he is a poor Nigerian, who even though had access to Government in the past, did not corruptly amass state resources and therefore, did not enrich himself at the expense of ordinary or poor Nigerians. President Buhari also told the world that he had obtained his APC presidential nomination form partly on loans as he was unable to raise the money for the form.While I express huge reservation here it is not my task to determine whether President Buhari actually obtained some loans to add to the money at his disposal for the purpose of collecting the presidential nomination form of his political party, the All Progressive Congress. I do know however, that President Mohammadu Buhari was one time military administrator of defunct Northeastern State in the 1970s, Minister of Petroleum under Obasanjo's military government, and more recently, Chairman of the defunct Petroleum Trust Funds, under late General Sani Abacha's government in the 1990s.
President Buhari is known to have disdain and great intolerance for corruption and embezzlement of public funds. As has been noted above, he borrowed some money in form of loans to collect his party presidential nomination form. Collection of party nomination form is not the main thing that cost money in an election but the actual electioneering and campaigns. In Nigeria, billions of Naira are injected into election campaigns from start to finish. In the case of President Buhari, we were told that he was sponsored and supported by market men and women as well as commoners from the length and breath of Nigeria. While I may I agree that this was the case to an extent, it cannot be disputed that President Buhari must have received huge financial support from big wigs in his party and those I refer to as political investors in Nigeria.
Political investors are persons who invest in politics for the purpose of profit making. In Nigeria, they include mufti-billionaire business men and women, political godfathers and godmothers, amongst them present and past political leaders, so-called elder statemen and women, and so on. A major characteristic of political investors is that they are business men and women who invest in persons wishing to contest for political positions or offices for the benefits they stand to gain. They are always in government and continue to sponsor persons to attain political offices, not because they like such persons but because of what they stand to benefit in the event that they win political power.
For President Buhari, therefore, all those political investors who may have put in their financial resources into his political adventure did so because of what they stand to gain should he gain access to power. Politics is an investment in Nigeria. Those who put their resources into it do expect to get rewarded by the government they are supporting. In the light of the above therefore, one may argue that those who assisted President Buhari in one way or another to rise to the one number office in Nigeria see him as a means to an end, that is their own political end. There is a saying that there are no permanent friends but permanent interests in politics. I wish to state however, that there is no permanent interest in politics as interest too changes depending on the political circumstances and expediences of the time.
Buhari's political party, the APC, is an amalgam of various political parties, groups and interest who came together mainly for the purpose of wresting power from the PDP. There are political investors in APC just like in any other political party in Nigeria. Now that the APC has taken over power at the federal level and in more than twenty states in Nigeria, how does President Buhari settles the interest of those political investors who supported him, while also taking care of the interests of ordinary Nigerians. This question becomes very imperative in view of the dwindling financial fortune of Nigeria as a consequence of the drastic fall n the price of crude oil in the international market, Nigeria's major earner.
A renowned political analyst and commentator has said that President Buhari needs to make sure he takes care of the interests of those that supported him to office while also using Nigeria's resources for state development for the benefits of every Nigerian. In his words, ''President Buhari has to make sure there is money in the hands of politicians''. However, the body language of President Buhari since he was sworn into power on 29 May, 2015, seems to suggest that he is not ready to use Nigeria's money to service political investors who had invested in his political ambition. He aptly demonstrated this when he said that he ''belongs to nobody', a clear warning to political racketeers and profiteers in Nigeria, that the new president of Nigeria may not be ready to use the country's money to service them in the name of godfatherism.
Does President Buhari have the nerve to lead Nigeria without using state resources to favour political investors or godfathers? Only time shall tell. His economical and frugal nature does seems to suggest that he would be able to use our state resource to fix Nigeria. It has been categorically stated earlier in this piece that the appropriation of Nigeria's resources by the political class is a major reason behind the country's underdevelopment and the barrage of woes bedeviling her. In all this, the ordinary citizens are the ones bearing the brunt and consequences of corruption in Nigeria in form of unemployment, hunger, scarcity and high cost of petroleum products, poor power supply and so on. As I conclude, I wish to say that many Nigerians are in favour of the prudent or economical application of their country's resources to develop their country for their own benefit. Against this backdrop, they MUST support President Buhari in his determination to change what appears to have been the statuesque since independence: appropriation of the country's wealth by the ruling class and their cronies. They are those I refer to as political investors here. The rest of us are the ordinary citizens or masses of Nigeria. If Buhari is able to fix Nigeria with our support, the country would be an Eldorado for every Nigerian. If he is unable because of the forces of political investors and godfathers who have been the stumbling block to Nigeria's development since independence, your guess would be as good as mine. We therefore need to support the president to rescue Nigeria from the hands of political investors that have held the country to the jugular since 1960 for the good of the rest of us.
Frank, Chukwuka Osimi is a PRO/MHO Officer, historian, writer and blogger. He writes from Lagos, Nigeria. I take responsibility for any errors that may be found in this article. I wrote this article on 02/06/2015.
Monday, 7 September 2015
frankwash: NIGERIAN PRESIDENT OR KING OF THE NORTH? BY FEMI F...
frankwash: NIGERIAN PRESIDENT OR KING OF THE NORTH? BY FEMI F...: NIGERIAN PRESIDENT OR KING OF THE NORTH? In 418 B.C. Herodotus, the Greek philosopher who is known...
APC AND THE SPIRIT OF WITCHCRAFT: BY FEMI ARIBISALA
APC AND THE SPIRIT OF WITCHCRAFT
on september 06, 2015 at 2:59 am in article of faith Facebook Share Twitter Share By Femi Aribisala Both Christians and Muslims must reject outright the strange spirit that the APC, in its lust for power, has imported into Nigeria. On 27th November, 2014, at the inauguration of Rauf Aregbesola as second-term governor of Osun State, Senator Bola Tinubu, National Leader of the APC, asked Nigerians to prepare their charms and other juju powers for the 2015 elections. Present on that occasion were the big guns of the APC, including now President Muhammadu Buhari, former party chairman Chief Bisi Akande and APC state governors. Why would Tinubu, a practicing Muslim, ask people to seek occult powers in order to prevail in elections? Why would Yemi Osinbajo, a Christian pastor, later associate with a political party whose leadership dabbles in the occult? Nigerians are a deeply religious people, whether Christian or Moslem. Both faiths believe in the Lord God Almighty. Neither permits resort to witchcraft. However, Hosea warns: “My people are destroyed because they have no knowledge.” Could it be that APC members and Nigerians at large are unaware of the cultist foundations upon which the party is built? Cultic broom The broom symbol of the ACN was later adopted as the logo of the APC with the coalition of the legacy parties. Millions of brooms were bought by APC supporters during the 2015 election campaigns, to the delight of broom-sellers. These were then brandished lavishly during the election rallies. Ordinarily, the broom is a powerful and effective symbol for a political party. In practical everyday life, brooms are used to sweep away dirt. It is therefore appropriate for a political party, especially one in opposition, to use it as a symbol of its determination to sweep away the government in power and clean up the filth and corruption in Nigerian society. However, the broom is also a witchcraft symbol believed by the cultist to provide the power to rise above the earthly plane and to soar in the spirit realm. In the West, brooms are associated with witches visualized as hags who fly through the air on broomsticks. These witches use their cultist brooms to sweep away their traces to avoid detection. Herbalists use the broom to invoke the spirit of the dead. The broom is used as a gate or door before a ritual space. A witch draws a magical circle, enters it, and then places the broom over the doorway as a means to keep out unwanted energies or people. Bad luck There is sufficient evidence to indicate that the APC employed the broom as an instrument of witchcraft and superstition during the 2015 elections. What is cultist about the APC broom is the way and manner it is displayed. The APC broom is held up and not down. It is held above the head and then waved in the air. This gives it a hidden meaning not generally recognised. In the occult, when brooms are waved in the air, they have the opposite effect of cleaning up dirt; they spread dirt. When waved in the air, brooms pour dirt on our heads. This makes it sinister that the APC chose this very gesture as its definitive slogan. In this part of the world, it is considered taboo for men especially to raise the broom above the head. To do so is to invoke evil spirits. With the broom raised everywhere during the campaigns, the APC used it to cast a spell on Nigerians. Many are just beginning to wake up from this spell after 100 days of a do-nothing Buhari administration. In Yoruba folklore, it is a bad omen for the broom to stand erect; it must lie on the ground. The taboo is that if it stands erect, it will be used by evil spirits to bring bad luck. The occult design here was fitted for APC electoral purposes. The party used its cultist broom to sweep away good luck from Nigeria in the person of Goodluck Jonathan. This means its success at the polls portends a bad omen for Nigeria. Witchcraft mumbo-jumbo says if you sweep out the room occupied by an unwelcome guest immediately after his departure, you will prevent him from returning. Therefore, after President Jonathan and the PDP finished their political rally at the polo ground in Kano in April 2015, the APC Kano State Governor, Rabiu Kwankwaso; his deputy, Dr. Abdullahi Umar Ganduje, and some members of governor’s cabinet came out with brooms to sweep the grounds. This shows they believed in the cultist powers of their logo and invoked it on the president. Generational curses In India, from where APC borrowed this hocus pocus, the mother goddess who waves the broom is called Shitala. This Hindu siren has several hands and is associated with quite a number of debilitating ailments, many not immediately apparent. At first, the broom would seem to meet all of our deepest longings. But, sooner than later, its devastating side-effects would emerge.The broom is united at the bottom and this would seem to signify unity. However, it is scattered at the top, which spells disunity. With the scattered end waved in the air, the APC broom portends disunity for Nigeria, both at the party and at the national level. With Buhari now at the helm, Nigerians have witnessed a lot of squabbles within the APC. Attempts to paper over the cracks are illusory. More ominous is President Buhari’s emergence as a sectional ethnic leader. His blatantly lopsided political appointments designed to make the South a colony of the North, poses great threat Nigerian unity. This should not come as a surprise. When you employ the broom goddess to sweep away your opponents, she also sweeps away your national image, your honour, strength, peace and independence as a nation. Bad omen By electing the APC into power Nigerians inadvertently accepted the rule of the broom goddess. Unless a conscious effort is made to reject this evil spirit, it will prevail over our national affairs in the next four years. This will bring fruitless hard labour. People will work like jackasses and eat like ants. Holes will be burnt in pockets. Lives will be wasted needlessly. The broom goddess brings emptiness and restlessness. She provides broken cisterns that cannot hold water. There will be no peace in the country and the people will reject the truth. Indeed, the 100 days of APC government have been characterized by lies, more lies and broken promises. Nigeria has gone from go-slow to standstill. The currency has declined; the oil price has nose-dived; Boko Haram killings have multiplied. It is increasingly obvious that Nigerians were hypnotized and hoodwinked by the APC in the 2015 elections. National redemption It is not enough to claim disbelief in the power of the darkness. Witchcraft is real. If it were not, many would not subscribe to it and appeal to it. However, cultist power is far inferior to the power of God. This means the occult should not just be ignored; it must be resisted; otherwise its attendant evils will prevail. Therefore, those of us who believe in God must be strong in the Lord and in the power of his might. Both Christians and Muslims need to fast and pray and take a stand. We must reject outright the strange spirit that the APC, in its lust for power, has imported into Nigeria. |
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)